© All Rights Reserved

23 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Compression Test
- Chapter_6 Unit 3&4 Book
- Weller, Alan_ Joannides, Frixos-Structural Steel Design to BS 5950, Part 1-ASCE Press, Thomas Telford (2002)
- NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF ROCK
- Numerical modeling and analytical validation of stress and stress intensity factor for SENT tensile specimen of P265GH steel material
- tmp943A.tmp
- Mechanics of Solid
- 11-15-14 Strength of Materials
- 01. a Summary of Essential Differences Between EC2 and BS8110 Code (2014 10 07)
- Mechanics of Solids I
- Strength of Materials - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Chapter 1
- 84 TOP Strength of Materials questions
- TENG 2015 - 3D FEM analysis of RC columns with FRP.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S0734743X08000778-main
- rock mechanics and
- Mechanical & Physical Properties V2
- Numerical Investigation of the Mechanical Behavior of Rocktangchunan-13
- cap2
- Official ISRO Previous Paper 2008 - Download Now!

You are on page 1of 11

Lus Simes da Silvaa, Lus Caladob, Rui Simesa, Ana Giro Coelhoc

a Civil Engineering Department, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

b Civil Engineering Department, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Lisboa, Portugal

c Civil Engineering Department, Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Abstract

The current trend towards the use of partial strength, semi-rigid joints requires

that enough ductility (rotation) is available, and thus the prediction of the full

(non-linear) moment-rotation response of the joint. The component method

currently provides independent procedures to evaluate the strength and initial

stiffness of steel and composite joints. A unified, closed-form, analytical approach

is presented in this paper that gives the full non-linear moment-rotation response

of steel and composite joints, and, consequently, its strength, initial stiffness and

maximum rotation.

1

INTRODUCTION

The current trend towards the use of partial strength, semi-rigid joints requires that enough

ductility (rotation) is available, and thus the evaluation of the full (non-linear) moment-rotation

response of the joint. The component method, currently widely accepted as the practical

approach at predicting the behaviour of such joints (1), provides independent procedures to

evaluate the strength and initial stiffness of steel and composite joints. These procedures,

already incorporated in codes of practice (2, 3), were shown to reproduce satisfactorily these

properties, while maintaining a relative ease of application.

The evaluation of ductility presents two added difficulties, when compared to strength and initial

stiffness:

(i)

knowledge of the non-linear force-deformation response of each component;

(ii)

knowledge of the full (non-linear) moment-rotation response of the joint.

The first item still remains quite unexplored in the literature, most of the research effort being

directed in the past towards the consistent evaluation of strength and initial stiffness of the

various components (4); the second involves iterative numerical procedures, given that

phenomena such as plasticity and instability are necessarily present.

Assuming that the non-linear behavior of the components is known, a unified, closed-form,

analytical approach is presented in this paper that gives the full non-linear moment-rotation

response of steel and composite joints, and, consequently, its strength, initial stiffness and

maximum rotation. Also, the yielding sequence of the various components is identified.

223

EVALUATION OF DUCTILITY

As stated above, a key aspect to the component method relates to the characterisation of the

force-deformation curves for each individual extensional spring. In practical terms, the nonlinear force-deformation curve may be approximated by several idealisations (5), as shown in

Figure 1. Common to all is the identification of four sets of properties, namely elastic stiffness

(ke), post-limit stiffness (kp), limit load (FC=PB/2) and limit displacement ('f).

APPROXIMATION

F

ke

ke

'

a) Linear aproximation

F

1 1

+

ke kp

FC

ACTUAL

BEHAVIOUR

F

ke

kp ; PB = 2FC

'

ke

b) Bi-linear approximation

'

F C,2

F C,1

1 1

+

k e k p1

ke

1 1 1

+

+

k e k p1 k p 2

'

kp1 ;

P 1 B =2FC,1

kp2 ;

P 2 B =2FC,2

ke

c) Tri-linear approximation

FC

Q2

ke

'

ke

kp ; PB = 2FC

F

L

k p = kp1+4Lkp2(1-cosQ2)+12L 2k p3(1-cosQ2)2+...

d) Non-linear approximation

to the post-limit behaviour

Following Kuhlmann et al (6), the various components may be classified according to ductility in

three main groups: (a) components with high ductility, (b) components with limited ductility and

224

(c) components with brittle failure. Components with high ductility present a nearly unlimited

deformation capacity, not imposing any bounds on the overall rotation ability of the joint, and

include, for example: (i) column web panel in shear, (ii) end-plate in bending and (iii) column

flange in bending. Components with limited ductility are characterised by a force-deformation

curve exhibiting a limit point and a subsequent softening response, comprising: (iv) column web

in tension and (v) column web in compression. Finally, components with brittle failure behave

linearly until collapse, with very little deformation before failure, being adequately modelled with

a linear approximation, typical examples being: (vi) bolts in tension, (vii) bolts in shear and (viii)

welds.

2.2 Analytical models

To overcome the numerical complexity of the evaluation of the moment-rotation response of

steel and composite joints, an equivalent elastic model was developed (7), able to yield closedform analytical expressions. With reference to Figure 2, the proposed methodology (8)

comprises the following steps, here illustrated for an extended end-plate steel joint:

(i)

for each bolt row in tension and shear and compression zones, association of all

springs (components) in series into one single equivalent spring;

(ii)

association of all resulting tensile springs in parallel into an equivalent tensile

spring

(iii)

application of the equivalent elastic model of Figure 2c, that yields identical

results to the original elastic-plastic model of Figure 2b.

z1

z2

Kt

h

z

k1

k2

Kc

Centre of

rotation

kpt, PTB

Lt

ket

Lt

z

kpc, PCB

kec

Lc

Lc

As shown in Figure 1, both the spring transformations (series and paralel) and the equivalent

elastic model require the choice of an adequate approximation for each resulting spring. Here,

four possibilities are considered:

225

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

linear (L), the corresponding elastic model being simply an elastic spring with

stiffness ke;

bi-linear (BL), the post-limit stiffness being reproduced by an elastic spring with

stiffness kp and pre-compression 2FC;

tri-linear (TL), with two post-limit branches characterised by stiffnesses kp1 and

kp2 and corresponding pre-compressions 2FC1 and 2FC2;

non-linear (NL), where the initial elastic part is followed by a polynomial nonlinear branch given by:

kp

k p 1 4Lk

p2

(1)

Next, the resulting equivalent elastic models are solved in the context of a post-buckling stability

analysis using an energy formulation, further details of the mathematical derivation being found

in (7,8). With reference to Figure 3, two basic models are considered, for steel (Figure 3a) and

composite (Figure 3b) joints, the latter case including a specific tensile row for the reinforcement

(9).

k t1

kt

k t2

kc

kc

a) Steel joints

b) Composite joints

For each case, several possibilities must be considered, corresponding to the various

combinations of equivalent spring idealisations:

(a) Steel models

(a.1) Model BL-BL: bi-linear idealisation of equivalent tensile and

compressive/shear springs;

(a.2) Model TL-BL: tri-linear idealisation of equivalent tensile spring and bi-linear

idealisation of equivalent compressive/shear spring;

(a.3) Model TL-NL: tri-linear idealisation of equivalent tensile spring and non-linear

idealisation of equivalent compressive/shear spring;

(b) Composite models

(b.1) Model BL-BL-BL: bi-linear idealisation of reinforcement, equivalent tensile

and compressive/shear springs;

(b.2) Model TL-BL-NL: tri-linear idealisation of reinforcement, bi-linear idealisation

of equivalent tensile spring and non-linear idealisation of compressive/shear

spring.

It is noted that all these combinations yield closed-form analytical solutions for the momentrotation response of steel and composite joints that identify the yield rotation of all relevant

levels of component deformation. Its application to typical examples of steel and composite

joints is illustrated in the next section.

226

7 FW

(3)

I

HE 140 B

IPE 300

(1)

(2)

S235

a) Connection geometry

b) Mechanical model

In order to illustrate the application of the equivalent elastic models, one joint configuration was

chosen from the database SERICON II (Klein 105.011) (10), corresponding to a welded beamto-column steel joint, described in Figure 4, which was tested by Klein at the University of

Innsbruck in 1985.

Component

1

2

3

FC (kN)

218.17

258.30

258.30

ke (kN/m)

kp (kN/m)

3.608u10

1.803u106

1.803u106

6.013u10

4.624u103

4.624u103

(mm)

0.605

0.143

0.143

Figure 5 compares the experimental results with the analytical results, obtained using a bi-linear

approximation for the components, the various stiffness and strength values being reproduced

in Table 1.

Compone

nt

Absolute displacement

1

2

3

i (mm)

-0.607

-1.372

-4.817

-0.121

-0.143

-38.640

0.121

0.143

38.640

2.94

5.73

151.63

Absolute joint rotation (mrad)

1.000

2.261

7.940

0.847

1.000 269.798

0.847

1.000 269.798

1.00

1.95

51.65

Joint ductility index

227

Failure

7.940

269.798

269.798

51.65

The moment-rotation curve of Figure 5 shows yielding of the first component (column web

panel in shear), followed by simultaneous yielding of the column web in compression and in

tension, at a joint rotation of about 0.006 radian. The ductile behavior of this joint is obvious,

maximum rotation of 0.151 radians being reached without failure at the end of the test. Table 2

summarises the yield sequence of the various components and the corresponding levels of

ductility.

M (kNm)

125.0

112.5

100.0

87.5

75.0

Experimental results

62.5

50.0

A nalytical results

37.5

shear'

Yielding o f co mpo nents 'co lumn web in

co mpressio n' and 'co lumn web in tensio n'

25.0

12.5

I (mrad)

156.0

144.0

132.0

120.0

108.0

96.0

84.0

72.0

60.0

48.0

36.0

24.0

12.0

0.0

0.0

Figure 6 illustrates the application of two alternative models, TL-BL and TL-NL, using the same

value of kp1., highlighting the good adjustment of the non-linear model.

M (kNm)

125,0

112,5

100,0

87,5

75,0

Experimental results

62,5

kpt)

cws

50,0

37,5

25,0

quadratic kpt)

12,5

I (mrad)

156,0

144,0

132,0

120,0

108,0

96,0

84,0

72,0

60,0

48,0

36,0

24,0

12,0

0,0

0,0

3.2 Extended End-Plate Bolted Beam-to-Column Steel Joint

The second example corresponds to an extended end-plate bolted steel joint tested by Humer

at the University of Innsbruck (Humer 105.009), illustrated in Figure 7.

228

(3,1) (4,1)

(3,2)

(5,1) (10,1)

I

HE 240 B

IPE 450

M

M

(1)

553 240 41

S275

a) Connection geometry

(2)

b) Mechanical model

Table 3 indicates the chosen values for the various components. Using model BL-BL, Figure 8

compares the experimental results with the analytical results.

Component

1

2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

5.1

5.2

10.1

10.2

FC (kN)

529.33

576.13

510.78

510.78

476.21

476.21

635.40

635.40

635.40

635.40

ke (kN/m)

kp (kN/m)

6.363u10

2.474u106

1.426u106

1.426u106

5.601u106

5.601u106

2.315u107

5.571u107

1.199u106

1.199u106

7.122u10

3.022u104

2.513u104

2.513u104

3.131u103

9.131u103

8.446u103

8.446u103

(mm)

0.832

0.233

0.358

0.358

0.085

0.085

0.027

0.011

0.530

0.530

Yielding starts at the compression zone (column web in shear (1) followed by the column web in

compression (2)). Next, the first row of bolts of the joint becomes critical, as seen in Table 4, the

following components yielding in succession: column flange in bending (4.1), column web in

tension (3.1), the joint reaching 0.058 radians at the end of the test.

229

M (kNm)

400.0

360.0

320.0

280.0

240.0

200.0

Experimental results

160.0

A nalytical results

120.0

Yielding o f co mpo nent 'co lumn web in co mpressio n'

80.0

40.0

I (mrad)

60.0

54.0

48.0

42.0

36.0

30.0

24.0

18.0

12.0

6.0

0.0

0.0

Component

Absolute displacement

1

2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

5.1

5.2

10.1

10.2

Failure

-0.832

-0.214

0.209

0.162

0.053

0.041

0.013

0.004

0.248

0.193

-1.562

-0.233

0.227

0.177

0.058

0.045

0.014

0.005

0.270

0.210

i (mm)

Relative displacement

' i / 'yi

8.083

8.669

8.669

-9.271 -11.305 -12.352 0.919 1.000 39.808 48.543 53.038 53.038

0.334 0.358 1.083 0.583 0.635 0.932

1.000

3.022

3.022

0.259 0.278 0.287 0.453 0.493 0.724

0.775

0.801

0.801

0.085 11.134 16.851 0.625 0.681 1.000 130.946 198.187 198.187

0.066 0.071 0.073 0.486 0.529 0.777

0.831

0.860

0.860

0.021 0.022 0.023 0.469 0.510 0.749

0.804

0.832

0.832

0.007 0.007 0.007 0.364 0.397 0.582

0.623

0.644

0.644

0.397 0.426 0.441 0.469 0.510 0.749

0.804

0.832

0.832

0.308 0.330 0.341 0.364 0.397 0.582

0.623

0.644

0.644

Absolute joint rotation (mrad)

1.00

2.11

8.52

14.08

Joint ductility index

16.96

16.96

In order to illustrate the application to composite joints, a double-sided bolted flush end-plate

beam-to-column joint tested in bending by Simes at the University of Coimbra in 1998 (11) was

selected, shown in Figure 7.

230

(13)

(3)

IPE 270

IPE 270

(4)

(5)

(8)

(10)

(2)

HE 220 A

(7)

S235

C35/45; A400NR

a) Connection geometry

b) Mechanical model

Table 5 reproduces the adopted component properties for model TL-BL-BL.

Component

2

3

4

5

7

8

10

13

FC (kN)

ke (kN/m)

kp (kN/m)

1550.20

504.00

346.20

293.70

578.50

462.10

444.53

124.99

477.28

3.244u10

9.404u105

2.982u106

2.322u106

f

f

2.257u106

6.006u105

1.000u10

1.000u101

1.000u104

1.000u104

3.600u104

f

1.000u104

2.310u105

1.200u103

(mm)

0.478

0.536

0.116

0.126

0.000

0.000

0.197

0.208

Figure 8 compares the experimental and analytical results, The moment-rotation curve shows

yielding of the first component (reinforcement), corresponding to the cracking of concrete in

tension that occurs for relatively low values of bending moment and joint rotation (55 kNm and

0.8 mrad). It is noted that current Eurocode specifications for composite joints

231

M (kNm)

220.0

200.0

180.0

160.0

140.0

120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

Experimental results

Analyt ical solut ion

Yielding of component 'concret e in

t ension'

Yielding of component 'beam web

and flange in compression'

Yielding of component 'longit udinal

slab reinf orcement in t ension'

15.0

16.0

17.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

I(mrad)

(3) disregard the cracking moment of the joint. Next, at a rotation of 5.1 mrad, yielding of the

beam web and flange in compression takes place, followed by yielding of the reinforcement.

Table 6 summarises the yield sequence of the various components and the corresponding

levels of ductility.

Component

Absolute displacement

2

3

4

5

7

8

10

13

Failure

i (mm)

0.058 0.188 0.223 0.224

0.018 0.059 0.070 0.071

0.024 0.076 0.090 0.091

0.000 0.000 -3.007 -3.111

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.091

0.024 0.078 0.093 0.000

0.208 2.053 2.554 4.729

0.76 5.07 11.55 16.53

Absolute joint rotation (mrad)

Relative displacement

' i / 'yi

0.109 0.350 0.416 0.418 0.418

0.158 0.510 0.605 0.608 0.608

0.187 0.601 0.713 0.717 0.717

0.311 1.000

f

f

f

0.119 0.382 0.453 0.456 0.456

0.123 0.397 0.471 0.474 0.474

1.000 9.866 12.274 22.724 22.724

1.00 6.72 15.29 21.88 21.879

Joint ductility index

CONCLUDING REMARKS

A simple analytical procedure for the evaluation of the moment-rotation response of steel and

composite joints was presented in this paper. It allows the consistent evaluation of strength,

initial stiffness and ductility. Additionally, depending on the choice of component idealisation,

this methodology is able to to approximate, as closely as desired, the true moment-rotation

response of the joint, further identifying all relevant changes in joint response.

232

Finally, it should be noted that proper application of the component method requires the

adequate prediction of the post-limit stiffness of the various components, a task yet to be done.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finantial support from Ministrio da Cincia e Tecnologia - PRAXIS XXI research project

PRAXIS/P/ECM/13153/1998 is acknowledged.

6

REFERENCES

Weynand K, Jaspart J-P, Steenhuis M, The stiffness model of revised Annex J of Eurocode

3, in R. Bjorhovde, A. Colson and R. Zandonini (eds), Connections in Steel Structures III,

Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures, Trento,

Italy, pp. 441-452, 1995.

2 Eurocode 3, ENV - 1993-1-1:1992/A2, Annex J, Design of Steel Structures Joints in

Building Frames. CEN, European Committee for Standardisation, Document CEN/TC

250/SC 3, Brussels, 1998.

3 Eurocode 4, Draft prEN 1994-1-1, Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part

1.1 (Draft n1): General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, European Committee for

Standardization. Brussels, 1999.

4 Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G, Structural steel semirigid connections: theory, design and

software. CRC Press LLC, 2000.

5 Simes da Silva L, Giro Coelho A, Mode interaction in non-linear models for steel and

steel-concrete composite structural connections, in Proceedings of CIMS 2000 - 3rd

International Conference on Coupled Instabilities in Metal Structures, Lisboa, Portugal, 2123 September, 2000 (in print).

6 Kuhlmann U, Davison JB, Kattner M, Structural systems and rotation capacity, COST

Conference on Control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural

connections, Lige, Belgium, pp. 167-176, 1998.

7 Simes da Silva L, Giro Coelho A, Neto E, Equivalent post-buckling models for the

flexural behaviour of steel connections. Comp. Struct., 2000 (in print).

8 Simes da Silva L, Giro Coelho A, A ductility model for steel connections, Journal of

Constructional Steel Research, 2000 (in print).

9 Simes da Silva L, Calado L, Cruz P, Dynamic behaviour of composite structures with

composite connections, in Proceedings of STESSA 2000 - 3rd International Conference on

Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Montreal, Canada, 21-24 August, 2000 (in

print).

10 Cruz P, Simes da Silva L, Rodrigues D, Simes R, Database for the semi-rigid behaviour

of beam-to-column connections in seismic regions. Journal of Constructional Steel

Research 1998:46(120):1-3, 1998.

11 Simes da Silva L, Simes R, Cruz P, Behaviour of end-plate beam-to-column composite

joints under monotonical loading, Engineering Structures, 2000 (submitted for publication).

233

- Compression TestUploaded byjazille22
- Chapter_6 Unit 3&4 BookUploaded byFletcher Jefferies
- Weller, Alan_ Joannides, Frixos-Structural Steel Design to BS 5950, Part 1-ASCE Press, Thomas Telford (2002)Uploaded byahmedany
- NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF ROCKUploaded byxukyle
- Numerical modeling and analytical validation of stress and stress intensity factor for SENT tensile specimen of P265GH steel materialUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- tmp943A.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- Mechanics of SolidUploaded byasghar
- 11-15-14 Strength of MaterialsUploaded byJaypee Calamba
- 01. a Summary of Essential Differences Between EC2 and BS8110 Code (2014 10 07)Uploaded bytun20000
- Mechanics of Solids IUploaded byїэasħaŗ ēŗ.ďuηĭyą
- Strength of Materials - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byAshish Meena
- Chapter 1Uploaded byMelvin Esguerra
- 84 TOP Strength of Materials questionsUploaded byAnish Kumar
- TENG 2015 - 3D FEM analysis of RC columns with FRP.pdfUploaded byFrancis Sarturi
- 1-s2.0-S0734743X08000778-mainUploaded byfa.jamshidi
- rock mechanics andUploaded byprincekamutikanjore
- Mechanical & Physical Properties V2Uploaded byrusschallenger
- Numerical Investigation of the Mechanical Behavior of Rocktangchunan-13Uploaded bySebastián Sissa
- cap2Uploaded byDilan Peña
- Official ISRO Previous Paper 2008 - Download Now!Uploaded bynidhi tripathi
- Torsion Final ReportUploaded byHanis Farina
- 3_torsionUploaded byBaski Dukkanim
- Impact Analysis of a Concrete Storage ContainerUploaded bySantanu Dasmahapatra
- 387_ftpUploaded bymichael
- FE Analysis on Burst Pressure of Steel Pipes With Corrosion DefectsUploaded bymechmohan26
- Chapter 1 Stress and StrainUploaded byShaktivell Letchumanan
- chaaasaassas.pdfUploaded byomid
- Component Method for Historical Timber JointsUploaded byFernando Gomes
- MOFabRRD 1994Uploaded byRufus Dinrifo
- Lecture-02 Introduction to Shearing, Bearing and Maximum StressesUploaded byHusnain Sikandar

- COWIs International Bridge ProjectsUploaded bySteel_cat
- Monster University Tour DEF 2017Uploaded bySteel_cat
- LinkedIn_Job_Search_Guide_2016-(1).pdfUploaded byTchakounte Njoda
- 2018 CompMag Davini Valvo Et Al PaperUploaded bySteel_cat
- Samuel Beckett Cable-stayed BridgeUploaded bySteel_cat
- Puente de La Unidad MonterreyUploaded bySteel_cat
- Limit Load and Buckling Analysis for Assessing Hanford Single-Shell Tank Dome Structural IntegrityUploaded bySteel_cat
- Castelluccio - Il Recupero Delle Strutture in Cls Del Ponte Di VivaraUploaded bySteel_cat
- Load Optimizer - Technical Knowledge Base - CSIUploaded bySteel_cat
- Bridge Strengthening With STU - Brown (1996)Uploaded bySteel_cat
- New Mathematical Models for Suspension Bridges - Gazzola (Alghero, 2013)Uploaded bySteel_cat
- Shape and Structure in Conceptual Design of BridgesUploaded bySteel_cat
- Structural Beams in Torsion Trans. ASCE Vol. 101 (1936)Uploaded bySteel_cat
- Bimson Pont de NodrmandieUploaded byFrans Yoyon
- Steel Decks for Rail Bridges - Paterson:LorekUploaded bySteel_cat
- Conceptual Design of Cable Stayed Pedestrian Bridge at Taunton SomersetUploaded byleodegarioporral

- 05-04-Chap-GereUploaded byDipNdra Sharma
- 2008 Aurelio MuttoniUploaded bySonja Pavic
- Lab 6 - Compression Testing of WoodUploaded byManikandan Selvam
- Analysis of Roof Bolt SystemsUploaded byadityatheaaa
- 1455352413Uploaded byAmey Raje
- Is.4374.1980 Bollard StrengthUploaded byaleksandar_djordjic
- Rock DeformationUploaded bySamantha Bautista
- 5_31855_278 NewUploaded byTuroy
- Main tracks and objectives of the WING COMPOSITES ProgramUploaded bynlrlibrary
- 06-p-09Uploaded bymexicanu99
- Specification SheetUploaded byKuknesvary Puniamurthy
- high rate properties of metalsUploaded byGalal Faz
- 06 Shear BendingUploaded byAmin Kotb
- ArasUploaded byJaymar Palomares Orillo
- Chap-9-1-ShearUploaded byaihr78
- dm7_01Uploaded byekaamf
- Civil_Syllabus and Scheme.pdfUploaded byUdaysingh Patil
- Structural ElementsUploaded byEnrique
- Physics for You - December 2017Uploaded bySlobo Dan
- Mech6441 Project eUploaded byDaniel
- Civil Engg 2013Uploaded byBalagopal V
- Solutions_Chapter_3(WǪ).pdfUploaded by黃羿傑
- Effect of Fiber Orientation on Stress Concentration Factor in a Laminate With Central Circular Hole Under Transverse Static LoadingUploaded bySiva Bhaskar
- Simulation of Strength Difference in Elasto-plasticity for Adhesive MaterialsUploaded byesatec
- Comparative Study of Fragment Geometries [PHD Thesis]Uploaded bykingmajor
- comsol - kirsch hole in a plate simulationUploaded byAnupreet Choudhary
- Earthquake-resistance Design of Double-Angle BracingsUploaded byJoseph Cristhian Lipa Flores
- IJIRAE:: Pressure Vessel Limit Load Estimation by FEM and Experimental MethodUploaded byIJIRAE- International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering
- Fatigue ANSYSUploaded byapi-3717939
- An Investigation of Structural Integrity of Chassis Mounted Platform SubjectedUploaded byIAEME Publication