0 Up votes0 Down votes

3 views8 pagespushover analysis

Oct 13, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

pushover analysis

© All Rights Reserved

3 views

pushover analysis

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

You are on page 1of 8

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

ANALYSIS

1

1

PhD Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

3

Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Email: avram@civil.auth.gr

ABSTRACT : In this paper a newly developed simplified procedure for estimating seismic demands which is

called Spectral Pushover Analysis [SPA] is briefly presented and evaluated. First, the theoretical background is

presented, the underlying assumptions and approximations are identified and the successive steps of the method

are outlined. Then, in order to evaluate the seismic demands produced by SPA, a parametric study of planar and

spatial systems is carried out using: (a) the Nonlinear Static Procedure [NSP] as described in EC8 and ATC55

(=FEMA440), (b) the Modal Pushover Analysis [MPA], (c) the SPA and (d) the Nonlinear Response History

Analysis [NLRHA]. A 9-story non-symmetric planar frame as well as a set of single story monosymmetric

buildings with different inertial characteristics and eccentricity have been analyzed for 20 recorded ground

motions using all the above methods. The comparative evaluation of the results shows that, as far as the planar

frame is concerned, the magnitude of errors is similar for all approximate procedures, whereas for the single

story buildings SPA produces results that are closer to the "exact" ones produced by NLRHA.

KEYWORDS : Seismic demands, simplified procedures, nonlinear static procedure, modal pushover analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION

Estimating seismic demands at low performance levels, such as life safety and collapse prevention, requires

explicit consideration of the inelastic behavior of the structure. While nonlinear response history analysis is the

most rigorous procedure to compute seismic demands, it is impractical for routine use. It is now common to

estimate seismic demands in a simplified manner by nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis), which seems

to be the preferred method in structural engineering practice. However, this method has some shortcomings and

limitations as a result of its underlying assumptions [Chopra and Goel (2001)]. In fact, the static pushover

analysis can be reliably applied only to two-dimensional low- and medium-rise buildings that vibrate primarily

in the fundamental mode [Krawinkler and Seneviratna (1998)]. During the last ten years much research work

has been done in order to improve the results produced by the different simplified nonlinear static procedures

suggested by codes [ATC40 (1997), ATC55 (2005), FEMA274 (1997), FEMA356 (2000), EC8 (2002)], as well

as to develop new more accurate ones. Concerning the latter aspect, Chopra and Goel developed the so-called

Modal Pushover Analysis [MPA] [Chopra and Goel (2001)] in order to take into account the higher-mode

contributions. However, the application of this procedure leads in many cases to anomalous capacity curves due

to the fact that the higher modes roof displacements often change their signs. Another simplified nonlinear

procedure, the Spectral Pushover Analysis [SPA], has been developed by Anastasiadis [Anastasiadis (2001)].

SPA consists in a mutatis mutandis "translation" of the classical pushover analysis from the static analysis

domain to the response spectrum analysis domain. Further improved simplified nonlinear procedures have been

proposed by several researchers and their pros and cons have been the subject of many papers. Here, the focus

is on the SPA and its comparative performance in refer to NLRHA, to MPA and to the procedures in ATC55

and EC8.

First, the theoretical background of SPA is presented, the assumptions and approximations are identified and

the successive steps of the method are outlined (paragraph 2). Then, in order to check the practical applicability,

the relative ease of use and the accuracy of the results produced by SPA as well as by the aforementioned code

prescribed nonlinear static procedures, a RC planar frame and a set of single story monosymmetric buildings

with different inertial characteristics and eccentricity are studied (see paragraph 3). The results produced by

SPA are compared with the associated ones produced by NLRHA.

th

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

The basic idea of this procedure consists in the direct "translation" of the classical pushover analysis from the

Static Analysis domain to the Response Spectrum Analysis domain. In this domain "loading" is expressed

through an elastic design or response acceleration spectrum Sa(T,), depending on the natural period T and the

damping ratio . In the context of a pushover analysis, such a "loading" is applied incrementally, as a small

portion of the spectrum. For each spectral increment, the structure under consideration is analyzed using

iteratively the traditional linear response spectrum method. Figure 1 shows the spectrum portions for n

increments, where k (k=1, 2, , n) is the proportional spectrum partition. Obviously, the sum of all k is unity:

n

k =1

(k=1, 2, , n)

(2.1)

S a (T) (m/sec )

n Sa

T1,n

n-1 Sa

T1,n-1

n Sa

n-1 Sa

2 Sa

1 Sa

2 Sa

T1,1

T1,2

1 Sa

T (sec)

By analogy with the classical pushover analysis, the partitioned spectrum is applied incrementally to the

structure, starting from the first spectral increment 1Sa and adding succesively a new spectral increment kSa

(k=2, , n) each time one structural element section(s) yields (formation of plastic hinge(s)). The new spectral

increment is applied to a revised model of the structure which differs from the previous one k-1, as a different

stiffness matrix is used for the structural element(s) with the plastic hinge(s). For each spectral increment kSa,

a linear response spectrum analysis of model k-1 is performed and the peak seismic response is computed and

added to the sum of those from the previous increments. Thus, the total response of the nonlinear system is

estimated by successive contributions of responses of the linear systems k.

2.1. Flowchart of SPA

The SPA procedure consists of a series of step-by-step computations with systematic updates being performed

at the end of each step. The successive steps are presented in Figure 2 in the form of flowchart. The following

notations are used:

k:

Step number of spectral increment with k= 1, 2, , n.

k :

Model of the structure at step k (0 is the initial model).

{Fy}k,i : Available strength at critical cross-section i of model k-1 ({Fy}0,i is the yield strength at critical

cross-section i in the unloaded structure of model 0 and {Fy}1,i is the available strength at critical cross-section

i of model 0 after the action of gravity loads).

{F}i, : Response quantity (bending moment, axial or shear force) at critical cross-section i.

{R} :

Response quantity (force or deformation).

{Fg}i, {Rg} : Gravity load effects in model 0 ({Fg}0,i={Fg}i, {Rg}0={Rg}).

th

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Create the initial (unstressed) model of the structure, 0, and define the initial

yield strengths {Fy}0,i in all critical cross-sections i

Perform a static analysis of the structural model 0 due to gravity loads and

compute {Fg}i, {Rg}

Select a spectrum Sa (response or design) with damping

k=1

Compute the available yield strength:

{Fy}k,i= min({Fy}0,i -{Fg}i {Fs}k-1,i)

Perform a response spectrum analysis of the structural

model k-1 using the entire spectrum Sa and compute

the peak seismic responses {Fs}k,i , {Rs}k

k = k +1

k = min({Fy}k,i /{Fs}k,i )

Compute the peak seismic responses {Fs}k,i , {Rs}k for the spectral

increment (k x Sa) to the model k-1:

{Fs}k,i= k x {Fs}k,i and {Rs}k =k x {Rs}k

Compute the current peak seismic responses:

{Fs}k,i={Fs}k-1,i+{Fs}k,i and {Rs}k={Rs}k-1+{Rs}k

Compute the current total responses under seismic and gravity loads:

{F}k,i={Fs}k,i+{Fg}i and {R}k={Rs}k+{Rg}

Revise the model to account for the yielded cross sections (plastic hinges)

and define the new model k

Check if: (1) k 1. ,

No

(2) u uultimate

Yes

Figure 2 Flowchart of SPA

End

th

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

{Fs}k,i, {Rs}k : Peak seismic responses of model k-1 under the action of the entire spectrum Sa ({Fs}0,i=0,

{Rs}0=0).

{Fs}k,i, {Rs}k : Increase of peak seismic responses under the action of spectral increment kSa on the model

k-1 ({Fs}0,i=0, {Rs}0=0).

{Fs}k,i, {Rs}k : Sum of {Fs}k,i, {Rs}k from step 1 till step k ({Fs}0,i=0, {Rs}0=0).

{F}k,i, {R}k : Current total responses under seismic and gravity loads.

2.2. Significant assumptions of SPA

Initially, the following assumptions are made concerning the inelastic behavior of structural elements: a)

inelastic beam and column members are modeled as elastic elements with plastic hinges forming only at their

ends, b) all plastic hinges are of flexural type, c) the plastic hinges are described by elastic-perfectly plastic

moment-rotation relationships, d) no limit value is assumed for the sections plastic rotations, e) P- effects are

neglected and f) the effect of cyclic earthquake loading on the inelastic response of cross-sections is neglected.

Except the assumptions concerning the inelastic behavior of structural elements, some additional assumptions

are adopted in order to apply SPA. Firstly, the direct addition of the peak responses of the successive structural

models is accepted as valid. Secondly, we make the particular assumption that the peak responses at different

cross sections and joints of model k are concurrent. This is a conservative approximation leading to a

cumulative magnification of responses, because in reality these peak responses are not concurrent. Moreover,

one more assumption concerns the position of the new plastic hinges in columns of the structure. As the

behavior of a beam element is controlled by one parameter -bending moment- a new plastic hinge is formed at

the cross section where {M}k,i becomes equal to yield strength (moment) {M,y}0,i. However, the formation of a

plastic hinge at a column element is more complicated due to the bending moment-axial force interaction and, in

addition, due to the indefinability of algebraic signs for bending moments and axial forces in the modal

combination. Plastic hinge at a column cross section is assumed to be formed only if either the two points defined

by (+M, +N) and (+M, -N) or the two points (-M, +N) and (-M, -N) are outside the bending moment-axial force

interaction surface. A last assumption concerns the question: When must the SPA procedure be terminated? At

first, it seems to be rational to terminate the procedure only if the sum of factors k for all steps becomes equal

to unity. In spite of that, the analyses results of several structural systems produced by SPA have indicated that

the errors are strongly dependent on ground motion intensity. This fact has led to the prescription of an additional

limit concerning the total displacement: u uultimate. However, the choice of uultimate is based inevitably on

engineers judgement (for example, uultimate can be the value of the top-floor displacement determined by a

response spectrum analysis of the initial structural model).

3. APPLICATIONS

A critical and comprehensive evaluation of the methodology is performed by means of analyzing a variety of

structural systems using the proposed SPA as well as the conventional static pushover procedures. The

effectiveness of this procedures to capture the inelastic response of structures is evaluated on the basis of results

produced by nonlinear time-history analysis, which is used here as a reference solution.

3.1. Structural Models, Ground Motions And Methods of Analyses

Several planar frames are analyzed in order to cover a wide range of fundamental periods. In this paper, an

non-symmetric, 3-bay, 9-story, RC frame with constant story height is selected to be presented (Fig 3a). The

seismic excitation is represented by the response spectrums of 20 recorded ground motions listed in Table 3.1.

For the same ground motions and the corresponding response spectrums a set of single story monosymmetric

buildings with different inertial characteristics and eccentricity are analyzed (Fig 3b).

th

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

G, Q

m

35 x 60

35 x 35

35 x 35

35 x 60

35 x 35

35 x 35

35 x 60

35 x 35

35 x 35

35 x 60

50 x 50

50 x 50

35 x 60

50 x 50

50 x 50

35 x 60

50 x 50

50 x 50

35 x 60

70 x 70

70 x 70

35 x 60

70 x 70

70 x 70

35 x 60

70 x 70

70 x 70

(a)

5.0 m

35 x 60

35 x 60

70 x 70

70 x 70

35 x 60

35 x 60

70 x 70

70 x 70

35 x 60

70 x 70

80 x 80

80 x 80

3.0 m

35 x 60

80 x 80

80 x 80

35 x 60

3.0 m

35 x 60

m 100 x 100

100 x 100

35 x 60

3.0 m

35 x 60

80 x 80

35 x 60

3.0 m

35 x 60

80 x 80

35 x 60

3.0 m

G = 20 kN/m

Q = 10 kN/m

E = 29000000 kN/m

v = 0.2

m = 60 t

C20/S500

35 x 60

70 x 70

35 x 60

3.0 m

3.0 m

35 x 60

100 x 100

100 x 100

35 x 60

3.0 m

35 x 60

100 x 100

100 x 100

5.0 m

3.0 m

5.0 m

y

E = 29000000 kN/m

v = 0.2

My,T1 = 150 kNm

My,T2 = 325 kNm

My,T3 = 150 kNm

2,50 m

1,50 m

1,00 m

6.00 m

0,50 m

0

T1 20x80

1 2 3

T2 20x130

x

T3 20x80

u go

10.00 m

(b)

0:

1:

2:

3:

4:

1 = 0.5 sec

1 = 0.2 sec

m = 26.55 t Jm = 300.88 t m

m = 165.93 t Jm = 1880.52 t m

m = 155.85 t Jm = 1766.36 t m

m = 24.94 t Jm = 282.62 t m

m = 21.94 t Jm = 248.69 t m

m = 137.14 t Jm = 1554.29 t m

m = 18.99 t Jm = 215.18 t m

m = 118.67 t Jm = 1344.88 t m

m = 14.12 t Jm = 160.07 t m

m = 88.28 t Jm = 1000.46 t m

Figure 3 Geometric and mechanic characteristics of the investigated systems: (a) non-symmetric planar 9-story

RC frame, (b) single story monosymmetric buildings (ten different cases)

th

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Each system is analyzed using all methods listed in Table 3.2. The results derived by LRSA are used to define the

uultimate. Non-Linear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) is performed in order to obtain the "exact" values of

the response. The target roof displacement for NSP according to FEMA is determined by: (i) Equivalent

Linearization and (ii) Displacement Modification. For NSP according to EC8 the target displacement is

determined by NLRHA of an "equivalent" single-degree-of-freedom-system (SDOF). For the application of

MPA to the planar frame three "modes" are taken into account and the peak "modal" displacement of each

inelastic SDOF system is determined by NLRHA. The single-story spatial buildings are analyzed for

unidirectional excitation along the y-axis (Fig. 3b).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Earthquake Name and Location

1989 Loma Prieta (Agnews State Hospital)

1989 Loma Prieta (Capitola)

1989 Loma Prieta (Gilroy Array #3)

1989 Loma Prieta (Gilroy Array #4)

1989 Loma Prieta (Gilroy Array #7)

1989 Loma Prieta (Hollister City Hall)

1989 Loma Prieta (Hollister Diff. Array)

1989 Loma Prieta (Sunnyvale - Colton Ave.)

1994 Northridge (Canoga Park)

1994 Northridge (LA - N Faring Rd)

1994 Northridge (LA - Fletcher Dr)

1994 Northridge (Glendale - Las Palmas)

1994 Northridge (LA - Hollywood Stor FF)

1994 Northridge (La Crescenta - New York)

1994 Northridge (Northridge - Saticoy St)

1971 San Fernando (LA - Hollywood Stor Lot)

1987 Superstition Hills (Brawley)

1987 Superstition Hills (El Centro Imp. Co. Center)

1987 Superstition Hills (Plaster City)

1987 Superstition Hills (Westmorland Fire Station)

go (cm/sec2)

169

435

360

208

221

242

274

203

412

268

236

202

227

156

361

171

153

351

182

169

9-storey planar

Procedure

frame

Linear Response History Analysis (LRHA)

Linear Response Spectrum Analysis (LRSA)

NonLinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA)

Nonlinear Static Procedure-Equiv. Lin. (NSP- ATC55)

Nonlinear Static Procedure-Disp. Mod. (NSP- FEMA440) NSPs

Nonlinear Static Procedure EC8 (NSP- EC8)

Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA)

Spectral Pushover Analysis (SPA)

Single-storey

monosymmetric building

The median error of a response value determined by each one of the applied methods with respect to the

corresponding "exact" value determined by NLRHA is calculated using the following formula:

error (%) =

20

1

20 1

u iP u iD

100

u iD

(3.1)

th

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

where uiP is the displacement at level i determined by the approximate method P (P: methods no. 4 to 8 of Table

3.2) and uiD is the corresponding displacement derived by NLRHA. The closer the median error to zero, the

closer the response derived from the respective approximate method to the "exact" value. The approximate

method underestimates the median response if the ratio (Eq. 3.1) is less than zero, and provides an overestimate

if the ratio exceeds zero. The present study is limited to the evaluation of displacements. The median errors for

the floor displacements of planar frame are illustrated in Figure 4, while the median errors for the displacements

of CM and the left side of the spatial models are shown in Tables 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.

EC8

ATC55

FEMA440

MPA

SPA

0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

NSP: uniform distribution

Figure 4 Median error of roof displacements of 9-storey frame

Model

CM

0

1

T1=0.2sec

2

3

4

0

1

T1=0.5sec

2

3

4

NSP- ATC55

NSP- FEMA440

NSP- EC8

-0.74

11.52

23.22

12.02

24.88

28.10

20.43

27.34

33.71

17.02

22.75

25.37

6.20

11.74

13.02

80.57

24.83

19.74

95.49

35.85

29.23

114.71

31.38

43.52

153.40

33.66

62.76

138.99

33.05

55.34

MPA

4.50

-10.20

-10.91

-9.51

0.97

19.01

1.98

-24.28

-16.87

-10.34

SPA

-1.82

0.30

-11.27

-10.42

-1.23

24.95

-17.42

-2.72

10.90

6.75

CM NSP- ATC55

NSP- FEMA440

NSP- EC8

MPA

0

-0.74

11.52

23.22

4.50

1

-45.57

-43.86

-42.45

43.54

T1=0.2sec

2

-71.67

-71.07

-71.02

21.50

3

-95.79

-95.79

-95.78

25.48

4

-58.30

-58.26

-57.24

17.21

0

80.57

24.83

19.74

19.01

1

-88.83

-88.83

-88.83

174.52

T1=0.5sec

2

-93.32

-93.32

-93.32

166.71

3

-98.93

-98.93

-98.93

234.43

4

-88.43

-88.43

-88.43

202.79

SPA

-1.82

24.96

15.18

16.05

12.42

24.95

0.46

28.29

63.19

75.29

Model

th

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

4. CONCLUSIONS

The presented SPA of structures is a step-wise linear method in which the traditional LRSA is applied

iteratively. From the comparative study of the investigated wide-spread approximate nonlinear methods the

following conclusions are drawn:

a) Planar frame: The magnitude of errors is similar for all approximate procedures, when the "modal" load

distribution is used in the NSPs (NSP- ATC55, NSP- FEMA440, NSP- EC8), while MPA and SPA are more

accurate than the NSPs when the "uniform" load distribution is used. Furthermore, both MPA and SPA provide

good estimates for floor displacements. However, the computational effort required for MPA is larger than for

SPA.

b) Spatial models with fundamental period T1=0.2sec (Fig. 3b): MPA and SPA underestimate in general the

displacements of the Center of Mass (CM) and of the buildings right side (~-20% till +5%), while NSPs

overestimates them. The opposite occurs for the left side displacement and the diaphragm rotation: MPA and

SPA overestimate these values, while NSPs practically fails to estimate them (underestimation of ~-50% to

-90%).

c) Spatial models with fundamental period T1=0.5sec (Fig. 3b): MPA and SPA may overestimate or

underestimate the displacements of CM and of the buildings right side (~20%), while NSPs overestimates

these quantities (~+50%). Moreover, NSPs practically fails to predict the demands of the left side (errors are

-90%). Both MPA and SPA overestimate them, but results obtained by MPA are less accurate than SPA (errors

range between +160% and +240% in MPA and between +25% and 75% in SPA).

d) As a general conclusion it can be said that the presented spectral pushover analysis (SPA) possesses some

important advantages with regard to the conventional approximate nonlinear procedures: It permits in a straight

forward way to account for (a) the step-wise change of structural characteristics (natural periods, modes), (b)

the higher mode effects as well as (c) the torsional effects in non-symmetric structures. Moreover SPA does not

require neither the compilation of a pushover curve, nor the application of several height-wise distributions of

lateral loads. Obviously, further investigation is needed in order to derive conclusive results. However, the

presented preliminary evaluation gave very encouraging and promising results.

REFERENCES

ATC40. (1997). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood

City, California.

ATC55 (FEMA440). 2004. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Applied Technology

Council, Redwood City, California.

Anastassiadis, .. (2001). Spectral pushover analysis for assessment of seismic behavior of buildings. 2nd

Greek Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Salonika (in Greek).

Chopra, ., and Goel, R.K. (2001). Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands for

Buildings: Theory and Preliminary Evaluation, PEER Report 2001/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering

Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

EC8, CEN Techn. Comm. 250 / SC8. Eurocode 8: Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures-Part 1: General

rules. (ENV1998-1, Parts 1,2,3), CEN. Brussels, 1994, 1995.

FEMA274 (NEHRP). (1997). Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.

Prepared by ATC, Washington, D.C.

FEMA356. (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Prepared by

ASCE, Washington, D.C.

Krawinkler H. and Seneviratna G.D.P.K. 1998. Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis of Seismic Performance

Evaluation. Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, pp. 452-464.

- Seismic fragility assessment for RC High Rise BuildingUploaded byfaisalade
- Main BeamUploaded byLee Tin Yan
- 19.Ruiz-Garcia Gonzalez ES14 ImplementationofDCMforsoftsoilsUploaded byMorrita Lopez
- THESIS BHATT.pdfUploaded bypratyush
- CalTrans-2010 - Seismic Analysis and DesignUploaded bywisnu_bayusakti
- 13_115Uploaded byAngga Fajar Setiawan
- Heintz ATC 63Uploaded bymohammed_fathelbab
- Steel Space FramesUploaded byAman
- Conveyor Truss Connections Calcs_05Uploaded byRené Mella Cid
- Assessment of concrete by using incremental dynamic analysis methodUploaded byAJER JOURNAL
- Eesd2003 KarimUploaded byJashwin Ullal
- asadsdfUploaded byJOSE
- Two-way Spanning SlabsUploaded byEmeka1
- SEISMIC CALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL AND I&C CABINETS.docUploaded byZamfir Madalina
- Effect of Vertical Geometric and Mass Irregularities in StructureUploaded byḆẚĝģỉ Šǎṫĩșh
- Hazusmr5 Eq Aebm UmUploaded byJacob Harris
- PBDUploaded byaymshama
- 123Uploaded byShama
- FEMA 1051 15Seismically Isolated StructuresUploaded byTony Ong
- Analysis of Moment Resisting Frame by Knee BracingUploaded bytaosye
- Topic15-5b-AdvancedAnalysisPart2NotesUploaded byHusseinali Hussein
- Refer NcesdgbdUploaded byAbhinav Singh Sachan
- P-y Curve (Korean Paper)Uploaded byAsad Hafudh
- art-3A10.1007-2Fs10086-005-0729-4.pdfUploaded byHusseinali Hussein
- General Procedure to Perform Pushover AnalysisUploaded byalbik
- 10.1016@j.soildyn.2009.08.001.pdfUploaded byAnonymous GFeyDVV
- pushoverUploaded byStructure department
- s Truc Tres p Vertical CompUploaded byMassimiliano De Iuliis
- Design Optimization of Hydraulic Press Plate using Finite Element AnalysisUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- The Analysis Of Orthotropic Skew Bridge Slabs by A. CoullUploaded byebugaidi

- Is 4326 1993 - Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of BuildingsUploaded byAmit Singh
- LogonUploaded byparth daxini
- beam.pdfUploaded byparth daxini
- 275-279.pdfUploaded byparth daxini
- 09_Types of analysis.pdfUploaded byNazar Shafiq
- 13_2571Uploaded byAlam Mohammad Parvez Saifi
- 02 SapTutorUploaded byshimic32000
- ANSYSUploaded byparth daxini
- Block WorkUploaded bySanjeewa Warunakumara
- Business d.docxUploaded byparth daxini
- Business DevelopmentUploaded byparth daxini
- Foundation SettlementUploaded bynivarn
- Good Flat Slab Example Acc to EC2 (the Concrete Centre)Uploaded byNitish Ramdawor
- Bolted Moment ConnectionUploaded byprabhu81
- BeamUploaded byparth daxini
- 2742002Uploaded byparth daxini
- Important Details You Should Know About IndiaUploaded byparth daxini
- Minimum Steel 7 1Uploaded byparth daxini
- SwajitUploaded byparth daxini
- ME Thesis Guidelines & Format (2)Uploaded byAnonymous FHBYwjV
- Careers_Form.docUploaded byparth daxini
- 05052016.pdfUploaded byparth daxini
- Raft Foundation Bearing CapacityUploaded byLim Han Jian
- m10l27Uploaded byjritesh3736
- V3I8-IJERTV3IS080810Uploaded byparth daxini
- 560b56f808ae576ce6411453Uploaded byparth daxini

- RS485-232-card_v1_00.pdfUploaded bylookb64
- TUTO REPAIRSLABUploaded byPITERALEX
- Impossible TrinityUploaded byRupendra Gopalbanshi
- CatalogueUploaded byVikas Yadav
- 02whole.pdfUploaded bynhatvp
- Friction WeldingUploaded byazeemdcet
- 10.11648.j.jfa.20140203.11Uploaded byAnonymous qAegy6G
- Directory Knl PartnersUploaded byLav Ortega-Calonia
- Cryogenic Pumps EnglishUploaded bybruher
- Photo AgingUploaded byMihaela Paula Rusu
- Introduction to Offshore StructuresUploaded byBolarinwa
- Interpolating SplinesUploaded bymykingboody2156
- X4 CHANGE (English).pdfUploaded byGerman Aldayr Caro Fong
- Chapter 2 Metal Oxid Evaristo RsUploaded byHéctor Araujo
- Control Systems ResourceS12Uploaded byAnonymous XFh6mcK
- Cyberoam to Sophos Firewall License Migration GuideUploaded byMoon Game
- Finding Connected ComponentsUploaded byDiwakar Gautam
- Soal Ibu RillyUploaded byErny Neolaka
- 5. Mean, Median and ModeUploaded byCherry T CY
- 호남 필리핀학생 명단 (Revised April 2011)Uploaded byRJ Banta
- Sample Board Agenda & MaterialsUploaded byStartup Tool Kit
- Norma Fiat - 54316 Dimensões e ToleranciasUploaded byRoberto Alves Moreira
- Civil Eng Drawing notes and important planUploaded byAnantha Singh
- PowerPlant_best_practices.pdfUploaded byMario Lopez
- RISKS AND BENEFITS OF BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE IN THE CLOUDUploaded byElena Canaj
- DL-7.pdfUploaded byThanh Sang
- tqm_final_0Uploaded byNjoroge Ikonye
- January 3, 2011 PostsUploaded byAlbert L. Peia
- CIM Guide - AIESEC in Navi MumbaiUploaded bynomaan793
- Ruckus ZoneFlex 9.4 User GuideUploaded byMichael Kraftman

## Much more than documents.

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

Cancel anytime.