0 Votes +0 Votes -

13 vues13 pagesMay 09, 2012

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

13 vues

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Design for Buckling Columns and Plates
- Vibrations of an Initially Stressed Thick Plate
- AbaqusSimpleLatTorsBuckling_2010
- Pipelines[1]
- Kabtamu_Getachew tesis
- 04 Abstract Phdthesis
- Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative Material
- Uniaxial Compressive Strength
- Nonlinear Buckling
- 354-Gaska173.pdf
- PlasticBuckling-1
- 2 Vertical Resistance
- 7-Design of Vehicle Structures for Crash Energy Management v6
- Stuctural Analysis of Two Wheeler Handlebar
- ROBOT Verification Manual Eurocodes
- Pipe Thickness
- Rajinder Kumar ((Steel Columns)) 12-04-2013
- Report on SIF
- Perfiles a 60
- sq (2)

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Abstract: An analytical technique was developed and encoded for computer application to study the behaviour of con-

crete masonry load-bearing walls under various loading conditions. Both geometrical and material nonlinearities to ac-

count for the moment magnification effect and the degradation of material stiffness are included in the development.

Effects of vertical reinforcing steel, masonry tensile cracking, and compressive crushing are included directly in the

momentcurvature relationship, which is used in the determination of element stiffnesses at successive load increments.

A parametric study was conducted following verification of the analytical model by comparing results with experimen-

tal test data. Effective flexural rigidity (EI

eff

) values at failure were obtained analytically and compared with values

suggested in the Canadian masonry code CSA-S304.1-M94. It was concluded that CSA-S304.1-M94 tends to underesti-

mate EI

eff

values for reinforced walls and thus leads to a conservative design over a range of parameters. Based on ap-

proximately 500 computer model tests, a lower bound bilinear limit for the effective rigidity of reinforced masonry

walls was established. This limit is believed to provide an accurate and realistic estimate of EI

eff

.

Key words: walls, load bearing, masonry, analytical, nonlinear, rigidity, stressstrain, momentcurvature.

Rsum : Une technique analytique a t dveloppe et encode pour application sur ordinateur afin dtudier le com-

portement de murs porteurs en maonnerie de bton sous diverses conditions de charge. Les non-linarits gomtri-

ques et matrielles sont incluses dans le dveloppement afin de tenir compte de leffet damplification du moment et de

la dgradation de la rigidit du matriel. Les effets des aciers darmature verticaux, de la fissuration en traction de la

maonnerie et de lcrasement en compression sont directement inclus dans la relation momentcourbure qui est uti-

lise pour dterminer les rigidits des membrures lors dincrments de charges successifs. Une tude paramtrique a t

effectue la suite dune vrification du modle analytique en comparant les rsultats aux donnes de tests exprimen-

taux. Les valeurs EI

eff

la rupture ont t obtenues par analyse et compares aux valeurs suggres dans la norme

CSA-S304.1-M94 de le code canadien de maonnerie. Il a t conclu que la norme CSA-S304.1-M94 tend sous-

estimer les valeurs EI

eff

pour les murs arms et mne donc une conception conservatrice sur une large gamme de pa-

ramtres. Un limite infrieure bilinaire de la rigidit effective de murs en maonnerie arms a t tablie base sur en-

viron 500 tests de modles informatiques. Nous croyons que cette limite estime EI

eff

de faon prcise et raliste.

Mots cls : murs portants, maonnerie, analytique, non-linaire, rigidit, contraintedformation, momentcourbure.

[Traduit par la Rdaction] Liu and Dawe 806

Introduction

Masonry load-bearing walls are frequently required to

transmit concentric or eccentric gravity loads in combination

with lateral loads due to wind or earthquakes. The strength

of these members is compromised by a secondary moment

caused by the axial load acting through a deflected shape.

Because of the low tensile strength of masonry, this situation

is further complicated by tension cracking, which leads to

variations of effective sectional properties over the member

height. Because the reduction in the load-carrying capacity

of walls can be significant, the design of slender walls must

include the secondary moment effects in a rational way.

A moment-magnifier method is presented in the current

Canadian masonry design code, Standard CSA-S304.1-M94

(CSA 1994), to account for the secondary moment effect in

a single calculation by applying a magnification factor to an

equivalent uniform primary moment. To account for ma-

sonry tensile cracking, an effective flexural rigidity, EI

eff

, is

employed to modify the critical Euler buckling load used in

the method. This method is strictly valid only for walls un-

der symmetric eccentric compression. Nevertheless, a so-

called virtual eccentricity is applied using the maximum pri-

mary moment divided by the axial load to take into account

the effect of combined compressive and lateral loading

cases. With the recognition that the moment-magnifier

method is advantageous to use because of its simplicity,

there is some conservatism and uncertainty as to how to in-

corporate the various effects of slenderness, tensile cracking,

reinforcement, and loading conditions into the calculation of

critical buckling load to reflect realistic conditions.

To refine the expressions for EI

eff

and the critical buckling

load, a considerable amount of research has been conducted

on the subject of stability of masonry members subjected to

eccentric compressive loads for specific loading conditions

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 30: 795806 (2003) doi: 10.1139/L03-036 2003 NRC Canada

795

Received 30 September 2002. Revision accepted 15 April

2003. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at

http://cjce.nrc.ca on 1 October 2003.

Y. Liu. Department of Civil Engineering, Dalhousie

University, Halifax, NS B3J 1Z1, Canada.

J.L. Dawe.

1

Department of Civil Engineering, University of

New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada.

Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be

received by the Editor until 29 February 2004.

1

Corresponding author (e-mail: dawe@unb.ca).

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:11 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

and for particular mechanical properties of masonry. Yokel

and Dikkers (1971) developed an analytical solution for the

case of a cracked vertical member loaded in compression

with equal end eccentricities. Frisch-Fay (1975) proposed a

solution for partially cracked compressive members and in-

cluded the effect of self-weight. A solution to the differential

equation that defines the buckling load capacity of un-

reinforced masonry walls subjected to eccentric gravity

loads has been utilized by Sahlin (1971). Hatzinikolas and

Warwaruk (1978) proposed an empirical equation for evalu-

ating the buckling capacity of masonry walls based on the

results of an extensive test program that included eccentri-

cally loaded plain and reinforced concrete masonry walls.

Maksoud and Drysdale (1993) proposed equations for calcu-

lating the critical load of reinforced masonry walls bent in

single curvature.

In the case of masonry elements undergoing axial and lat-

eral deformations, geometrical and material nonlinearities

coexist and interact throughout most of the loading history.

The level of difficulty in dealing with the complexities asso-

ciated with the interaction of material and geometric nonlin-

ear responses has resulted in simplified approaches with

limited application. In most cases, equations were derived

for walls bent in single curvature under eccentric compres-

sive loads. The applicability of equations for walls bent in

double curvature or for walls under combined axial and lat-

eral loads has apparently not yet been fully investigated. The

effect of using a virtual eccentricity, where moment is a

maximum, to equate a wall under combined axial and lateral

loading with a wall under eccentric compressive loading is

not fully supported by the test results and deserves addi-

tional attention.

As a result of these observations, a computerized numeri-

cal technique was developed to investigate the behaviour of

masonry walls with a wide range of physical characteristics

and subjected to various loading conditions. Effects of the

interaction of geometrical and material nonlinearities are in-

cluded in the analytical model, and a numerically modeled

momentcurvature relationship is used to include the effects

of vertical reinforcing steel and the effects of tensile crack-

ing and compressive crushing of the masonry. Following

confirmation of the analytical model by comparison of re-

sults with test data obtained from this research and other re-

search reported in the literature, the computer model was

implemented to conduct a detailed parametric study to inves-

tigate the effects of various parameters on the strength and

behaviour of masonry walls.

Loaddeflection histories, ultimate load and moment ca-

pacities, and EI

eff

values at the time of failure were obtained

using the analytical method. These results are compared

with those based on the moment-magnifier method currently

recommended by the Canadian masonry design code (CSA

1994).

Analytical model

A combined incremental and iterative technique based on

a finite element method was used to analyze member behav-

iour under various loading combinations, and a moment

curvature generator was used repeatedly to assess the effects

of stress deterioration and cracking of the wall as loads in-

creased. Considering individual two-node, four-degrees-of-

freedom beam elements along the height of a wall, it was

possible to track cracking development and to provide real-

istic predictions of member behaviour as compressive or lat-

eral loading increased. Element matrices as developed by

Cook (1974) for both flexural and geometric effects were

employed in the analysis described in the following sections.

Assumptions

General

Although a wall is essentially a plate structure, its analysis

can be carried out advantageously by idealizing it as a wide

beamcolumn with appropriate kinematic boundary condi-

tions. Most walls are long enough that a moderately wide

vertical segment analyzed as a beamcolumn with vertical

edges free can satisfactorily represent its behaviour under

various loading conditions. The numerical method as devel-

oped herein proved to give valid results when compared with

available experimental findings.

Stressstrain relationship

The stressstrain curve shown in Fig. 1 was proposed by

Priestly and Elder (1983) for grouted concrete masonry and

has been adopted for this study. According to their experi-

mental results, this model showed good agreement with ex-

perimental data for unconfined masonry and for masonry

confined by 3.1 mm thick steel plates in the bed joints.

Priestly and Elder also concluded that the presence of verti-

cal reinforcing bars in the grout cells did not significantly

influence masonry behaviour. In the experimental portion of

this research (Liu 2002), five partially grouted prism speci-

mens measuring 600 mm 400 mm 140 mm were tested

under axial compression. The stressstrain curves were ac-

curately obtained and compared with the model proposed by

Priestly and Elder. Good agreement between experimental

data and the proposed relationship was obtained. The au-

thors feel that it is acceptable to adopt the model for this

research and to represent the masonry assemblage as a con-

tinuum with an average stressstrain relationship. The fol-

lowing equations developed by Priestly and Elder define the

stress,

m

, in masonry at any given compressive strain,

c

:

[1]

m m

c c

c

1.067

0.002 0.002

0.00

_

,

1

]

1

1

< f

2

2

, 15

2003 NRC Canada

796 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 1. Stressstrain curve for masonry in compression.

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:11 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

[2]

m m c

1.0 0.0015 f Z [ ( )],

0.0015

c 20u

[3]

m c 20u

0.0, >

where f

m

is the masonry prism compressive strength at 28 d

and Z = 0.5/[(3 + 0.29 f

m

)/(145 f

m

1000) 0.002]. Z is a

function of f

m

and defines the slope of the falling branch of

the stressstrain curve. For practical values of f

m

between

10 and 25 MPa, the value of Z indicates a highly precipitous

dropping off of the stressstrain curve, which is consistent

with the observed behaviour of masonry. The ultimate strain,

which occurs at a stress of

m

= f

m

, is

20u

. The stressstrain

model was calibrated to the current research by incorporat-

ing experimentally determined values of f

m

based on tests

of partially grouted prisms.

The stressstrain relationship for reinforcing steel was as-

sumed to be linearly elastic up to the yield stress and per-

fectly plastic beyond the yield strain. Values of the modulus

of elasticity, E

s

, and the yield stress, f

y

, were established

from standard tensile tests of reinforcing steel (ASTM

2000).

Momentcurvature relationship

The determination of a momentcurvature (M) relation-

ship makes it possible to evaluate the effective flexural rigid-

ity as a single quantity, since the flexural rigidity EI = M/.

Because of the nature of the nonlinear stressstrain relation-

ship for masonry in compression and the effects of masonry

tensile cracking, however, the momentcurvature relation-

ship cannot be found in an explicit form and recourse must

be made to numerical iterative methods to obtain it.

In the iterative procedure, a momentcurvature relation-

ship is developed as often as needed at any cross section

subjected to a specific value of axial force acting on the

wall. Figure 2 depicts a wall cross section with double-layer

reinforcement subjected to an axial force, P, where X is the

depth of the compression zone,

x

is the compressive strain

at the extreme fiber, and =

x

/X. The compression zone of

a wall cross section is divided into n layers, each having a

thickness of X/n and strain

i

. The distance from mid-

thickness of the wall to the centroid of layer i is d

i

.

At each increment of curvature, values of

i

are calculated

on the basis of an assumed value for

x

. Stresses

i

are then

calculated using the nonlinear stressstrain relationship ex-

pressed by eqs. [1][3]. Applying axial equilibrium require-

ments to the wall cross section results in

[4] P b

X

n

A A

i

i

n

i 1

1

_

,

s s s s

where P

1

is an estimate of the applied load P; b

i

is the effec-

tive width at layer i, which includes the effect of grouted

cells where applicable; A

s

and A

s

are the areas of compres-

sion and tension steel, respectively; and

s

and

s

are the

corresponding stresses in the steel. In general, during the

procedure, P

1

will not be equal to P, and therefore several it-

erations using trial values of

x

each time are required until

|P P

1

| , where the tolerance for convergence = 0.001

in this case. Once this convergence has been reached, the re-

sisting moment of the cross section corresponding to the

value of is determined as

[5] M b d

X

n

A t d

i

i

n

i i

_

,

1

2

s s c

( / )

+ A t d

s s c

( / ) 2

where t is the wall thickness and d

c

and d

c

are the compres-

sion and tension steel depths of cover, respectively. Using

this value of M and the corresponding value of , a point on

the momentcurvature curve can thus be defined. The com-

pressive depth and the stress and strain distributions of a ma-

sonry cross section corresponding to this specific point can

also be obtained.

The aforementioned procedure is repeated a sufficient

number of times to establish the entire M curve at the ax-

ial load specified. It should be noted that when the compres-

sion strain in a layer exceeds the limit of 0.003 (CSA 1994),

it is assumed that the masonry in the layer is crushed and

therefore this layer is not used in subsequent calculations

and the current value of X is reduced accordingly. Addi-

tionally, when the steel reaches its yield strain, the subse-

quent stress level is set to the yield stress of steel. These

factors result in the falling branch of the M curve, a typi-

cal computer-generated example of which is shown in Fig. 3.

In the numerical analysis, EI for each element along the wall

height is determined from the M curve for a particular ax-

ial load and for the particular cross-section characteristics

existing at that instant in the overall analysis.

Nonlinear wall analysis

In this method, a wall with free vertical boundaries is di-

vided along its height into an appropriate number of finite

beam elements as determined from a convergence study. The

concept of reduced stiffness matrix is incorporated into the

analysis to account for geometric nonlinearity. A combined

2003 NRC Canada

Liu and Dawe 797

Fig. 2. Stress distribution on a wall cross section.

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:12 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

incremental and iterative approach is then employed to es-

tablish the complete loadresponse history of a wall sub-

jected to concentric or eccentric axial compression only or

axial and lateral loading combined.

Load increments of approximately 5% of the estimated ul-

timate load are used and are decreased appropriately as the

ultimate load is approached. Following a modified Newton

Raphson procedure (Cook 1974), current tangent stiffness

properties are used to determine incremental nodal deflec-

tions and the corresponding updated total deflection profile

of a wall. Individual wall element moments are then calcu-

lated and corresponding values of the tangent stiffness, EI,

as found from the appropriate M curve for the specified

axial compression, are used to reformulate updated stiffness

matrices. A deflection convergence criterion in conjunction

with a force convergence criterion is applied in the analysis.

The iterative process is repeated until current and updated

deflections converge to within 0.1%, whereas unbalanced

forces are required to converge within 0.1% of the applied

load increment. Element moments calculated at each step are

compared with the maximum moment on the M curve to

ensure that the maximum moment has not been exceeded. If

it is exceeded, back-stepping and re-approach are imple-

mented until the calculated and maximum moments differ by

no more than 0.1%.

Beyond the ultimate load, further increase in loads cannot

be sustained because the state of equilibrium cannot be

reached at a higher load level. To overcome this difficulty so

that the descending portion of the curve can be obtained, lat-

eral deflection, rather than lateral load, is incremented. This

technique recognizes the fact that the established moment

curvature relationship consists of a rising and a falling

branch, which indicates that cross-section equilibrium condi-

tions can be satisfied at lower axial load levels as the curva-

ture increases beyond ultimate. The deflected profile is

incremented by 5% of that existing at the previous step, and

corresponding nodal curvatures are calculated by means of a

finite difference technique. Nodal curvatures are used to de-

termine nodal moments from the M curve. These moments

are then used to back-calculate the now reduced applied

load, taking into account moment magnification effects. In

this manner, the entire loaddeflection response of a wall is

established.

Buckling load

The buckling capacity of the wall is obtained by solving

an associated eigenvalue problem defined as follows:

[6] {[K] P

cr

[K]

G

}{} = {0}

where [K] is the structure stiffness matrix, [K]

G

is the struc-

ture geometric stiffness matrix, P

cr

is an eigenvalue repre-

senting the critical load for a wall, and {} is the

corresponding eigenvector defining the buckled shape under

compression. In the formulation of structure stiffness matrix

[K] at each load increment, the effect of masonry tensile

cracking, compressive crushing, and yielding of reinforce-

ment is included in the calculation of flexural rigidity EI as

determined from the momentcurvature relationship.

Failure criteria

During wall analysis, two criteria are used to identify fail-

ure of walls with various material and geometric parameters.

Material failure occurs when the applied moment including

the moment magnification effect exceeds the moment capac-

ity of the corresponding cross section as defined by the

momentcurvature relationship. Stability failure, on the

other hand, occurs when the applied axial load equals or ex-

ceeds the critical buckling load of the wall, including stress-

degraded wall. Material failure is checked at every iterative

step, and stability failure is checked after the displacement

convergence criterion is satisfied at any stage.

Confirmation of the analytical model

The numerical technique was assessed by comparing ana-

lytical computer model findings with experimental results

obtained from wall specimens tested during the present

study and from tests performed by several other researchers

as noted in the following.

For walls tested during the present study, both single- and

double-layer reinforced specimens were included in the

comparison. Limitations of laboratory facilities dictated the

use of 800 mm long by 1200 mm high by 140 mm thick

specimens. The authors feel that the test results of 36 such

specimens, which included several varied effects, along with

the results of tests performed by other researchers were ade-

quate to demonstrate the efficacy of the analytical method

before beginning a general parametric study. Figures 4 and 5

compare analytical results and corresponding experimental

results for walls tested under simultaneous vertical compres-

sive loading and lateral out-of-plane loading. Complete de-

tails of these tests are available elsewhere (Liu and Dawe

2001). The effects of various material and geometric param-

eters on masonry wall behaviour were included in studies re-

ported by Aridru (1997), Hatzinikolas and Warwaruk (1978),

and Suwalski and Drysdale (1986). Typical graphical com-

parisons of these test results with results predicted using the

analytical model described herein are shown in Figs. 69 for

wall specimens tested under symmetric eccentric loading

with specific eccentricities. Although the analytical method

is capable of including the effects of any eccentricity, analyt-

ical results are compared with test results only at these spe-

cific eccentricities. Detailed characteristics of all wall

specimens are available in the aforementioned studies.

2003 NRC Canada

798 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 3. Typical momentcurvature curve for masonry walls.

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:12 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

2003 NRC Canada

Liu and Dawe 799

Fig. 4. Comparison of results for single-layer reinforced walls

with two No. 10 reinforcing bars and h/t = 8.6 under combined

axial and lateral loading. Experimental data from Liu (2002).

Fig. 5. Comparison of results for double-layer reinforced walls

with two No. 10 reinforcing bars per layer and h/t = 8.6 under com-

bined axial and lateral loading. Experimental data from Liu (2002).

Fig. 6. Comparison of results for walls with two No. 10 re-

inforcing bars and h/t = 8.6 under eccentric compressive loading.

Experimental data from Aridru (1997).

Fig. 7. Comparison of results for walls with three No. 9 re-

inforcing bars and h/t = 18 under eccentric compressive loading.

Experimental data from Hatzinikolas and Warwaruk (1978).

Fig. 8. Comparison of results for walls with two No. 15 re-

inforcing bars and h/t = 16.8 under eccentric compressive load-

ing. Experimental data from Suwalski and Drysdale (1986).

Fig. 9. Comparison of results for walls with one No. 5 reinforc-

ing bar and h/t = 20.2 under eccentric compressive loading. Ex-

perimental data from Suwalski and Drysdale (1986).

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:13 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

The analytical procedure was thus confirmed by compar-

ing results with those available for a wide range of tests per-

formed by independent researchers for an array of wall

characteristics and loading conditions.

Parametric study

An extensive computer simulation study incorporating the

effects of a wide range of parameters is aimed at providing

additional information on the overall strength and behaviour

of masonry walls, including the determination of appropriate

EI

eff

values for use in design. Load cases included axially

concentric compressive loading, eccentric compressive load-

ing, and concentric compressive loading combined with out-

of-plane lateral pressure loading. Plain, single-layer

reinforced and double-layer reinforced walls are included in

the study. Other parameters included h/t ratios of 6, 12, 18,

24, 30, and 36, where h is the effective height; eccentricity

ratios e/t of 0.11.0 in increments of 0.1 for reinforced walls

and 0.10.3 in increments of 0.05 for plain walls, where e is

the virtual eccentricity; e

1

/e

2

ratios of 1.0, 0.0, and 1.0,

where e

1

and e

2

are the smaller and larger eccentricity of the

applied axial load, respectively; and reinforcement ratios of

0.0013, 0.0018, 0.0027, 0.0036, 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02. A

wall 1000 mm in length with a thickness of 200 mm and

varying height was used for the computer model. When not

otherwise indicated, a ratio of steel area to gross cross-

section area of = 0.0018 was used for reinforced speci-

mens. Simple support conditions were used at the top and

base of the wall model, and the compressive strength of ma-

sonry was taken as 15 MPa. A Poissons ratio of 0.02 was

used throughout. The h/t ratios, eccentricity ratios, loading

parameters, and reinforcement configurations used in the

study are intended to be representative of the most com-

monly encountered cases in the design of load-bearing walls.

Analytical results are expressed in tabular and graphical nor-

malized form.

Results and discussion

Compressive loading only

Wall compressive capacities normalized by the cross-

sectional strength, P

0

, are listed in Table 1 for various values

of the ratios e

1

/e

2

and e/t for single-layer reinforced walls.

Each value of e/t is equal to the maximum absolute value of

e

1

/t or e

2

/t. A ratio of e

1

/e

2

of 1.0 indicates that the eccen-

tricities of loads applied at the ends of a wall are equal and

in the same direction, causing the wall to be bent in single,

symmetric curvature. A ratio of e

1

/e

2

= 1.0 implies that ec-

centricities are numerically equal but in opposite directions,

causing the wall to deform in a reverse curvature mode. Wall

specimens with e

1

/e

2

= 0.0 are bent in asymmetric single

curvature, where e

1

is zero and e

2

varies from 0.1t to 1.0t.

Table 1 shows that for a given eccentricity ratio, e/t, and

end loading eccentricity ratio, e

1

/e

2

, the capacities of walls

decrease as h/t increases. This decrease in strength reflects

the effect of slenderness and associated moment magnifica-

tion in reducing wall capacities. Capacities also decrease

with an increase in e/t while h/t and e

1

/e

2

are held constant.

For walls with constant e/t and h/t ratios, the capacity in-

creases as the deflected shape of the wall changes from sin-

gle curvature to double curvature. For example, for h/t = 18

and e/t = 0.5, the normalized capacities corresponding to

e

1

/e

2

= 1.0, 0.0, and 1.0 are 0.334, 0.419, and 0.506, re-

spectively.

2003 NRC Canada

800 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

e/t

h/t 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

e

1

/e

2

= 1

6 0.886 0.733 0.623 0.531 0.449 0.381 0.328 0.284 0.249 0.222

12 0.781 0.661 0.557 0.466 0.386 0.325 0.282 0.244 0.213 0.191

18 0.691 0.581 0.488 0.411 0.334 0.290 0.243 0.211 0.189 0.172

24 0.605 0.521 0.443 0.371 0.306 0.262 0.224 0.190 0.174 0.151

30 0.527 0.444 0.374 0.324 0.270 0.232 0.205 0.178 0.152 0.130

36 0.464 0.385 0.321 0.277 0.235 0.205 0.175 0.151 0.134 0.111

e

1

/e

2

= 0

6 0.944 0.845 0.731 0.618 0.527 0.442 0.375 0.322 0.281 0.248

12 0.874 0.752 0.641 0.545 0.459 0.388 0.332 0.288 0.250 0.221

18 0.781 0.680 0.586 0.497 0.419 0.349 0.303 0.264 0.225 0.194

24 0.711 0.613 0.522 0.451 0.381 0.321 0.275 0.243 0.206 0.177

30 0.636 0.551 0.466 0.392 0.334 0.278 0.249 0.211 0.183 0.155

36 0.538 0.463 0.394 0.346 0.290 0.245 0.223 0.189 0.163 0.134

e

1

/e

2

= 1

6 0.991 0.922 0.817 0.702 0.594 0.494 0.416 0.352 0.309 0.268

12 0.917 0.859 0.763 0.644 0.550 0.459 0.388 0.327 0.278 0.239

18 0.860 0.779 0.691 0.591 0.506 0.430 0.359 0.301 0.252 0.221

24 0.799 0.706 0.629 0.533 0.449 0.374 0.326 0.272 0.230 0.201

30 0.715 0.639 0.569 0.473 0.407 0.339 0.293 0.248 0.216 0.186

36 0.606 0.565 0.511 0.423 0.353 0.298 0.257 0.216 0.187 0.156

Table 1. Normalized capacities, P/P

0

, for single-layer reinforced walls ( = 0.0018).

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:14 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

For walls with e/t = 0.2, typical graphical representations

based on Table 1 are illustrated in Figs. 10, 11, and 12 for

eccentricity ratios, e

1

/e

2

, of 1.0, 0.0, and 1.0, respectively. It

is noted herein that different scales are used in Figs. 11 and

12 for illustration purposes. Maximum out-of-plane deflec-

tions are normalized by the wall thickness, and gravity loads

are normalized by the cross-section capacity, P

0

. The curves

in each of Figs. 10, 11, and 12 increase monotonically up to

the peak loads while wall capacities decrease and ductility

increases with increasing values of h/t. At h/t = 6, the wall

response is essentially linear up to the ultimate load, with lit-

tle or no subsequent ductility. In the case of more slender

walls, response becomes increasingly nonlinear and ductility

increases significantly as h/t increases from 12 to 36.

Comparing Figs. 1012, it is evident that the increase

in ductility as h/t increases is most significant for walls

bent in single curvature where the combination of moment-

magnifier effect and material nonlinearity is most critical.

Observations similar to those described previously also ap-

ply to walls with values of e/t and other than those used in

generating Figs. 1012. Although all salient conclusions are

presented herein, a more detailed parametric study is avail-

able elsewhere (Liu 2002).

A study of the effect of e/t is presented in Fig. 13, which

shows a family of curves of normalized gravity load capacity

versus normalized maximum out-of-plane deflection for

single-layer reinforced walls with equal end eccentricities

(e

1

/e

2

= 1.0) and e/t ratios varying from 0.1 to 1.0. The fam-

ily of curves characterizes how the gravity load bearing ca-

pacity is compromised as the load eccentricity increases. At

larger eccentricities, wall capacity is lower but the response

is more ductile in the region where tensile failure prevails,

corresponding to a reduced rigidity, EI

eff

. Specimens with

smaller eccentricities tend to fail by crushing, resulting in re-

duced ductility as compared with walls with higher eccen-

tricity ratios.

Normalized capacity, P/P

0

, versus normalized maximum

out-of-plane deflection, /t, is graphed in Fig. 14 for walls

2003 NRC Canada

Liu and Dawe 801

Fig. 10. Normalized load versus deflection curves for walls with

e

1

/e

2

= 1.0.

Fig. 11. Normalized load versus deflection curves for walls with

e

1

/e

2

= 0.0.

Fig. 12. Normalized load versus deflection curves for walls with

e

1

/e

2

= 1.0.

Fig. 13. Normalized load versus deflection curves for varying ec-

centricity ratios.

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:14 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

with e

1

/e

2

ratios of 1.0, 0.0, and 1.0. Typical values of

h/t = 24, e/t = 0.2, and = 0.0018 are used here. The mini-

mum capacity and maximum ductility occur for e

1

/e

2

= 1.0,

whereas for e

1

/e

2

= 1.0 the capacity is higher by approxi-

mately 30% but the ductility is dramatically reduced, with a

post-peak load ductility of practically zero. For e

1

/e

2

= 0.0,

the maximum primary moment occurs at the end of the wall

corresponding to e

2

and the maximum deflection is less than

that which occurs for e

1

/e

2

> 0.0. This results in a secondary

moment due to deflection that is less critical in the case of

e

1

/e

2

= 0.0 than for the case where e

1

/e

2

> 0.0. For cases

where e

1

/e

2

= 1.0, reduced deflections lead to an even

smaller moment-magnifier effect.

Axial compression and uniform lateral pressure

combined

In this part of the parametric study, walls were subjected

to various sustained axial loads of fixed magnitude while a

lateral uniform pressure was incremented to the collapse

load. Axial compressive loads included in this study were 0,

100, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 kN. The total lateral load,

1000

h

h, on a wall, where

h

is the lateral pressure, was nor-

malized by a nominal axial force capacity of 1000 f

m

t.

Graphs of normalized lateral force,

h

h/ f

m

t, versus normal-

ized mid-height deflection, /t, are shown in Fig. 15 for

walls with a sustained axial load of 600 kN and an h/t value

varying from 6 to 36. The dramatic effect that the h/t ratio

has on reducing both the lateral load capacity and the flex-

ural stiffness is quite evident. Compared with the lateral load

capacity of walls with h/t = 6, the reductions in lateral load

capacity resulting from moment-magnifier effects alone for

h/t = 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 were determined to be approxi-

mately 9, 19, 27, 34, and 44%, respectively. For example,

the normalized lateral load capacity of a wall with a

1000 mm 200 mm cross section and a slenderness of

h/t = 6 was found to be 0.109 in the presence of a 600 kN

axial load. Considering the ratio of bending moment capaci-

ties at mid-height and excluding moment-magnifier effects,

the lateral load capacity of a similar wall with h/t = 18 can

therefore be determined as 0.109/(18/6) = 0.0363. The value

for h/t = 18 determined analytically with slenderness effects

included, however, was found to be 0.0295. Assuming negli-

gible moment-magnification effects for the wall with h/t = 6,

the reduction in lateral load capacity for a wall with h/t = 18

due to moment-magnifier effects alone is therefore approxi-

mately 19% in the presence of a 600 kN axial load. Similar

findings were made for other values of axial load acting in

combination with lateral pressure.

Normalized lateral load capacity versus normalized mid-

height deflection curves are shown in Fig. 16 for walls with

an h/t value of 18. As indicated, the virtual walls were inves-

tigated for axial loads varying from 0.0 to 1000 kN. With an

increase of axial load from 0.0 to 600 kN, increasing lateral

load capacity corresponds to that range of interaction result-

ing predominantly in tension failure. Beyond 600 kN, lateral

load capacity shows a noticeable decrease as a result of a

change in failure mode from mainly tension failure to pre-

dominantly compression failure. Walls failing under very

high axial loads show less deflection, indicating the possibil-

ity of sudden catastrophic collapse as such loads are ap-

proached.

Comparison of analytical and design flexural rigidity

values

The effective flexural rigidity, EI

eff

, at ultimate load

capacity was obtained using analytical results for different

2003 NRC Canada

802 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 14. Normalized load versus deflection curves for varying

e

1

/e

2

ratios.

Fig. 15. Normalized lateral pressure versus deflection for walls

under combined loading: P = 600 kN.

Fig. 16. Effect of axial load on the lateral capacity of walls:

h/t = 18.

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:15 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

combinations of parameters as described previously. Fig-

ure 17 illustrates the relationships among EI

eff

, e/t, and h/t

for an e

1

/e

2

ratio of 1.0 and single-layer concentrically rein-

forced walls under eccentric compressive loading. A similar

set of curves is presented in Fig. 18 for walls subjected to

concentric axial and lateral uniform loading combined. In

each figure, the lower discretionary and upper mandatory

code limits (CSA 1994) and the transition between them are

indicated as broken lines. In the calculation of code values,

850 f

m

, as recommended by the code, is used as the modulus

of elasticity of masonry, E. It should be kept in mind that e

in the expression, e/t, is determined as the ratio of maximum

primary moment to axial load. In general, calculations based

on the code and those of the analytical results show that as

e/t increases the ratio of EI

eff

/EI

0

decreases for all h/t ratios

and loading parameters investigated, where EI

0

is the un-

cracked flexural rigidity.

At a fixed value of h/t, it is evident from the previous

comparisons that Standard CSA-S304.1-M94 underestimates

EI

eff

values at ultimate load for reinforced walls. This under-

estimation increases in significance for walls subjected to

lower primary eccentricities and may be attributed to the

consequence of a particular failure mode on the effective

flexural rigidity. As the failure mode changes from pure ten-

sion failure to combined tension and compression failure and

then to mainly compression failure, the underestimation of

EI

eff

values by CSA-S304.1-M94 tends to increase accord-

ingly. At any eccentricity ratio, e/t, however, the significance

of this underestimation increases as h/t ratios become higher.

For example, referring to Fig. 17, at e/t = 0.6 the ratio of the

underestimation of EI

eff

/EI

0

corresponding to h/t = 6 to that

for EI

eff

/EI

0

corresponding to h/t = 30 is approximately

0.35/0.15, or about 2.3.

The effects of various e

1

/e

2

ratios on the relationship be-

tween EI

eff

/EI

0

and e/t for a typical slenderness value of

h/t = 18 are compared in Fig. 19. For e/t up to about 0.50.6,

the decrease in EI

eff

/EI

0

as e/t increases is more rapid for

single-curvature bending than for reverse-curvature bending,

and the rate in reduction of EI

eff

/EI

0

decreases as e

1

/e

2

de-

creases from 1.0 through 0.0 to 1.0. For walls with single

curvature (e

1

/e

2

= 1.0), the computer results show that com-

pressive depth and stress level for the cross section where

the moment is maximum are less than those for walls with

double curvature (e

1

/e

2

= 1.0). This indicates that EI

eff

is

reduced primarily due to cracking for walls bent in single

curvature. For walls bent in double curvature, on the other

hand, deflections are less, axial loads are higher, and conse-

quently reduction in EI

eff

as e/t increases is primarily due to

the reduction in E stemming from the stressstrain relation-

ship of masonry in which the nonlinearity becomes more

pronounced at higher stress levels. The resulting reduction in

the deflection and in the extent of cracking leads to a re-

duced secondary moment effect and therefore to a higher ef-

fective rigidity. Similar trends were noted for other values of

h/t between 6 and 36 (Liu 2002).

The relationship between EI

eff

and the reinforcement ratio,

, for various values of the e/t ratio is shown in Fig. 20 for

e

1

/e

2

= 1.0. The rate of increase in EI

eff

with an increase in

reinforcement is significant when the reinforcement ratio is

within the range of 0.1330.50%, corresponding to condi-

tions resulting in tensile failure. As increases from 0.50%

to 2.0%, the rate of increase in EI

eff

is much more gradual

and even marginal, as indeed is the case also for the rate of

2003 NRC Canada

Liu and Dawe 803

Fig. 17. EI

eff

/EI

0

versus e/t for walls under eccentric compressive

loading.

Fig. 18. EI

eff

/EI

0

versus e/t for walls under combined axial com-

pression and lateral loading.

Fig. 19. EI

eff

/EI

0

versus e/t for different end eccentricity ratios

and h/t = 18.

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:16 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

increase of the load-carrying capacity. At these higher levels

of steel reinforcement, the expected increases in strength and

EI

eff

values are offset by the onset of compression failure of

the masonry. Similar behaviour has been observed for values

of e

1

/e

2

= 0.0 and 1.0.

Figure 21 shows the effect that underestimating the effec-

tive flexural rigidity has on the axial load carrying capacities

for walls with h/t = 18 and e

1

/e

2

values of 1.0, 0.0, and 1.0.

P

max

is the maximum axial load capacity for the eccentricity

configuration as indicated, and P

0

is the cross-sectional

strength of the wall specimens. The CSA (1994) values are

based on the moment-magnifier method where EI

eff

corre-

sponds to the suggested code value. The maximum compres-

sive load capacity obtained using the analytical method

described herein is considerably greater than that predicted

by the CSA (1994) for reinforced walls bent in single curva-

ture. For walls bent in double curvature the disparity be-

tween analytical load capacities and corresponding code

values is greater. For walls subjected to combined axial and

lateral uniform loading, similar underestimations of load-

carrying capacity have been observed (Liu 2002).

Based on these observations, it is difficult to evaluate the

variation of EI

eff

in a single equation that can embody the

complex and interactive effects of various parameters. It is

the authors opinion that it may be helpful to obtain a lower

bound expression for EI

eff

based on theoretical findings as

verified by experimental work. For this purpose, analytical

results of EI

eff

/EI

0

versus e/t were developed for a large

number of virtual specimens. These included single-layer

and double-layer reinforced walls with minimum reinforce-

ment as prescribed by CSA (1994) and plain walls under

both eccentric compressive loading and combined axial and

lateral loading for various values of h/t. In this procedure, an

equivalent EI

eff

is determined for each virtual specimen from

the relationship

[7] EI

eff cr

P h ( / )

2

where P

cr

is the buckling capacity of a member at ultimate

load and is calculated using the numerical technique de-

scribed earlier, including variable stress deterioration effects

along the height of the member. The results of this extensive

analytical study are plotted in Fig. 22 for a range of slender-

ness values of h/t from 6 to 36. A regression analysis was

performed and an overall lower bound bilinear approxima-

tion for the curves shown in Fig. 22 was determined as fol-

lows:

[8a] EI EI 0.80 1.95 1.00 0.01

eff 0

/ ( / ) ( / ), h t e t

0.0 0.4 e t /

[8b] EI EI 0.022 1.00 0.35 0.4

eff 0

/ ( / ), / + > h t e t

In these expressions, the value of e is the maximum end ec-

centricity for end-applied axial loads. For combined axial

and lateral loads, e is equal to M

p

/P, where M

p

is the maxi-

mum primary moment and P is the applied axial load.

Although eqs. [8a] and [8b] apply to reinforced speci-

mens, the study presented in Fig. 22 also indicates a lower

bound for plain walls of EI

eff

/EI

0

= 0.44, which is essentially

the same as the presently suggested code value of EI

eff

/EI

0

=

0.40.

Limitations

An average stressstrain relationship for masonry in com-

pression was adopted for the analysis. This generalization

cannot explicitly implement the mechanical and physical in-

compatibility that may exist between grout and units. The

analytical model assumes a perfect bond between grout and

reinforcing bars and between grout and units, which may not

be fully representative of real situations. Usually walls will

be supported along two or more edges. In some cases, de-

pending on the rigidity of the supports, two-way bending or

arching action may develop, resulting in an increase in

strength. The analytical model, in conformity with current

design guidelines (CSA 1994), conservatively neglects any

beneficial strengthening effects of arching or two-way plate

action that may develop in some cases.

Conclusions

An analytical technique for determining the behaviour of

beamcolumn structural elements was programmed for com-

puter production, and its efficacy was confirmed by compari-

2003 NRC Canada

804 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 20. Variation of EI

eff

/EI

0

with steel reinforcement ratio, . Fig. 21. Comparison of theoretical axial load predictions with

values based on CSA (1994).

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:16 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

son with a large number of experimental test results as

reported by a number of researchers. Momentcurvature re-

lationships incorporated in the technique were used to ac-

count for various effects, including those of nonlinear

stressstrain behaviour of masonry in compression, masonry

tensile cracking, compressive crushing of masonry, and ver-

tical reinforcement. An extensive analytical study revealed

the influence of various parameters on the capacity and

flexural rigidity of masonry walls. The relationship and in-

teraction among the h/t ratio, eccentricity ratio, loading con-

ditions, and the capacities and flexural rigidities of masonry

walls have been presented and discussed. For both eccentric

compressive loading and combined axial and lateral loading,

similar trends of variation in flexural rigidity were observed.

2003 NRC Canada

Liu and Dawe 805

Fig. 22. Computer model determination of extreme lower bound for EI

eff

/EI

0

.

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:17 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

2003 NRC Canada

806 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

This study indicates that values suggested by Standard CSA-

S304.1-M94 (CSA 1994) result in a generally conservative

result for the effective flexural rigidity of reinforced ma-

sonry walls. It has been demonstrated that the present sug-

gested code values for EI

eff

/EI

0

lead to conservative designs.

Based on a large number of computer model tests, a lower

bound bilinear limit for the effective rigidity of reinforced

masonry walls was established. Additionally, the value of

EI

eff

= 0.40EI

0

for plain masonry walls, as presently sug-

gested by CSA (1994), was confirmed. These limits are

based on an analysis of stability and material failure, includ-

ing the effects of cracking and stress variation along the wall

height, and it is believed that they provide a realistic esti-

mate for EI

eff

.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to recognize the contribution of finan-

cial assistance by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Re-

search Council of Canada and kind assistance from the Shaw

Group and the International Masonry Institute, Atlantic

Provinces Region of Canada.

References

Aridru, G.G. 1997. Effective flexural rigidity of plain and reinforced

concrete masonry walls. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engi-

neering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B.

ASTM. 2000. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical

testing of steel products (A370-97a). In Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, Sect. 1, Vol. 01.04. American Society for Testing and

Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.

Cook, R.D. 1974. Concepts and applications of finite element anal-

ysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

CSA. 1994. Masonry design for buildings (limit states design).

Standard CSA-S304.1-M94, Canadian Standards Association,

Rexdale, Ont.

Frisch-Fay, R. 1975. Stability of masonry piers. International Jour-

nal of Solids and Structures, 11(2): 187198.

Hatzinikolas, M.A., and Warwaruk, J. 1978. Concrete masonry

walls. Structural Engineering Report 70, Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.

Liu, Y. 2002. Beam-column behaviour of masonry structural ele-

ments. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-

sity of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B.

Liu, Y., and Dawe, J.L. 2001. Experimental determination of ma-

sonry beamcolumn behaviour. Canadian Journal of Civil Engi-

neering, 28(5): 794803.

Maksoud, A.A., and Drysdale, R.G. 1993. Rational moment mag-

nification factor for slender unreinforced masonry walls. In Pro-

ceedings of the 6th North American Masonry Conference,

Philadelphia, Pa., 69 June 1993. Technomic Publishing Com-

pany Inc., Lancaster, Pa. Vol. 1, pp. 443454.

Priestly, M.J., and Elder, D.M. 1983. Stressstrain curve for uncon-

fined and confined concrete masonry. ACI Journal, 80(3): 192201.

Sahlin, S. 1971. Structural masonry. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engle-

wood Cliffs, N.J.

Suwalski, P.D., and Drysdale, R.G. 1986. Influence of slenderness on

the capacity of concrete block walls. In Proceedings of the 4th Ca-

nadian Masonry Symposium, Fredericton, N.B., 24 June 1986.

Centennial Publishing, Fredericton, N.B. Vol. 1, pp. 122135.

Yokel, F.Y., and Dikkers, R.D. 1971. Strength of load bearing ma-

sonry walls. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 97(ST5):

15931609.

List of symbols

A

s

area of tensile steel

A

s

area of compressive steel

b

i

width of masonry layer i in compression zone

d

c

tensile reinforcement covers

d

c

compressive reinforcement covers

d

i

distance from centre of cross section to centre of layer i

e virtual eccentricity

e

1

smaller eccentricity of applied axial load

e

2

larger eccentricity of applied axial load

e/t virtual eccentricity ratio

E modulus of elasticity of masonry

E

s

modulus of elasticity of steel

EI flexural rigidity

EI

eff

effective flexural rigidity

EI

0

uncracked flexural rigidity

f

m

compressive strength of masonry at 28 d

f

y

yield strength of steel reinforcement

h effective height

h/t height to thickness ratio

i layer number

[K] structure stiffness matrix

[K]

G

geometric stiffness matrix

M moment acting on the cross section of a wall

M

p

maximum primary moment

n number of layers

P vertical compressive load

P

cr

buckling capacity of a member at ultimate load

P

max

maximum axial capacity

P

0

axial capacity of cross section

P

1

estimate of axial load in momentcurvature curve deter-

mination

t wall thickness

X depth of compressive zone

Z slope of the falling branch of the stressstrain curve for

masonry in compression

maximum lateral deflection along the height of a speci-

men

c

compressive strain

i

compressive strain in layer i

s

strain in tension reinforcing steel

s

strain in compression reinforcing steel

x

trial value for extreme fibre compressive strain

20u

strains corresponding to 0.2 f

m

curvature

tolerance for convergence

reinforcement ratio

h

lateral pressure capacity

i

compressive stress in layer i

m

compressive stress

s

,

s

stresses in tension and compression steel, respectively

{} eigenvector defining the buckling shape under compres-

sion

I:\cjce\cjce3005\L03-036.vp

September 25, 2003 10:30:18 AM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

- Design for Buckling Columns and PlatesTransféré pardarebusi1
- Vibrations of an Initially Stressed Thick PlateTransféré parsumatrablackcoffee453
- AbaqusSimpleLatTorsBuckling_2010Transféré parRajendra Prasad Kuncharapu
- Pipelines[1]Transféré parRose Song
- Kabtamu_Getachew tesisTransféré parSamuel Tesfaye
- 04 Abstract PhdthesisTransféré parhoneyb
- Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative MaterialTransféré parfiemsabyasachi
- Uniaxial Compressive StrengthTransféré parhassscribed
- Nonlinear BucklingTransféré parAwadh Kapoor
- 354-Gaska173.pdfTransféré parhenreng
- PlasticBuckling-1Transféré parkmprabha
- 2 Vertical ResistanceTransféré parmariana_dragomir_2
- 7-Design of Vehicle Structures for Crash Energy Management v6Transféré parKunal Gupta
- Stuctural Analysis of Two Wheeler HandlebarTransféré parijteee
- ROBOT Verification Manual EurocodesTransféré parkhaphuc
- Pipe ThicknessTransféré parvijayunity
- Rajinder Kumar ((Steel Columns)) 12-04-2013Transféré paryogs_184
- Report on SIFTransféré parprodn123
- Perfiles a 60Transféré parEDWINCIVILES
- sq (2)Transféré parCebeiller Sdn Bhd
- Buckling Pin BrochureTransféré parEleonora
- 2007 Elastic Buckling of Frp-strengthened Cylinders With Axisymmetric ImperfectionsTransféré parmmoeini412002
- Imperfections.pdfTransféré parIngeniero Estructural
- BC4-2015.pdfTransféré paralexrem
- BC4-2015.pdfTransféré parThiru Kumanan
- Advanced Analysis And Design of Spatial Structures.pdfTransféré parxhq08
- 786165Transféré parDiego Matias Burgos Fuentes
- FEM1001-Anglais.pdfTransféré parandredurvalandrade
- Linear Guide CatalogueTransféré parMuhammad Ghiyats Mukmin
- Columna Compuestas -Tiziano PereaTransféré parHugo Kstelblanco

- Condensed Matter I chapter8Transféré parl
- D6304Transféré parRaden Roy Septiadi
- 9701_y16_sp_2.pdfTransféré parMehreen Al Li Yah
- polysulphide sealant manufacturerTransféré parNeha Rathore
- TDS Concure WB IndiaTransféré paripo
- Sulfolane Report - FinalTransféré parAngelo SuperTello
- AbateTransféré parRamlan Irawan
- A Ridiculously Brief History of Electricity and MagnetismTransféré parJeff Pratt
- Copeland Refrigeration Manual - Part 2 - Refrigeration System ComponentsTransféré parMohammad Amer
- 50924_01Corrosion control and materials for Oil & GasTransféré parrps1977
- 5200Transféré parJunaid Khurshid
- Jijeesh R. NairTransféré pardprdprdprdpr
- 287708274 CSWIP Multi Questions AnswersTransféré parreza
- Civil syllabusTransféré parSona Nair
- Usabc Manual App ATransféré parFabricio Espinoza
- Galvanic Corrosion of Dental AlloysTransféré pargoku87doc
- Vanillin From BagasseTransféré parUday Wagh
- Calcule Metal 3Transféré parMarius Budugan
- AD01166M NUFLO Liquid Turbine Flow Meters Data SheetTransféré parsarkaft
- ASTM D 2825 – 02 Polishes and Related MaterialsTransféré paralin2005
- 301110Transféré parvegamarco80
- 52567788 Heat Transfer Problems in Gas Turbine Combustion ChambersTransféré parLarry Smith
- Stainless Steel Grade 316 (UNS S31600)Transféré parachari_swapnil
- 19xr,Xrv Clt 9ssTransféré parCharles Jones
- mechanics of solids week 6 lecturesTransféré parFlynn Gould
- FlowGuard Plus Presentation for Jakarta SeminarTransféré parhendi
- Machine Design - IntroductionTransféré parSreedhar Madhana
- ES-LFDPTG-3Transféré parWatts
- Electrical Circuit & Circuit Analysis MCQ'STransféré parGuruKPO
- Fundamentals UV-Vis SpectroscopyTransféré parasksankar7857

## 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.