17 views

Uploaded by Nripendra Mishra

fatigue ppt 1

save

- Identification of Multiple Cracks in a Beam Using Natural Frequencies, Lee, 2009
- Structural Dynamics 2009-10
- Modal Testing in the Design Evaluation of Wind Turbines
- Parsons M G.mode Coupling in Tor.jul.1983.MT
- 08 Package Engineering Design Testing
- Home Work Chapter 2
- Full Scale DynamicsGatwick Airport Pier 6 Link Bridge - Full Scale Dynamics
- Vibrations of Vertical Pressure Vessels
- Vibrating Systems and Eigenvalues:Vectors, Printable
- Prediction of safe working frequencies of screening machine by Harmonic Analysis
- Appendix a and B in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
- Seismic Loads Summary by RK
- 385.full
- Vibration Test Evolution
- Analisys of Loadings Acting on a Gloria Type Jack-up Structure
- SACS Brochure
- Advanced Methods for Static and Dynamic Shafting Calculations
- Weaving Looms
- 115469704-ansys
- Good Comparison Cone EF
- The Influence of Vibratory Excitation on the Oil Slug Mobilization in a Capillary Model
- Lab4 Beam Vibration
- Bridge vibration.pdf
- 21_5_1710
- Displacement Analysis of Cantilever Beam Using Fem Package
- Vibration Measurement
- 04 Vib_sound Radiation Sandwich HC Truss Core
- Z4 Paper NaeimStewart
- 03
- Vibration
- Manual for Design and detailing of retainig wall 2.pdf
- lec15.pdf
- Swim Descriptions
- Good MEISER Grating
- Moment dist Method.pdf
- API Punching Tubular joint design.pdf
- Retaining_Wall_Design_Example.pdf
- concrete.pdf
- Usfos_JointCapacity
- Rotary Swivel Catalog
- bs-80021994-14531
- Design of Cantilever Retaining-2071.pdf
- Cat BVBI9000 Threepiece
- Good Load Tables
- Cat Cpcaball
- Portal Frames Pinned 1
- EQ13
- ObjectBasedShearWalls
- design-of-pad-foundations1.pdf
- EQ13
- Part 4 - Collapse Analysis
- Bolts.pdf
- 4 Bolt Groups
- Bolts Eccentically Loaded Example 1
- EQ13
- Tubular joint design.pdf
- Fatigue Design Paper
- Moorings
- Mcad_InstallGuide.pdf

You are on page 1of 34

STRUCTURES IN MUMBAI HIGH FIELD

BY

S.Nallayarasu, S.Goswami, J.S.Manral, R.M.Kotresh

Presenter: S.K. Bhattacharyya

Dept. of Ocean Engineering

IIT Madras

**Mumbai high field location
**

**Historically, Bombay High Field
**

of ONGC has several offshore

platforms in the shallow water

region of 50 to 80m water

depth.

Most of these platforms are

fixed template type structures

with either main or skirt piles.

Many of these structures are

as old as 20 to 30 years &

have been designed as per API

RP 2A guidelines.

These structures mostly

produce oil & Gas and have

both process & well head

platforms.

These platforms have been

designed against fatigue from

cyclic wave loads.

**DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WAVES
**

1. The field is located on

**the west coast of India
**

and the wave approach

is from south to northwest directions and the

other directions are

shielded from land.

2. Generally waves are

approaching the

platforms only from

South, South-West,

West and North-West.

The directional

distribution of waves

used in the

deterministic and

spectral methods is

shown in Figure

Dynamic analysis is performed to generate the dynamic characteristics such as mode shapes and mass characteristics. . Spectral method of analysis Seastate is characterised by the spectral energy. The structural response is then calculated using stochastic method of structural analysis. the scatter data for different directions and wave heights are used to simulate the seastate. Further. Structural response to these discrete waves is then calculated either with or without dynamic effects depending on natural period.FATIGUE RESPONSE ANALYSIS Deterministic method of analysis Seastate is discretised in discrete (deterministic) waves the scatter data based sea state specific information is used.

The exceedance data has been converted to occurrence cyclic data with intermediate data range by interpolation It has been summarised in Table 3.WAVE SCATTER DATA Wave scatter data and exceedance information used for the deterministic fatigue analysis is shown in Table 1 and 2. .

.

524 .7 10.048 – 4.6 -- 10.143 10.9.667 10.7 7.5 10.3 9.9 7.096 – 7.095 9.3.4 3.571 9.2 10.2 7.1 WAVE HEIGHT (M) PERIOD (SEC) S SW W NW 0.047 9.6 10.619 9.620 .9 4.WAVE SCATTER DATA – Deterministic Table .0-1.3 6.572 – 6.3 -- 9.4 9.668 – 12.0 10.9 10.5 10.144 – 10.9 -- .524 8.0 8.8 10.4 6.6 8.192 11.1 8.6 8.6 1.7 9.

WAVE SCATTER DATA – Deterministic Table .144 - 18 7 - 25 10.192 - 0 0 - 0 .096 11 869 493 8 1381 7.668 - 2 1 - 3 12.2 Wave Height (m) S DIR Number of Waves Exceeding Specified Height In One Year SW DIR W DIR NW DIR CUMULATIV E 770535 1015713 1220511 4282804 0 1276045 1.048 3132 37929 31902 3764 76727 4.524 61704 219347 220985 69788 571824 3.572 167 5878 4073 177 10295 6.620 0 126 59 0 185 9.

143 252784 191767 218897 222063 1.447 322 538 11 8 7.191 7326 9053 556 639 4.953 2656 3618 124 139 5.381 W SW S NW 541944 359421 995444 928660 1.429 20503 22998 2409 2948 4.3 Wave Height (m) 0.WAVE SCATTER DATA – Deterministic Table .001 39 78 0 0 8.905 137022 128135 47802 53581 2.667 52061 53283 10770 12443 3.763 13 30 0 0 .239 112 205 0 0 8.715 924 1391 32 30 6.

0 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.0 1.77 7.00 0.77 0.15 0.38 8.15 15.5 1.85 0.5 1.38 0.5 0.77 100.00 17.00 32.0 Total Mean wave period (s) 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 Total 0.69 10.31 3.69 0.54 1.31 2.00 0.00 .WAVE SCATTER DATA – Spectral The wave scatter data for spectral analysis obtained from National Institute of Oceanography is summarized in Tables 4 to 8 for south. west and north-west directions respectively.00 1.00 2.31 0.31 18.0 1.85 11.85 0. The percentage distribution for each combination of wave period and height will be used for the spectral representation of the seastate using JONSWAP spectra.77 15.31 0. Table-4 ( South) Hs (m) 0.31 0.92 2.77 0.5 2.00 53.77 12.15 0.00 2.00 0.46 30.00 1.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.31 2.38 36. south-west.

00 100.5.72 0.00 0.00 25.00 6.00 0.00 0.42 4.5 .00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.5 .84 11.09 5.00 0.81 2.1.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.3.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.4.5 .58 29.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.00 0.60 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 8-9 9-10 10-11 Total .00 0.84 0.0 .30 5.00 0.00 4.02 7.00 0.67 0.42 0.0.86 1.67 0.47 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 4.84 0.00 32.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 .00 4.08 9.21 2.5.0 .00 2.00 3.51 0.0 .00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.5 .63 1.WAVE SCATTER DATA – Spectral Hs (m) Mean wave period (s) 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 0.71 37.2.00 3.00 0.00 0.0 0.90 9.5 0.0 .25 0.92 5.00 0.30 0.00 10.00 0.71 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.3.00 0.5 0.55 2.09 0.88 2.22 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.5 .76 21.5 0.5 0.59 16.00 0.38 3.0 .00 1.00 0.2.00 0.97 5.0 0.00 0.47 1.48 2.21 0.4.00 3.21 3.36 2.00 11.00 2.63 3.00 0.00 0.22 1.0 .6.

00 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.24 0.30 5.63 34.00 0.00 6.00 0.6.00 9.00 0.00 0.99 4.00 0.00 2.00 6.69 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.5 .00 0.94 23.00 0.42 2.5 .00 0.00 1.5 .3.00 0.00 0.0 0.38 0.24 0.00 0.70 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.28 3.00 0.5 0.00 3.0 .1.00 0.0 .41 6.42 0.00 9.0 9-10 10-11 0.5 0.80 3.00 6.WAVE SCATTER DATA – Spectral Hs (m) Mean wave period (s) 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 0.00 0.56 0.00 .00 0.0 .00 0.52 7.00 0.61 9.81 0.84 0.2.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 3.00 0.0 0.27 0.91 5.00 0.0 0.00 5.14 1.00 0.03 0.6.61 1.94 0.3.14 9.0 .14 9.60 30.0 0.5.85 0.00 3.5 .63 0.14 0.39 12.00 0.5 .00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.0 .00 0.0 0.00 1.4.99 4.22 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.5 0.69 0.00 8.1.00 0.4.0 .00 12.00 0.5 .52 6.5 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.0.00 0.33 0.2.00 16.00 0.0 .17 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.05 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.83 1.28 1.00 0.00 0.5.42 0.14 0.00 Total 8-9 Total 100.00 0.

00 0.00 0.57 0.30 4.00 0.17 39.00 .35 34.00 0.00 0.13 2.0 .00 0.17 41.00 2.00 17.00 0.17 0.70 1.00 0.39 19.00 0.00 58.00 0.0.35 52.0 .5 0.00 0.57 2.00 0.5 .00 0.00 0.00 0.1.17 0.1.0 4.00 2.00 0.78 19.17 Total Total 100.WAVE SCATTER DATA – Spectral Hs (m) Mean wave period (s) 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 0.00 0.5 0.

SELECTED STRUCTURES RS-14 WELLHEAD PLATFORM 4 LEGGED PRODUCTION CUM DRILLING PLATFORM WATER DEPTH.6000 MT JACKET WEIGHT-3300 MT (GROSS) . RIG SUPPORT & LQ MODULE TOPSIDE WEIGHT.2 M 0 MAIN & 8 SKIRT PILES 16 WELL SLOTS & CONDUCTORS MODULAR DRILLING RIG HAVING RIG MAST.76.

SUBSTRUCTURE SUPPORTS FOR 3 BRIDGES .SELECTED STRUCTURE MNP PROCESS PLATFORM EIGHT LEGGED 4 LEVEL TOPSIDES WATER DEPTH-72 M 16 SKIRT PILES 20 PRE-INSTALLED RISERS LAUNCH JACKET WEIGHT-7200 MT PROCESS HUB TOTAL TOPSIDE WEIGHT-20000 MT 3 PROCESS GAS COMPRESSORS. 1 BOOSTER GAS COMPRESSOR.

T is the wave period and is the 2 N n 2 2 where Tn damping ratio( 2%). This is due to the fact that most of the wave period inducing cyclic loads will be in range of 4 to 12 seconds. {X} and {F} are the displacement and force vectors respectively. It can be shown that the the response and cyclic stress ranges can be linearly multiplied by the DAF and hence the total response can be calculated without going into the full fledged dynamic response of the structure against waves. [ K ]{ X } {F * DAF } Where [K] is the stiffness matrix. However. The above approach indicates a simplified method and is very easy to implement for practice. The dynamic amplification factor (DAF) can be calculated using the following formula assuming a single degree of freedom system for the fixed type jacket structures. DAF 1 T T (1 ) (2 ) T T is the natural period of the structure. the accuracy of the analysis depends highly on the descretization of the seastate and any simplification will lead to erroneous estimation of response and fatigue damage. This method has been in use for several years for the prediction response of offshore structures. .DETERMINISTIC ANALYSIS The calculation of cyclic stresses on the tubular joints shall include dynamic amplification. The effects of dynamic amplification can be ignored when the natural period of the structure is below 3 seconds as stated in API RP 2 A.

However.SPECTRAL ANALYSIS Alternatively. This method of calculation involves procedures involving dynamic characteristics of the structure and performing the analysis in close intervals of frequency / wave period. The dynamic analysis is performed to obtain the dynamic characteristics such as mode shapes and frequencies. (3) [ K ]{ X } [ M ]{ X "} 0 Solution to the following equation will lead to Eigen modes and vectors. . the response and the cyclic stresses can be calculated using dynamic wave response including dynamic effects due to the above. the method of calculation involved several approximations and the discussion on these issues is outside the scope of this paper and can be found elsewhere.

Where X” is the Eigen frequencies and X is the displacements. The mode shapes and frequencies are then used in the subsequent wave response calculation in which the following equation is solved including the dynamic response of the system. Typical wave response stress transfer function for base shear and overturning moment is shown in Figure 1 and 2 respectively . [ K ]{ X } [C ]{ X '} [ M ]{ X "} {F } ( 4) The response is calculated as a transfer function to facilitate the computation of the fatigue damage for various waves in different directions.

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS FIG-1 TRANSFER FUNCTION FOR BASE SHEAR .

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS FIG-2 TRANSFER FUNCTION FOR OVERTUNING MOMENT .

The transfer function and the response are generated for both maximum base shear and maximum overturning moment cases and the worst case is used for the calculation of fatigue damage.SPECTRAL ANALYSIS Selection of frequencies for the generation of transfer function is an important task such that the peaks and valleys of the response is not missed.4 which corresponds to a period of 2.5 sec. The natural period of the structures for MNP and RS14 is noted to be between 2. This has been used for the generation of the transfer function.5Hz (Typically from wave periods in the range of 2 to 10 seconds). It can be observed from Figure 1 and 2 that the maximum values of transfer function occurs near the frequency of 0. A wave steepness of 1/20 is used for the all the waves as recommended by API RP 2A for the calculation of wave height for each frequency. The frequency interval is selected such that more number of points is generated near the natural period.5 sec and 3 sec. the frequencies near the natural period of the structure and its multiples shall be selected. . The transfer function has been generated for various frequencies from 0.1 Hz to 0. Following the guidelines given API RP 2A.

(5) RMS i 0 H i2 ( f ) S h ( f )df (6) Tz RMS i 0 f 2 H 2 ( f ) S h ( f )df .ESTIMATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE Fatigue damage has been calculated for all the tubular connections using Miner’s rule using cumulative fatigue damage model stated as below.

ESTIMATION OF FATIGUE DAMAGE – (Contd. Fatigue damage n( s ) s s2 D 2 RMS i 0 N (s) exp( 2 RMS i )ds (8) where N(s) is the allowable cycles from the S-N curve and S is the stress range. . Stress concentration factor (SCF) for the tubular joints has been calculated as per Effthimiou formulas as recommended by API RP 2A for tubular joints and the S-N curve has been adopted as per API RP 2A for tubular joints. mL n( s ) Tz (7) where n(s) is the number of applied cycles. L is the design life and Tz is the spectral mean period calculated above. H is the transfer function and S is the spectral density of the seastate.) where σ is the RMS (Root mean square value) of the stress calculated from the transfer function for a given Seastate.

FACTOR OF SAFETY API RP 2A FAILURE CRITICAL INSPECTABLE NON-INSPECTABLE ONGC NO 2 5 2 YES 5 10 4 ONGC USE A FOS OF 4.0 FOR JOINTS BELOW TOW LEVELS OF JACKET FRAMING TO COVER FOR FATIGUE DUE TO WAVE LOADS .

. Fatigue life greater than 1000 years is marked as * since it is very high compared to the required design fatigue life of 50 years. The fatigue life predicted by deterministic analysis for RS 14 well platforms seems to be on a higher side compared to the spectral fatigue analysis. The fatigue life of major tubular joints along the jacket legs and X braces is presented. This is due to the fact that the Seastate has been condensed to discrete waves and the DAF has been treated approximately. In the case of MNP Process platform deterministic results are lower than spectral for lower three levels and reverse is the case for 4th and 5th level.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS MHN (Mumbai High North) field has been presented in Table 8 and 9 respectively.

14 5.76 627.76 32.7 369.58 * * 224.09 241.11 17.86 86.01 215.84 245.87 56.151 * 83.44 416.73 17.17 968. 203L 217L 283L 297L 201X 303L 317L 383L 397L 301X 302X 303X 303 304 305 403L 417L 483L 497L 401X 402X DETERMINISTIC SPECTRAL DIFFERENCE (D-S) 74.87 23.Table 8.84 31.01 187.71 31.18 4.87 0 494 400 0 142 824 750 269 0 115 175 0 0 0 0 278.89 1287.15 * 456.9 1039.24 .13 * * * 844.62 * 90. RS-14 Well platform Comparison of results of deterministic & spectral fatigue on selected joints FATIGUE LIFE JOINT NO.75 * 172.70 * * * 307.34 * 287.62 118.79 473.32 0.86 3.

30 14.65 21.86 1.27 6.463 * * * * * 252.98 42.02 45.38 541.95 398.54 0 0 2.099 5.58 25. Continued FATIGUE LIFE JOINT NO.51 345 0 131.99 28.21 399.82 78.055 6.35 160.27 141.67 600 600 976 976 994 994 994 994 .32 273.88 * * * * 1344.27 16.92 24.Table 8.52 63.13 12.91 655.60 6.42 * * 145.85 23.82 49.72 432.08 19.66 109.13 18.19 261.34 7.56 67.58 * 141. 403X 404X 503L 517L 583L 597L 501X 502X 503X 504X 603L 617L 683L 697L 601X 602X 603X 604X 703L 717L 783L 797L DETERMINISTIC SPECTRAL DIFFERENCE (D-S) * * 255.80 3.

27 16.91 655.32 273.02 45.98 42.52 63.27 141.56 67.72 432.21 399.66 109. Continued JOINT NO.60 6.67 600 600 976 976 994 994 994 994 .88 * * * * 1344.463 * * * * 252.58 25. 404X 503L 517L 583L 597L 501X 502X 503X 504X 603L 617L 683L 697L 601X 602X 603X 604X 703L 717L 783L 797L FATIGUE LIFE DETERMINISTIC SPECTRAL * 255.86 1.13 18.055 6.Table 8.30 14.82 49.08 19.13 12.99 28.34 7.80 3.42 * * 145.38 541.51 345 0 131.35 160.82 78.65 21.27 6.54 DIFFERENCE (D-S) 0 2.95 398.85 23.19 261.58 * 141.099 5.92 24.

41 9.43 127.26 78.26 78.47 9.41 9. MNP Process platform Comparison of results of deterministic & spectral fatigue on selected joints JOINT NO.05 81.14 21.Table 9.55 11.38 34.80 108.65 * * * * * * * * * * 52.43 127.34 129.93 11. 203L 207L 213L 217L 283L 287L 293L 297L 204X 205X 206X 207X 208X 209X 210X 211X 212X 213X 203L 207L 213L 217L FATIGUE LIFE DETERMINISTIC SPECTRAL 52.38 34.14 69.14 43.06 88.38 * * * * * * * * * * 108.80 52.14 21.47 9.34 DIFFERENCE (D-S) -56 -24 -12 -49 -77 -70 -58 -45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -56 -24 -12 -49 .

49 19.89 70.49 485.51 302.07 20.99 267.Table 9.44 DIFFERENCE (D-S) -182 -438 -737 -284 -248 -288 -530 -339 -851 -180 .62 202. Continued JOINT NO.56 197.03 806.92 18.45 69.24 * * * * * * * * * * * 200. 303L 307L 313L 317L 383L 387L 393L 397L 304X 305X 306X 307X 308X 309X 310X 311X 312X 313X 403L 407L FATIGUE LIFE DETERMINISTIC SPECTRAL 20.68 783.60 253.73 358.97 * * * * * * * * * * 149.21 508.36 18.

46 118.88 301.37 132.23 147. DETERMINISTIC SPECTRAL 417L 483L 487L 493L 497L 404X 405X 406X 407X 408X 409X 410X 411X 412X 413X 503L 507L 513L 517L 583L 156.69 153.03 72.24 168.95 104.32 163.03 21.49 0.97 * * * * * * 96. Continued JOINT NO.07 0.71 24.17 23.67 513.31 140.05 * * * * * * * * * 429.86 125.70 135.87 DIFFERENCE (D-S) 84 22 21 8 16 903 486 875 409 104 24 22 153 300 .09 185.06 1.Table 9.88 0.85 0.

83 234.49 * * * * * * * * * * 151.18 1.57 1.58 99.08 206.57 1.38 115.20 1.52 184.42 105. DETERMINISTIC SPECTRAL DIFFERENCE (D-S) 587L 593L 597L 501X 502X 503X 504X 505X 506X 507X 508X 509X 510X 603L 607L 613L 617L 683L 687L 693L 73.49 233.26 136.72 181.39 156.89 1.42 1.74 180.13 72 155 180 873 864 760 884 892 767 999 999 999 999 151 98 183 369 205 104 179 .21 0.56 0.44 0.01 0.42 0.21 0.Table 9.61 1. Continued JOINT NO.74 370.69 127.70 1.94 108.

Generally both methods predict fatigue life reasonably well for most of the joints except for some joints at the bottom of the jacket. This is due to the fact that the wave load and associated cyclic stresses are only due to the local wave loads rather than the dynamic response. This is due to the fact that the dynamic response of the structure over-predicted by deterministic method by approximate calculations of DAF due to course discretisation of wave periods. .CONCLUSIONS Based on the results obtained from the fatigue analysis of platforms in Mumbai High North and South platforms. following observations are made. the deterministic method predicts the fatigue life lower than the spectral methods. It is recommended that spectral fatigue analysis be used for large platforms to assess the fatigue life since the inaccuracy introduced due to the treatment of dynamic amplification factor. the joints near the top of the jacket. However. the predicted fatigue life using deterministic methods seems to be higher than the spectral methods.

References API RP 2A Recommended Practice for the Design and Construction of fixed offshore platforms. Fatigue User Manual. December 2007. SACS Software. working stress design. EDI Identification of wave spectra for Mumbai offshore region. National Institute of Oceanography. .

- Identification of Multiple Cracks in a Beam Using Natural Frequencies, Lee, 2009Uploaded bymasi1975
- Structural Dynamics 2009-10Uploaded byChinnaraja Gandhi
- Modal Testing in the Design Evaluation of Wind TurbinesUploaded bypooriana
- Parsons M G.mode Coupling in Tor.jul.1983.MTUploaded byakıle nese bulut
- 08 Package Engineering Design TestingUploaded bystudent1291
- Home Work Chapter 2Uploaded byAli Faiq
- Full Scale DynamicsGatwick Airport Pier 6 Link Bridge - Full Scale DynamicsUploaded byhkfengxue
- Vibrations of Vertical Pressure VesselsUploaded byshushay hailu
- Vibrating Systems and Eigenvalues:Vectors, PrintableUploaded bykarlTronxo
- Prediction of safe working frequencies of screening machine by Harmonic AnalysisUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- Appendix a and B in Geotechnical Earthquake EngineeringUploaded byEl-kapitan Adetia
- Seismic Loads Summary by RKUploaded byrabeeabuahmad
- 385.fullUploaded byDavid Santiago
- Vibration Test EvolutionUploaded byPati Leme
- Analisys of Loadings Acting on a Gloria Type Jack-up StructureUploaded bySaeed Jabbari
- SACS BrochureUploaded byjakeer7
- Advanced Methods for Static and Dynamic Shafting CalculationsUploaded byharikrishnanpd3327
- Weaving LoomsUploaded byJohnFiftyFive
- 115469704-ansysUploaded byelgheryb_choukri
- Good Comparison Cone EFUploaded byunlockvn
- The Influence of Vibratory Excitation on the Oil Slug Mobilization in a Capillary ModelUploaded byEmm Teddy
- Lab4 Beam VibrationUploaded byVigneshShunmugam
- Bridge vibration.pdfUploaded byattiori fabrice
- 21_5_1710Uploaded byTon Phichit
- Displacement Analysis of Cantilever Beam Using Fem PackageUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Vibration MeasurementUploaded byLiamNeeson
- 04 Vib_sound Radiation Sandwich HC Truss CoreUploaded byNabihah Sallih
- Z4 Paper NaeimStewartUploaded byToan Pham
- 03Uploaded byzzccgmailit
- VibrationUploaded byRodriguez Arthurs

- Manual for Design and detailing of retainig wall 2.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- lec15.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Swim DescriptionsUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Good MEISER GratingUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Moment dist Method.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- API Punching Tubular joint design.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Retaining_Wall_Design_Example.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- concrete.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Usfos_JointCapacityUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Rotary Swivel CatalogUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- bs-80021994-14531Uploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Design of Cantilever Retaining-2071.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Cat BVBI9000 ThreepieceUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Good Load TablesUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Cat CpcaballUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Portal Frames Pinned 1Uploaded byNripendra Mishra
- EQ13Uploaded byNripendra Mishra
- ObjectBasedShearWallsUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- design-of-pad-foundations1.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- EQ13Uploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Part 4 - Collapse AnalysisUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Bolts.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- 4 Bolt GroupsUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Bolts Eccentically Loaded Example 1Uploaded byNripendra Mishra
- EQ13Uploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Tubular joint design.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Fatigue Design PaperUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- MooringsUploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Mcad_InstallGuide.pdfUploaded byNripendra Mishra