0 views

Uploaded by Shrestha Bipin

Seismic design rules for Australian bridges

- Evaluation of Steel Fiber Reinforcement for Punching Shear Resistance in Slab-Column Connections Part I: Monotonically Increased Load
- AP-T200-12 Bridge Design Guidelines for EQ
- EM 1110-2-6050 - Response Spectra and Seismic Analysis for Concrete Hydraulic Structures 1
- performance based design
- Collapse Simulation of RC High-Rise Building Induced By Xiao Lu 1 , Xinzheng Lu 1* , Hong Guan2 and Lieping Ye 1
- Earth Quake Engineering-qb
- fema450
- 00 ASCE b Bachman
- WCEE2012_0128
- pankj
- ASTM
- 06ibc Checklist
- Leaf Spring
- Unit 3 Structures Solutions
- A Study of Seismic Strengthening of Multi Storey Building
- Site-Specific Seismic Studies for Optimal Structural Design Part1.pdf
- 1TOIMEJ (4)
- Seismic Analysis of Multi Storied RC Building Having Vertical Mass Irregularity With and Without Shear Wall
- TB Lecture07 Seismic
- DESIGN CALCULATION REPORT FOR LAZARO.pdf

You are on page 1of 13

1

University of California and the Rose School

2

Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW

accordance with Section 14 of AS 5100.2:2004. The design process is similar to

that in AS 1170.4:1993 but focused on bridges rather than buildings. Some of the

design parameters used in AS 5100.2 directly reference AS 1170.4:1993.

However, due to the update of AS 1170.4 published in 2007, the references in

AS 5100.2:2004 are now out-of-date. This paper discusses the work carried out

under Austroads Project TS 1599 Guidelines for Seismic Design of Australian

Bridges as detailed in the project report. The project reviewed current design

codes and highlighted updates required to Section 14 of AS 5100.2:2004 to accord

with AS 1170.4:2007. AS 5100.2:2004 uses the principles of the conventional

Force-Based Design Method (FBDM) with generalised acceleration spectra to

determine the relevant seismic actions. Project TS 1599 provides an alternative

approach, using the principles of the Displacement-Based Design Method

(DBDM). The DBDM assesses the effects of seismic events by considering

displacements and strains of the deformed structural elements in contrast with the

FBDM approach which only considers forces and subsequent design action

effects. The DBDM enables designers to predict a structure’s behaviour and/or

damage from the design seismic event, and provides a tool to check whether a

structure can be exempted from specific seismic design provisions. The project

also reviews the current seismic detailing provisions in AS 5100.5. The outcomes

of the project will be submitted to Standards Australia for incorporation into the

revision of AS 5100 currently underway.

Sustainable Bridges: The Thread of Society

AP-G90/11_030© ABC 2011

30 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett

Introduction

AS 5100.2:2004 [1] was considered essential, as the provisions are based on

AS 1170:1993 [2] that was updated in 2007 [3], following which AS 5100.2

became incompatible with AS 1170.4. During Austroads Project TS 1599 [4] a

review of AS 5100.2:2004 highlighted the following:

• The low level of seismicity considered for seismic design of major bridges.

Design for a return period of 500 years with an importance multiplier of 1.25 is

equivalent to an annual probability of exceedance of 1/625, compared to

1/2000 for other types of ultimate loads;

• The lack of guidance given regarding issues such as distribution of base shear

and the detailing of bridges with an assumed response factor greater than 2;

• Discrepancies between AS 5100.2 and AS 1170.4 on issues such as

combination of directional forces, combination of vertical and horizontal

forces, torsional effects and scaling of forces calculated by dynamic analysis.

As seismic activity in Australia is relatively small compared to countries located at

tectonic plate boundaries, it is expected that most Australian bridges will respond

in an elastic manner to the design level of seismicity. However, the Australian

bridge design code does not check the actual behaviour and capacity of structures

under seismic loads. AS 5100.2 (for bridges) and AS 1170.4 (for buildings) use

the Force Based Design Method (FBDM), which assumes elastic behaviour for all

structures, with reduced seismic loads for structures deemed capable of deforming

in a ductile manner whether members reach yield or not.

The use of forces rather than displacements to simulate seismic actions may

mislead designers. For example, consider a bridge with unequal pier heights but

similar pier cross-section dimensions, as in Figure 1. The shorter piers are the

stiffer. According to the FBDM, horizontal earthquake forces will be distributed

between the piers in proportion to 1/h3. Therefore bending moment and

reinforcement ratios are approximately in proportion to 1/h2. To resist the

increased earthquake effects, the reinforcement ratio of the short piers relative to

the long piers is increased, which further increases the relative stiffness of the

short piers, which will attract higher shear forces and bending moments,

increasing their susceptibility to failure. Additionally, the displacement capacity of

the short piers is decreased by increasing their reinforcement ratio which makes

the piers stiffer and less capable of withstanding earthquake effects.

New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 31

The use of performance based seismic design that simulates the behaviour of

bridges under seismic events is required, noting that the international trend in

earthquake design is moving in that direction. The Displacement Design Method

(DBDM) was regarded as a more realistic design approach, in which structure

displacements under the design seismic event (i.e. displacement demand) will not

cause unacceptable damage (i.e. will not exceed limiting strains/displacements).

Project TS 1599 [4] was instigated by Austroads in 2009 following the publication

of interim rules for seismic design of bridges by individual state road authorities

after a realisation that the update of AS 1170.4 in 2007 meant that it was no longer

compatible with AS 5100.2, and that the specified return period of 500 years for

earthquake design was not adequate for an ultimate design event.

Australia for incorporation in the current revision of the AS 5100 bridge design

code. The report comprises three main sections:

1. Section 14 of AS 5100.2 updated to be compatible with AS 1170.4:2007 [3];

2. DBDM introduced as an alternative seismic design approach;

3. Current provisions for concrete pier detailing in AS 5100.5 [5] revised.

The report includes commentaries that explain the rationale and the basis of the

work and four worked examples.

32 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett

adjustment of design parameters to suit bridges rather than buildings. The design

method uses the acceleration spectra provided in AS 1170.4:2007. The design

procedure, which depends on the bridge earthquake design category (BEDC), is

explained below and is illustrated in Figure 2.

1. Adopt an annual probability of exceedance ‘P’ of 1/2000, which invokes a

probability factor ‘kp’ of 1.7.

2. Determine the seismic Hazard Factor ‘Z’ using the earthquake hazard table and

maps in AS 1170.4:2007.

3. Determine site sub-soil class type in accordance with AS 1170.4:2007.

4. Determine the Bridge Earthquake Design Category (BEDC) from a revised

matrix table that is based on pier height, bridge span, sub-soil class and bridge

importance level.

5. Calculate the seismic elastic forces, and apply a reduction to those forces using

a ductility factor ‘µ’ where applicable.

Determine hazard factor ‘Z’

Determine BEDC

Yes Is there

dynamic analysis analysis

No need a clear dominant

• No need to include • Combine horizontal

for seismic mode?

vertical seismic and vertical forces

analysis

forces • Add P-∆ effects

• Apply seismic No • Apply seismic

detailing provisions detailing provisions

• Combine horizontal and vertical seismic forces • Combine horizontal and vertical forces

• Add P-∆ effects • Add P-∆ effects

• Apply seismic detailing provisions • Apply seismic detailing provisions

Fig. 2. Updated Seismic Design Procedure for Bridges Using the FBDM

New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 33

Design forces for ductile seismic response are calculated from the elastic response

reduced by the ductility factor ‘µ’. The values of µ range from 1.0 to 4.0

depending on the bridge materials and structural system. Two sets of µ values are

given in the report, depending on the level of damage accepted for the earthquake

event, the first being for the ultimate (damage control) limit state and the second

for the serviceability limit state.

For the ultimate (damage control) limit state, residual cracks and concrete cover

spalling may occur in plastic hinge regions of bridge piers. However, in most

cases, bridges are expected to remain serviceable during repair operations. For the

serviceability limit state, ductility levels are set such that only minor inelastic

action should occur during the design level seismic excitation. Residual crack

widths will be sufficiently small so that remedial action will not be required.

Strains in cover concrete will not reach a level where incipient spalling might

occur. Residual displacements will be negligible and will not impede the normal

use of the bridge.

Bridges deemed to be lifeline by the relevant authority are to be designed for the

serviceability limit state, with this option also being open for all bridges.

that apply regardless of the design approach (i.e. FBDM or DBDM), as follows:

The existing bearing seat length ‘Lbs’ formula in AS 5100.2 is dependant on the

length of the bridge, but ignores the effect of out-of-phase displacements which

depend on pier height. The thermal, creep and shrinkage components in the

existing formula are overestimated by a factor of about 4 [4]. The following

equation is proposed.

Lbs = Δ (1.5) + 0.0004 Ld + 0.007 hd + 0.005W ≥ 0.3m (1)

where:

‘Ld’ is length of the superstructure to the next expansion joint;

‘hd’ is average pier height;

‘Ld’ is superstructure length;

‘W’ is seating width transverse to bridge axis; and

‘Δ(1.5)’ is defined as the corner-period displacement as described in Figure 3

below.

34 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett

The third expression in Equation 1 reflects the rotation of the pier foundation

associated with traveling seismic surface waves. The fourth expression reflects

the transverse displacement due to the support rotation about the vertical axis.

Frame-by-Frame Analysis

For longitudinal seismic response, each frame is analysed separately and the

results compared with a further analysis assuming fully closed joints. For

transverse seismic response, each frame is considered separately, with the mass

and stiffness of adjacent frames modeled at the movement joint if the fundamental

period of the adjacent frame differs by more than 25% from that of the frame

under consideration. The provisions simplify the analysis, particularly the

modelling of movement joints, and account for the large variations in stiffness of

adjacent frames. The provisions also recognize that coherent seismic excitation of

piers of long bridges is unlikely.

be used for the design of plastic hinges. A safe hierarchy of strength applies to

ensure that brittle failure (such as shear failure) will not occur. Unless moment-

curvature analysis accounting for the material overstrength is carried out during

design for flexure, the shear capacity required in potential plastic hinges is to

correspond to the nominal flexural capacity increased by 40%.

Capacity reduction factors are not used when calculating the section strength at

plastic hinges. With ductile design, plastic hinges reach their actual capacity

regardless of whether conservative or realistic material strengths are used. Safety

is not significantly influenced by increasing flexural strength, but economy is

adversely affected [6][7].

Moreover, gravity design actions are ignored when determining the required

moment capacity of plastic hinges. The current approach of combining gravity

moments assuming elastic stiffness, and seismic moments recognizing inelastic

response, is illogical and excessively conservative [6][7].

New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 35

Detailing is the most important aspect of providing for safe seismic response,

particularly for earthquakes greater than the design intensity, which could well

occur. The following column design provisions are recommended in the report to

replace the existing provisions in Section 10 of AS 5100.5 for bridges in BEDC2

to BEDC4.

• Area of longitudinal reinforcement to gross area of pier cross-section ratio is to

be between 0.008 and 0.04.

• Longitudinal reinforcement not to be spliced by welding or mechanical splicing

in plastic hinge zones, unless sufficient testing is carried out to ensure

satisfactory behaviour during seismic events.

• The spacing of restraints for longitudinal reinforcement of columns expected to

remain elastic under seismic response, as per the existing provisions, may be

eased to the lesser of 0.4Dc and 15db, where ‘Dc’ is the column diameter and

‘db’ is the diameter of the smallest bar in the column. The existing arbitrary

300 mm spacing will be deleted, as there is no basis for it.

• In plastic hinge zones, the spacing of restraints to the longitudinal

reinforcement will be limited to the lesser of 0.2Dc and (3+6(fu/fy – 1))db, where

‘fu’ and ‘fy’ are the ultimate and yield stress of the longitudinal bars.

• Current provisions of AS 5100.5 for minimum confinement/pier core

volumetric ratio in plastic hinge zones are to be relaxed and extended to apply

to ties, as follows:

• ρs ≥ 0.1f’c/fsy.f for ties and As/s ≥ 0.025f’cDc/fsy.f for helices

• If DBDM is used in design, the confinement ratio in plastic hinge zones will be

dependent on the extent of ductile behaviour of the pier during the design

seismic event.

• The minimum confinement reinforcement/pier core volumetric ratio to be 0.005.

• Bundled bars used as longitudinal reinforcement for seismic design to be

limited to two bars per bundle.

The DBDM detailed in the Austroads TS 1599 report is intended for inclusion in

the revised bridge code as an alternative seismic analysis method. The method

was prepared in a compatible format with the FBDM described above. As with

the FBDM, not all bridges will be required to be designed for earthquake actions.

36 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett

1. Checking whether the bridge will behave in an elastic manner during design

seismic events; and

2. Carrying out specific seismic design where ductile behaviour is confirmed.

This procedure enables designers to check whether a bridge designed for dead and

live loads will respond elastically to the design level of seismicity. The procedure

essentially comprises the following steps:

1. Determine the design elastic displacement ‘∆(T)’of bridge pier/s at fundamental

period ‘T’ of the bridge, using Equation 2.

Δ(T) = kpZΔh(T) (2)

• where ‘Z’ and ‘kp’ are as specified above, and ‘Δh(T)’ is the displacement

spectrum for the site which depends sub-soil class, as illustrated in Figure 3.

1200

Soil Ee

∆h(T)

800 Soil De

Soil Ce

400

Soil Be

Soil Ae

corner-

1 2 3

period

‘Δy’ depends on pier geometry and detailing (from design for dead and live

loads) and end boundary conditions. For prismatic and cylindrical piers, ‘Δy’

may be calculated from Equation 3.

New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 37

Δy = C1φy(H+Lsp)2+Δyf+Δb (3)

where:

‘C1’ is a coefficient dependant on pier end fixity conditions;

‘Δyf’ and ‘Δb’ are foundation and pier-cap bearing displacements, respectively; and

‘φy’ is the section curvature at yield.

∆d

∆y

F

pile elastic

rotation at hinge

yield post-yield

3. Compare the design elastic displacement ‘∆(T)’ (i.e. design action effects) and

the yield capacity ‘Δy’ (i.e. strength). If ‘∆(T)’does not exceed ‘Δy’, the pier/s

will behave elastically and no further specific design is required for the bridge.

As a simplification, ‘∆(T)’ may be calculated at ‘T’ of 1.5 seconds (i.e. the corner-

period) instead of the bridge fundamental period ‘T’. It is expected that ‘∆(1.5)’

will not exceed ‘Δy’ for most Australian bridges. However, if this condition fails,

calculate ‘T’ and subsequently ‘∆(T)’ in accordance with the procedure illustrated

in Figure 5.

38 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett

Is

Yes

Δy ≥ Δ(1.5)?

No

Yes Is No

Δy ≥ Δ(T)?

No further specific seismic design under design seismic action, and a specific

is required for the bridge seismic design is required

To carry out seismic design of bridges undergoing ductile behaviour, the bridge

can be represented as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) structure as illustrated in

Figure 6a. The seismic response of the equivalent SDOF structure is represented

by an effective mass ‘me’ and an effective stiffness ‘keff’ that is less than the elastic

stiffness ‘kel’ as illustrated in Figure 6b.

New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 39

on two factors:

1. Limiting the deformations from the design seismic event; and

2. Dissipating (or damping) the earthquake energy within the structure.

The ductile displacement of piers ‘Δd’ depends on the pier material type and

design details, and on the permissible strain limits.

Force

me Fu keff

F Fy

he kel

∆y ∆d

Displacement

a. Equivalent SDOF Structure b. Force vs. Displacement

Fig. 6. Representation of Bridges as SDOF structures

The DBDM specifies strain limits for the ultimate (damage control) and the

serviceability limit states, similar to the FBDM. The strain limits for the

serviceability limit state are smaller than those for the ultimate limit state.

Figure 7a shows the relationship between structure ductility (i.e. ductile to yield

displacement ratio) and damping for different materials. The figure shows that the

higher the ductility the higher the damping ‘ξ’.

ξ = 5%

Damping ‘ξ’ %

Steel

Displacement

ξ = 10%

ξ = 15%

Concrete

ξ = 20%

Unbonded prestress

40 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett

displacement ‘∆(T)’ reduced by a damping modifier ‘Rξ’, as in Equation 4.

Δd(T)= RξΔ(T) (4)

Damping also increases the effective period of the structure. Figure 7b shows

schematically the relationship between damping and ductile displacement for

different damping levels. After the required ductility is determined, the damping

and other design parameters are then calculated.

The design actions ‘Δd(T)’ are not to exceed the pier ductile capacity ‘Δd’.

The specific seismic design procedure is presented in Figure 8.

Determine the acceptable maximum strain limits for design limit state

Calculate the effective period ‘Teff ’ of the ductile bridge (as in Figure 7b)

Is or change geometry

No

Δls ≥ Δd(Teff)?

Yes

Analyse bridge and add P-∆ effects (for BEDC3 & BEDC4)

Fig. 8. Procedure for Carrying out Specific Seismic Design using the DBDM

New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 41

Acknowledgments

Mr Phil Moloy of DTEI, SA and Ms Giovanna Zanardo of MR, WA to Austroads

project TS 1599.

References

[1] AS 5100.2 (2004) Bridge design - Part 2: Design loads. Standards Australia

[2] AS 1170.4 (1993) Minimum design loads on structures - Part 4: Earthquake loads.

Standards Australia

[3] AS 1170.4 (2007) Structural design actions - Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia.

Standards Australia

[4] Noya L, Priestley N, Lake N (2011) Austroads Project No TS 1599: Bridge Design

Guidelines for Earthquakes. ARRB

[5] AS 5100.5 (2004) Bridge design - Part 5: Concrete. Standards Australia

[6] Priestley M J N, Calvi G M, Kowalsky M J (2007) Displacement Based Seismic Design of

Structures. IUSS Press, Pavia

[7] Priestley M J N, Seible F, Calvi G M (1996) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John

Willey & Sons, New York

- Evaluation of Steel Fiber Reinforcement for Punching Shear Resistance in Slab-Column Connections Part I: Monotonically Increased LoadUploaded byProfessor Dr. Nabeel Al-Bayati-Consultant Engineer
- AP-T200-12 Bridge Design Guidelines for EQUploaded byRasiduzzaman Rashid
- EM 1110-2-6050 - Response Spectra and Seismic Analysis for Concrete Hydraulic Structures 1Uploaded byPDHLibrary
- performance based designUploaded byartiraha
- Collapse Simulation of RC High-Rise Building Induced By Xiao Lu 1 , Xinzheng Lu 1* , Hong Guan2 and Lieping Ye 1Uploaded byMehranVa
- Earth Quake Engineering-qbUploaded byravirainbow
- fema450Uploaded byMariale Rodriguez Vasseur
- 00 ASCE b BachmanUploaded byJuan Pablo Lopez Carrasco
- WCEE2012_0128Uploaded byGuadalupe Cuitiño
- pankjUploaded byAshish Ghildiyal
- ASTMUploaded byketanbajaj
- 06ibc ChecklistUploaded byWasimur rahman
- Leaf SpringUploaded byraajaah
- Unit 3 Structures SolutionsUploaded bytangkayx
- A Study of Seismic Strengthening of Multi Storey BuildingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Site-Specific Seismic Studies for Optimal Structural Design Part1.pdfUploaded byHyunkyoun Jin
- 1TOIMEJ (4)Uploaded byHadiBies
- Seismic Analysis of Multi Storied RC Building Having Vertical Mass Irregularity With and Without Shear WallUploaded byIRJET Journal
- TB Lecture07 SeismicUploaded bySaeed Khawam
- DESIGN CALCULATION REPORT FOR LAZARO.pdfUploaded byFerdie Tolosa
- Provid Akis 2008Uploaded byJosé Antonio Alarcón León
- 06 List of TablesUploaded byBeny Abdou
- 13_1104.pdfUploaded byRoni Horas Sihombing
- Effect of Eccentric Shear Stiffness of Walls on.pdfUploaded byyihienew
- NewCanadianSeismDsnProvsUploaded byandibol
- Material Science LectureUploaded byJessel Aquino
- naftUploaded bykami_uar
- 3-Elastoplastic Constitutive EquationsUploaded byKTMO
- IDAUploaded byMaiz Neto
- c a 2016 Pg.322 Design MethodsUploaded byHumberto Jorge

- Multishaker Table Testing of Cable Stayed BridgeUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Analytical and Experimental update on bridge restrainersUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Tech_Manual_LRB.pdfUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- 03 Experimental and three-dimensional finite element method studies on pounding responses of bridge structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions-proof.pdfUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- AA-6 OpenSees Dev Sym_PetekUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Seminar paper(structural steel for civil construction).pdfUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- 10873-Article Text-38124-1-10-20140731Uploaded byTran Tien Dung
- Moving LoadUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Idarc ManualUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- IDARC MANUAL.pdfUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Cis Belong NbnUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Publishing in ASCE JournalsUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Devices for Protecting Bridge Superstructure From Pounding and Unseating Damages an OverviewUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Semi-Integral-Abutment Design Example (USA Unit)Uploaded byYa Yang
- Nuti Vanzi EESD Influnce of Earthquake Spatial Variablity on Differential Soil DisplacementUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- DIS Rapporto N1_04 Nuti VanziUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- VinitaSAxena (Fragility of Bridge to Spatially Varying Motion)Uploaded byShrestha Bipin
- 100571 PD Lecturer in Civil Engineering (3)Uploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Seminar Paper(Structural Steel for Civil Construction)Uploaded byShrestha Bipin
- EIJCSE3155Uploaded byShrestha Bipin
- bren165-223(bridge engineering paper).pdfUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Seismic Response of Long Span Cable-stayed Bridge to Nearfault Vertical Ground MotionsUploaded byShrestha Bipin
- Calculation of Earthquake Actions on Building StructuresUploaded byruleslb4304
- OpenSees TutorialUploaded byNguyen Duc Tuan

- ANSYS assignement.docxUploaded byisurupush
- O.T. Bruhns- Eulerian elastoplasticity: basic issues and recent resultsUploaded byCola7890
- Damage Evaluation AnalysisUploaded byClethHiren
- fracture mechanics pptUploaded byDEEPAK
- Creep1Uploaded byFrederico Fernandes
- Reinforced Concrete DesignUploaded byManuel Antunes Luis
- AdvancAdvanced-Scratch-Testing-for-Evaluation-of-Coatings-Slidesed Scratch Testing for Evaluation of Coatings SlidesUploaded byBruno Guedes
- AISC_SeismicBracedFramesDesignConceptsAndConnectionsUploaded byNEO
- electrical resistance based fatigue test.pdfUploaded byRituvallabha Das
- Modified Erichsen Cupping Test for Copper, Brass, Aluminium and Stainless SteelUploaded bythesij
- EFFECT OF HEAT MANAGEMENT ON THE MECHANICALUploaded byuhu_plus6482
- IRJET- Fabrication and Testing of Aluminium Metal Matrix Composites Through Stir Casting TechniqueUploaded byIRJET Journal
- ML022410398.pdfUploaded byMarkusMakuAldo
- Plastic Snap Clip DesignUploaded byShreyas Srinivasan
- mechanical_properties_2.pptUploaded byRamnarayan Meena
- Ceramic Surface TensionUploaded byIvan Rodrigo
- Plastics Basics 2000Uploaded byFilomeno João Colaço Faustino
- Criteria for Ductile Fracture and Their ApplicationsUploaded bySaeed Ghaffari
- Creep Test Lab ReportUploaded byjohandreher
- Rocks That Crackle and Sparkle and GlowUploaded byTralalescu
- A Study of Behavior of RCC Box Culvert Under the Influence of Static and Dynamic Loads in Accordance with IRCUploaded byIRJET Journal
- D3148Uploaded byJan
- Material Science and Engineering HWUploaded byZharlene Sasot
- CT26-Design Guide for SHS Concrete Filled ColumnUploaded byKeen Loong
- Pengujian mekanik.pdfUploaded byAndre Yosi
- Estudio EXPERIMENTAL Configuracion Pernos GussetUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Rak-50_3149_l._l12-_hardening_soil_model.pdfUploaded byMinhLê
- Formability of Stamping Magnesium-Alloy AZ31 SheetsUploaded byVarthini Raja
- buckling pressure.pdfUploaded bymarcospj
- Crumb Rubber ModifierUploaded byPerkresht Pawar