262 views

Original Title: Comparative Inelastic Pushover Analysis of Masonry Frames

Uploaded by George Varelis

- Machine Design by E.L. Wallace
- axle
- Non Linear Analysis Pushover
- SOM Viva Questions in Options
- Pushover Analysis Final
- Technical Note SAOS176 v2
- P0002-Reel Handling Structures Design Calculations
- Stress Clsfn
- An Equivalent Model for Seismic Analysis of Masonry and Reinforced Concrete Buildings
- CEN 330 Chapter04-Flexure(1).pdf
- CSI ANALYSIS REFERENCE MANUAL FOR SAP2000, ETABS AND SAFE
- Stuctural Analysis of Helicopter Flight and Hangar Deck
- Report 8-9-13 - Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit
- EVALUATION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
- Pasticier_nonlinear_seismic_analysis of a Masonry Building in SAP2000
- Block+Shear+Tests+in+High-Strength+Steel+Angles
- Long Quiz Solutions
- Lecture 06 - Di Prisco
- 3
- Design and Development of All-Terrain Vehicle : Volume 1

You are on page 1of 9

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

T. Salonikios a,∗, C. Karakostas a, V. Lekidis a, A. Anthoine b

a

Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, P.O. Box 53, GR-55102 Finikas, Thessaloniki, Greece

b

Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, ELSA, I 21020 Ispra, Italy

Received 22 July 2002; received in revised form 15 May 2003; accepted 16 May 2003

Abstract

In the present paper, the methodology, suggested in FEMA 273 guidelines for the evaluation of the seismic capacity of existing

structures, is applied for the case of unreinforced masonry-type plane frames. Results from comparative pushover analyses of

masonry plane frames are presented. Calculations are carried out by the SAP2000 Nonlinear and CAST3M programs. For the

analysis by the SAP2000 Nonlinear program, linear elements with appropriate plastic hinges are used for the modelling. For the

analysis by the CAST3M program, two different types of models are examined, using either homogenous plane elements or discrete

brick and joint elements. From the analytical results, useful conclusions are drawn on the strength and inelastic behaviour of masonry

frames under three different distributions of the seismic lateral loads.

2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Unreinforced masonry walls; Profile of lateral loads; Pushover analysis; Frame elements; Homogenous elements; Discrete brick elements

and realistic evaluation of the damage distribution can

Unreinforced masonry structures are found in many be achieved.

earthquake prone countries. For example, many monas- In recent codes [5], the use of such nonlinear displace-

teries of mount Athos in northern Greece, that were built ment-based methods is extended to the case of unre-

at the beginning of the previous millennium, have been inforced masonry (URM) buildings. It was found that

repeatedly stricken by destructive earthquakes in 1366, such structures may exhibit ductile inelastic behaviour

1511, 1572, 1776 and 1797 with magnitudes of about under combined vertical and horizontal loads [6]:

6.5–6.7 [1]. In most cases, however, only some cracks according to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, in the high

on the walls or partial collapses were observed, with no inelastic deformation range, where cohesion ceases to

total collapse ever reported. In contrast to this actual exist, satisfactory ductility is provided by the friction.

behaviour, analytical computations based on conven- The in-plane resisting mechanism activated in URM

tional force-based methods indicate that total collapse buildings is provided by the piers and spandrels. In

should have followed such seismic actions. addition to the normal force due to the dead loads (in

Such incompatibilities between the actual structural the piers only), these resisting elements are subjected to

behaviour and the predictions stemming from conven- shear and bending due to the imposed seismic action at

tional analytical methods led to the need for using more the base of the structure. Depending on the width to

refined and realistic computational approaches. In recent height ratio of the element and on the respective values

years, displacement-based methodologies, such as the of the normal force, bending moment and shear force,

pushover analysis [2–4], have been proved more suitable three failure mechanisms might be observed [2]:

for cases of retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing

앫 Flexural (rocking) failure consisting the initial crack-

ing of the masonry in tension (in the bed joints for

∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-31-047-60814; fax: +30-31- piers, in both head joints and bricks in spandrels), and

047-6085. the subsequent crushing of the diagonally opposite

E-mail address: salonikios@itsak.gr (T. Salonikios). compressed corners of the element.

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00118-4

1516 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523

앫 Diagonal cracking shear failure involving the bed and bay (1B) and a seven-bay (7B) model (Fig. 1). The

head joints and/or the bricks depending on their rela- choice of the models is dictated from the fact that URM

tive strength. buildings in earthquake prone Southern Europe countries

앫 Shear sliding failure along a bed joint at one end of such as Greece are usually low-rise (in most cases one

the structural element (only for piers). or two storeys high), but may be smaller or larger

depending on the use (private or collective). In addition

This is fully coherent with what have been observed to the self-weight of the masonry, extra masses are con-

during several damage surveys of masonry buildings sidered at the floor levels. For the 1B frame, a uniformly

subjected to earthquake excitations. Two main types of distributed mass of 6 tons/m is assumed for the first

cracks have been observed: either horizontal at the ends floor, and of 4 tons/m for the second floor. The corre-

of the pier (or vertical at the ends of the spandrels), or sponding values for the 7B frame are assumed to be 3

diagonal in both element types. and 2 tons/m, respectively, so as to obtain the same mass

When an URM building is subjected to a seismic base (and associated axial load) on the piers of the 1B frame

excitation, both bending and shear resisting mechanisms and on the internal piers of the 7B frame (the mass on

may be activated and failure will first appear at the the two external piers of the 7B is smaller).

location with the smallest strength. To reliably describe For the analysis, three types of modelling are investi-

the inelastic behaviour of an URM building, a model gated. In the first, the linear frame elements of the

should allow both flexural and shear mechanisms to be SAP2000 Nonlinear program are used, while in the two

activated. others, a continuous and discrete modelling is applied

Methods of displacement-based or pushover inelastic using suitable plane and joint elements of the

analysis for the seismic evaluation of URM buildings CAST3M program.

possess the advantage that loads are applied in a static The basic mechanical characteristics of the masonry

way and hence the results can be easily verified. Also, material are not a parameter for this study and are there-

structural elements are checked using deformation and fore the same for all computations (thickness of the

displacement values, which are the actual result of the walls t = 0.60 m, volumetric mass r = 2 t / m3, Young

earthquake excitation on the building [4]. Irrespective of modulus E = 1650 MPa, Poisson ratio n = 0.2, tension

the design methodology to be used (displacement-based strength f t = 0.1 MPa, compression strength f c = 3.0

or simplified pushover analysis), there is always a need MPa). Additional parameters required for a specific

for inelastic modelling of the building and for appropri- modelling option have been chosen on the basis of exist-

ate distribution of lateral loads along the height. Among ing guidelines [5], engineering judgment and/or experi-

the models suggested in the literature for the simulation ence acquired from previous use of the model.

of URM walls, most prominent are the discrete brick and

joint [7], the continuum [8] and the frame element [9] 2.1. Linear (S) model (SAP2000)

models. A comparative study using all three proposed

models is presented in this paper. In the computations, The structures are considered as an assemblage of lin-

three different lateral load distributions are also assumed, ear elements (beams) available in the SAP2000 Nonlin-

since in URM buildings the appropriate lateral loads pro- ear program [9]. These beams have an elastic–plastic

file is not always obvious. This problem arises from the behaviour based on the plastic hinge concept. In this

fact that, in such buildings, an important fraction of the case, a necessary prerequisite is the definition of the

total mass is distributed along the wall height and in possible locations and types of the plastic hinges that

many cases there are flexible wooden floors that do not might develop along the span of each element. These

provide sufficient diaphragm constrain at their level. plastic hinges should be able to accurately describe the

possible failure mechanisms observed in the actual struc-

tures (flexural or shear). Here, a suitable moment–

2. Modelling assumptions rotation (M–⌰) plastic hinge is provided at both ends

of each element (flexural mechanism), while a shear–

The resistance of URM buildings to seismic exci- displacement (V–d) plastic hinge is located at the mid

tations relies on the in-plane and out-of-plane resistance span of the element (shear mechanism), as shown in

of several load-bearing masonry walls arranged in Fig. 2.

orthogonal planes. Out-of-plane failure may be pre- The constitutive laws of the plastic hinges are defined

vented by an appropriate connection between perpen- according to the guidelines of FEMA 273, Table 7.2 [5]:

dicular walls. In-plane failure is governed by the geo- the initial linear elastic branch is followed by a horizon-

metric arrangement of the openings that defines a series tal one after the first cracking. At a higher inelastic

of piers and spandrels (plane frame) expected to sustain deformation, a sudden drop of the strength to 60% of

the gravity and lateral loads. In the present work, two its maximum value is assumed, and then kept constant

different, two storey frames are examined, namely a one- afterwards. For the case of structural components with

T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523 1517

suitable for concrete structures under monotonic loading.

The damage variable varies from 0 (virgin material) to

1 (fully destroyed material). This model is known to suf-

fer from a strong mesh-dependency in the post-peak

range, which can be eliminated through appropriate

numerical techniques (e.g. non-local or viscous

regularization). However, this was not necessary in the

present work, since the post-peak response of the struc-

tures (softening branch) is never derived. The size of the

mesh elements thus had little influence on the results and

has been chosen on a purely geometrical basis (small

enough to describe the different members but larger than

a single brick).

The elastic characteristics and the

tension/compression strengths have been set to the same

values chosen for the simplified analysis (E = 1650

MPa, n = 0.2, f t = 0.1 MPa, f c = 3.0 MPa). The para-

meters governing the post-peak behaviour of the model

have been chosen so as to obtain a brittle softening in

tension and a more ductile softening in compression

(Fig. 4).

Fig. 2. Modelling details for piers and spandrels in the SAP2000 pro-

gram. geneous material under the plane stress assumption: the

bricks are modelled separately (elastic material) and the

mortar joints are represented by elastic–plastic interface

a height to width ratio equal to 1 (which can be con- elements [7,12]. The plastic yielding of the interface is

sidered to satisfactorily apply, from an engineering point governed by a composite yield locus featuring a usual

of view, to the frames examined here) the shape of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, a tension cut-off and a com-

constitutive law is the same for both the flexural and pression cut-off. The post-peak regime is controlled by

shear mechanisms. The corresponding models are shown three uniaxial evolutions featuring, respectively, the

in Fig. 3. behaviours in pure shear, pure tension and pure com-

pression.

2.2. Continuous (C) model (CAST3M) The elastic characteristics of the brick and mortar joint

are usually very different (the former are much stiffer

Masonry is considered as a two-dimensional homo- than the latter). The Young moduli of the two materials

geneous material under the plane stress assumption (2400 MPa for brick and 400 MPa for mortar) have been

(homogenized media) so that bricks and mortar joints chosen so as to give on average (owing to the bond pat-

are not represented separately. The numerical model tern, masonry is orthotropic) a value around 1650 MPa.

chosen is the model of Mazars [10] existing in the code The friction angle of the interface was 30° and the

1518 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523

Fig. 4. Continuous (Mazars) model: (a) meshes and (b) uniaxial stress–strain curves of the material in tension and compression.

cohesion 0.09 MPa. The tension/compression strengths such a force-controlled loading makes inaccessible the

of the masonry (0.1 and 3.0 MPa) have been affected to possible softening branch of the response. In the com-

the tension/compression cut-offs of the interface. The parative analyses, three different lateral load distri-

post-peak behaviour was again chosen very brittle in ten- butions were used:

sion and more ductile in compression and shear (Fig. 5).

Furthermore, in order to maintain a reasonable size of 앫 Load case ACC: The lateral force applied at each

finite element problem, especially for the 7B frame, the node is proportional to the mass tributary to that node.

dimensions of the bricks have been overvalued (0.50 × When all nodes have the same mass, this load case

0.25 m instead of 0.20 × 0.10 m). results in a uniform distribution of the lateral loads.

앫 Load case LOAD: The lateral force applied at each

2.4. Distribution of lateral loading node is proportional to the product of the height of

the node times the mass tributary to that node. When

The loading is imposed on the structures in a two-step all nodes have the same mass, this load case results in

sequence. In the first step, the vertical (permanent) loads an inverse triangular distribution of the lateral loads.

are applied and, in the second step, the lateral loads are 앫 Load case MODE: The lateral force applied at each

imposed. The values of the latter are then increased mon- node is proportional to the product of the displace-

otonically step by step [13]. The analysis is carried out ment of the node in the first mode shape times the

until a prescribed displacement value at a prescribed mass tributary to that node. This load case results in

(control) node is achieved or until any further increment lateral loads proportional to the inertial forces applied

of the lateral load becomes impossible. In particular, to the structure when vibrating freely according to its

T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523 1519

Fig. 5. Discrete (elastic bricks, nonlinear joints) model: (a) meshes and (b) failure criterion of the joints with the corresponding stress–displacement

curves in tension, shear and compression.

first mode shape. When the first mode shape is shear Each of the 18 analysis cases described above leads

or even bending dominated as in the case of the build- to the pushover curve, i.e. the base shear versus displace-

ings studied here, this load case results very close to ment at the control point (middle point at the top of the

the previous one (i.e. LOAD) because the lateral building) curve, as well as to the failure mechanism cor-

forces have a fairly small vertical component even in responding to the maximum shear achieved (peak or

a bending mode. plateau). As mentioned earlier, the probable softening

branch could not be obtained because the loading was

force-controlled.

3. Comparative presentation of the numerical The base shear–displacement curves obtained by the

results simplified (S) analyses are presented in Fig. 6, for each

frame and each load case considered. As can be easily

A preliminary analysis (computation of the first mode seen, the lateral load distribution does not seem to gre-

shapes and frequencies) was necessary in order to define atly affect the pushover curves of the S models (same

the distribution of the lateral forces for the MODE load ultimate strength). The only difference seems to be a

case. This was also an opportunity to check the possible higher stiffness of the frames under the ACC load case,

differences already existing between the different model- which is clearly due to the distribution of the lateral

ling strategies in the linear elastic domain. All three loads: independently of the load case considered, the

modelling approaches (S, C and D) have been found to piers of the first storey are subjected to the same shear

yield the same fundamental frequency and very similar (i.e. the total base shear V), whereas the shear applied

mode shapes. to the piers of the second storey is much lower in the

1520 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523

Fig. 6. Pushover curves for the linear model: (a) 1B frame and (b)

7B frame.

resulting in a lower total displacement at the con-

trolled point.

Also of interest are the mechanisms of the creation of

the plastic hinges, which are presented in Fig. 7.

Although the spatial and temporal activation of the Fig. 7. Plastic hinges formation history for the linear models.

hinges generally depends on the load case, the final fail-

ure mechanism is always determined by the shear failure

of all piers of the first storey, resulting in a lateral (quasi) corresponding displacement, failure mechanisms), the

rigid translation of the upper part of the building (same results of the C and D analyses present common features

displacement at both floors). This explains why the lat- not observed on the results of the S analyses. To begin

eral ultimate strength does not depend on the distribution with, the LOAD and MODE load cases always yield

of the lateral loads: only the horizontal resultant force is similar results (same pushover curves, similar failure

working (not the resultant bending moment). This also mechanism), whereas the ACC load case always results

explains why the ultimate lateral strength is approxi- in a greater stiffness and a much higher ultimate load.

mately the sum of the shear strengths of the piers of the This is again due to the fact that the shear applied to the

first storey, i.e. 2 × 90 = 180 kN for the 1B frame and piers of the second storey is much higher in the LOAD

8 × 90 = 720 kN for the 7B frame. and MODE load cases than in the ACC one. Under the

The results for the continuous (C) models (pushover LOAD/MODE load case, not only the total displacement

curves and failure mechanisms) are presented in Figs. 8 at the controlled point is higher (lower stiffness as in the

and 9 for the 1B and 7B frames, respectively, while the simplified analyses), but also the failure mechanism is

corresponding results for the discrete (D) models are not restricted to the shear failure of the piers of the first

presented in Figs. 10 and 11, with the exception of the storey. For the 7B frame, the failure largely involves the

7B model under the MODE load case (early interruption second storey where most piers undergo a rocking fail-

of the computations due to lack of convergence). ure, whereas, under the ACC load case, the failure is

Despite significant differences (ultimate strength and mainly concentrated in the first storey (as in all simpli-

T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523 1521

Fig. 8. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 1B con-

tinuous model.

the 1B frame, however, this explanation does not hold

true since, independently of the load case, the final fail-

ure always occurs through an overall rocking of the

structure. The increased strength under the ACC load

case is then attributable to the differential horizontal dis-

placement along the height: the resultant bending

moment then contributes substantially to the failure but Fig. 9. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 7B con-

less in the ACC case. tinuous model.

Another significant difference with the simplified

analysis is the fundamental influence of the number of more extensive in the C analysis (the junction zones

bays on the behaviour of frames: for a given modelling between piers and spandrels are also involved) than in

and a given load case, the failure mechanism of the 7B the D analysis where only one (top or bottom) joint is

frame is far from being the spatial repetition of the fail- opening. This could explain why the strength and stiff-

ure mechanism of the 1B frame. Consequently, the ulti- ness of the models are higher in the C analysis,

mate strength of the 7B frame is not approximately four especially for the 7B frame: the progressive and final

times the ultimate strength of the 1B frame, as found in failure of the 7B frame requires much more energy in

the simplified analyses, but much more (five or six the C analysis (extensive failure of the piers and/or

times). neighbour junctions) than in the D analysis (localized

All the pushover curves obtained in the C analysis failure of few horizontal joints).

reach higher shear values and exhibit a slower stiffness From the whole discussion it appears that the differ-

degradation before failure than their analogues in the D ences between the results obtained by the three types of

analysis. However, the differences are substantial only analysis are clearly linked to a modelling strategy more

for the 7B frame. Indeed, the failure mechanisms of the or less able to adequately describe the inelastic behav-

1B frame are similar in both modelling (overall rocking), iour of the masonry, even if the material data are chosen

whereas the failure mechanisms of the 7B frame exhibit in a consistent way. These differences are more accentu-

major differences. In the C analysis, the shear failure ated in the case of the multi-bay frames and for the ACC

observed on the piers always occurs by diagonal crack- load case. For example, under the MODE load case, the

ing, whereas in the D analysis, a clear shear sliding takes shear strength of the 1B frame is 180 kN both for the

place in one (or two) joint(s) at the bottom of the simplified (S) and discrete (D) models but is reached at

element. Similarly, the rocking failure of the piers is different top displacement values (6 and 15 mm,

1522 T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523

slightly higher shear strength (210 kN) at 40 mm. Con-

versely, for the 7B frame under the ACC load case, the

strength and corresponding top displacement values for

the S, D and C models are 700 kN at 2 mm, 950 kN at

6 mm and 1600 kN at 10 mm, respectively.

4. Conclusions

inelastic modelling of masonry frames is rather limited,

and very few guidelines are available for the analytical

simulation of the stress–strain laws of the materials

involved (e.g. bricks, mortar and/or masonry). So, in this

work, the assumptions used were based on engineering

judgment and previous experience of the authors. A syn-

opsis of the comparative study of the results obtained

follows.

Fig. 10. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 1B dis- Depending on the modelling strategy adopted, the

crete model. results differ not only quantitatively (shear strength

value and corresponding displacements) but also quali-

tatively (failure mechanism). As far as the maximum

developed strength is concerned, the lower estimates are

obtained by the S models, followed by the D models (up

to 40% higher) and the C models (up to 130% higher),

the differences being much more accentuated in the case

of the multi-bay frames under the ACC load case. The

type of structure (single bay or multiple bays) is also

decisive (excepted in the S analyses), since the failure

mechanism is quite different in each case (overall rock-

ing for the 1B frame, shear failure of the piers in first

storey and rocking failure of the piers in the second sto-

rey for the 7B frame). Even the load case has a notice-

able influence: the ACC load case leads to a consistently

higher strength (excepted in the S analysis) and a differ-

ent failure mechanism whereas the LOAD and MODE

load cases are always equivalent.

The simplified (S) approach appears over-simplified

for not being able to predict different types of failure

mechanisms according to the type of structure and/or

loading. Probably, the hinges (location, type, and above

all, constitutive law) need to be refined in order to better

describe the inelastic behaviour of the masonry elements.

Nevertheless, since it systematically leads to conserva-

tive results (underestimate of the ultimate strength), the

simplified approach may always be used as a first step

for the assessment of existing masonry frames.

From the whole research effort, significant scattering

in the results was observed, depending on the modelling

approach and the assumptions used. This fact indicates

the need for further research towards a proper calibration

of the various modelling techniques, which should ide-

Fig. 11. (a) Pushover curves and (b) failure patterns for the 7B dis- ally be based on combined experimental/numerical

crete model. efforts in this direction.

T. Salonikios et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1515–1523 1523

ington (DC): 1998.

[6] Magenes G, Calvi M. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry

A significant part of the present research effort was walls. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn J 1997;26:1091–112.

made possible thanks to funding by the European Com- [7] Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. Damage models for the seismic

munity through a Marie Curie Grant No. HPMF-CT- response of brick masonry shear walls. Part I. The mortar joint

2000-00697, Human Capital and Mobility program. model and its applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn J

1997;26(4):423–39.

[8] Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. Damage models for the seismic

response of brick masonry shear walls. Part II. The continuum

References model and its applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn J

1997;26(4):441–62.

[1] Papazachos B, Papazachou C. The earthquakes of Greece. Thes- [9] Sap 2000 Nonlinear. Three dimensional static and dynamic

saloniki: Ziti Publications, 1997. finite element analysis and design of structures. Berkeley (CA,

[2] Magenes G, Della Fontana A. Simplified non-linear seismic USA): Computers and Structures Inc, 1999.

analysis of masonry buildings. Proceedings of the Fifth Inter- [10] Mazars J. A description of micro and macroscale damage of con-

national Masonry Conference. British Masonry Society, No. 8, crete structures. Eng Fract Mech 1986;25:729–37.

October 1998, p. 190–5. [11] Millard A. CAST3M 2000, Manuel d’ utilisation, rapport CEA-

[3] Magenes G. A method for pushover analysis in seismic assess- LAMBS 93/007, Saclay, 1993.

ment of masonry buildings. 12 WCEE, New Zealand 2000, paper [12] Pegon P, Pinto V, Geradin M. Numerical modeling of stone-block

number 1866. monumental structures. In: Proceedings of ECCM’99, Munchen,

[4] Calvi M. A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evalu- Germany. 1999.

ation of classes of buildings. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3(3):411–38. [13] Moehle JP. Displacement-based design of R/C structures sub-

[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP Guidelines for jected to earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1992;8(3):403–28.

- Machine Design by E.L. WallaceUploaded bynavodit14
- axleUploaded byvaniyaharesh
- Non Linear Analysis PushoverUploaded byrajanciviltneb
- SOM Viva Questions in OptionsUploaded byamurugan_22
- Pushover Analysis FinalUploaded byAhmet Hasim
- Technical Note SAOS176 v2Uploaded byehsan
- P0002-Reel Handling Structures Design CalculationsUploaded byki
- Stress ClsfnUploaded byrkukg
- An Equivalent Model for Seismic Analysis of Masonry and Reinforced Concrete BuildingsUploaded bySovich82
- CEN 330 Chapter04-Flexure(1).pdfUploaded bypeter aoun
- CSI ANALYSIS REFERENCE MANUAL FOR SAP2000, ETABS AND SAFEUploaded byOladunni Afolabi
- Stuctural Analysis of Helicopter Flight and Hangar DeckUploaded bynavalarchmarine
- Report 8-9-13 - Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic RetrofitUploaded byBobby Wong
- EVALUATION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURESUploaded byJung Lee
- Pasticier_nonlinear_seismic_analysis of a Masonry Building in SAP2000Uploaded byMarcos Di Siervi
- Block+Shear+Tests+in+High-Strength+Steel+AnglesUploaded bySergioAlcantara
- Long Quiz SolutionsUploaded byTidal Surges
- Lecture 06 - Di PriscoUploaded byJose Leonardo Quintero Güell
- 3Uploaded bygusanito09
- Design and Development of All-Terrain Vehicle : Volume 1Uploaded byIRJET Journal
- Problems.pdfUploaded byMuhammadHaseeb
- JournalNX- Connecting RodUploaded byJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- Insdag Composite Beam 1Uploaded bygyayakbhuta
- Nonlinear Biaxial Stress-strain LawUploaded byMani Maran
- lbb web_2007-39Uploaded byRoman Krautschneider
- Paper 1-s2.0-S0029549309003471-mainUploaded bysuyogbhave
- key_designUploaded bym7taram
- 5. Mathcad - Pipe Gusset PlateUploaded byPradeep Chitluri
- Nr210102 Strength of Materials i Set1Uploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- 3) 2004 pprUploaded bytest3

- LEAR JET 30S MANUAL.odpUploaded byeb
- Detechtion Screw CompUploaded byBobbi Jo Gold
- Aqwa Programs Tutorial-2Uploaded bySyed Hasan
- 2161908 RAC Answer Key Set B CT-2Uploaded byFux
- Mechanical Engg - SE - OCT 2012 -THEORY OF MACHINES%97IUploaded bySayali Shivarkar
- Hydraulic Components Ktr-katek03Uploaded byleonardo
- QStE 380 TM.pdfUploaded byJetesh Devgun
- Centrifugal PumpUploaded byrumabiswas853
- Milling CuttersUploaded byArul DhivyaRaj
- 13DefnUploaded byOmar Mokhtar
- comeval_pilanUploaded byMOGONLIANO
- HFFB vs HFPI ASCE Structures Congress May 18-21-2006 St. Louis Missouri USA 633Uploaded bygaurav
- welding defect photo.pptxUploaded by0502ravi
- Metric MagnaDrive Product Brochure CompressedUploaded byFidel Silassie
- 1335448540_4417_0_HELIOS22003_01_PRODUCTRANGEUploaded byDana Lore
- Installation Instructions - 3360057.pdfUploaded byBill CraigslistStuff
- Behavior of Beams With Dowel ActionUploaded bycustomerx
- RDSO-RSI Guidelines Version 2.pdfUploaded bySahyadree Shah
- Pressure-less Water HeaterUploaded byErvin
- Cape and CinUploaded byafcasdfdsa
- Chris Bickerstaff- Reducing Footprint Power Water UseUploaded byCorina Gonzalez
- Upkar Mechanical and Electrical MCQ.pdfUploaded byGaurang Patel
- valvula WW-820Uploaded byAnonymous Iic1fi49uE
- AWS D1.1-B1Uploaded byTajinder Singh Toor
- 140180119100, 104MD PPTUploaded byrip111176
- MicrofluidicsUploaded byAli Jahani
- Flow MeasurementUploaded byAnonymous WeIozaoAf
- Aircraft Design ReportUploaded byGrassrehLe
- XRAY M18 PRO Instruction ManualUploaded byCazacu Gabriel
- CompressorUploaded byHeet Patel