I made the serial version of the program work but I bought an actual serial interface cable to do it. I am at my cabin at the moment and I can't give you the specific number of the cable. There are a couple of versions of USB to serial converters that have been said to work but I have no specifics. The big problem is that most laptops don't have a serial connector anymore - I knew there was a reason I kept the old IBM think pad around even with the dead batteries. Rumor has it that there is a cracked full functioning version of the program on bit torrent.
if you are able to adjust your virtual comm port settings, slow it down, less then 9600. Try also adjusting UART settings. If that's an acutal screen shot, you got the usb cable to work, as it can atleast qury the controller. However, you'll need the crack for the software.
Vol Fcr 1 7 4 Crack
where, FCRcc is the FCR at the first-cracking point, FCRpc is the FCR from the first-cracking point to the postcracking point, ρcc is the electrical resistivity at the first-cracking point, ρpc is the electrical resistivity at the postcracking point, Δρcc is the change in the electrical resistivity until first-cracking point, and Δρpc is the change in the electrical resistivity from the first-cracking point to the postcracking point.
The electromechanical responses of smart UHPCs containing steel fibers under direct tension has been reported mainly under DC measurement [2,3,4,6,7]. Le and Kim [21] reported that the reduction in electrical resistivity of SH-SFRCs occurred during fiber-matrix debonding after matrix cracking. Song et al. [2] and Nguyen et al. [3] attributed the reduction in the electrical resistance of SH-SFRCs to the formation of multiple micro-cracks during the strain-hardening region. They explained that the total electrical resistance of the SH-SFRCs could be classified into the electrical resistance of cracked and noncracked parts. The electrical resistance of the cracked part was much lower than that of the noncracked part because steel fibers bridging the microcrack at the cracked part were highly conductive. Thus, the total electrical resistance of SH-SFRC decreased as the number of microcracks increased [2,3,4,6,7].
As the tensile strain of smart UHPCs increased, their electrical resistances measured using a DC multimeter decreased regardless of functional fillers, as shown in Figure 6a,b. The change in the electrical resistivity (Δρcc and Δρpc) of MaDC (26.8 and 440.2 kΩcm) was higher than that of MbDC (6.2 and 318.47 kΩcm). Although the FSSAs were additionally added as functional fillers in the smart UHPCs containing steel fibers, the reason for higher change in the electrical resistivity of smart UHPCs containing only steel fibers is closely related to the fiber bridging under direct tension. The reduction in the electrical resistivity of smart UHPCs containing steel fibers is caused by the electrical current flowing through only the steel fibers connecting the matrix by fiber bridging at the cracked part [2,3,4,6,7]. The change in the electrical resistivity of smart UHPCs containing only steel fibers depends only on the steel fibers, while that containing steel fibers and FSSAs is affected by both steel fibers and FSSAs. The FSSAs in smart UHPCs induces an increase of conductive network between the functional fillers and between the matrix and functional filler, thus the initial electrical resistivity (ρi) of smart UHPCs decreases: the ρi of Ma (containing only steel fibers) measured using a DC multimeter was 542.8 kΩcm, while that of Mb was 496.3 kΩcm.
Figure 12 shows the typical tensile strain (ε) or compressive stress (σ) until peak stress and FCR of smart UHPCs. Strain and damage sensitivity coefficients (SCstrain and SCdamage) are the ratio between fractional change in the electrical resistivity (FCR) and mechanical strain (ε), while a stress sensitivity coefficient (SCstress) is the ratio of FCR to the mechanical stress (σ). SCstrain represents the self-strain sensing capacity of smart UHPCs under direct tension within the elastic range prior to the first cracking, whereas SCdamage represents the self-damage sensing capacity of smart UHPCs under direct tension from first cracking to the post cracking point. Moreover, SCstress represents the self-stress-sensing capacity of smart UHPCs under compression.
In addition, self-strain-sensing capacity of smart UHPCs until σcc (first-cracking strength point) was notably different corresponding to the applied electrical current source. As shown in Figure 14, the electrical resistivity of smart UHPCs under DC measurement slightly changed prior to the first cracking strength point, but it significantly decreased after that point. Even though the tensile strain of smart UHPCs increased gradually prior to the first cracking strength point, the electrical resistance of smart UHPCs changed slightly prior to first cracking. This was because the electrical current mostly flowed through the mortar matrix under DC measurement, which mainly depends on fiber crack bridging. However, after first cracking, the electrical current started to flow through the highly conductive steel fibers at the cracked section. Therefore, the electrical resistances of smart UHPCs started to decrease noticeably from the first cracking point to post cracking point. On the other hand, the electrical resistances of smart UHPCs changed slightly under AC measurement because the electromechanical responses of smart UHPCs measured using the AC multimeter were primarily dependent on the tunneling effect. The tunneling effect was nearly constant prior to the first cracking point, as the tensile strain was very small. Thus, DC measurements would be more suitable than AC measurements for the tensile self-strain sensing of smart UHPCs.
Electrical resistivity responses until first cracking point of smart UHPCs corresponding to the different current sources under direct tension: (a) MaDC, (b) MbDC, (c) MaAC, (d) MbAC.
Concrete is very strong in compression and not so strong in tension. In a slab, tension is often created by bending. When a piece of concrete bends, it is in compression on one side and tension on the other side. A concrete slab may bend concave up (like a smile) if the subgrade has a soft spot in the middle, putting the bottom in tension. It may bend down (like a frown) at free edges or at joints, putting the top in tension. So if your entire concrete slab isn't being supported from below, by the "soil support system," it's going to bend more easily and is probably going to crack.
The fact is that any soil or gravel base course is going to compress if the load is high enough, unless the slab is placed on solid rock. And in some ways that's good, because slabs curl and if the base can deflect a little, it can continue to provide support for the slab even when it curls. But if it doesn't provide uniform support, if the slab has to bridge over soft spots, the slab will probably crack. There doesn't even need to be much of a load on the slab--its own weight is usually enough since a slab on grade is not typically designed to even carry the dead load. And when it does crack, that crack is going to go all the way through the slab. If the under-slab support is bad enough, you can then get differential settlement across the crack that leaves a very unfortunate bump and a very unhappy owner.
Concentric cracking is also caused by rapid growth, but generally occurs when there are alternating periods of rapid growth followed by slower growth. This can occur with wet/dry cycles or cycles of high and low temperatures. Generally this type of cracking occurs as fruit near maturation. Even moisture throughout the growing period will help alleviate this problem. Also avoid fertilization spikes that encourage cyclic growth. 2ff7e9595c
コメント