25 views

Uploaded by CHarlesghylon

Performance BAsed Design

save

- Myths+and+Fallacies
- Vides-&-Pamapanin_2015-NZSEE
- 1 Project
- 75445.pdf
- Sistema de Aislacion Estructura Asimetrica centro de arte taipei
- 351476413-design of tank -india-pdf.pdf
- A comparison of single-run pushover analysis techniques for
- 0716 Limit States for Performance-based Design
- Buildings With Transfer Structures
- Seismic Behaviour Tansfer Structure
- 2010_14ECEE_Sabatino_Non Linear Modelling of URM Buildings as Equivalent Frame Ok Ok
- PRESENTATION THESIS 2007
- 07 Chouw Effect
- EScholarship UC Item 3dq3j07d
- KRISHNA_MURTHY_MOHAN__MASc_S2013.pdf
- Study of Vertical Irregularities in Building
- Push-over Analysis for Performance-based Seismic Design
- Bridge Seismic Design.pdf
- Seismic Performance of Moment-Resisting Reinforced Concrete Building Systems During an Intense Earthquake Ground Motion
- 1123_03aprecast Seismic Design of Reinforced
- Diseño sismico de conec.pdf
- Material Ch45R
- Numerical Investigation of Progressive Collapse Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frames Subject to Column Removals From Different Stories, Advances in Structural Engineering, 2016
- J0506_01-6879.pdf
- J0506_01-6879.pdf
- zorrow
- Viad Tijuana
- MODAL AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM (IS 18932002) ANALYSIS 0F R.pdf
- Comparison Between Oman Building Code and Others
- Bridge Seismic Design
- ACEHRNov2012_ASCE41a
- Backstay Effect
- Asce 41-13 Paper
- Midas Civil Webinar
- Lotte World Tower
- Bridge Examples
- Pushover Analysis (Modal) of SAC Buildings
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures - Handouts
- Performance Based Seismic Design of Icon Hotel
- Span-Depth Ratios for One-Way Members Based On

**ADEQUACY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES
**

A. Shuraim, A. Charif

King Saud University

ashuraim@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The nonlinear static analytical procedure (Pushover) as introduced by ATC-40 was applied for

the evaluation of existing design of a reinforced concrete frame, in order to examine the

applicability of the pushover for evaluating design of new buildings. Potential structural

deficiencies in the frame were assessed by the code seismic-resistant design and pushover

approaches, for the sake of comparison. In the first approach, the potential deficiencies were

determined by redesigning under one selected seismic combination in order to show which

members would require additional reinforcement. In the second approach, a pushover analysis

was conducted to assess the seismic performance of the frame and detect the locations of the

plastic hinges. The paper shows that vulnerability locations revealed from the two procedures

are significantly different, where the latter procedure tends to overestimate column strength,

consequently, concealing earlier detection of column weaknesses. The paper provides rational

explanations for the apparent discrepancy that can be taken into consideration in order to make

pushover methodology applicable when designing or evaluating existing design of new

buildings.

KEYWORDS: building codes, structural, coding, seismic design.

INTRODUCTION

The generalized nonlinear static analytical procedure (Pushover) is a key element in the

methodology introduced by ATC-40 for the seismic evaluation and retrofit design of existing

buildings which represents a fundamental change for the structural engineering profession.

The methodology is performance-based where the design criteria are expressed as

performance objectives, which define desired levels of seismic performance when the building

is subjected to specified levels of seismic ground motion. The generalized nonlinear static

analytical procedure incorporated in the methodology has three primary elements ( as shown

in Figure 1): capacity curve of a structure by use of a static pushover analysis, a method to

determine displacement demand by use of reduced demand spectra, and the resulting

identification of the performance point and the subsequent check for acceptable performance.

Plastic hinges observed prior to the performance point reveals the locations of the potential

deficiencies as well as the damage extent. ATC-40 asserts that although the methodology is

not intended for the design of new buildings, the analytical procedures are applicable.

P

e

r

f

o

r

m

a

n

c

e

p

o

i

n

t

C

a

p

a

c

i

t

y

C

u

r

v

e

Demand Spectrum

S

p

e

c

t

r

a

l

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

Spectral Displacement

Figure 1: schematic representation of ATC-40 method.

Over the previous decade, pushover analysis has been carried out for either user-defined

nonlinear hinge properties or default-hinge properties, available in some programs based on

the ATC-40[1] and FEMA-356 [2] guidelines. In the implementation of pushover analysis,

modeling is one of the important steps where all material plasticity is lumped at appropriately

located hinges. The capacity response of the structure is closely related to the plastic

properties assigned to the various members (beams and columns). Such a model requires the

determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in the structure that are

quantified by strength and deformation capacities. Some programs (i.e. SAP2000 [3, 4]) have

already implemented these default nonlinear properties. The use of this implementation is very

common among the structural engineering profession and researchers. In the past several

years, many researchers [5-10] have discussed the underlying assumptions and limitations of

pushover analysis. The pushover has been utilized to investigate the seismic performance of

reinforced concrete frames with emphasis on the suitability of default material assumptions

[11-12].

The ATC-40 [1] assertion that the analytical procedure is applicable to new buildings raises

some questions in view of the known significant differences in the underlying assumptions of

the pushover procedure in comparison to those in design codes [13-17] for new buildings. In

new building design, the code always maintains certain factor of safety that comes from load

factors, materials reduction factors, and ignoring some post yielding characteristics

(hardening). In the modeling assumptions of ATC-40, reduction factor is assumed to be one,

and hardening is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, it is important to evaluate

pushover accuracy and reliability in comparison to code design criteria that are relevant to

seismic design.

The paper addresses the applicability of the pushover to the design of new buildings, through a

2D RC frame case study having been designed for gravity load only. The adequacy/deficiency

of the existing longitudinal reinforcement in the frame for resisting moderate seismic forces

will be assessed by the code seismic-resistant design and pushover approaches. In the former

approach, new longitudinal reinforcements for the frame members will be compared with the

existing reinforcement where the increase in the reinforcement represents potential deficiency

in the original design. In the latter approach, the capacity curve, spectrum demand and

performance point will be determined on the basis of the existing gravity design. Plastic

hinges formed prior to the performance point represent the locations of the deficiency in the

original design. Locations of deficiency from the two approaches will be evaluated and

discussed. It is always believed that verifications of design/analysis procedures and their

underlying assumptions are an essential step for safety and economic considerations.

CASE STUDY

The case study is a typical regular 2D frame with three bays and three stories (Figure 2). All

column and beams sections are 300 x 500 mm but internal columns are used in the weak

direction ( b =500 mm and h =300 mm) deliberately to make them more vulnerable than

external columns. The ground beams were included in the model with a much lower loading

and the base is assumed fixed.

The frame was first analyzed and designed with SAP2000 [1] using a standard linear analysis

combining dead and live loading. Figure 3 shows the various reinforcement percentages for

the gravity load combination (U1=1.4 D +1.7 L). A unique steel percentage is given for

columns whereas for beams, top and bottom values are given at both ends as well as at mid-

span.

Figure 2: frame labeling numbers

Figure 3: Steel reinforcement percentages in design under combination U1

SEISMIC-RESISTANT DESIGN

Earthquake-induced inertia forces depend on the response characteristics of the structure and

the intensity of ground motion at the site. The latter depends primarily on three factors: the

distance between the source and the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the type of soil

at the site. Different individual structures shaken by the same earthquake respond differently.

One important characteristic is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure. Shape or

configuration is another important characteristic that affects structure response.

It is generally uneconomical and unnecessary to design a structure to respond in the elastic

range to the maximum earthquake-induced inertia forces. Thus, the design seismic horizontal

forces prescribed in the seismic codes (UBC 97[13], IBC 2003[14], ASCE-7[15], SBC

301[16]), are generally less than the elastic response inertia forces induced by the design

earthquake. Acceptable performance can be achieved by structures elastically designed for

reduced forces, if suitable structural systems are selected, and structures are detailed with

appropriate levels of ductility, regularity, and continuity. Accordingly, structural systems are

expected to undergo fairly large deformations, allowing inelastic energy dissipation, when

subjected to a major earthquake. Some structural and nonstructural damage can be expected

due to large deformations. Therefore, seismic provisions regulate both strength and lateral

drift.

In this paper, base shear was computed and distributed vertically in accordance with UBC97

seismic provisions, assuming Ca =Cv =0.2 (Zone 2B soil S

B

). The total base shear computed

was modified slightly (V =428.1 kN) in order to permit comparison with one of the critical

pushover cases.

Table 1: Summary of un-factored loads on the frame

Load Case Global

FX, kN

Global

FY, kN

Global

FZ, kN

DEAD 0 0 5218.848

Live 0 0 850.56

Ex 428.1 0 0

Following the same provisions, there are a number of load combinations that need to be

considered. However, for the sake of this study, the frame was designed under one load

combination only (termed seismic 1), namely: U2 =1.1( 1.2 D +1 L+1 E).

Based on the above load combination, the RC frame was designed where the longitudinal

reinforcement ratios are presented in Figure 4. The reinforcement from U1 and U2

combinations are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 for columns and beams, respectively. The

positive percentage of change indicates the deficiency in a member if subjected to seismic

loading under U2 combination. The findings from this procedure can be summarized as:

1. Twelve columns out of the sixteen columns require additional reinforcement. Six of

them need more than one-hundred percent increase, indicating their deficiency under

U2. Column 26 exhibits the highest increase, where the original reinforcement under

gravity amounts to only 1500 mm

2

, and becomes 6060 mm

2

, under U2 and thus would

require strengthening if the frame is part of an existing building. It should be pointed

out that negative percentage of change should not be interpreted as a need for

decreasing reinforcement.

2. Four beams out of the sixteen beams require additional top reinforcement exceeding

one-hundred percent, at their right end. Other beams show modest increase. Beam 21

exhibits the highest increase, where the original top reinforcement under gravity

amounts to only 351 mm

2

, and becomes 998 mm

2

, under U2 and thus would require

strengthening if the frame is part of an existing building.

3. Overall, columns in this case study need more strengthening than beams.

Figure 4: code design under seismic 1 (U2) only

Table 2: columns longitudinal reinforcment (Gravity versus seismic1)

Column

No.

Section Longitudinal reinforcement, mm

2

Change

(%)

Gravity Seismic 1

1 EXC 1500 4018.817 168%

2 EXC 1500 1984.007 32%

3 EXC 1588.138 1500 -6%

4 EXC 3285.352 1500 -54%

9 INC 5667.08 7267.426 28%

10 INC 4295.008 8423.157 96%

11 INC 1500 4702.885 214%

12 INC 1500 1500 0%

17 INC 5667.08 6737.943 19%

18 INC 4295.008 7167.375 67%

19 INC 1500 4188.63 179%

20 INC 1500 1500 0%

25 EXC 1500 6310.764 321%

26 EXC 1500 6060.629 304%

27 EXC 1588.138 5211.875 228%

28 EXC 3285.352 4395.174 34%

Table 3: Beams longitudinal reinforcement (Gravity versus seismic1 (U2))

Beam

No.

Section Longitudinal

reinforcement, mm

2

Longitudinal

reinforcement, mm

2

Change

(%)

Gravity Seismic 1

Mid

section

End section Mid section End section

5 GDB 0 268.644 0 285.632 6%

5 GDB 345.58 0 933.419 0 170%

6 FLB 2302.381 0 3306.89 246.005 44%

7 FLB 2230.003 0 2915.75 0 31%

8 RFB 2071.969 0 2328.786 0 12%

13 GDB 0 269.283 0 288.923 7%

13 GDB 354.61 0 874.452 0 147%

14 FLB 2227.354 0 2651.251 0 19%

15 FLB 2173.2 0 2468.543 0 14%

16 RFB 2005.8 0 2099.135 0 5%

21 GDB 351.118 0 998.118 0 184%

22 FLB 1318.269 0 3100.768 28.898 135%

23 FLB 1509.525 0 2688.267 0 78%

24 RFB 1139.567 0 1624.229 0 43%

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURE CAPACITY

The design results (reinforcement sections) obtained previously, were used to assess the model

performance as an existing structure designed under gravity loading only. It was aimed to

assess its seismic response in a typical earthquake zone with seismic coefficients Ca =Cv =

0.2. The static nonlinear analysis combined the application of the dead load followed by the

application of the lateral seismic forces which were increased up to failure under displacement

control. The SAP2000 default hinge properties were used for beams and columns. Hinges

were assigned at both ends of each element and for beams a mid-span hinge was also assigned

to track possible span hinges because of uniform loading. Pure bending hinges were used for

beams whereas for columns, the hinges were related to the axial force – bending moment P-M

interaction curve.

Figure 5 shows the structure capacity response up to failure. The structure developed a

maximum base shear of about 612 kN and the ultimate roof lateral displacement is about 141

mm. The nonlinear pushover curve illustrates the successive formation and evolution of plastic

hinges. These were formed in seven different steps. Figure 6 shows the plastic hinge patterns

at the third step of loading, corresponding to a base shear value of 475 kN. The figures show

the locations of the hinges as well as their state illustrated by appropriate colors.

This nonlinear response curve illustrates also the first yielding and may be used to quantify the

ductility of the structure. It cannot however serve to evaluate the actual seismic performance

of the structure unless it is compared to the actual demand of the seismic action.

Figure 5: Capacity curve

Figure 6: Plastic hinges from nonlinear analysis, at the third step, base shear =475 kN.

SEISMIC DEMAND AND PERFORMANCE POINT

The seismic demand on a structure is usually expressed in the form of a design spectrum

according to the prevailing seismic code and including all structural and zoning parameters.

The seismic demand is also related to the nonlinear behavior of the structure and is obtained

iteratively. Figure 7 shows the ATC-40 [1] demand spectrum using the initial seismic

coefficients (Ca =Cv =0.2) for a standard 5% damping ratio. The intersection of the demand

spectrum with the nonlinear pushover response is called “Performance Point”. It corresponds

to the state the structure is expected to reach under the considered earthquake. Depending on

the position and state of the performance point (with respect to the actual pushover curve), the

analyst may decide on how safe or vulnerable the structure is and where possible

strengthening should be performed. For our particular example the performance point is

indicated by a base shear value of 484 kN corresponding to a roof displacement of 75 mm.

The forgoing results provide a number of interesting observations.

1. The capacity-demand intersection suggests that the frame is expected to withstand the

assumed moderate seismic shaking of 2B soil SB, even though it was not designed for

any earthquake forces.

2. All beams have reached their nominal yield capacity at one or more points and some

redistribution of moments have taken place. Plasticity promulgation at the right end of

Beam 6 is illustrated in Figure 8. The sectional moment is 463 kN-m which is higher

than its nominal yield flexural capacity of 448 kN-m, computed on the basis of SBC

304 assumptions without reduction factor. The excess moment beyond the yield is

assumed to be carried by the contribution of hardening that is not considered in the

design.

3. Only one column has reached its nominal yield capacity, namely Column 26. This is

illustrated by the interaction diagram in Figure 9. The column is subjected to a demand

point (M=272 kN-m and an axial load of 1327 kN) which is shown to be located

approximately on the perimeter of the nominal interaction diagram.

Figure 7: Capacity, Demand and Performance point according to ATC- 40

Figure 8: plasticity level at the end of step 3, in member 6.

‐500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

x

i

a

l

l

o

a

d

,

k

N

Column Moment , kN‐m

P_hinge P_a

Figure 9: M-P interaction diagram of column 26 and demand point.

WHY NO PLASTIC HINGES IN OTHER COLUMNS

To understand the apparent discrepancy between the first linear code method which shows that

most columns are deficient and the pushover procedure which shows deficiency in only one

column, it is important to investigate a typical case such as column 10. Based on the code

procedure column 10 is subjected to a moment of 175 kN-m and an axial load of 2300 kN at

its end. Based on the former code procedure, the column is required to additional

reinforcement in order to withstand the seismic demand prescribed by case U2. While based

on the latter pushover procedure, it is capable of carrying the demand. Figure 10 shows the

demand point and two interaction diagrams. The outer diagram is the nominal diagram

assumed in the pushover while the inner diagram represents the reduced diagram on the basis

of code provisions of column design. The demand point is shown between the two curves.

From the perspective of code provisions, the demand point is outside the inner design curve

and thus the column is deemed deficient and requires additional reinforcement as indicated by

the linear design shown earlier. On the other hand, the pushover default assumptions ignore

these provisions and do not incorporate the code reductions factors and upper limits imposed

by the code provisions. Therefore, the discrepancy is attributed to the assumptions existed in

the two procedures, and engineering judgment should be exercised when conducting pushover

analysis.

If the procedure is to be used for designing new structures, code provisions should be fully

observed regardless of the method used. On the other hand, for an existing building some

reduction of nominal capacity should be imposed based on the actual conditions and the level

of safety deemed acceptable.

‐2000

‐1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

A

x

i

a

l

l

o

a

d

,

k

N

Column Moment , kN‐m

P_hinge φP_n P_a

Figure 10: column No 10 interaction diagram.

Proceedings of the 7

th

Saudi Engineering Conference (SEC7)

CONCLUSIONS

The nonlinear static analytical procedure (Pushover) as introduced by ATC-40 has been

utilized for the evaluation of existing design of a new reinforced concrete frame, in

order to examine its applicability. Potential structural deficiencies in RC frame, when

subjected to a moderate seismic loading, were estimated by the code seismic-resistant

design and pushover approaches. In the first method the design was evaluated by

redesigning under one selected seismic combination in order to show which members

would require additional reinforcement. It was shown that most columns required

significant additional reinforcement, indicating their vulnerability if subjected to

seismic forces. On the other hand, the nonlinear pushover procedure shows that the

frame is capable of withstanding the presumed seismic force with some significant

yielding at all beams and one column. Vulnerability locations from the two procedures

are significantly different.

The paper has discussed the reasons behind the apparent discrepancy which is mainly

due to the default assumptions of the method as implemented by the software versus the

code assumptions regarding reduction factors and maximum permissible limits. In new

building design, the code always maintains certain factor of safety that comes from load

factors, materials reduction factors, and ignoring some post yielding characteristics

(hardening). In the modeling assumptions of ATC-40, reduction factor is assumed to

be one, and hardening is to be taken into consideration.

Hence, the paper suggests that engineering judgment should be exercised prudently

when using the pushover analysis and that engineer should follow the code limits when

designing new buildings and impose certain reductions and limits in case of existing

buildings depending on their conditions. In short software should not substitute for

code provisions and engineering judgment.

REFERENCES

1. Applied Technology Council, 1996, ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit

of Concrete Buildings, vols. 1 and 2. California.

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000, FEMA-356: Prestandard and

Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington, DC.

3. CSI. SAP2000 V-10. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic

analysis reference manual. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures Inc; 2006.

4. Habibullah, A., Pyle, S., 1998, “Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear Static

Pushover Analysis”, Structure Magazine, Winter, 1998.

5. Krawinkler, H., Seneviratna, G.D. , 1998, “Pros and Cons of a Pushover

Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation”, ASCE, Journal of Structural

Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 452-464.

6. Naeim, F., Lobo, R. M., 1998, “Common Pitfalls in Pushover Analysis.”

Proceedings of the SEAOC Annual Convention, Reno, Nevada.

7. Kim, B., D’Amore, E., 1999, “Pushover Analysis Procedure in Earthquake

Engineering.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 13(2), pp. 417-434.

Proceedings of the 7

th

Saudi Engineering Conference (SEC7)

8. Elnashai, A. S., 2001, “Advanced Inelastic Static (Pushover) Analysis for

Earthquake Applications”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics,Vol. 12(1),

pp. 51-69.

9. Fajfar, P., “Structural Analysis in Earthquake Engineering—A Breakthrough of

Simplified Non-Linear Method”, Paper Reference 843, Proceedings of the 12th

European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London,.

10. Chopra, A. K., 2004, “Estimating Seismic Demands for Performance-Based

Engineering Of Buildings”, Paper No. 5007, 13th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

11. Lee, H-S., Woo, S-W, 2002, “Seismic Performance of a 3-Story RC Frame in a

Low-Seismicity Region”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, pp. 719–734.

12. Inel, M., Ozmen, H. B., 2006, “Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear

analysis of reinforced concrete buildings”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, pp.

1494–1502.

13. ICBO, et al. “Uniform Building Code (UBC),” by International Conference of

Building Officials (ICBO), Whittier, California; 1997.

14. International Code Council, Inc., International Building Code, 2003.

15. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-02, Reston, Virginia, 2002.

16. SBC 301, “Design loads for Building and Structures”, draft of Saudi Building Code,

2007.

17. SBC 304, “Concrete Structures”, draft of Saudi Building Code, 2007.

- Myths+and+FallaciesUploaded byCiro Del Vecchio
- Vides-&-Pamapanin_2015-NZSEEUploaded byFernando Aduriz
- 1 ProjectUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- 75445.pdfUploaded byGunjan Vaghasiya
- Sistema de Aislacion Estructura Asimetrica centro de arte taipeiUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- 351476413-design of tank -india-pdf.pdfUploaded bysumitanurag
- A comparison of single-run pushover analysis techniques forUploaded bycika_cidin
- 0716 Limit States for Performance-based DesignUploaded byTanveer Ahmad
- Buildings With Transfer StructuresUploaded byMahmood Mufti
- Seismic Behaviour Tansfer StructureUploaded byGan Chin Phang
- 2010_14ECEE_Sabatino_Non Linear Modelling of URM Buildings as Equivalent Frame Ok OkUploaded byJuan Carlos Jiménez Pacheco
- PRESENTATION THESIS 2007Uploaded byapi-19884175
- 07 Chouw EffectUploaded byJosé Miguel Matamala Catalán
- EScholarship UC Item 3dq3j07dUploaded byAndi Cxfriends
- KRISHNA_MURTHY_MOHAN__MASc_S2013.pdfUploaded bykanchanabalaji
- Study of Vertical Irregularities in BuildingUploaded byIJARTET
- Push-over Analysis for Performance-based Seismic DesignUploaded bymariostructural2010
- Bridge Seismic Design.pdfUploaded byJennifer Hudson
- Seismic Performance of Moment-Resisting Reinforced Concrete Building Systems During an Intense Earthquake Ground MotionUploaded byDhurai Kesavan
- 1123_03aprecast Seismic Design of ReinforcedUploaded byrakoll
- Diseño sismico de conec.pdfUploaded byJorge Miranda
- Material Ch45RUploaded byhemant_durgawale
- Numerical Investigation of Progressive Collapse Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frames Subject to Column Removals From Different Stories, Advances in Structural Engineering, 2016Uploaded byNasarKhan
- J0506_01-6879.pdfUploaded byMd. Hejbul Kabir
- J0506_01-6879.pdfUploaded byMd. Hejbul Kabir
- zorrowUploaded byLexy Cakep
- Viad TijuanaUploaded byAntonio López
- MODAL AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM (IS 18932002) ANALYSIS 0F R.pdfUploaded byaltaf_h5
- Comparison Between Oman Building Code and OthersUploaded byPablo Rincón
- Bridge Seismic DesignUploaded byGhenoiu Paul

- ACEHRNov2012_ASCE41aUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Backstay EffectUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Asce 41-13 PaperUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Midas Civil WebinarUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Lotte World TowerUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Bridge ExamplesUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Pushover Analysis (Modal) of SAC BuildingsUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures - HandoutsUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Performance Based Seismic Design of Icon HotelUploaded byCHarlesghylon
- Span-Depth Ratios for One-Way Members Based OnUploaded byCHarlesghylon