wave pressure

© All Rights Reserved

9 views

wave pressure

© All Rights Reserved

- IPR for Gas Condensates
- class4
- j1F3x2kGznyVh1kVTn
- 04 Hydraulic Conductivity
- Aupp-Air Permeability Tester
- Permeabilidade de Leitos 1.pdf
- Reservoir Rock
- SCA2011-53
- (42-FO)-PETSOC-93!09!07-Significance of Foamy-oil Behaviour in Primary Production of Heavy Oil(Maini, Sarma and George, 1993)
- SC RE Chap 7-Props of Rocks 1
- Inflow Prediction for Openhole Gp&Fp
- 027
- Gas Hydrates
- 1997-Effect of a Percolation Threshold in the Kozeny-Carman Relation
- 0deec51506e6bc72ad000000
- 2- Penilaian Formasi (Reservoir Aspects)
- Rock properties.pdf
- SPE-39437-MS
- Carbonate Without Frac Wta
- Full Text 01

You are on page 1of 14

Hendrik Bergmann , Hocine Oumeraci

Abstract

The pressure distribution at permeable vertical walls is investigated within a com-

prehensive large-scale test programme considering experiments with a variation of

wave parameters and structure porosities. Monochromatic non breaking and slightly

breaking waves on such structures are examined and results are compared to the

GODA formula for impermeable vertical walls and a modified GODA method which

has been developed here for permeable walls. Two parameters involving the structure

porosity are introduced to account for the nonlinear processes at permeable walls.

Using these parameters new prediction formulae have been derived for the pressure

distribution at the wall.

1. Introduction

The advantages of permeable vertical wave barriers are obvious in terms of wave

damping performance, reduction of wave reflection, overtopping and forces. Wave

damping is of fundamental importance for the protection of harbours and marinas.

Rubble mound structures can be used if there are no limitations in space and in case

of shallow water depth, otherwise vertical structures may be favoured. However, im-

permeable vertical structures result in considerable wave reflection which can cause

navigation problems in harbour entrances for smaller vessels. Therefore, it might be

advisable to use perforated structures which allow to better control wave transmission

and reflection. In this case reliable information on wave loads and pressure distribu-

tion on the permeable wall is needed for stability analysis and design.

The most widely used pressure formulae for the design of coastal structures with

vertical walls under breaking and non breaking wave conditions are the GODA

1

Dipl.-Ing., Research Assistant, Leichtweiss-Institut, TU Braunschweig, Beethovenstr. 51a, 38106

Braunschweig, Germany, e-mail: h.bergmann@tu-bs.de

2

Prof. Dr.-Ing., University Professor, Managing Director of Leichtweiss-Institut, TU Braunschweig

2042

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998 2043

formulae (1985). However, these formulae do not account for a wall porosity so that

reduction coefficients can only be estimated by engineering experience or obtained

from hydraulic model tests. Therefore, the hydraulic performance and the pressure

distribution of single permeable vertical walls was investigated within a comprehen-

sive large-scale test programme. The extension of the existing formulae in terms of

structure permeability was performed considering experiments in intermediate water

depth with different wave conditions and structure porosities. For this paper only non

breaking and slightly breaking waves on such structures were examined and results

are compared to the GODA method for impermeable walls. Two dimensionless

parameters involving the structure porosity were introduced to account for the nonlin-

ear processes at permeable walls.

2. Experimental Set-up and Test Conditions

The tests were conducted in the Large Wave Flume (GWK) of the Coastal

Research Centre, a joint institution of the University of Hannover and the Technical

University of Braunschweig. The flume has a length of 320m, a width of 5m and a

depth of 7m (Fig. 1). A sand beach with a slope of 1:6 was installed about 220m

from the wave paddle for the dissipation of transmitted wave energy. The vertical per-

meable wall, made of horizontal steel bars was located about 100m from the wave

paddle.

14 wave gauges

96.6 150 200

distance to wave generator [ m]

Figure 1: Cross Section of the Large Wave Flume (GWK)

with Positions of Permeable Wall and Wave Gauges.

The incident waves, wave transmission and wave reflection were analyzed by wave

gauges which were grouped in three harps (one in the far field, one in front and one

behind the structure) with 4 wave gauges each. Additional wave gauges were installed

to measure the water surface elevation and the waterlevel gradient directly at the

permeable wall.

The tests were carried out with regular waves (H=0.5-1.5m and T=4.5-12s),

random waves (H

s

=0.5-1.25m, T =4.5-12s), solitary waves (H=0.5-1.0m) and transient

wave packets. The water depth was kept constant (d=4.0m) in the test phase with

permeable walls but was varied between 3.25 and 4.75m for the impermeable wall

tests (P=0%). Due to the structure height of approximately 6m, overtopping is negli-

gible.

The structure porosity P=s/e, with gap spacing s and distance e between two ad-

2044

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998

Us

Hs:

Figure 2: Definition of

Structure Porosity P=s/e.

jacent element axis' (Fig. 2), was varied in five steps:

P=0.0% (impermeable wall), 11%, 20%, 26.5% and

40.5%. A permeable wall consists of up to 29 horizontal

elements which were built of quadratic steel pipes (t

B

xb:

180x180mm, Fig. 2). The tested structures had an over-

all weight of up to eight tons depending on their poros-

ity.

In order to analyze the resulting wave loads pressure

transducers of type NATEC SCHULTHEISS PDCR 830

were installed at 10 positions at the front and rear side

of the structure. Fig. 3 shows the front view of the wall

(porosity P=26.5%) with locations of the pressure trans-

ducers over the structure height. The resultant pressures

were calculated by adding the two pressure components

on both sides of the wall elements which were equipped

with pressure cells (Fig. 4). Data were recorded at

200Hz logging frequency.

0 load cells

pressure transducers

damping clement

top of

wave flume

* ' /ta

j

0

< & 0

0

* 0

El

^ 0

e 0

0

< ? 0

=N

0

* 0

PI

=t

b

PI

0

--T,

L

e

PI

0

^ 0

0

0

a

*r

5.0m

bottom of

wave flume

Figure 3: Locations of Pressure Transducers and Load Cells for

a Permeable Wall with Porosity P=26.5%.

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998

wall element 180x180 mm

2045

777777777777777777777777777777

Figure 4: Calculation of Resultant Pressures p

r(

3. Experimental Results and Discussion

The hydrodynamic pressure dis-

tribution under wave attack at the front

of a vertical impermeable structure can

be described by the water surface elev-

ation r| above still water level, the

pressure p

;

at still water level (SWL)

and the pressure p

2

at the toe of the

structure (GODA, 1985). For the verti-

cal walls tested in the GWK (2D-case,

normal incidence of waves, no berm)

the equations for the characteristic

values (Fig. 5) described by GODA

can be simplified to:

Figure 5: Definition Sketch for Pressure

Distribution according to GODA's Method.

T!* = 1.5 -H,

Pi = < VP-g-H;

(1)

(2)

2046

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998

with a, = 0.6 + 0.5-1

mm

T

1

' sinh(4itd/L) J

(3)

P2

1

cosh(2rcd/L)

Pi

(4)

The tests considered in this paper were run with monochromatic waves. The wave

height Hj describes the mean incident wave height and L is the local wave length at

the structure.

Fig. 6 shows the measured pressure heads at the front and at the rear side for

different structure porosities. Results are shown exemplarily for an incident wave

height of Hj=0.80m and a wave period of T=8s for all porosities investigated. In addi-

tion, the calculated pressures (Eq. (1) - Eq. (4)) on an impermeable wall are also

plotted. The graph represents a) the pressure distribution acting simultaneously on the

front face of the wall and on the rear side of the wall (left side) and b) the resultant

pressures (right side) for the time step where the maximum total force on the struc-

ture occurred (wave crest). The total horizontal force was obtained by integration of

measured resultant pressures over the structure height for every time step.

Hi=0.8m, T=8.0s

(regular waves)

P = 0.0% (impermeable)

P= 11.0%

P = 20.0 %

P = 26.5 %

P = 40.5 %

calc. by GODA

0.5 0

pressure head p/pg [ m]

1 0.5 0 -0.5

pressure head p

res

/pg [ m]

Figure 6: Simultaneous Pressure Distribution on Front and Back Side (a) and

Resulting Pressure Distribution (b).

Generally, all measurements show a similar profile compared to the GODA

distribution, but the influence of the wall porosity is obvious. At the structure front

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998 2047

face higher pressures pj are observed for low structure porosities (P=ll%), whereas

on the rear side of the structure the higher pressures occur for large values of struc-

ture porosity (P=40.5%). Due to the reduction of pressure at the structure face and the

increase of pressure at the rear side of the structure the resulting pressure values are

even more reduced when compared to the calculated pressures for an impermeable

wall (Fig. 6, right). Hence, in the case of a permeable wall the resulting pressure

values pj

res

and p

2

res

are the governing pressures for the calculation of the total

loading of the structure. The resulting pressure values are calculated as described

above (see also Fig. 4) and used for further analysis. In addition it is apparent from

Fig. 6 that the wave run-up at the structure is overestimated by Eq. (1). In the follow-

ing the aforementioned characteristic values will be discussed in terms of the porosity

of the wall.

3.1 Maximum Surface Elevation at Structure Front T|

The linear relationship between run-up height and wave height (Eq. (1)) is not

appropriate for the description of the physical processes at the structure face. In fact,

ratios T| /Hj measured in the Large Wave Flume varied between 0.56 and 1.32 for

P=40.5% to P=0.0%, respectively. The maximum wave run-up at the structure front

(r| ) is governed by the influence of shallow water depth (function of d/L) and the

reflection properties of the structure which is directly related to the reflection coeffi-

cient C

r

and the structure porosity P. The influence of the structure porosity P is

considered by the reduction parameter . The surface elevation at the structure face

can be determined as:

rf =V

e

tanhfijl H, (5)

where the reduction parameter 4*

e

is defined as a function of the wall porosity P:

e

= (l-0.5-v/P~) <

6

)

The correlation between measured and calculated T| -values is relatively good,

although the wave run-up at the structure is slightly overestimated for small waves

but underestimated for large waves (Fig. 7). This nonlinear process in terms of the

wave height and the influence of the reduction parameter

x

e

will be discussed more

thoroughly under Section 3.2.2.

3.2 Pressure Distrib ution at Structure

In Fig. 8 all measured resultant pressure values pj

res

(at SWL) under different

wave conditions (regular waves) are shown in comparison with results using the GO-

DA formula for impermeable walls. The influence of the structure porosity is signifi-

cant, resulting in twice the pj

res

-values for the porous wall with a porosity P=l 1% as

2048 COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998

6

nomi

T\H

nal wave parameters

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 |ml

^-''

-"

2-

4.5 s

60s

8.0 s

12.0 s

12 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 .

15 16 17

ii

, ''

'

14

3

10 , ''

K

D

P=ll% 1

P=20% 1

'

J

9 1

P=40.5% |

IS

3 J& jP

h8

Tl calc - ^

e

(2-tanh(47td/L))Hi

16^,

0-

., ''

'''

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Vcatc M

Figure 7: Measured and Calculated Maximum Surface Elevations T| (Eq.(5))

at the Front Face of the Structure.

compared to a wall with porosity P=40.5%. The GODA formula overestimates the

measured pressure values, mainly due to the influence of structure porosity.

It is also seen from Fig. 8 that the results for the impermeable wall tested in the

GWK are not well predicted by the GODA formula. The measured pressures at SWL

are underestimated, particularly for the longer waves (i.e. no. 11 - 17).

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

p

t

[ kN/m

2

] calculated by GODA's formula (impermeable)

Figure 8: Comparison of Measured Pressure pj

res

at SWL for Different Structure

Porosities and Calculated Pressure p

(

for Impermeable Walls.

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998 2049

Applying a linear correction factor which accounts for the structure porosity of the

permeable wall did not show satisfactory results. Smaller pressures P[

res

are

described accurately with this linear correction method while higher pressures are un-

derestimated.

Hence, a correction procedure accounting for the load reduction due to porosity

for vertical breakwaters in the GODA method has to consider nonlinear effects due

to shallow water conditions and large wave heights. Consequently, the extension of

the existing formulae has to be performed in two successive steps:

1. Modification of the GODA formula (Eqs. (2) and (3)) to predict the measured

pressures in the reference case (impermeable wall).

2. Introduction of reduction factors considering the porosity of the structure.

3.2.1 Modification of the a

x

-Value in the GODA Formula for the Impermeab le

Case

The normalised pressure pj at still water level in the simplified GODA formula

(Eq. (2)) is controlled by 0C] which accounts for the maximum surface elevation at the

structure

Pi

p-g-H

0.6 + 0.5-

(47t d/L)

sinh(4Ttd/L)

(7)

Plotting (X j as calculated by Eq.(7) over the relative water depth d/L, it becomes

apparent that Eq.(7) does not represent the measured normalized pressures (Fig. 9).

shallow

-T-

intermediate

-^- deep -f

0.4

0.2

0

3L

a, * = 0.6+ 0.9

47td/L

sinh(4itd/L)

a, GODA prediction

modified GODA value a, *

measured a, (impermeable)

nominal wave parameters

T\H 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 [ m]

4.5 s 1 2 3 4 5

6.0 s 6 7 8 9 10

8.0 s 11 12 13 14

12.0 s 15 16 17

0.01 0.02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.2

relative water depth d/L H

Figure 9: Normalized Pressure at SWL vs. the Relative Water Depth d/L.

2050

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998

Increasing the second coefficient for calculating (X ] from 0.5 to 0.9 allows a much

better prediction of the data measured at the impermeable wall. This result seems to

be acceptable as a first attempt to consider the influence of shallow water depth (tests

performed in the region of shallow water to intermediate water depth, 0.04< d/L < 0.5,

see Fig. 9). This modification has to be considered for the calculation of the resultant

pressure at the structure toe p

2res

which is described in Section 3.2.3.

3.2.2 Reduction Factors for Resultant Pressure at Still Water L evel (SWL )

Moreover, besides modifying the GODA formula in terms of prediction of maxi-

mum pressures at impermeable structures the next step is to consider the force

reduction due to the structure porosity. The reduction factors *F_ is introduced which

describes the influence of the surface elevation at the rear side of the structure. The

whole set of extended formulae regarding to maximum resultant pressure at SWL

(Pj

res

) are given as follows:

Pl, rcs = P g

H

"

(8)

with

H*=a* -4W

H

i

(9)

The resultant pressure head Pj

res

is controlled by the pressure gradient at the structure

which is affected by the following factors

the modified a, -value in the GODA formula

(47td/L) Y

a, = 0.6 + 0.9

sinh(47td/L)

(10)

reduction of wave run-up due to structure porosity Q

e

, Eq. (6))

reduction of resulting pressure due to surface elevation at the back side of the

structure

*P-

-#)'

with a =

1 d

" 6H?

(H)

The coefficient *F

e

(Eq. (6)) is dependent on the structural porosity and describes the

influence of the permeability on the wave run-up at the structure face. *F estimates

the decrease in resulting pressure due to surface elevation at the back side of the

structure (see also Fig. 6). *P is strongly influenced by the transmission of wave

energy through the structure gaps which depends on the flow resistance induced by

the velocity in the apertures. The schematic flow pattern is illustrated in Fig. 10. High

waves and thus large horizontal velocity components increase the flow resistance due

to large velocities in the structure gaps. Hence, for large wave heights the transmis-

sion of wave energy through the structure openings is much more limited compared

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998 2051

to small wave heights. The parameter 4* describes therefore a kind of " dynamic

porosity" of the structure. The expected influence of the wave period on wave

transmission and flow resistance could not confirmed by the data.

large velocities

in gap

high flow

resistance

Figure 10: Flow Resistance for Small- (left) and Large Wave Heigths (right),

Induced by the Velocity Gradients in the Structure Gaps.

In Fig. 11 the product of the two coefficients 4*

e

and 4* is shown as a function

of the wave height Hj for various structure porosities. For an impermeable wall no

reduction of pressure values results from the equations given (4*

e

- 4* = 1). In this

case only the modification of the a

{

-value should be considered for the prediction of

the maximum resulting pressures at still water level. The reduction factors decrease

significantly with increasing structure porosity which is even more relevant for

smaller wave heights FL.

3.2.3 Reduction Factors for the Resultant Pressure at the Structure Toe

Compared to impermeable walls, the pressure reduction at the structure toe is

larger for permeable structures. This is due to the almost constant pressure over the

water depth on the rear side of the structure (see Fig. 6). The main influencing

parameter is the " dynamic porosity" (4* ) which is therefore included in the depth

dependent term of the GODA formula (see Eq.(4)). This will decrease the pressure

p

2

res

at the structure toe. Additionally, a further reduction factor (85%) was necessary

to fit the measured data (Eq.(12)). The following relation for p

2res

was found:

2052 COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998

X"

< D 0.4

P=0.0%CP

e

v

P

p

=1.0)

y, = (1-0.5-A/P)

% = (l-Vp)

a

a = V(d/6Hi)

0.5 1 1.5

wave height H

{

[ m]

Figure 11: Total Reduction Coefficients F

e

and *P

versus Incident Wave Height.

P2, res= -

85

cosh

2nd

L

Pi, ,

(12)

Taking into account the modified < X j value and the reduction coefficients *P

e

and

4* the comparison of measured and calculated characteristic resulting pressure values

Pj

res

and P2

res

is shown in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13, respectively.

The results confirm the proposed formulae for the prediction of characteristic pres-

sure values at permeable walls for maximum horizontal forces under wave crests.

3.3 Relation b etween Wave Elevation and Pressure Distrib ution at Permeab le

Walls

For the impermeable wall the wave elevation at the structure front r| should result

in the same value as the wave height H used for the calculation of resultant pres-

sures. This is more or less verified by the data (Fig. 14, P=0%). For permeable

vertical walls the ratio H /r\ is influenced by the surface elevation at the rear side of

the structure and can be described by a factor (1-P ).

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998 2053

25

nominal wave parameters

T\H 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 [ m]

4.5 s 1 2 3 4 5

6.0 s 6 7 8 9 10

8.0 s 11 12 13 14 -

12.0 s 15 16 17 - -

Figure

10 15 20

p

lres

[ kN/m

2

] (modified GODA)

12: Measured and Calculated Resultant Pressures p

t

res

at SWL Considering

the Nonlinear Influence of the Structure Porosity.

p

2res

[ kN/m

2

] (modified GODA)

gure 13: Measured and Calculated Resultant Pressures p

2res

at Structure Toe

Considering the Nonlinear Influence of the Structure Porosity.

2054 COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998

rI 1-5

nominal wave parameters

T\H 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 [ m]

4.5 s 1 2 3 4 5

60s 6 7 8 9 10

8.0 s 11 12 13 14 -

2.0 s 15 16 17

P=0%

p=ll%

El P=20%

S P=26.5%

a P=40.5

0.6 0.3

Porosity P [ -]

Figure 14: Ratio of Calculated Parameters for the Pressure Head at SWL (H )

and Wave Elevation (r\ ) as a Function of Structure Porosity.

The elevation of the nonlinear wave crest is described for the wave run-up by

Eq. (5) and for the pressure distribution by Eq. (10). This should be done in a more

consistent way by one equation. As a first attempt the resultant pressures on per-

meable walls should be calculated by the modified formulae (Eq. (6) -(12)). The elev-

ation above still water level T| estimated by Eq. (5) can be used as the upper limit of

pressure integration for the calculation of horizontal forces.

It will be the objective of further studies to relate the resultant pressures directly

to the nonlinear wave elevation at the structure front.

4. Conclusions and Future Work

For the design of permeable structures reliable information on wave loads and

pressure distribution is needed. The influence of the incident wave height H

;

,

described by the " dynamic porosity" has to be considered for the analysis of wave

damping processes at the porous wall. The resultant pressure distribution at vertical

wave screens under non breaking and slightly breaking waves is dominantly governed

by:

the non-linear wave profile (section 3.2.1)

reduction of wave run-up due to " structural porosity" (section 3.2.2)

reduction of resulting pressure due to " dynamic porosity" (section 3.2.2)

COASTAL ENGINEERING 1998 2055

The nonlinear extension of the GODA formulae for calculating the resultant pressure

distribution at permeable vertical walls as proposed in this paper gives accurate

results for wall porosities between 0% and 40.5%, as compared to data obtained from

hydraulic model tests in the Large Wave Flume (GWK) of the Coastal Research

Centre, Germany.

The future work will resolve the following main objectives:

Pressure distribution under wave troughs

Wave spectra (random conditions at front and rear side of the structure!)

Chamber systems (combinations of different permeable walls followed by an

impermeable wall).

5. Acknowledgements

This study has been supported by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science,

Research and Technology (BMBF), Bonn, Germany, within the joint project

" Optimisation of Vertical Wave Absorbers for Coastal Protection and Wave Damping

in Harbours and Waterways" , jointly performed by the Technical Universities of

Berlin and Braunschweig.

6. References

GODA, Y. (1985) Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. University of

Tokyo Press.

- IPR for Gas CondensatesUploaded byyoleidacr
- class4Uploaded bysneak1887718
- j1F3x2kGznyVh1kVTnUploaded byTara Edwards
- 04 Hydraulic ConductivityUploaded byAndrea Louisse Corbillon
- Aupp-Air Permeability TesterUploaded byBagus Priyo Sundhoro
- Permeabilidade de Leitos 1.pdfUploaded byMÔNICA SUEDE S. SILVA
- Reservoir RockUploaded byRotich Enock
- SCA2011-53Uploaded byFalza Izza Wihdany
- (42-FO)-PETSOC-93!09!07-Significance of Foamy-oil Behaviour in Primary Production of Heavy Oil(Maini, Sarma and George, 1993)Uploaded byAlejandra Arbelaez Londoño
- SC RE Chap 7-Props of Rocks 1Uploaded byweldsv
- Inflow Prediction for Openhole Gp&FpUploaded byRamanamurthy Palli
- 027Uploaded byalizareiforoush
- Gas HydratesUploaded byAditya Chaube
- 1997-Effect of a Percolation Threshold in the Kozeny-Carman RelationUploaded bydownbuliao
- 0deec51506e6bc72ad000000Uploaded bySeif Eddine
- 2- Penilaian Formasi (Reservoir Aspects)Uploaded byRizky
- Rock properties.pdfUploaded bycudumbasseri
- SPE-39437-MSUploaded byAndrés Bojacá Matiz
- Carbonate Without Frac WtaUploaded byYuhanis Fatihah Zainudain
- Full Text 01Uploaded byKonul Alizada
- L6 SPE-1305-PA Chatas A.T. Unsteady Spherical Flow in Petroleum Reservoirs.pdfUploaded bySolenti D'nou
- Fundamentos de Interpretacion de RegistrosUploaded byJoseline Torres
- sakhaeepour2011Uploaded byNilesh Singhal
- chenevert1993.pdfUploaded byFurqan Mahmud
- Porosity and Permeability Suez UniversityUploaded byyimyalejandro
- Arithmetic Relaxation Time of Induced Polarization Fractal Dimension for Characterizing Shajara Reservoirs of the Shajara FormationUploaded byProfessor Khalid Elyas Mohamed Elameen Alkhidir
- 2 fundamentals of quantitative log interpretation.pdfUploaded bylolobs
- Phetrofigisg Pages 113 140Uploaded byUncabres
- MICP.pdfUploaded byAngela risma
- 945065Uploaded byRicardo Monty Z

- 100-40-40 RuleUploaded bypar3852
- NSCP 2010(2)Uploaded byRalph Rodrigo
- blumUploaded byyanu13
- Anchor ExampleUploaded byclearcasting
- BS 6399-Part1-1996 Loading for BuildingsUploaded byJulia
- 118812445-AS-1170-1-2002Uploaded by최문섭
- 45555555-BS-6399-Part1-1996-Loading-for-Buildings11Uploaded byyanu13
- 333333information and Pool Etabs Manuals English E-tn-sfd-bs5950-2000-004Uploaded byyanu13
- bolt design for steel connections as per AISCUploaded byJayachandra Pelluru
- Short 27Uploaded byKavish Sobron
- 1212121Procedure of Seismic Design According to Saudi Building Code 301 PDF (1)Uploaded byyanu13
- AIS-59Uploaded byhisham1958
- AISC - Buckling DesignUploaded bymelvin_leong
- 123456789Final CW Design AnalysisUploaded byyanu13
- concrete design Example ProblemUploaded byatherton625
- Insight03-Chapter07-AutomationOfStandardCurtainwallCalculations111Uploaded byyanu13
- 205388413-ANCHORBOLT-318-08-1Uploaded byyanu13
- Angleflexseat.xls (Revision 1.2)Uploaded byyanu13
- BASEPLT9Uploaded byyanu13
- 11_SLChan facade2006bUploaded byPisut Leelalumlert
- How to Design Concrete Structures Using Eurocode 2Uploaded byAdil Javed Chaudhary
- Designers guide to EC3Uploaded byajra_bg
- Wood Bolt ConnectionUploaded byyanu13
- Wood BeamUploaded byyanu13
- coastal engineeringUploaded byyanu13

- A6211-DatasheetUploaded byHutanu Gabriel
- ALE Formulation for Fluid–Structure Interaction ProblemsUploaded bymahe32mahe
- LEXICAL ANALYSIS TUTES.pdfUploaded byvishaligarg
- The Best ETF of Our Time (AKA How to Become a Billionaire Without Really TryUploaded byJason Wang
- ACTL2003 Summary NotesUploaded byBob
- Seismic Load ComputationUploaded byRamon Mamon
- 07- Regresi NonlinearUploaded bySuseno Bayu Setyo Adi
- Preacher&10msemformediationUploaded byEduardo Farias
- Chapter 4Uploaded bygjsporque
- Hybrid Quick Sort + Insertion Sort_ Runtime ComparisonUploaded byAnirban Ray
- Revision of PhasorsUploaded byleo232
- Bayesian Networks With RUploaded byMubanga
- ASCE710WUploaded byArnel Dodong
- 42986 Conduction 1Uploaded byJasdeep Singh
- Ile Rpg Full Training MaterialUploaded byapi-3851615
- 2015_Globecom_Drone Small Cells in the Clouds Design, Deployment and Performance AnalysisUploaded byZeeshan Shafiq
- alternative to practical.pdfUploaded bySara Emad
- Quantum Gravity, Generalized Theory of Gravitation, And Super String Theory-Based Unification - Mintz,PerlmutterUploaded byGopal Kumar
- Pso Algotith Ga BPUploaded byAmir Hossein Yazdavar
- HGUploaded byAuricswim
- Cold PlanerUploaded byEduardo Garcia
- Motion in A Straight Line .pdfUploaded bysujit21in4376
- LaserWORKS v8 Manual.pdfUploaded bylimguoping
- ArimaUploaded bySofia Lively
- 19_Machine_data_description.pdfUploaded byUrbanslo1
- Simulation of Multiconductor Transmission Line Circuits Combining 1d and 2d Laplace TransformationsUploaded byvitinrj
- Analysis of Indus basin snow coverUploaded byKatie Case
- GMAT Sample Sat ques.docUploaded bySaima Abedin
- The Etheric Formative ForcesUploaded byChiranth Chand
- Lecture_4.pdfUploaded byDarren Ignatius Lee

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.