20320140502015

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 146-157 © IAEME
146
INFLUENCE OF THERMAL DISTRESS ON STRENGTH OF LAMINATED
CEMENT COMPOSITES
Md. Zakaria Hossain
(Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Graduate School of
Bioresources, Mie University, 1577 Kurima Machiya-cho, Tsu city, Mie 514-8507, Japan
ABSTRACT
Thermal distress such as variation of temperature that occurred regularly due to the day-night
cycles may cause the reduction of service life of building materials made of laminated cement
composites. Influence of thermal distress on flexural ultimate strength of laminated cement
composites has been investigated experimentally. Five types of composite panels containing
reinforcement layers of one, two, three, four and five have been constructed and tested. Five stages
of thermal distresses such as zero cycles (28 days curing), 30 cycles, 60 cycles, 90 cycles and 120
cycles have been applied on the specimens. Each cycle consisted of 48 hours duration having 24
hours in oven of 110o
C and 24 hours in room temperature of 15o
C. For comparison, control
specimens without thermal distress having same cycles of thermal distress consisted of 24 hours
water curing and 24 hours 15o
C room temperature have been demonstrated. Test results revealed that
the flexural ultimate strength of the laminated cement composites increased with the increase in
cycles for all the specimens. It was observed that the thermal distress altered the behavior of
laminated cement composites and lead to strength increment as compared to control specimens.
Results obtained are encouraging especially for the manufacture of building components with
laminated cement composites where fluctuation of temperatures occurs.
Keywords: Laminated Composites, Ultimate Strength, Thermal Distress, Flexural Behavior
I. INTRODUCTION
Laminated cement composites offer a variety of advantages over traditional construction
materials such as it has improved dimensional stability, moisture resistance, decay resistance and fire
resistance when compared to wood; has enabled faster, lower cost, lightweight construction when
compared to masonry; has improved toughness, ductility, flexural capacity and crack resistance when
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 146-157
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 3.7120 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
©IAEME

147
compared to cement-based materials without fibers or reinforcement [1]-[5]. Thermal distress such
as variation of temperature that occurred regularly due to the day-night cycles may cause the
reduction of service life of the composite structures [6]-[9]. It is necessary to investigate the behavior
of such kind of composites for its effective design and construction [10]-[15]. Flexural load-
deflection behavior as well as flexural ultimate strength plays a vital role on structures during
construction and on service after the construction [16]-[20]. It should be pointed out here that in spite
of the volume of information available, little or no research work is reported in the literature on the
effect of heating cycles on the flexural ultimate strength of laminated composite materials [20]-[27].
The objectives of the present study are as follows: 1) to study the influence of thermal distress of
laminated cement composite under elevated temperature, 2) to compare the flexural ultimate strength
of laminated cement composites treated under thermal distress and normal conditions. In view of the
above objectives, an experimental investigation was carried out for two groups of specimens called
as control and thermal distress. Thermal distress used in this investigation was applied in five stages
heating period separated by varying number of heating cycles. Each heating cycle was 48hours in
which 24 hours in oven of 110o
C and 24 hour in room temperature of 15o
C. On the other hand,
another group of specimens (control specimens in water curing) were prepared and investigated
having same cycles of thermal distress in order to verify the results between the heating and non-
heating specimens. Basic curing for 28 days in water is considered as zero cycle. After that the
heating and non-heating cycles were demonstrated.
Each group of specimens consisted of five stages of number of cycles such as zero cycles (28
days curing), 30 cycles, 60 cycles, 90 cycles and 120 cycles. The layers of the laminated composite
were varying as one-layer, two-layers, three-layers, four-layers and five-layers. This provided the
reinforcement ratio as 0.375%, 0.75%, 1.13%, 1.5% and 1.88% for the laminated composites
containing layer of one to five respectively.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The details of the experimental program are given in Table 1 and Table 2. The tests were
carried out on two identical specimens for each group with heating and curing cycles. For better
comparison, another two identical specimens with same cycles in natural drying and curing were also
used without heating. Therefore, four specimens were used in a batch. For the heating group, each
cycle was 48 hours duration consisting of 24 hours of heating in oven with constant temperature of
1100
C and 24 hours of wetting in fresh water. On the other hand, for another group (here called as
the air drying in room temperature), each cycle was 48 hours duration consisting of 24 hours of air-
drying in room temperature of 150
C and 24 hours of wetting in fresh water. A total of 100 specimens
were prepared, 50 specimens for heating and curing cycles and another 50 specimens for natural air-
drying and curing cycles. The number of reinforcements layers, chosen for this investigation were 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5; whereas the thickness of the test panels was kept constant as 30 mm for all the
specimens to investigates the influence of the effective reinforcement on the flexural ultimate
strength of the laminated composites.

148
TABLE I
CONTROL – NON-HEATING GROUP EACH CYCLE CONSISTS OF 48 HOURS DURATION HAVING 24
HOURS IN WATER CURING AND 24 HOUR IN ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 150
C (C MEANS CONTROL
SPECIMENS)
Non-heating
Cyclesa
One-
layer
Two-
layers
Three-
layers
Four-
layers
Five-
layers
C0-cycle
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
C30-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
C60-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
C90-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
C120-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
a
C0-cycle = 28-days water curing + 2 days room drying, C30-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying
+ 30-days water curing, C60-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 60-days water curing, C90-
cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 90-days water curing, C120-cycles = 28-days curing + 2
days drying + 120- days water curing
TABLE II
THERMAL DISTRESS- HEATING GROUP EACH CYCLE CONSISTS OF 48 HOURS DURATION HAVING 24
HOURS IN OVEN OF 1100
C AND 24 HOUR IN ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 150
C (H MEANS HEATING)
Heating
Cyclesb
One-
layer
Two-
layers
Three-
layers
Four-
layers
Five- layers
H0-cycle
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
H30-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
H60-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
H90-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
H120-cycles
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
Two
panels
b
H0-cycle = 28-days water curing + 2 days room drying, H30-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days
drying + 30-days heating, H60-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 60-days heating, H90-
cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days drying + 90-days heating, H120-cycles = 28-days curing + 2 days
drying + 120- days heating

149
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Layer Properties
The layers of the laminated cement composite were made using the fine wire mesh as shown in
Fig. 1. The properties of the reinforcement obtained through the experiments are given in Table 3.
Fig. 1: Reinforcement used for making layer in laminated composite
TABLE III
PROPERTIES OF REINFORCEMENT USED IN LAMINATION
Properties Values
Diameter (mm) 1.00
C/c spacing (mm) 10.00
Young's modulus (kN/mm2
) 138.00
Poison's ratio 0.28
B. Mortar and Mix proportions Layer Properties
Ordinary Portland cement and river sand with maximum size of 2.38 mm was used. The
fineness modulus of the sand was found to be 2.33. The water to cement ratio and cement to sand
ratio were kept as 0.5 by weight for all the mixes. In each casting, two elements of plain mortar of
size 100×200 mm with thickness of 30 mm and three cylinders of diameter 100 mm and length 120
mm were also cast and tested to find out the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and
Poisson's ratio of the mortar. The details of the mortar properties obtained in the laboratory
experiments are given in Table 4.
TABLE IV
PROPERTIES OF MORTAR USED IN LAMINATION
Properties Values
Compressive strength (N/mm2
) 27.84
Young's modulus (kN/mm2
) 15.47
Poison's ratio 0.19
IV. CASTING OF TEST PANELS
The test panels were cast in wooden moulds with open tops as shown in Fig.2. Each of the four
sidewalls and the base of the mould were detachable to facilitate the demoulding process after its
initial setting. At first, the mortar layer of 2 mm thickness was spread in the wooden mould and on

150
this base layer the first mesh was laid. Another layer of mortar then covered the mesh layer, and the
process was repeated until the specimen contains the desired number of mesh layers. Thus, the mesh
layers, leaving a cover of 2 mm at the top and bottom surfaces, equally divided the thickness of 30
mm. The specimens were air-dried for 24 hours for initial setting and then immersed in water for
curing. The specimens were removed from water after 28 days and were air-dried for 48 hours in
room temperature of about 150
C and relative humidity of about 40%. The 28 days curing period with
48 hours room drying is common for all the specimens which is considered as the zero cycle. The
actual cycles of thawing/wetting and drying/wetting were started after this basic period.
Fig. 2: Cast of laminated cement composite
V. TESTING OF PANELS
Panels were tested under one-way flexure with their two edges simply supported over a span of
360 mm. The distance between the two loading points is 120 mm with moment arms of 120 mm at
both sides of the loading points. The tests were performed with a loading speed of 1mm per minute
and the readings were taken at an interval of 0.1 kN. At various stages of loading, the deflections
were measured with the mechanical dial gauges having a least count of 0.01 mm at the mid-section
of the element. A proving ring of 50 kN capacity was used for accurate measurement of the applied
loads. Before testing, all the elements were painted white for clearly observation of the cracking
patterns. In general, most of the elements produced initial cracks (visible to the naked eye) without
any cracking noise. The crack patterns of some tested elements in flexure are shown in Fig.3 and
Fig.4.
Fig. 3: Cracking patterns of composites under normal curing (control) (W means water)

151
Fig. 4: Cracking patterns of composites under thermal distress (H means heating)
VI. CALCULATION OF LAYER REINFORCEMENT
The layer reinforcement of the cement composite defined as the ratio of the area of
reinforcement to the total area of specimen in the same direction. The percent effective
reinforcement Rr for cement composite element in any direction can be written as
tD
NA
R L
r
100
= (1)
where, A is the area of reinforcement strands in square centimeters, NL is the number of layers, t is
the thickness of the cement composite in centimeters and D is the center to center distance of mesh
wires in centimeters. The numerical value 100 has mainly appeared due to conversion of effective
reinforcement in percent. By using the above equation, the effective reinforcement of laminated
cement composites containing one, two, three, four and five layers are calculated as 0.375%, 0.75%,
1.25%, 1.5% and 1.875%, respectively.
VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The flexural ultimate strength of control specimens and thermal distress are given in Table 5
and Table 6 respectively. It is observed that the flexural ultimate strength of laminated cement
composites are increased with the increase in number of layers of reinforcement as well as the
number of cycles for both non-heating and heating conditions.
TABLE VI
FLEXURAL ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF CONTROL SPECIMENS
Lc 0
Cycle
30
Cycles
60
Cycles
90
Cycles
120
Cycles
L1 10.30 10.25 11.09 10.60 12.30
L1 10.70 11.15 10.87 13.00 12.70
L2 10.01 10.30 10.78 11.40 12.09
L2 11.70 11.54 11.32 12.30 13.13
L3 10.90 9.87 13.20 12.01 12.80
L3 11.04 12.11 9.82 11.93 12.70
L4 11.30 11.00 10.23 12.05 12.40
L4 11.50 12.26 13.35 12.51 13.44
L5 13.06 13.00 13.11 13.80 12.70
L5 11.64 11.86 11.83 11.24 13.26
Lc
= Layer, Values are in N/mm2

152
TABLE VII
FLEXURAL ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF SPECIMENS UNDER THERMAL DISTRESS
Lc (0
Cycle)
30
Cycles
60
Cycles
90
Cycles
120
Cycles
L1 8.90 12.02 13.40 14.20 17.40
L1 12.10 11.18 11.80 14.00 15.00
L2 10.30 10.09 13.60 13.90 17.80
L2 11.60 13.85 12.06 15.14 15.32
L3 10.23 11.56 12.80 14.62 17.01
L3 12.37 17.72 13.24 15.36 16.95
L4 12.41 13.09 12.30 15.76 16.50
L4 11.35 13.01 15.36 14.92 17.88
L5 13.06 12.50 15.07 16.80 16.09
L5 11.64 15.06 13.09 15.14 19.87
Lc
= Layer, Values are in N/mm2
For clear perception, the average values of flexural ultimate strength are plotted in Fig.5 and
Fig.6 for laminated cement composites of control specimens and thermal distress, respectively.
Figures 5 and 6 indicated that the average values of flexural ultimate strength are higher for
specimens under thermal distress than that of control specimens. This is obvious due to the maturity
of mortar matrix with the increase in number of cycles for both control and thermal distress. It is
interesting to note that increase in ultimate strength is uniform for specimens under thermal distress
whereas it is little more for control specimens at reinforcement 1.875%.
Fig. 5: Ultimate strength vs. laminate reinforcement for control specimens
Fig. 6: Ultimate strength vs. laminate reinforcement for thermal distress
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
0.000 0.375 0.750 1.125 1.500 1.875 2.250
Rr(%)
σu(MPa)
0 cycle 30 cycles
60 cycles 90 cycles
120 cycles
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0.000 0.375 0.750 1.125 1.500 1.875 2.250
Rr(%)
σu(MPa)
0 cycle 30 cycles
60 cycles 90 cycles
120 cycles

153
In order to find out the difference of the strength increment between the control and thermal
distress, the increment in ultimate strength with the number of cycles for both the control and
thermal distress are shown in Figs.7-11 for layer reinforcement of 0.375%, 0.75%, 1.125%, 1.50%
and 1.875% respectively.
Fig. 7: Relationships of strength increment and number of cycles for 0.375% layer reinforcement
The relationships of strength increment with the variation of lumber of layers and number of
cycles for depicted in Figs.7-11 showed a significant increment in strength for thermal distress as
compared to control specimens. Both the curves for control and thermal distress are smooth nature
with the increase in number of cycle for layer reinforcement of 0.375%, 1.125% and 1.50%. In case
0.75% and 1.875% layer reinforcement, a slight fluctuation is observed at 60 cycles. However, this is
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Number of thermal cycle (N)
Increamentinσu(MPa)
Control
Thermal distress
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Control
Thermal distress
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Control
Thermal distress

154
not significant and thermal distress did not show any loss of composite action due to thawing effect.
It should be noted that the composite action remained increase at the higher reinforcement under
thermal distress.
To be more clarified, the rate of increment in ultimate strength with the increase in thermal
distress is plotted in Fig.12. As it can be observed, the rate of increment of ultimate strength is more
for higher percentage of layer reinforcement. This clearly indicated that the bond of composite
between the reinforcement and mortar increased with the increase in layer reinforcement and number
of cycles. As discussed earlier, this may be owing to the strength-gained by the mortar component
with the increase in cycles.
Fig. 12: Rate of strength increment vs. number of cycles for different layer reinforcement
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Control
Thermal distress
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Control
Thermal distress
y = 0.0287x
y = 0.0316x
y = 0.0341x
y = 0.0353x
y = 0.0384x
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Rateofincreamentinσu(MPa)
0.375(%)
0.75(%)
1.13(%)
1.5(%)
1.875(%)

155
For the sake of convenient design of structures, the percentage rate of increment in ultimate
strength i.e. angle of slope of the rate of increment curve in percent for the laminated cement
composites with the increase in percentage of reinforcement are depicted in Fig.13. From this figure,
it is found that the percentage rate of increment in ultimate strength increased with the increase in the
reinforcement percentage. A close inspection of the results given in Fig.13 indicated that slight
variation is found at 1.5%, however, it again resumed increasing pattern at 1.87% reinforcement.
This discrepancy is mainly appeared owing to the bonding phenomena between the mesh and mortar.
Fig. 13: Percentage rate of strength increment vs. layer reinforcement (Ir=Increment)
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
1. Thermal distress did not show any negative impact on the ultimate strength of laminated
cement composite reinforcement with fine wire mesh.
2. In general, the flexural ultimate strength of the laminated cement composites increased with
the increase in cycles for all the specimens.
3. It was observed that the thermal distress altered the behavior of laminated cement composites
and lead to strength increment as compared to control specimens.
4. The rate of increment in ultimate strength is about 3.4 MPa for composite of 0.375% layer
reinforcement and about 5.0 MPa for composite of 1.875% layer reinforcement when the
number of cycles increased from zero cycle (28days curing plus 2 days room drying) to 120
cycles.
5. The percentage rate of strength increment can be noted as 2.8% to 3.4% when the number of
layers of reinforcement increased from one layer to five layers.
XIX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research reported in this paper is partly supported by the Research Grant No. 22580271
with funds from Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan. The writer gratefully acknowledges
these supports. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Rr(%)
Percentrateofincreamentin
σu(%)
Ir(%)

156
XX. REFERENCES
[1] Abdullah and M.A. Mansur, “Effect of Mesh Orientation on Tensile Response of
Ferrocement,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol. 31, no.4, pp.289-298, 2001.
[2] ACI 544.1R, State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1996.
[3] ACI Committee 549, Guide for Design, Construction, and Repair of Ferrocement, ACI
Structural J., Vol. 85, no.1, pp. 325-351, 1998.
[4] L.R. Austriaco, “Evolution of Ferrocement,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol. 31, no.4, pp.281-288,
2001.
[5] P.N. Balaguru and S.P. Shah, Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, McGraw Hill, New
York, 1992.
[6] A. Bentur and S. Mindess, “Effect of Drying and Wetting Cycles on Length and Strength
Changes of Wood Fiber Reinforced Cement,” Durability of Building Materials, Vol. 2,
pp.37-43, 1993.
[7] M.K. El Debs and A.E. Naaman, “Bending Behavior of Ferrocement Reinforced With Steel
Meshes and Polymeric Fibres,” J. of Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol.17, no.4, pp.
327-328, 1995.
[8] K. Ghavami, R.D.T. Filho, and N.P. Barbosa, “Behavior of Composite Soil Reinforced with
Natural Fibers, J. of Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol.21, no.1, pp.39-48, 1999.
[9] M.Z. Hossain and A.S.M.A Awal, “A Study on Flexural Modulus, Ductility and Field
Applications of Laminated Cementitious Composites,” Malaysian J. of Civil Engineering,
Vol.22, no2, pp.32-43, 2010.
[10] M.Z. Hossain and A.S.M.A Awal, “Experimental Validation of A Theoretical Model For
Flexural Modulus of Elasticity of Thin Cement Composite,” J. of Construction & Building
Materials, Vol.25, no.3, pp.1460-1465, 2011.
[11] M.Z. Hossain and A.S.M.A Awal, “Flexural Response of Hybrid Carbon Fiber Thin Cement
Composites,” Vol.25, no.2, pp.670-677, 2010.
[12] M.Z. Hossain and T. Hasegawa, “A Study on Pre- and Post-Cracking Behavior of
Ferrocement Plates,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.27, no.2, pp.127-143, 1997.
[13] M.Z. Hossain and T. Hasegawa, “A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Ferrocement
in Flexure for Square and Hexagonal Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.28, no.2, pp.111-134,
1998.
[14] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Finite Element Analysis of Thin Panels Reinforced With a
Square Mesh,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.32, no.2, pp.109-125, 2002.
[15] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Ferrocement
Elements Under Compression for Square and Chicken Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol. 30.
no.4, pp.319-343, 2000.
[16] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Compression Behavior and Buckling Analysis of
Ferrocement Elements Using the Finite Element Method,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.30, no.2,
pp.147-166, 2000.
[17] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Effect of Recycled Aggregates on Compression Behavior of
Cement-Based Composite Materials,” J. of Aca. of Engrs. and Assoc. of Sci., Vol.6. No.1-2,
pp.81-90, 2004.
[18] M.Z. Hossain and and S. Inoue, “Young's Modulus and Bearing Capacity of Thin Panels
Reinforced With Geogrid and Hexagonal Meshes,” J. of Rural and Env. Engg., No.44, pp.13-
26, 2003.

157
[19] M.Z. Hossain and M.P. Islam, “Cracking Stress and Bending Moment in Flexural
Ferrocement Elements,” Int. J. of Charac. and Develop. of Novel Mat., 2010, Vol.1, no.4,
pp.1-16, 2010.
[20] M.Z. Hossain, M.Z. and T. Tsukioka, “Development of Design Equations for Flexural
Young’s Modulus of Thin Cementitious Composites Reinforced with Different Types of
Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.36, no.3, pp.849-860, 2006.
[21] M.Z. Hossain, T. Sakai, T and P. Paramasivam, “Bearing Capacity of Thin Cementitious
composites Reinforced with Different Types of Meshes,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.36, no.3,
pp.833-848. 2006.
[22] C.D. Johnston and D.N. Mowat, D.N., “Ferrocement - Material Behavior in Flexure,” J. of
Struc. Div., Vol.100, no.10, pp.2053-2069, 1974.
[23] M.A. Mansur and T. Kiritharan, T., “Shear Strength of Ferrocement Structural Section, J. of
Ferrocement, Vol.31, no.3, pp.195-211, 2001.
[24] P.K. Mehta and P.J.M. Monterio, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties and Materilas,
McGraw Hill, New York, 1993.
[25] A.E. Naaman and K. Chandrangsu, “Bending behavior of Laminated Cementitious
Composites Reinforced with FRP meshes,” ACI Sym. on High Perfor. Fiber Reinf. Thin
Sheet Pro., ACI SP 190, pp.97-116, 2000.
[26] A.E. Naaman, Ferrocement and Laminated Cementitious Composites, Techno Press 3000,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2000.
[27] A.E. Naaman, “Ferrocement and Thin Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites: Looking Back,
Looking Ahead,” J. of Ferrocement, Vol.31, no.4, pp.267-280, 2001.
[28] Mohammed Mansour Kadhum, “Effect of Dynamic Load: Impact of Missile on Mechanical
Behavior of Ferrocement – Infrastructure Application”, International Journal of Civil
Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 295 - 305, ISSN Print:
0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

20320140502015

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

En vedette

En vedette (10)

Similaire à 20320140502015

Similaire à 20320140502015 (20)

Plus de IAEME Publication

Plus de IAEME Publication (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

20320140502015