Seismic performance of hybrid

© All Rights Reserved

2 views

Seismic performance of hybrid

© All Rights Reserved

- MIDAS MCT File Quick Reference
- Displacement BasedDisplacement Based Design Methodologies for Bridges
- Static Analysis of Go-Kart Chassis by Analytical and Solid Works Simulation
- Bond%20Pullout%20TastaniThrace
- Seismic Analysis Options for Steel Truss Bridges
- PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN AND ENERGY-BASED EVALUATION OF SEISMIC RESISTANT RC MOMENT FRAME
- Paper Deep Beams
- GRDSLAB
- Appendix E
- Failure Analysis of Pin Loaded Glass Epoxy Polystyrene Composite Plates
- 1
- doc14611-5
- LATBSDC PEER CSSC Tall Building Design Case Study 1-05-09
- A STUDY ON DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF IRREGULAR TALL.pdf
- 017_Pascualena
- 8-Effect of Aqueous Solutions
- 1-s2.0-S0038080614000419-main
- Analysis Notes
- James E. Amrhein , Max L. Porter-Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook_ Clay and Concrete Masonry, Sixth Edition -Masonry Institute of America _ International Code Council (2009)
- Tanks EQSpectra

You are on page 1of 8

com

in High Rise RC Core Wall Buildings

P., Warnitchai1$, Munir, A.

1

Associate Professor, Structural Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology

2

Doctoral Student, Structural Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology

Abstract

Recently, the issue of high inelastic seismic demands at severe ground shakings such as MCE level has been

highlighted in the conventionally designed high rise reinforced concrete (RC) core wall buildings. Furthermore, it is

also found that the MCE level demands obtained from more rigorous non-linear response history analysis (NLRHA)

are much greater than the DBE level demands obtained from the response spectrum (RS) procedure. In this study,

different factors responsible for the high inelastic seismic demands and large difference between the demands

obtained from the RS method and NLRHA are identified. A case study building is analyzed by the RS and NLRHA

procedures using DBE response spectrum and the seven MCE spectrum compatible ground motions respectively. The

factors which could be apparently responsible for large difference between the demands by the RS and NLRHA

method are identified as: overstrength factor, excitation intensities, and different damping ratios. The effect of these

factors on seismic demands is quantitatively estimated by performing the NLRHAs at different combination of

damping ratios and excitation levels. Apart from three obvious factors, some other factors, which cannot be explained

by the NLRHA, are also found to be responsible for the high inelastic seismic demands and large difference between

the DBE demands by the RS procedure and MCE demands by the NLRHA procedure. To identify those factors,

modal decomposition of the inelastic responses of the case study building using uncoupled modal response history

analysis (UMRHA) is in progress.

Keywords: High rise RC core wall buildings, inelastic seismic demands, inelastic modal decomposition, uncoupled modal response

history analysis

18777058 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.171

1360 P. Warnitchai and A. Munir / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 13591366

1. INTRODUCTION

High rise reinforced concrete (RC) core wall buildings are gaining popularity because they offer

advantages of lower costs, faster construction, and more open and flexible architecture compared to high

rise buildings with other lateral-force-resisting systems (Maffei and Yuen 2007). They are also recently

being constructed in high seismic areas (Mohle 2008). In this kind of structures, the lateral framing

system consists of a central core wall, peripheral columns and, in some cases, outriggers connecting

between the core wall and the columns. As the core wall is generally much stiffer than the peripheral

columns, the lateral load in buildings, particularly those without outriggers, is mostly resisted by the core

wall. For economic reasons these buildings are not designed to remain elastic under the DBE or the MCE

levels. Flexural plastic hinge is normally allowed to form at the base of the core wall under such severe

ground shakings, but the plastic rotation in the hinge zone must be within an acceptable limit and the wall

above the hinge zone is expected to remain elastic.

Due to the long-period nature of the structures, a significant contribution to seismic responses from

higher vibration modes is expected. Therefore, the response spectrum analysis (RSA) procedure, which

accounts for multi-mode effects, is commonly used in the seismic design of high rise core wall buildings,

while the traditional equivalent static design procedure, which assumes the first mode domination, is

known to be inappropriate for such cases. In the RSA procedure, the elastic responses of each vibration

mode are first determined from the DBE response spectrum at 5% damping ratio and then combined into

the total elastic responses by either the SRSS or the CQC method (Chopra, 2001), and finally reduced to

the seismic demands for structural design by a response modification factor R that accounts for the

overstrength and inelastic effects of the structure (ICBO 1997).

Recently, however, new studies on a 60-story and a 40-story RC core wall building in high seismic

areas show clearly that the RSA procedure greatly underestimates the seismic demands along the entire

height of the core wall under both DBE and MCE (Klemencic 2008, Klemencic et.al. 2007, and Zekioglu

et. al. 2007). In these studies, non-linear response history analysis (NLRHA) was carried out as part of the

performance-based seismic design to verify the seismic demands estimated by the RSA procedure. The

base shear demand and the mid-height bending moment of core wall under MCE ground motions

computed by the NLRHA procedure are about 3 to 5 times of those obtained from the conventional RSA

procedure; the base shear demand is as high as 15-20% of the total building weight. Such high shear and

bending moment demands are likely to create several design problems and difficulties. If the designer

follows the RSA procedure, he might end up with an unsafe design of the building. On the other hands, if

the correct but high seismic demands from the NLRHA procedure are used, the design might lead to

uneconomically thick wall with a very high amount of steel reinforcement and expensive foundation

structures to withstand very large lateral loading, etc. It is therefore crucial to understand why the seismic

demands are such high and why the RSA procedure fails to predict the demands. The improved

understanding could lead to more effective design of measures to reduce the seismic demands to

acceptable levels.

In this study, the reason(s) for high seismic demands in high-rise RC core wall buildings and the

failure of the RSA procedure will be investigated using a case study building. Its inelastic dynamic

responses to MCE ground motions will be computed by the NLRHA procedure and then compared with

those obtained from the RSA procedure. The study will enable us to gain a greater insight into this

important problem, and may lead to an improved seismic design as well as a more effective control of

high seismic demands for this type of structures.

P. Warnitchai and A. Munir / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 13591366 1361

In this section a high rise RC core wall building is selected as a case study building. Two levels of

earthquake ground motionsDBE and MCEare considered. MCE or the maximum considered

earthquake is defined as the ground shaking level at the building site with a 2% probability of exceedance

in 50 years, while DBE or the design basis earthquake is the level with a 10% probability of exceedance

in 50 years and is assumed to be two-thirds of MCE.

The case study building is a 415-ft tall, 40-story residential tower with a typical story height of 10 ft

and a lobby-level height of 20 ft. It has three levels of below-grade parking with 10 ft story height and a

thick foundation slab resting on a firm stratum. The surrounding soil condition can be classified as stiff

soil equivalent to the soil type SD in the UBC 97. The lateral framing system consists of a central RC

core wall and 14 peripheral columns, whereas the gravity load carrying system consists of 8-in-thick post-

tensioned concrete flat slabs resting on the peripheral columns and the central core. A typical floor plan is

shown in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, at each floor level the core wall has many openingsfour in Y-

direction and one in X-direction. The presence of these openings makes the core wall act like a group of

walls connected to each other by coupling beams.

The RSA procedure in the UBC 97 (ICBO 1997) is adopted here in this study. This is because the

UBC 97 has been widely used as a model code for seismic design of buildings in many countries. The

design spectrum in this RSA procedure is the elastic response spectrum at 5% damping ratio of DBE in

seismic zone 4 on soil type SD (Figure 2). The response modification factor R is selected as 5.5 as the

1362 P. Warnitchai and A. Munir / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 13591366

case study building can be classified as a building frame system with concrete shear walls. It is also

required that the base shear demand (or design base shear) must not be less than 90 percent of the design

base shear determined by the static force procedure. To satisfy this requirement, it is necessary to replace

the R factor of 5.5 by an effective response modification factor Reff of 4.0. With this new Reff factor, the

seismic demands are computed for the first six vibration modes, and are combined by either the SRSS or

the CQC method into the total seismic demands for design (hereinafter called design demands). The

calculation of the shear demands is limited to the X-direction, which is considered to be sufficient for the

purpose of this study. The design shear and moment demands of the core wall over its entire height are

illustrated in Figure 3.

The obtained design demands are then utilized in the capacity design of the building structure. A

kinematically admissible plastic mechanism suitable for a tall building with coupled walls is first selected.

In this mechanism, ductile plastic hinges are allowed to form only at the base region of the coupled walls

and at two ends of every coupling beam. The amount and distribution of longitudinal steel reinforcement

of the core wall in the base region (levels 0-5) and flexural reinforcement at the two ends of the coupling

beams are determined such that its nominal flexural strength times the strength-reduction factor () of 0.9

is approximately equal to the design base moment. The calculation of this nominal flexural strength also

takes into account of the effects of gravity loads using the UBC-97 load combination rules. All other

portions of the core wall and coupling beams and all other structural elements (columns, slabs, etc.) are

assumed to have sufficiently high strengths to remain elastic during when ductile plastic hinges are

formed in the predetermined locations. No attempt at this stage is made to determine the required

strengths in all these elements, but they will be determined later by the NLRHA procedure in the

following sub section.

For the verification of seismic demands by the NLRHA procedure, it is necessary to have a set of

ground motion records that can represent MCE. Here, the MCE response spectrum is assumed to be 1.5

times the DBE response spectrum as shown in Figure 2. Seven free-field horizontal ground motion

records whose spectra resemble the target MCE spectrum are selected from the PEER NGA

(http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/) and COSMOS databases (http://www.cosmos-eq.org/scripts/default.plx).

To make all these records fully represent MCE, each record is at first scaled by a constant such that its

spectrum roughly match with that of MCE as shown, and then modified by adding small wavelets to the

time series to finally obtain accurate spectral matching with MCE as shown in Figure 2. A spectral

matching software RSPMATCH 2005 developed by Hancock et al. (2006) is used in this study.

RSPMATCH 2005 employs a time-domain spectral matching technique which was originally proposed

by Lilhanand and Tseng (1987) and later on improved by Hancock et al. (2006).

A nonlinear model of the case study building for NLRHA is created in Perform 3D version 4 (CSI

2006). The portion of core wall expected to remain elastic (level 5 up to the roof) is modeled by elastic

shear wall elements. The core wall is divided into many horizontal layers of 10 ft thickness each, and

each layer is made of 22 shear wall elements. For the plastic hinge region (levels 0 to 5), each shear wall

element is a nonlinear element comprising of 8 concrete and 8 steel vertical fiber segments, resulting in

352 fiber segments per layer. A bilinear hysteretic model of non-degrading type is used for the steel fiber.

The post-yield stiffness is set to 1.2 percent of the elastic stiffness. The yield strength of grade 60 steel

bars is assumed to be 70.2 psi, which is 1.17 times its nominal yield strength. This is to account for the

fact that actual material strengths are generally greater than nominal strengths specified by the design

codes. For the same reason, the cylinder compressive strength of concrete (fc) is set to 1.3 times the

specified strength described in Sec. 2.1. The tensile strength of concrete is set equal to (ICBO

P. Warnitchai and A. Munir / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 13591366 1363

97). In making concrete fiber, the Manders stress-strain model for confined and unconfined concrete is

approximated by a tri-linear envelope, and hence the confinement effects on ultimate compressive

strength and post-peak strain ductility capacity by the transverse reinforcement in core wall is accounted

for. The hysteretic model for concrete in compression in Perform 3D always set the unloading stiffness

equal to the initial elastic stiffness. The reloading stiffness, however, can be adjusted, and it is adjusted

such that stiffness degradation is increased with the increase in the plastic strain.

Coupling beams are modeled by elastic beam elements with plastic moment hinges at both ends. The

moment-rotation relationship of each plastic hinge is determined from the beams cross-sectional

properties and assumed plastic zone length of 0.5 times the beam depth. Columns and slabs are modeled

by elastic column and slab/shell elements, respectively. The foundation slab is assumed to be firmly fixed

to the rigid ground where the input ground motions are introduced. The geometric nonlinearity (P-)

effects are also accounted for.

According to recent recommendations for the seismic design of high-rise buildings, the traditionally

assumed modal damping ratio of 5% is too high and not realistic for high-rise buildings (CTBUH 2008).

A damping ratio of between 1% and 2% for fundamental translational modes appears reasonable for

buildings more than 160 ft and less than 820 ft in height. Moreover, an analysis of damping in RC

buildings measured at significant elastic response levels suggests the following relationship: i = 1.4 i-1,

where i is the damping ratio of the ith mode (Satake et. al. 2003). With all these premises, the modal

damping ratios of the first six translational modes are set to 1.0% (first mode), 1.4%, 2.0%, 2.7%, 3.8%,

and 5.3% (6th mode). In addition, a small amount of Rayleigh damping is added to the model to stabilize

other higher frequency (and less important) modes.

With this nonlinear building model, nonlinear response analyses are performed for seven input MCE

ground motions applied in the X direction. The results show, as expected, that plastic hinges are formed at

the base region of the core wall and at two ends of every coupling beams in the X direction. The

maximum plastic rotation at the base region of core wall for every input motion is less than 0.02 radian

but constitutes more than 80% of the total inelastic energy dissipation in the building. The maximum

plastic rotations at two ends of coupling beams vary approximately from 0.005 to 0.012 radian, and their

combined inelastic energy dissipation is less than 20% of the total.

Figure 2: Comparison of the matched spectra of the ground motions with DBE and MCE spectra

1364 P. Warnitchai and A. Munir / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 13591366

For each input motion, the maximum shear and bending moment at every floor level of the core wall

are determined. The results from all seven input motions are then compared, and the upper-bound, mean,

and lower-bound values of these responses are computed and plotted against the height of the building as

shown in Figure 4. These responses are seismic demands of the inelastic structure when subjected to

MCE ground motions.

The design demands of the core wall determined by the RSA procedure are compared with the true

seismic demands evaluated by the NLRHA procedure in Figure 4. It is clear that the seismic demands are

much higher than the design demands over the entire height of the core wall, and their distribution

patterns are markedly different. The mean base shear demand is as high as 5 times the design base shear,

and is approximately 25% of the total seismic dead load of the building. Similarly, the mean bending

moment demand at the walls mid height is as high as 5 times the corresponding design moment. In the

base region of the core wall where flexural yielding occurs, the mean moment demand is about 1.5 times

the design moment. This ratio of 1.5 is essentially the overstrength factor resulting from the higher

material strengths than nominal design values and the strain hardening effect of steel reinforcement. All

these results are in general agreement with the study by Klemencic et. al. (2007).

There are many possible reasons contributing to this striking difference between true seismic

demands and design demands. Firstly, the true demands are computed from MCE ground seismic

motions, which are 1.5 times of DBE motions used for determining the design demands. Secondly, the

realistic modal damping ratios of 1% to 5% in the nonlinear building model are generally lower than the

traditional 5% damping ratio for every mode in the RSA procedure. Thirdly, the overstrength in plastic

hinge zones leads to an overall increase in both moment and shear demands by a factor of about 1.5.

Apart from these three, there could be other reasons.

40 40 NLRHA

NLRHA & MCE 40 40

35 35 MCE (1-5% damping)

Lower-bound 35 35

30 30 MCE (5% damping)

Mean 30 30

25 25 25 DBE (1-5% damping)

Level No.

Upper-bound 25

20 20 20 DBE (5% dampimg)

RSA Series5

& DBE 20

Level No.

15 15 15 RS Design Demands

Design Demands 15

10 10 10 Design Demands xOSF 10

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

-5 -5 -5 -5

0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 0 10 20 30

Shear (kips x 10 3) 0 1 2

Moment (kip-in x 107) Shear (kips x 103) Moment (kips-in x 107)

Figure 3: Comparison between design demands in the core wall from the RSA procedure and seismic demands from the NLRHA

procedure; Figure 4: Peak core wall shear and moment demands with 1-5% damping and 5 % damping at DBE and MCE level

excitations

Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to first investigate the effects of these three obvious reasons. One

MCE ground motion modified from the Superstition Hills, 1987-PR-360 record is chosen for this

investigation. A DBE spectrum matched motion is created by multiplying the MCE motion by two-thirds.

Another nonlinear building model where the damping ratio of every significant vibration mode is set to

5% is also created. Several NLRHAs are then carried out for different combinations of input motion

(MCE & DBE) and building model (low damping & 5% damping), and the resulting seismic demands are

P. Warnitchai and A. Munir / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 13591366 1365

compared in Figure 5. As expected, the seismic demands by the DBE motion are noticeably lower than

those by the MCE motion; their ratio varies approximately between 1:1.1 to 1:1.75. Similarly, the seismic

demands of the building with 5% damping ratio are also lower than those with lower (but more realistic)

damping; their ratio varies approximately between 1:1.1 to 1:1.45. Despite all these reductions, the

seismic demands computed by the building model with 5% damping ratio for the DBE motion are

considerably greater than the design demands. To account for the effect of overstrength, the design

demands are increased by a factor of 1.5 (shown as design demands x OSF in the Figure 4) and are

compared with the above seismic demands. A considerable difference still exists, which cannot be

explained by the reasons mentioned above. A more in-depth analysis is therefore required to gain further

insight into this issue.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the factors responsible for high inelastic seismic demands and the large difference

between demands obtained from the RS and NLRHA procedures in the high rise RC core wall buildings

were identified. A case study building was examined in detail. The effect of some obvious factors such as

overstrength, excitation level, and different damping ratios is quantitatively estimated using NLRHA

procedure. It is observed that there is still considerable difference between the RS demands and NLRHA

demands which cannot be explained by performing only NLRHA. To determine the reasons for this

considerable difference, modal decomposition of the inelastic demands using UMRHA method is

required, which is currently in progress.

The study is of practical importance because the detail understanding will lead to better design of the

high rise RC core wall buildings as well as to design and identify control measure for reduction of the

high inelastic seismic demands.

REFERENCES

[1] Chopra AK (2001). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall: Upper

Saddle River, NJ

[2] Computers and Structures (CSI), Inc. (2005). ETABS Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems Software, Nonlinear

Version 9.0.0. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.

[3] Computers and Structures (CSI), Inc. (2006). Perform 3D, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D

Structures User Guide, Version 4. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.

[4] CTBUH (2008). Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings. A Consensus Document - CTBUH

Seismic Working Group.

[5] Hancock, J., Watson-Lampray, J., Abrahamson, N. A., Boomer, J.J., Markatis, A., Mccoy, E. and Mendis, R. (2006). An

improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. Journal of Earthquake

Engineering. 10(Special Issue 1): 67-89. Imperial College Press.

[6] International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code, 1997; Vol. 2. Whittier, CA

[7] Klemencic R., Fry, A., Hooper, J. D. and Morgen, B. G. (2007). Performance based design of ductile concretre core wall

buildings-Issues to consider before detail analysis. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 16:599-614. DOI.

10.1002/tal.437.

[8] Klemencic R. (2008). Performance Based Seismic Design-Rising. Structural Magazine, June 2008, 10-13.

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=707. Online reference, accessed in 2009

1366 P. Warnitchai and A. Munir / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 13591366

[9] Lilhanand, K. and Tseng, W.S. (1988). Development and application of realistic earthquake time histories compatible with

multiple damping design spectra. Proceedings of the ninth world conference on earthquake engineering. August 2-9, Tokyo-

Kyoto, Japan, Vol-II.

[10] Maffei J. and Yuen, N. (2007). Seismic Performance and Design Requirements for High-Rise Buildings. Structural

Magazine, April 2007, 28-32. http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=427. Online reference, accessed in 2009

[11] Mohle J. P. (2008). Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings in the U.S. The 14th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.

[12] Zekioglu A., Wilford M., Jin L., and Melek M. (2007). Case Study using The Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural

Guidelines: 40-Storey Concrete Core Wall Builiding. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. (16) pp. 583-597. DOI.

10.1002/tal.434

- MIDAS MCT File Quick ReferenceUploaded byromanoscotch
- Displacement BasedDisplacement Based Design Methodologies for BridgesUploaded byAriella Claresta
- Static Analysis of Go-Kart Chassis by Analytical and Solid Works SimulationUploaded byIJMER
- Bond%20Pullout%20TastaniThraceUploaded byprabindp
- Seismic Analysis Options for Steel Truss BridgesUploaded byAnton Husen Purboyo
- PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN AND ENERGY-BASED EVALUATION OF SEISMIC RESISTANT RC MOMENT FRAMEUploaded byARJafari
- Paper Deep BeamsUploaded bychaneddie22
- GRDSLABUploaded byCesar Rosas
- Appendix EUploaded byAngela Espares Llavores
- Failure Analysis of Pin Loaded Glass Epoxy Polystyrene Composite PlatesUploaded byIAEME Publication
- 1Uploaded bysancloud
- doc14611-5Uploaded bymapasabc
- LATBSDC PEER CSSC Tall Building Design Case Study 1-05-09Uploaded bybansaldhruv
- A STUDY ON DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF IRREGULAR TALL.pdfUploaded byGeorgeEdward
- 017_PascualenaUploaded byBennet Kuriakose
- 8-Effect of Aqueous SolutionsUploaded bymichael.cretzu
- 1-s2.0-S0038080614000419-mainUploaded byKaustavChatterjee
- Analysis NotesUploaded byRolandChalfoun
- James E. Amrhein , Max L. Porter-Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook_ Clay and Concrete Masonry, Sixth Edition -Masonry Institute of America _ International Code Council (2009)Uploaded byajsniff
- Tanks EQSpectraUploaded byPrantik Adhar Samanta
- seismic - VA Manual.pdfUploaded byGandhi Hammoud
- Behavior of Composite Rigid Frame Bridge Under Bi-directional Seismic ExcitationUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- RasolMezgeenUploaded bynelsonsainz
- Fadzli Mohamed Nazri1 · Siti Nur Aqilah Saruddin1Uploaded byoscavier
- ISSUEUploaded bymahak
- Chapter08 - Laboratory Testing for RocksUploaded byÉlim Náhj Ác
- Material Selections for Specific ApplicationsUploaded byvkr91@yahoo.com
- Result for DAmperUploaded bySagar Dhok
- e.quakeUploaded byLelisa Nemo
- Kim Yoonduk 200412 MastUploaded byharishram123456

- Buckling of Geometrically Imperfect ShellsUploaded byrobertobaggio9
- 10.1016-0045-7949(92)90462-9-Study on Elephant-foot Buckling of Broad Liquid Storage Tanks by Nonlinear Theory of ShellsUploaded byhamedpdms
- Oil & gas project dBasic Versus DetaledUploaded byNoùrEl-Dín
- PROJECT_STANDARDS_AND_SPECIFICATIONS_compressed_air_systems_Rev01.pdfUploaded byacas35
- PROJECT_STANDARDS_AND_SPECIFICATIONS_layout_and_spacing_Rev1.0Uploaded byTrung Tiger
- 3607-34-78-ED-PI-SP-5003-B1Uploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016j.jlp.2013.03.003Uploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016 S1350 4533(02)00048 6 Modelling of Flow and Wall Behaviour in a Mildly Stenosed TubeUploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016 j.jcsr.2016.07.022 Seismic Performance of Hybrid Self Centring Steel Timber Rocking Core Walls With Slip Friction ConnectionsUploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016 j.proeng.2011.07.171 Identification of Reasons for High Inelastic Seismic Demands in High Rise RC Core Wall BuildingsUploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1.1.473.2453Uploaded byhamedpdms
- Load CasesUploaded bytebodin_319
- 10.1016 J.icheATMASSTRANSFER.2012.04.009 Unsteady Blood Flow and Mass Transfer of a Human Left Coronary Artery Bifurcation FSI vs CFDUploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016 J.compBIOMED.2015.08.002 Analysis of Flow and LDL Concentration Polarization in Siphon of Internal Carotid Artery Non Newtonian EffectsUploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016 J.aej.2015.09.010 Non Newtonian Model Study for Blood Flow Through a Tapered Artery With a StenosisUploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016 j.jnnfm.2016.03.008 Non Newtonian Effects in Blood Flow Simulations of Coronary Arterial FlowUploaded byhamedpdms
- 10.1016 j.jbiomech.2016.02.004 Relation Between Wall Shear Stress and Carotid Artery Wall Thickening MRI Versus CFD(1)Uploaded byhamedpdms
- Standard Silo Catalogue.pdfUploaded byhamedpdms
- Heat ExchangersUploaded byم.ذكى فضل ذكى

- MemoryUploaded byskutastic
- portfolio reflection 1Uploaded byapi-290638637
- Corporate Social Responsibility Assignment (1)Uploaded bypraveenangel
- Unit 2Uploaded byVicky Iyer
- BP080 Future Process ModelUploaded byparcanjo
- al h2Uploaded byYashas C Shekar
- Department of Labor: cbrp1822Uploaded byDepartment of Labor
- 30035 IrysView Software Training GuideUploaded byOsmar G Razcón González
- ScienceUploaded byEdwin Borda Meza
- dsfdsUploaded bykrlalit
- Human Resources Training for the Non-HR ManagerUploaded byDanish Shaikh
- CCITT(Huffman)EncodingUploaded byShashank S. Prasad
- Secured Party Creditor for: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURYUploaded bySecured Party Creditor
- 08 August 1995Uploaded byMonitoring Times
- 21905-840Uploaded bynabilalhamdani
- Manual CrossrideUploaded byuricarius
- Srs on quora.comUploaded byAbhilash Mishra
- Case Study on DellUploaded byViraj Kansara
- BS BuzzUploaded byBS Central, Inc. "The Buzz"
- EFFECT OF THE ADDITION OF GLASS BOTTLE PARTICLES ON THE MECHANICAL STRENGTHS OF COMPRESSED BLOCKS OF FIRED CLAY AND STABILIZED EARTH.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- SegmentationUploaded byDavid Raju Gollapudi
- 74hc74Uploaded bytrolombo
- Endometrial CancerUploaded byRL Marie Sialana
- Timeline of Probability and StatisticsUploaded byGolamKibriabipu
- 70155_Cafetaria Bidding Documents.pdfUploaded byAdnan S Javaid
- British StandardUploaded byashwani
- Stability of Ships - 1Uploaded bypothirajkalyan
- 2013 FSAE Business Logic CaseUploaded byjavigpascual
- Edwards Signaling E-FSA250R Data SheetUploaded byJMAC Supply
- Anician MythsUploaded byOrsi Szilágyi