FEA

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

FEA

© All Rights Reserved

- Tensile or Compressive Plastic Deformation of Cylinders Assisted
- ISOStandard.pdf
- Zhao - Finile Element Analysis of Three-point Bending of Sheet Metals (2002)
- Application of Steel Channels as Stiffeners
- Som Nol
- tmpEDF2
- Lecture 15 True Stress Strain Hardening
- Nanotecnologia
- 01495730290074298
- A New Rapid Tooling Process
- Broaching
- The Measurement of Applied and Residual Stresses in Metals Using Ultrasonic Waves
- ...Structure and Properities of Orthodontic Materials
- Hvidsten, Eivind
- 3deec52eb452e030ab
- Column-To-Beam Connections
- Thin Walls to Ext Press
- Iscm2007 CD-rom PDF 101 Fp-203-Gaocy
- Keunwoo_Lee_Dissertation.pdf
- Xie Strain C

You are on page 1of 10

A.M. Mouazen*, M. NemeÂnyi

Institute of Agricultural Engineering, PANNON University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of MosonmagyaroÂvaÂr,

MosonmagyaroÂvaÂr vaÂr 2. H-9200, Hungary

Abstract

Both the analytical and the finite element method are being used to investigate soil cutting process. The finite element

method is adequately contributing to the development of understanding the reality of this phenomenon. This method is used to

predict soil stress distribution of different sorts, soil deformation, positions of soil failure and tool horizontal and vertical uplift

forces.

Two aspects are taken into consideration, namely soil mechanical behaviour and soil±tool interaction. The material

behaviour and soil±metal interaction are of non-linear type. To simulate soil material behaviour under loading of tillage tools,

two various theoretical bases are introduced, namely the curve-fitting technique and the elastic±perfectly plastic assumption.

Soil±tool interaction is taken into account either as pure friction or friction with adhesion depending upon different influencing

factors. Material and interaction properties used at the elastic±perfectly plastic assumption are usually considered constants,

while at the curve-fitting technique their values are varied along with the loading path. At the curve-fitting technique large

reduction in their values is made when the soil at a given nodal point fails in shear or tensile. This paper investigates the ability

of applying these techniques of modelling to study soil tillage process. Brief comparison of results calculated by using both

methods is introduced, as well. A review of several previous studies shows that both assumptions are adaptable to simulate soil

material behaviour. However, the finite element method provides more accurate estimation of draught and uplift forces when

the curve-fitting method is used. A reduction in the material and interaction properties should be made in order to improve the

degree of accuracy when the elastic±perfectly plastic assumption is used. # 1998 IMACS/Elsevier Science B.V.

1. Introduction

Soil compaction can be directly related to the draught force and consequently the energy

requirements of tillage operations. The higher the degree of compaction, the higher is the amount of

fuel consumed for cutting and loosening of compacted soils. In order to understand this complicated

relation and define optimal designs of tillage tools, analytical or numerical techniques such as the finite

element method (FEM) should be utilised. In fact, such optimal designs should result in minimising the

energy requirement with performing perfect soil loosening.

ÐÐÐÐ

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +36-96-215-911; fax: +36-96-215-931.

0378-4754/98/$ ± see front matter # 1998 IMACS/Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 4 7 5 4 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 5 2 - 9

24 A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32

To accomplish a FEM analysis of soil cutting process, several basic phenomena should be taken into

account. First, soil material behaviour must be simulated by a properly selected constitutive

relationship. Based on the stress±strain curves, usually measured by a triaxial compression apparatus,

soil material parameters needed for running a FEM analysis can be calculated using the Mohr±

Coulomb's shear failure criterion. Second, the nature of soil±tool interaction must be well understood

and precisely specified. On the basis of the shear stress±displacement curves, usually measured by

using a modified shear box, soil±metal interaction properties can be calculated. Third, it should be

recognised that agricultural soil failure is of shear or tensile type. Actually, compression failure also

occurs, which usually leads to shear failure. Such a compression may have negative influences when it

does not lead to shear failure causing a new compaction. Hard pan creation directly beneath the cutting

depth of some tillage tools, namely heavy disc harrows and mouldboard ploughs, is a good example.

Once the forenamed phenomena are favourably prepared and properly completed, either the curve-

fitting technique or an elastic±perfectly plastic material model possessing various mechanical

principles can be utilised in order to conduct the FEM analysis.

The FEM is a powerful numerical tool, which provides very important information for understanding

of what is really going on during soil tillage. It can handle complex boundary conditions and different

soil stiffness of different layers. The main limitations are individual creativity and patience when

setting up boundary conditions, and the amount of computational time available [1]. Many researchers

have conducted FEM analysis of tillage process. Some of them employed the curve-fitting technique

[2±6], whereas the others assumed the soil material as elastic±perfectly plastic [7±11]. The accuracy of

prediction depends upon the assumption of soil material behaviour, soil±metal interaction and soil

failure criterion.

The scope of this paper is to review the two ways of the FEM modelling with introducing a brief

comparison, from which the advantages and disadvantages of each are arisen.

The elastic±perfectly plastic material behaviour of the soil under a uniaxial compression test can be

described by a two-stage, stress±strain relationship, as shown in Fig. 1.

At stage 1, the behaviour is purely elastic, while it becomes perfectly plastic when the stress level

reaches a maximum value of 0 at stage 2. The following formula expresses the elastic±perfectly plastic

stress±strain relationship

k0 ; 0 0 ; k2 ; 0 ; (1)

where is the compressive axial strain in compression tests, tensile strain in tension test or shear

displacement/sample length in direct shear tests, 0 the strain value at joint point and K0, K2 are the

parameters.

Agricultural soils, as bulk materials, suffer plastic deformations after a given external load. Hence,

the resulting strain rates can be divided into elastic and plastic as follows:

d de dp (2)

A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32 25

where d is the incremental total strain, de the incremental elastic strain and dp is the incremental

plastic strain.

According to the generalised Hook's law of elasticity, the incremental elastic strain can be related to

the incremental stress as

d De de De
d ÿ dp (3)

where ds is the incremental stress and De is the elastic material matrix, which can be written as a

function of Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio.

Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio are elastic parameters that can be measured using the standard

triaxial compression test. Young's modulus is to be estimated either at 0% or 50% stress level using the

following equation:

1 ÿ 3

E0;50 (4)

1

where 1 and 3 are the major and minor principal stresses, respectively.

However, for the elastic±perfectly plastic material assumption, Young's modulus E0,50 and Poisson's

ratio v are assumed constants throughout the analysis. Poisson's ratio is to be calculated based upon the

measured soil volumetric change using the following equation:

1 ÿ

(5)

21

where 1 and are the incremental axial and volumetric strains, respectively.

The classical theory of plasticity denotes that the incremental plastic strains are proportional to the

derivative of the yield function with respect to the incremental stresses. The yield function of an

elastic±perfectly plastic material is a fixed surface in the principal stress space (Haigh±Westergaard

space). Stress states within the yield surface describe elasticity states where purely recoverable

deformations (elastic strains) take place. When stress paths have already touched the yield surface,

plastic strains are introduced so that both recoverable and permanent deformations are produced. This

26 A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32

definition of the incremental plastic strain is designated as associated plasticity. Other definition of the

incremental plastic strain is to introduce an additional yield function called the plastic potential

function. The plastic potential function confines a surface in the principal stress space like the yield

function. The mathematical determination of the incremental plastic strain as a function of the plastic

potential function is given as

@g

dp (6)

@

where g is the plastic potential function and is the plastic multiplier.

The plastic multiplier equals zero when a stress state sites within the space enclosed by the yield

surface and the soil is still under elastic deformations, while its value becomes higher than zero when a

stress state touches the yield function and plastic strains arise in soil. An incorporated state is called

elastoplasticity. Substitution Eq. (6) into Eq. (3) results the following:

@g

d De d ÿ De (7)

@

But the continuity condition induces

@f

df d 0 (8)

@

where f is the yield function.

From Eqs. (7) and (8), the plastic multiplier can be written as

@f =@De d

(9)

@f =@De
@g=@

Relating Eq. (9) with Eq. (7) yields the expression of the incremental stress in respect to the total

incremental strain

e 1 e @g @f e

d D ÿ D D d (10)

d @ @

where

@f e @g

d D (11)

@ @

The yield function of the Drucker±Prager elastic±perfectly plastic model, for instance, can be written

as

f 3m ÿ k 0 (12)

where and k are the material parameters, and m is the mean principal stress that can be expressed as

A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32 27

is the effective stress that might be related with the second derivative stress invariant as

1=2

J2

But

J2 12
x ÿ m 2
y ÿ m 2
z ÿ m 2 xy

2

yz2 xz2 (14)

where is the shear stress, I1 and J2 are the first stress invariant and second deviatoric stress invariant,

respectively and is the compressive stress.

The material parameters included in Eq. (12) are evaluated as a function of soil shear strength

coefficients (soil cohesion c and soil internal friction angle ).

In order to study the interaction and sliding characteristics of soil±tool system, Coulomb's criterion

of dry friction can be specified at the interface elements [10] ignoring soil±tool adhesion. Coulomb

stated that the frictional force is proportional to the normal load [12]

F

fr (15)

W

where fr is the tan coefficient of friction, the external friction angle, F the tangential or frictional

force, and W is the normal force to the contact surface between the soil and tillage tool.

The basic approach of this technique depends upon considering the soil as elastic material. The

needed parameters are determined by using a non-linear curve-fitting method on data obtained from

standard triaxial compression tests. Several functions characterise the soil stress±strain constitutive

relationship [2]. The best fit of the experimental data was obtained with Kondner's hyperbolic equation

[2,3,13], which can be written as

1

1 ÿ 3 (16)

a b1

where a and b are the constants.

Therefore, the hyperbolic formula was derived and rearranged to obtain the tangential modulus,

stress dependency [13]

n

Rf
1 ÿ sin
1 ÿ 3 2 3

Et 1 ÿ Kpa (17)

2c cos 23 sin pa

where Rf is the failure ratio, pa the atmospheric pressure, and K and n are the dimensionless numbers.

In order to deal with the non-linear behaviour of soil material, the full load is divided into several

smaller steps. For each step, a linear elastic analysis is made. Results of stress, strain and displacement

are then accumulated until the full load has been applied. The tangential modulus is varied in

magnitude along the successive load steps so that its value for the next step is calculated from Eq. (17)

by substituting the stress value of the current step as illustrated in Fig. 2.

The incremental strains for each load step are related to the incremental stress changes by the

generalised Hooke's law of elasticity [14] as

28 A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32

y 1=Et y ÿ v z x (19)

z 1=Et z ÿ v x y (20)

xy 2 1 v=Et xy (21)

yz 2 1 v=Et yz (22)

zx 2 1 v=Et zx (23)

where is an incremental shear strain and is an incremental shear stress.

In contrast, Poisson's ratio is usually assumed constant for all load steps. It is calculated using Eq. (5)

as well.

Likewise, the way utilised to study soil±tool interaction coincides with that followed at the

investigation of the soil material behaviour by the curve-fitting technique. The hyperbolic function of

soil±wall interface proposed in [15] provides the best fit with the experimental data. Therefore, the

tangent modulus of soil±tool interface is deduced starting from the hyperbolic equation. On the basis of

the stress level of a preceding load step, the interface tangential modulus is evaluated and assigned to

the current load step.

The basic finite element equation can be formulated by transforming the non-linear equations of

equilibrium for the elastic plastic problems to the incremental form of linearised FEM equations [16].

The simplified incremental form of the basic equation is given as follows:

KfdUg fdRg (24)

A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32 29

where [K] is the total stiffness matrix, which relates a vector {dR}[dR1,dR2, . . ., dRn]T of the total

load increments to a vector {dU}[dU1,dU2, . . ., dUn]T of the total displacement increments. The

incremental strain {d}n1 for the element can be evaluated from the kinematic condition

fdUgn1 Kÿ1

n1=2 fdRg in structure level (25)

where [B] is the transformation matrix.

The stress increment {d}n1 can be obtained by using the current constitutive matrix as

where [Dep] is the elastoplastic material matrix.

For an elastic soil material behaviour like that of the curve-fitting technique, Eq. (27) can be given as

Results calculated from the FEM model of soil cutting usually provide information about soil stress

and strain contour distributions, soil movement fields and tool forces. Furthermore, zones where soil

failure occurs can be determined based on the critical state soil mechanics after handling the predicted

stresses and making comparisons with the measured soil shear and tensile strength. Several FEM

studies did not perform validations of the calculated results with experimental data. Even the verified

studies provided only partial verification of the theoretical predictions. Tool forces and soil movement

are conventionally validated with soil bin experiments. This procedure is of high impotence for tillage

tool design from the point of view of energy consumption and quality of soil loosening. Therefore, in

this section a review of the validated predictions of tool forces and soil movement from several former

studies is introduced.

At their trial to model cutting of a clay soil with a simple tillage tool by adopting a similar technique

to the curve-fitting approach, Yong and Hanna [6] recorded a good correspondence between the

computed displacement fields and the measured values. In addition, the computed and experimentally

measured values of forces developed in blade thrust were shown to be in a very close agreement. This

good agreement might be attributed to their procedure of reducing the shear stiffness of elements to a

negligible value after these elements have failed in shear.

Chi and Kushwaha [3] applied the curve-fitting technique to analyse soil failure with a narrow blade.

The hyperbolic formulae were used to approximate the behaviour of soil and soil±tool interaction. They

report that the FEM model predicted relatively accurate draught forces. The relative error of draught

force between the FEM model and soil bin test ranged from 0.8% (458 rake angle) to 10.5% (908 rake

angle). For the inclined tool, the FEM model over-predicted the vertical forces, whereas for the vertical

tool there was under-prediction of this force. The relatively small error of draught force estimation

seems to be because of the variation of the tangential modulus along with the successive load steps (see

30 A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32

Fig. 2 and Eq. (17)) and the reduction of the tangential modulus value to a negligible value once a soil

failure takes place at any nodal point.

Gee-Clough et al. [4] reported their achievement in the FEM modelling of deformation and failure of

a wet clay soil by simple tillage tool. Their FEM analysis type can be also classified under the curve-

fitting technique so that the analysis procedure is similar to the previous one. One difference can be

distinguished between the tangential modulus equations. In spit of the fact that the tangential modulus

equation was also derived from Eq. (17), the final form of the tangential modulus defers from that of

Chi and Kushwaha [3]. Moreover, their formula does not involve the Mohr±Coulomb's strength

parameters,

Et 1=a1 ÿ b
1 ÿ 3 1 ÿ
b a
1 ÿ 3 : (29)

Their FEM model provided good approximations to the soil bin measured soil movement and tool

forces, particularly for the 258 rake angle tine.

In their computer code [8] a number of constitutive elastic±perfectly plastic models such as the von

Mises, Drucker±Prager, critical state and cap models were incorporated to simulate three soil types. The

agreement between their predicted results and soil bin test data for tool forces and strain was not in a

good range, probably because of applying a constant Young's modulus and not accounting for occurring

of a significant number of cracks and fractures formed in the soil at very small tool displacement.

Araya and Gao [7] have conducted three-dimensional FEM analysis of subsoiler cutting with

pressurised air injection. The Drucker±Prager with the flow rule of associated plasticity and strain

hardening model were used considering the soil as elastic±perfectly plastic material. The effect of the

shank rake angle on soil failure was tested as well. Their results showed that the shank rake

angle affected the rupture distances strongly. The theoretical and soil bin experiment indicated that

optimum shank rake angles of 45±608 were found to create larger soil disruption. A comparison

between the measured and calculated draught force showed good agreement for some cases and

relatively large differences for others. The calculated draught force for instance over-predicted the

measured draught by a 38% (for subsoiler cutting without injector), whereas the measured draught

force over-predicted the calculated draught by a very small percentage of 0.03±0.8 (for subsoiler

cutting with injector).

In his attempt to modelling deep loosening by a medium-deep subsoiler, Mouazen [17] proposed the

material of a sandy loam soil to be simulated as an elastic±perfectly plastic material, and the Drucker±

Prager model with the flow rule of associated plasticity was applied. He reported a comparison of the

FEM prediction and soil bin test for subsoiler forces and soil surface movement dimensions. This

comparison was made for four subsoiler geometrical types. The predicted subsoiler forces from the

FEM model exceeded the measured ones for all subsoiler types. The over-prediction of draught

estimation ranged from 15% to 18.4%, which was attributed to the following:

1. Crack formation and fragmentation of the soil during the soil bin test was not properly accounted for

in the FEM model, when the Drucker±Prager elastic±perfectly plastic model with the general flow

rule of associated plasticity was adopted.

2. Considering constant Young's modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio in the FEM analyses could

have been a factor.

3. Assuming a homogeneous soil body during the FEM analysis, whereas during the soil bin test a non-

homogeneous soil body was created.

A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32 31

Table 1

Brief comparison of the two FEM modelling methods of soil material and soil±metal interaction

Terms Elastic±perfectly plastic model Curve-fitting technique

Material behaviour Non-linear, elastoplastic Non-linear hyperbolic, elastic

Soil±metal interaction Linear, friction Non-linear hyperbolic, friction and adhesion

Output strains Elastic and plastic Elastic

Modulus type Young's modulus, E0,50 Eq. (4) Tangential modulus, Et, Eqs. (17, 29)

Prompt modulus value Constant Several (one for each step)

Poisson's ratio Constant Constant

On the other hand, the FEM evaluation provided a good approximation of the upward, forward soil

movement with the experimental data, but it gave no indication of significant differences between the

various subsoilers. Less degree of accuracy was found for the estimation of the maximum sideways soil

movement. A similar observation was reported by Araya and Gao [7], who attributed it to omission of

soil discontinuity caused by tensile stresses in the FEM model.

Mouazen [17] figured out an optimal subsoiler design for the energy saving and soil volume

increasing (soil loosening). Both the theoretical and soil bin measurements indicated that the subsoiler

that had 758 inclined shank and 158 inclined chisel required the lowest draught and developed an

appropriate soil loosening quality.

4. Conclusions

A review of several previous studies shows that the curve-fitting technique and the elastic±perfectly

plastic models are both applicable to simulate soil material behaviour during soil cutting. However, the

FEM provides more accurate estimation of draught and uplift forces when the curve-fitting method is

used. A reduction in the material and interaction properties should be made in order to improve the

degree of accuracy when the elastic±perfectly plastic assumption is used.

A brief comparison between the elastic±perfectly plastic model and curve-fitting technique is given

in Table 1.

References

[1] A.C. Bailey, R.L. Raper, C.E. Johnson, E.C. Burt, An integrated approach to soil compaction prediction, J. Agric. Eng.

Res. 61 (1995) 73±80.

[2] J. Wang, D. Gee-Clough, Deformation and failure in wet clay soil: Part 1, stress±strain relationships, J. Agric. Eng. Res.

54 (1993) 37±55.

[3] L. Chi, R.L. Kushwaha, Three-dimensional, finite element interaction between the soil and simple tillage tool, Trans.

Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 34(2) (1991) 361±365.

[4] D. Gee-Clough, J. Wang, W. Kanok-Nukulchai, Deformation and failure in wet clay soil: Part 3, finite element analysis

of cutting of wet clay by tines, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 58 (1994) 37±55.

[5] R.L. Kushwaha, J. Shen, Finite element analysis of dynamic interaction between soil and tillage tool. Trans. Amer. Soc.

Agric. Eng. 37(5) (1995) 1315±1319.

32 A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi / Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 48 (1998) 23±32

[6] R.N. Yong, A.W. Hanna, Finite element analysis of plane soil cutting , J. Teremech. 14(3) (1977) 103±125.

[7] K. Araya, R. Gao, A non-linear three-dimensional finite element analysis of subsoiler cutting with pressurised air

injection. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 61(2) (1995) 115±128.

[8] C.S. Desai, H.V. Phan, J.V. Perumpral, Mechanics of three-dimensional soil-structure interaction, J. Soil Mech.

Foundation Division, ASCE 108 (1982) 731±747.

[9] Y. Liu, Z.M. Hou, Three-Dimensional non-linear finite element analysis of soil cutting by narrow blades, Proceedings of

International Conference on Soil Dynamics, Auburn, Alabama, vol. 2, 1985, pp. 412±427.

[10] A.M. Mouazen, M. NemeÂnyi, Two-dimensional finite element analysis of soil cutting by medium deep subsoiler,

Hungarian Agric. Eng. 9 (1996) 32±36.

[11] X. Xie, M. Zhang, An approach to 3-d non-linear FE simulative method for investigation of soil-tool dynamic system,

Proceedings of International Conference on Soil Dynamics, Auburn, Alabama, vol. 2, 1985, 322±327.

[12] N.N. Mohsenin, Physical Properties of Plant and Animal materials, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970, 734 pp.

[13] J. Duncan, C.Y. Chang, Non-linear analysis of stress and strain in soils, J. Soil Mech. Foundation Division, ASCE

89(SM5) (1970) 1629±1653.

[14] A.J. Koolen, H. Kuipers, Agricultural Soil Mechanics, Springer, Berlin, 1983, 241 pp.

[15] G.W. Clough, J.M. Duncan, Finite element analysis of retaining wall behaviour, J. Soil Mech. Foundation Division,

ASCE 97(SM12) (1971) 1657±1673.

[16] W.F. Chen, E. Mizuno, Non-linear Analysis in Soil Mechanics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, 660 pp.

[17] A.M. Mouazen, Modelling the interaction between the soil and tillage tools, Ph.D. Thesis, submitted to the Hungarian

Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, 1997, 128 pp.

- Tensile or Compressive Plastic Deformation of Cylinders AssistedUploaded byRyszard B. Pecherski
- ISOStandard.pdfUploaded bypoppop
- Zhao - Finile Element Analysis of Three-point Bending of Sheet Metals (2002)Uploaded bySsandra Marchi
- Application of Steel Channels as StiffenersUploaded bynareshpatil114
- Som NolUploaded byMohanraj Kulandasamy
- tmpEDF2Uploaded byFrontiers
- Lecture 15 True Stress Strain HardeningUploaded byJordan King
- NanotecnologiaUploaded byviniciushiper
- 01495730290074298Uploaded bySneh Yadav
- A New Rapid Tooling ProcessUploaded bySEDDIGHI55
- BroachingUploaded byhanswurst5932
- The Measurement of Applied and Residual Stresses in Metals Using Ultrasonic WavesUploaded byJoao Luis
- ...Structure and Properities of Orthodontic MaterialsUploaded byAkshaya Pandian
- Hvidsten, EivindUploaded byRagunath Karthick
- 3deec52eb452e030abUploaded byghowsalya
- Column-To-Beam ConnectionsUploaded bysoroware
- Thin Walls to Ext PressUploaded bysyampnaidu
- Iscm2007 CD-rom PDF 101 Fp-203-GaocyUploaded byarajaneesh
- Keunwoo_Lee_Dissertation.pdfUploaded byatalayy
- Xie Strain CUploaded bytt3340
- (1982 Houlsby) - Predictions Tests Clay With CSUploaded bysanpaz75
- Lecture 3 Mechanical Properties of MetalsUploaded byZulfadzli Ridzuan
- An Improved Study on Gardiner’s Work Based on Elastoplastic AnalysisUploaded byjmontesano6898
- Fatigue in metalsUploaded bymdkml
- 6. Tensile Testing I HandoutUploaded bySam
- stress for a surface flaw on a cylindrical componentUploaded byjhon ortiz
- MSE-227 Mechanical Properties chapter 7.pptUploaded byArslan Anjum
- ANSYS_analysis_of_stress_and_strain_after_cones_pl.pdfUploaded byPourya
- 6342.pdfUploaded byPolygrapack SA DE CV
- Mechanical Tests (Batch 3)Uploaded byMyster Reilous

- Turbine CascadeUploaded byomprakashsingh123
- Data VisualizationUploaded byno theenks
- Brosura Curele RED Power 03Uploaded bygirnetvaleriu
- lamotrigineUploaded bySailaja Chirravuri
- Razavi Monolithic Phase-locked Loops and Clock Recovery CircuitsUploaded byAhmedEssa89
- Analytical fourbar.pps4barUploaded byEl Julaibib
- Nuclear Decommissioning Capability StatementUploaded bynukke
- Implementation of Human Tracking using Back Propagation AlgorithmUploaded byijcsis
- icarus_reference_guide.pdfUploaded byPrashantGaurav
- Cambridge Primary Science TextbookUploaded byHoàng Thuỳ Linh
- The Mathematics of HarmonyUploaded byJohnny Riverwalk
- r1916v f7p704 Ecu PinoutUploaded byChet T16
- 1. Civil - Ijcseierd-strength Properties of Concrete Using Wollastonite-flyash and Wollastonite-silica FumeUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Petrotest Product 13-0285 EnUploaded bydchy
- An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes Theorem 1-4-2011Uploaded bygattoclaudia
- Application of Laplace Transform Homotopy Perturbation Method to Gas Dynamic Equation a Modified ApproachUploaded byesatjournals
- En RMC13 Concrete HandbookUploaded bySrikar Avr
- Process Parameters Optimization in GFRP Drilling Through Integration OfUploaded byMohan Kumar
- Ovid_ Glenohumeral Joint Kinematics and Kinetics for Three Coordinate System Representations During Wheelchair Propulsion1Uploaded byavaloshe
- Application of Weldment Fatigue Methods to Conveyors Pulley DesignUploaded byIgor San Martín Peñaloza
- B1-13 Standard Specification for Hard-Drawn Copper Wire.pdfUploaded byAic Calidad
- Viscosity Wt g PDFUploaded byAbel J. Urbán Ríos
- MOMENT AREA METHOD PROJECTUploaded byfarisdanialfadli
- Mil Hdbk 274aUploaded byHarry Nuryanto
- lx-hi-bid-specsUploaded bychandravadiyaketan
- Offworlders.PDFUploaded byZach Naylor
- 10.mcfarquhar.pdfUploaded byMohamed Samir
- UL 1741Uploaded bykhalatif8
- Physics Notes on Elementary ParticlesUploaded bywww.bhawesh.com.np
- Condition Monitoring of Blade in Turbomachinery a ReviewUploaded byTGrey027

## Much more than documents.

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

Cancel anytime.