454 views

Uploaded by magdyamdb

Concrete Cores-lift walls design

- Bonded versus unbonded strip fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators: FEA
- LIFT CORE
- optimum location of shear wall in tall buildings
- Wall Calculation Example EC2
- Mechanics of Materials Solutions CH05
- MET 302 (Mechanics of Materials) Chapter 2
- Shear Wall
- Lifts. Escalators, Building...
- Analysis and Design of Shear Wall
- DESIGN,LOADING & STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
- Shear Wall Design Example
- Water Supply Hand Book
- Examples Design Reinforced Concrete Buildings Bs8110 PDF
- Shear wall design per ACI-318 05
- A First Course in Continuum Mechanics, Y.C. Fung
- Finite Element Analysis of Skew Curved Rc Box Girder Bridge
- Computer Simulation of Pipe-bending Processes With Small Bending Radius Using Local Induction Heating
- Strength of Materials
- Torsion
- rp_f112_tcm4-184069

You are on page 1of 10

Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland

SUMMARY:

Reinforced concrete core walls with open sections are commonly used in practice as a lateral load resisting

system for multi-storey buildings. This type of walls has mainly been modelled in the past using simplified

models such as plastic hinge models or equivalent frame models. Such models are well suited for addressing the

global flexural behaviour of core walls and are commonly used for design purposes. However, shear behaviour

or transfer of stresses between the web and the flanges, for example, are either not captured correctly with such

models or they are not even addressed. These issues are particularly important when assessing the core wall

behaviour under diagonal loading. In order to estimate correctly the above mentioned quantities, a 3D multilayered shell element model for U-shaped walls is set-up. The local as well as the global behaviour is examined

and the behaviour of the wall under diagonal loading is investigated.

Keywords: U-shaped Wall, Shell Model, Diagonal Loading Direction, Out-of-plane Bending

1. INTRODUCTION

Many reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are designed to resist the lateral seismic loads by means of

RC core walls. Such walls commonly accommodate staircases or elevator shafts and provide an

important part of the lateral load resisting capacity of the building. Common types of RC core walls

are the open section core walls, such as U-shaped walls. Their behaviour is complex and relatively

unknown as compared to rectangular walls, although they are widely used in practice. Experimental

data for such walls is relatively scarce and recent (Reynouard and Fardis, Eds. 2001; Beyer et al.,

2008a). Hence rules in design codes were mainly based on experimental results of rectangular walls.

However rules for rectangular walls cannot be directly extrapolated to core walls as the behaviour of

core walls is considerably more complex than the behaviour of rectangular walls, e.g. with respect to

the shear stress distribution between flanges and web. A better understanding of the seismic behaviour

of RC core walls is therefore required. A few numerical studies of the inelastic behaviour for U-shaped

walls have been performed (Ile and Reynouard, 2005; Mazars et al., 2006; Beyer et al., 2008b; Beyer

et al., 2008c) with emphasis on the global response of the wall.

This paper investigates the global as well as the local behaviour of U-shaped walls under complex bidirectional lateral loading. To achieve this, a detailed numerical model is set-up and results are

compared to experimental data. The paper gives first a brief overview of the experimental test that is

used as reference for the modelling. Next, the set-up of the numerical model is described and the

experimental and numerical results are compared in terms of global and local behaviour. Finally, the

load transfer of the forces from the wall to the foundation is investigated when the wall is loaded in the

diagonal direction.

2. REFERENCE TEST

Two half scale U-shaped walls have been tested under bi-directional quasi-static cyclic loading at ETH

Zurich (Beyer et al., 2008a). The two test units differed with regard to their wall thickness: the first

test unit (TUA) had a wall thickness of 150 mm while the second one (TUB) had a wall thickness of

100 mm. The reference test used herein is TUA. The cross-section and elevation details for the TUA,

the labelling of different wall sections and the displacement loading history applied at the top of the

wall are shown in Fig. 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.

(c)

(c)

Figure 2.1. (a) Labelling of different wall sections and lines of action of the actuators, (b) bi-directional

displacement loading history and (c) wall instrumentation (taken from Beyer et al. [2008a]). All dimensions are

in mm.

(b)

650

75

150

150

150

25

25

300 mm thick)

(c)

wall

300

TUA

1050

150

100 100

tie 6 s = 50

tie 6 s = 50

wall

125

shear reinforcement

6 s = 125

7 12

300

footing

(without blocks)

125

ties 6 s = 50

86

25

150

150

13

00

EW actuator = 3350 mm

6 shear keys

(100 60 mm, 40 mm deep)

150

shear reinforcement

6 s = 125

NS actuators = 2950 mm

4 12

150

100

12 6

100

840

(a)

footing

(without

blocks)

105

Figure 2.2. TUA geometry: (a) Cross-section, (b) shear keys and (c) elevation (taken from Beyer et al. [2008a]).

All dimensions are in mm.

The test units were subjected to a bi-directional loading history according to the loading pattern shown

in Fig. 2.1b:

reverse cycle parallel to the web (Position A and B, also termed EW cycle) ,

reverse cycle parallel to the flanges (Position C flange ends in compression and Position D

web in compression, also termed the NS cycle),

reverse cycle (Position E one flange end in compression and Position F one corner in

compression, also termed the diagonal cycle)

sweep cycle : O A G D C H B O

The pattern was repeated at displacement ductility levels of = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 until failure. The

cycles at = 1 were preceded by four force-controlled cycles at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the

predicted first yield lateral force.

During the entire test, the axial force was maintained constant and the rotation of the top of the wall

(the wall collar) was restrained by imposing equal displacements at the level of the NS-W and the NSE actuators (Fig. 2.1a). To investigate the evolution of the rotational stiffness, some small twists were

applied at Positions O, A, B, C and D during cycles at ductilities = 1 and 4; the rotational stiffness

is, however, not investigated within the scope of this paper. For further details on the experimental

data the reader is referred to Beyer et al. [2008a].

The numerical analyses have been performed using the nonlinear finite element analysis software

VecTor4 developed at the University of Toronto (Wong and Vecchio, 2002). This software is

dedicated to the analysis of RC plates and shell structures. A smeared rotating crack formulation is

employed for the reinforced concrete which is based on the Modified Compression Field Theory

(Vecchio & Collins, 1986) and on the Disturbed Stress Field Theory (Vecchio, 2000).

TUA was modelled using multi-layered rectangular shell elements which account for the out-of-plane

shear response (Polak and Vecchio, 1993). A number of eight concrete layers of equal thickness were

used to model the thickness of the wall. The foundation was not modelled but instead all the degrees of

freedom of the nodes at the wall base were restrained. The collar of the wall was modelled with an

offset from the mid-surface of the wall so that the loading would be applied at the correct position. The

resulting mesh is shown in Fig. 3.1.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.1. Geometry of the shell element model: (a) 3D mid-surface of the mesh and points of load application

and (b) cross-section mesh. All dimensions are in mm unless otherwise specified in the figure.

The material properties determined from material tests on reinforcement bars and concrete cylinders

were used as input parameters for the numerical model. Rupture of the reinforcement bars was,

however, not accounted for in the model. The longitudinal and the transversal reinforcements were

both modelled as smeared. In addition, for the confined concrete areas of the wall, out-of-plane

reinforcement was assigned since the concrete model can account for the tri-axial behaviour of

concrete. Perfect bond was assumed between the concrete and the reinforcement. The resulting

concrete and reinforcement stress-strain relationships are plotted in Fig. 3.2.

The loading was applied by imposing displacements at the positions of the actuators from the

experimental test as shown in Fig. 3.1a and Fig. 2.1a. The NS-E and NS-W displacements were kept

equal throughout all loading steps and patterns, restraining the rotation at the top of the wall.

(a)

80

(b)

D12

D6

600

70

60

50

Stress [N/mm2]

Stress [N/mm2]

400

200

0

200

40

30

20

10

400

Concrete

0

Reinforcement

600

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.02

Strain []

0.04

0.06

10

0

0.08

0.5

1.5

Strain []

2.5

3

3

x 10

Figure 3.2. Material models: (a) reinforcement model and (b) concrete model: unconfined concrete in cyclic

compression.

4.1. Global behaviour: force-displacement hysteresis

The global behaviour of the wall is studied in terms of force-displacement hysteresis plotted

individually for each loading direction: the EW direction (Positions A and B), the NS direction

(Positions C and D) and the diagonal direction (Positions E and F). Results from pushover and cyclic

analyses are compared to the experimental results (Fig. 4.1). Separate cyclic analyses were performed

along these three directions; a full displacement load history was not performed so far because of large

computational expense and convergence problems.

(a)

500

300

100

0

100

300

Pos.A

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

Top displacement EW [mm]

(c)

2000

1500

60

100

0

100

200

400

80

100

Pos.D

200

300

EW cycles

400

500

100

Experimental

Numerical cyclic

Numerical pushover

300

Pos.B

200

200

500

400

(b)

Experimental

Numerical cyclic

Numerical pushover

400

NS cycles

Pos.C

500

100

80

60

Experimental

Numerical cyclic

Numerical pushover

40

20

0

20

40

Top displacement NS [mm]

60

80

100

120

Pos.F

1000

500

0

500

1000

Diag. Cycles

1500

2000

80

Pos.E

60

40

20

0

20

40

SRSS displacement [mm]

60

80

100

Figure 4.1. Comparison of the results obtained from VecTor4 with the experimental results: Force-displacement

hystereses for cycles in the EW and the NS directions (a-b). Moment-displacement hystereses for the diagonal

direction (c). Pushover analyses results are also included (a-c).

There is a good match of the numerical results with the experimental ones in terms of force capacity

and hysteresis shape for the loading directions EW (parallel to the web) and NS (parallel to the

flanges). For the diagonal direction, the pushover analysis as well as the cyclic analysis overestimates

by approximately 25% the experimental values of the moment capacity. It was, however, argued

(Beyer et al., 2008b) that the moment capacities reached during the experiments for the diagonal

direction were not the ultimate moment capacities of the wall for that direction. Within the cycles of

one ductility level, the wall was loaded in diagonal direction after it had been loaded in the two

principal directions (EW and NS direction). Hence, when the wall was loaded in the diagonal

direction, the stiffness was reduced and as a result the full moment capacity was not reached at

Positions E and F. To investigate whether the shell element model is able to capture the behaviour in

the diagonal direction, it is therefore necessary to perform an analysis with the full displacement

loading history.

4.2. Local behaviour

The local behaviour of the wall was investigated in terms of the vertical strain profile at Position E and

in terms of curvature profiles at Positions A, B, C, D, E and F at ductility = 3.0.

(a)

200 mm

200 mm

200 mm

50 mm

(b)

West flange

Web

East flange

170 mm

170 mm

170 mm

Scale:10mm/m

Figure 4.2. Comparison of the results obtained from VecTor4 with the experimental results at Position E during

the = 3.0 cycles (at Position E the west flange end is in compression): (a) vertical strain profile of the wall

experimentally determined from Demec measurements and (b) vertical strain profile of the wall numerically

determined.

The vertical strain profile computed from Demec measurements (Fig. 4.2a) is compared to the

numerically determined vertical strain profile (Fig. 4.2b). The Demec measurements were taken on the

inside faces of the wall, recording the vertical strain values over equal vertical distances of 200 mm

and starting 50 mm above the base as it is shown in Fig. 4.2a. The numerical vertical strain values

were computed as average vertical strains of the elements in the model mesh shown in Fig. 3.1a. All

elements in the mesh had a height of 170 mm, as shown in Fig. 4.2b and the average vertical strains

were computed from the vertical displacements of the four corner nodes of each rectangular element.

Considering the vertical strain values shown in Fig. 4.2 and the heights over which they have been

computed the numerical values match in general and the experimental values of the vertical strains

rather well. The vertical strains computed from the numerical model tend to concentrate stronger

towards the base while the experimental ones are more distributed over the height of the wall. Note,

however, that the experimental strains computed from the base crack opening are not included in Fig.

4.2a. At the end of the west flange, it can be, however, noticed that the experimental strains indicate

vertical tensile strains for the flange end which is compression, whereas the numerical strains are

compressive strains. This can be explained by looking at the deformed shape of the wall at Position E

at the peak of the = 3.0 cycle (Fig. 5.3). Near the base of the wall (Fig. 5.3d) the west flange

presents horizontal out-of-plane bending, with the inside part of the flange end in tension while the

outside part is in compression. The Demec measurements were taken on the inside face of the wall,

hence the tensile vertical strains. The numerical strain values are computed from the vertical

displacements of the nodes in the mid-surface of the wall, which explains the compressive strains. The

overall vertical strain profile from numerical results is found therefore to be consistent with the

experimental one.

4.2.2. Curvature profile

The experimentally determined curvatures, from LVDT measurements, are plotted against the

numerically determined curvatures in Fig. 4.3. Experimental values of the curvatures were determined

from the LVDT chains along the four outside edges of the wall (Fig. 2.1c). The numerical values of the

curvatures were determined from the vertical displacements of the nodes in the mesh at the same four

edges of the wall where the LVDT chains were positioned.

Numerically determined curvatures for the EW direction (Position A and B) fit the experimental

curvature values with some discrepancies: the predicted curvature profile indicates the presence of

important shear cracks in the web, which were not noticed during the experiments. For Positions D and

F the results match fairly well, while for Positions C and E the predicted curvatures underestimate the

experimental values of the curvatures at heights of about 0.2 of the wall height.

Beyer et al. (2008a) argued that the diagonal loading direction is the most complex one in terms of

load transfer mechanism. Therefore in order to gain a better understanding of the behaviour of the wall

under diagonal loading, the transfer of forces from the wall to the foundation, as well as the deformed

shape of the wall, was investigated. The following section presents these results obtained with the

numerical model described in Section 3, with emphasis on Position E, when the west flange end is in

compression.

5.1. Transfer of forces from wall to foundation

The distribution of reaction forces at the base of the wall, in Position E at a displacement ductility of

= 3, is presented in Fig. 5.1. As expected, the shear forces are transferred from wall to foundation

mainly within the compressed zones. The distribution of the vertical reaction forces indicates that the

compressed zones develop at the end of the west flange, as expected, but also at the corner of the west

flange and the web. The assumption of plane sections remaining plane is therefore no longer valid.

Figure 4.3. Comparison of the results obtained from VecTor4 with the experimental results during the = 3.0

cycles at Positions A, B, C, D, E and F: curvatures numerically determined from the nodal displacements of the

mesh elements (VT4) compared with curvatures experimentally determined from LVDT measurements.

Table 5.1 summarises the distribution, between different wall sections, of the total applied shear force

in the X and in the Y direction, transferred from the wall to the foundation. For the X direction, the

reactions at the corner nodes between the flanges and the web are counted towards the web, while for

Y direction, the same corner nodes are counted towards the flanges.

+

+

+

Y

X

Nodal reaction forces in the X direction

X

Nodal reaction forces in the Y direction

+ = tension force

= compression force

Nodal vertical reaction forces

Figure 5.1. Numerically determined qualitative distribution of reaction forces at the base of the wall at Position

E at the peak of the = 3 cycle (at Position E the west flange end is in compression).

Table 5.1. Numerically determined distribution of reaction forces at the base between the web and flanges at

Position E at the peak of the = 3 cycle (at Position E the west flange end is in compression).

Reaction component (Position E)

West flange

Web

East flange

Shear force in the X direction

15%

83%

2%

Shear force in the Y direction

124%

~0%

-24%

As expected, the shear force in the X direction is mainly transferred through the web (83% of the

applied shear force in the X direction). The west flange takes approximately 15% of the shear force in

the X direction as an out-of-plane shear force, mainly through the compressed zones next to the corner

and at the free end of the west flange.

The west flange transfers to the foundation approximately 124% of the total shear force applied in Y

direction while the reaction forces in the east flange are of the opposite sign and account for 24% of

the applied shear force. The large shear force in the Y direction that is transferred by the west flange to

the foundation is the result of two effects: 1) the east flange is under tension and therefore has limited

in-plane shear carrying capacity and 2) since the rotation at the top of the wall is restrained, a torsional

moment in the wall appears, which produces additional in-plane shear forces in the wall sections.

+

+

+

Y

X

Nodal reaction forces in the X direction

X

Nodal reaction forces in the Y direction

+ = tension force

= compression force

Nodal vertical reaction forces

Figure 5.2. Numerically determined qualitative distribution of reaction forces at the base of the wall at Position

F at the peak of the = 3 cycle (at Position F the corner of the web and of the east flange is in compression).

Table 5.2. Numerically determined distribution of reaction forces at the base between the web and flanges at

Position F at the peak of the = 3 cycle (at Position F the corner of the web and of the east flange is in

compression).

Reaction component (Position F)

West flange

Web

East flange

Shear force in the X direction

-1%

94%

7%

Shear force in the Y direction

16%

21%

63%

For Position F, when the corner between the web and the east flange is in compression, the distribution

of reaction forces is shown in Fig. 5.2 with the amount of shear force transferred by each wall section

to the foundation summarised in Table 5.2. The distribution of reaction forces indicates that the

compressed zone is now limited only to the compressed corner, where most of the shear forces are

transferred from the wall to the foundation. In this case the assumption of the plane sections

remaining plane still holds approximately. As indicated in Table 5.2, almost the entire shear force in

the X direction is transferred through the web, as expected. It is interesting to notice that

approximately 20% of the shear force in the Y direction is transferred to the foundation through the

web as an out-of-plane force. As in the case of loading to Position E, the out-of-plane shear force is

transferred through the part of the wall which is under compression, namely the east corner of the web.

The deformed shape of the wall at Position E at a displacement ductility of = 3 is shown in Fig. 5.3.

The mid-surface of the mesh elements (undeformed and deformed) is plotted three-dimensionally and

at representative cross-sections of the wall over its height: at fractions of 0.06, 0.2 and 1 of the wall

height, termed as cross-section 0.06 (CS0.06), cross-section 0.2 (CS0.2) and cross-section 1 (CS1),

respectively. It can be seen that the web as well as the west flange deform in out-of-plane bending

close to the base of the wall (Fig. 5.3c, d, e).

Again at the base of the west flange, the nodes of the mesh deform in an arched shape (Fig. 5.3b)

suggesting an arch action between the two compressed zones at the corner and the end of the west

flange. At the top of the wall the rotation is restricted (Fig. 5.3f).

Undeformed

Deformed

(a)

(b)

0.5

3

2.5

1.5

[m]

[m]

0.5

0.5

0

0

0.5

1

1.5

1.5

[m]

0.5

0.5

1.5

1.5

[m]

0.5

0.5

0.5

[m]

0.5

Magnification factor-50x

(c)

(d)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.5

East flange

Web

West flange

0.5

[m]

1.5

[m]

[m]

0.5

0

1

[m]

1.5

1.5

Magnification factor50x

(e)

(f)

0.5

0.5

0.5

[m]

[m]

0.5

0.5

1.5

1.5

[m]

0.5

0.5

[m]

0.5

1.5

1.5

[m]

Magnification factor25x

Figure 5.3. Numerically determined deformed shape of the wall at Position E at the peak of the = 3 cycle (at

Position E the west flange end is in compression): (a) 3D deformed shape, (b) 3D deformed shape view from

the top, (c) 3D deformed shape of the element nodes for CS0.06, (d) CS0.06, (e) CS0.2 and (f) CS1. The

displacements were magnified by factors of 50 or 25 as indicated below the subfigures.

The objective of this article was to investigate the diagonal behaviour of RC U-shaped walls under bidirectional lateral loading. For this purpose a shell element model was set-up and used for

investigating the load transfer of forces from the wall to the foundation under diagonal loading.

Predicted global force capacities from separate cyclic analyses along each direction matched fairly

well with the experimental results, except for the diagonal loading direction where the predicted

moment capacity was higher than in the experiments. A full displacement loading history needs to be

applied to check whether the model can accurately predict the experimental values of the moment for

the diagonal loading direction, this being the next step in validation of the shell element model.

Local behaviour in terms of vertical strains was checked for the diagonal direction, at Position E, and

found to be predicted in a satisfactory manner. The curvatures were checked for several loading

directions and some discrepancies were found at Positions A and B (EW cycles). Shear and flexural

deformations should be compared separately to find the source of these differences.

It was also found that under diagonal loading, approximately 15% to 20% of the shear force is

transferred to the foundation as an out-of-plane force either by the flanges (when the flange end is in

compression), or the web (when the corner of the web and of the flange is in compression).

Furthermore, at diagonal loading with one flange end in compression, the assumption of plane

sections remaining plane was found to be no longer valid. Compression zones appeared at the end of

the flange and also at its corner with the web. These zones were responsible for the transfer of the

shear forces from the wall to the foundation. A complex deformed shape with out-of-plane bending in

the web and in the west flange suggest that further efforts need to be directed in understanding the load

path of forces through the wall from the load application points to the foundation for the diagonal

loading direction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank to Prof. F.J. Vecchio for making the VecTor4 software available to us as well as

to T. Hrynyk for all his kind help with the VecTor4 software.

REFERENCES

Beyer, K., Dazio, A. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2008a). Quasi-static tests of two U-shaped reinforced concrete walls.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12:7, 1023-1053.

Beyer, K., Dazio, A. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2008b). Inelastic wide-column models for U-shaped reinforced

concrete walls. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12:S1, 1-33.

Beyer, K., Dazio, A. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2008c). Elastic and inelastic wide-column models for RC nonrectangular walls. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.

Ile, N. and Reynouard, J.M. (2005). Behaviour of U-shaped walls subjected to uniaxial loading and biaxial cyclic

lateral laoding. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9:1, 67-94.

Mazars, J., Kotronis, P., Raguneau, F. and Casaux, G. (2006). Using multifiber beams to account for shear and

torsion applications to concrete structural elements. Computer Methods in Applied Mehcanics and

Engineering 195, 7264-7281.

Polak, M.A. and Vecchio, F.J. (1993). Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shells. Journal of structural

Engineering 119:12, 3439-3462.

Reynouard, J.M. and Fardis, M.N., Editors (2001). Shear wall structures. Thematic report No. 5, Lisbon,

Portugal.

Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. (1986). The modified compression-field theory for reinforced concrete elements

subjected to shear . ACI Journal 83:2, 219-231.

Vecchio, F.J., Lai, D., Whim, W. and Ng, J. (2001). Disturbed stress field model for reinforced concrete:

Validation. Journal of Structural Engineering 127:4, 350-358.

Wong, P. and Vecchio, F.J. (2002). VecTor2 and Formworks Manual. University of Toronto, Department of

Civil Engineering, Canada.

- Bonded versus unbonded strip fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators: FEAUploaded byDaniele Di Luca
- LIFT COREUploaded byIsaac Mureithi Maina
- optimum location of shear wall in tall buildingsUploaded byJason Foster
- Wall Calculation Example EC2Uploaded byKristjan Igasta
- Mechanics of Materials Solutions CH05Uploaded byArishChoy
- MET 302 (Mechanics of Materials) Chapter 2Uploaded byBF3nobel
- Shear WallUploaded byYamaEskandary
- Lifts. Escalators, Building...Uploaded bycarmond1809
- Analysis and Design of Shear WallUploaded bymohammedzeeshan
- DESIGN,LOADING & STRUCTURAL SYSTEMUploaded byLuqman_Haqeem_3054
- Shear Wall Design ExampleUploaded byMahmood Mufti
- Water Supply Hand BookUploaded bysrekha11
- Examples Design Reinforced Concrete Buildings Bs8110 PDFUploaded byDanielle
- Shear wall design per ACI-318 05Uploaded bynsrivasan
- A First Course in Continuum Mechanics, Y.C. FungUploaded byNando93
- Finite Element Analysis of Skew Curved Rc Box Girder BridgeUploaded byTran Tien Dung
- Computer Simulation of Pipe-bending Processes With Small Bending Radius Using Local Induction HeatingUploaded bysatheeshsep24
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byDipesh Patel
- TorsionUploaded byRadha Krishnan R
- rp_f112_tcm4-184069Uploaded byrezamilan
- treatiseonmathem00loveuoftUploaded bylaksh688
- Circular Plate Ribbed 1Uploaded byAscanio Barbosa
- 315A_2Uploaded byBeratErtekin
- 10-1261Uploaded byJose Fernandez
- Deflections of BeamUploaded byIrene Margaretha Lumban Raja
- S11ES-IId-30Uploaded byallanrnmanaloto
- Elasticity EditedUploaded byhariaero1
- ECG Vol 1 - 2002Uploaded byBrhane W Ygzaw
- formulaUploaded byNamNgo
- MOS_R-16 syllabus_0Uploaded byideepuj

- Dr Fixit Waterproofing ReckonerUploaded bySusheel Talreja
- Dr_Fixit_General_Repair_Remedial_Waterproofing_Guide.pdfUploaded byandrealeger755774
- 372Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- IJCTT-V4I4P188Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- EIJCSE3085Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- ENERCALC Biaxial Concrete Solver BasisUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Confined Reinforced Concrete BeamUploaded bymagdyamdb
- PILEGRP (1)Uploaded bybasithal
- Pile Cap Design 26102009Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- LatPilePY_2 SAP EXAMPLE.xlsUploaded bymagdyamdb
- BROMS Horiz Loading on Piles(Cohesionless)-LABKOMPUSATUploaded byDanny Erlangga Supriyadi
- Horiz Loading on Piles CohesiveUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Pilegroup-stiffpilecap VERY GOOD MahfuzUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Old Masonry Buildings H. Meireles; R. Bento Março de 2013Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- Repair and Strengthening of Bridge SubstructuresUploaded byLuis Alberto Riquelme Vidal
- Alcocer Recent Experimental Evidence on the Seismic Performance of Rehabilitation Techniques in Mexico(1)Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- nhess-12-3441-2012Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- Rebuild Volume 6 3 3Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- plandoc_4_3763Uploaded bymagdyamdb
- EQ31 Seismic Behavior of Beam Column Joints-libreUploaded bymagdyamdb
- 1. S123 Sas and Blanksvard 2011-12-10 Clean-libreUploaded bymagdyamdb
- Cylindrical Concrete Tanks Conical BaseUploaded byWilman Barrera Grados
- Lat Short PileUploaded bymagdyamdb

- 10 - Multi Storey BuildingUploaded byhari1008108
- PEHDUploaded byAthmane Harizi
- AWWA Standard C305Uploaded byajay0005
- Provision of Welfare Facilities During Construction Work (English)Uploaded byHealthSafety
- Gear types by KHK Gears p561-592Uploaded byamir_fortunate
- FEMAP-1024Uploaded byericpardo59
- EXP #3.docUploaded byMohammadMu'awyaHijazi
- Engineering Design Manual - Sudbury, Canada.pdfUploaded byPiero Cacciuttolo Opazo
- Accesorios-troqueladoUploaded byJulio Galvan
- Overmold Design GuideUploaded byCuco Martinez
- bsc thesis summaryUploaded byapi-258432865
- BarChip Fibres Replace Steel in Chilean HousingUploaded byPedro Augusto Delgado Nascimento
- Mcop Construction Work v2Uploaded byCSS
- Pièces MRHT25 - BT4000Uploaded bylordofwar
- ENG_DS_ogFOSC400_A.pdfUploaded byJuan Carlos Véliz
- Non Uniform Corrosion of Carbon Cure RC Beam and Conventional RC BeamUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Wi Insp 02 Heat ExchangerUploaded bySamir Chaudhary
- Final Draft Bridge Design Guidline LLMUploaded byHeirwire
- tn-d100-13.pdfUploaded bykrlos
- Crawler Loader 12G 101-1000, 43C01001 UpUploaded bycristiannnnnnnnnn
- Some Aspects of Efficient Contract AdministrationUploaded byVVRAO
- Downloadmela.com ST7006 Design of BridgesUploaded byJakir Hussain Syed
- Staad DetailsUploaded byvdpmr
- Drilling Driving Mechanisms 01Uploaded byFaisal Khokhar
- Waterproof 3Uploaded byRose Samer Rose
- Soil Bioengineering TechniquesUploaded byrajeshsapkota123
- Welding Quality Manual SampleUploaded byDanem Halas
- Use of Stone Dust as an alternative of SandUploaded byMasrur Ahmed
- washer plate.xlsUploaded byНемања Караклајић
- SPP HydrotechUploaded byAnan Sithivanchai