8 views

Uploaded by love9

abcd

- mukut_feq_1
- Seismic
- IRJET- Design of High Damping Rubber Isolator for RC Multistoried Structures and its Comparative Seismic Analysis
- ETABS Manual by Atkins
- Cosmos VDC User Manual
- Structural Reportaparajita
- AP-ISR-2014-15-rastogi-sir_Final_colour _New_Setting.pdf
- HW 2
- SDEE Is1893 Method of Seismic Coeff
- Bridge Configurations and Details That Improve Seismic
- Earthquake-Engineering-Analysis-and-Design.pdf
- Seismic Analysis of Flat Slab
- Paper 5 Page29-32
- Dynamic Analysis of Multistorey Building
- Analysis of Portal Frame Structure with ETABS.pdf
- Disaster Management in India_ Classification, Policies and Other Details
- Full Text 01
- Diseño de Calderas Sismos de Larga Duracion
- Seismic Design of Tall CLT Buildings - Rodrigo Thiers
- Lee Etal BSSA2001p1370

You are on page 1of 7

E. Lumantarna

1

, J. Wilson

2

and N. Lam

1

1. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.

2. School of Engineering and Industrial Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorne, VIC 3122,

Australia.

ABSTRACT

The displacement demand on linear elastic single-degree-of-freedom systems for 5% damping would

typically increase monotonically with increasing natural period up to the limit which is known as the

second corner period (T

2

). The maximum displacement demand (RSD

max

) and the associated T

2

phenomena has great engineering significance in situations where the estimated RSD

max

value is

within the drift capacity of the structure as the latter can be deemed safe irrespective of its natural

period properties. The earthquake magnitude dependence of T

2

is well established. The displacement

response spectrum model stipulated by the current Australian Standard for Seismic Actions has the

value of T

2

specified at 1.5 seconds based on an assumed earthquake magnitude of 7. Results

presented in this paper offer support for this recommendation, but also reveal a possible influence on

the value of T

2

from the regionally dependent stress drop associated with the earthquake rupture. This

finding offers a plausible explanation for the diverse range of T

2

values that have been observed from

earthquakes across the globe.

Keywords : peak displacement demand, second corner period, displacement response spectrum.

1. Introduction

The response spectral displacement (RSD) of an earthquake can be calculated as the product of

(T/2t)

2

and the response spectral acceleration (RSA) value where T is the natural period of the elastic

single-degree-of-freedom system. Figure 1 presents response spectra in different formats and their

inter-relationships. Clearly, the modelled maximum displacement demand value (RSD

max

) is

controlled by the assumed value of the second corner period (T

2

). It is noted that the seismic

displacement demand estimated from this calculation might produce misleading results in the high

period range depending on the nature of the response spectrum used. A traditional response spectrum

in the flat-hyperbolic form that is without a second corner period (T

2

) will have the value of RSD

increasing indefinitely with increasing natural period. This is generally not the case with typical

earthquakes except for large magnitude distant earthquakes. Realistic estimates of the seismic

displacement demand can only be assured if the response spectrum features a representative second

corner period (T

2

) value.

T

2

T

1

T

2

T

2

T

1

T

1

V

A A

D

D

(a) Tripartite Velocity Response Spectrum

(b) Displacement Response Spectrum

(c) Traditional Force-Based

Acceleration Response Spectrum

(d) Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum

RSV

max

RSA

max

RSD

max

A = V

max

x 2t/T

RSD = RSV

max

x T/2t

RSD

RSV

RSA

2

max

=

A V D

A V D

A

V

D

A

V

D

RSA

max

RSD

max

Figure 1 Response spectra presented in different formats

Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2010 Conference, Perth, Western Australia

The determination of the value of T

2

from a (truncated) response spectrum is described in Section 2.

Justifications for truncation period limit of 5 seconds is presented. Whilst the associated maximum

displacement demand (RSD

max

) value is widely considered to be relevant to the analysis of long

period (flexible) structures only, it is emphasized herein that the assumed value of T

2

would also be

critical to the assessment of a much wider range of structures for their risks of overturning and

collapses. This concept will be explained in the light of the displacement-based seismic assessment

approach as applied to vulnerable structures at the threshold of overturning or collapse.

The current Australian standard for seismic actions (AS1170.4, 2007) stipulates a constant T

2

value of

1.5 seconds. In comparison, the European Standard EC8 (EN 1998-1, 2004) stipulates a slightly

higher T

2

value of 2 seconds (for Type 2 earthquakes). However, alternative models that have been

developed for estimation of T

2

values have been found to be very inconsistent. Results obtained from

parametric studies of some 168 records from a diverse databased of shallow earthquakes on stiff soil

sites have been used to evaluate recommendations from the literature and to identify trends associated

with the dependence of the value of T

2

on magnitude, distance and stress drop properties.

2. Engineering Interpretations of Second Corner Period

The second corner period (T

2

) of an elastic displacement response spectrum is defined herein in

accordance with the bi-linear representation of the spectrum and should be distinguished from the

much higher period at which the spectrum peaks (as illustrated by the example of Figure 2a). In

situations where the spectrum rises indefinitely with increasing natural period, the design maximum

displacement demand value (RSD

max

) is the highest spectral ordinate in a spectrum that has been

truncated at the limiting period of 5 seconds (as illustrated by the example of Figure 2b). Justifications

for this truncation limit are presented in this section.

T

2

= 1 s

3s Natural period Natural period

T

2

= 1.2 s 5s

R

e

s

p

o

n

s

e

S

p

e

c

t

r

a

l

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

R

e

s

p

o

n

s

e

S

p

e

c

t

r

a

l

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

tDesign Peak Displacement Demand

Design Peak Displacement Demand

t 2

max

RSV

t 2

max

RSV

t 2

max

RSV

max

RSD

max

RSD

(a) Peak at period lower than 5s (b) Peak at period higher than 5s

Figure 2 Definition of second corner period

The estimation of the value of RSD

max

which is controlled by the value of T

2

is essential to the

stability assessment of a wide range of structures. For example, the risks of overturning of an object in

an earthquake can be evaluated by comparing the RSD

max

value of the ground motion with the

objects base dimensions. The non-linear behaviour of rocking motions can be analysed using this

simple approach. Analyses of free-standing rectangular objects (and gravity structures) revealed

natural period of rocking ranging between 2 - 3 seconds for 4m high objects, and 4 - 5 seconds for

10m high objects as shown in Figure 3a (Al Abadi et al., 2005). Unreinforced masonry walls of twice

the height are characterised by similar natural period in ultimate conditions provided that the walls are

supported at the upper and lower boundaries of the wall (Lam et al., 2003). Thus, the modelling of

RSD

max

for stability assessment for the majority of structures only need to consider response spectrum

properties within the 5 second limit.

A similar approach of assessment can be applied to reinforced concrete structures which can

accommodate a limited amount of post-yield displacement without collapsing. The risks of collapse of

a building which is supported by reinforced concrete columns in the soft-storey can be evaluated by

comparing the horizontal drift capacity of the columns with the estimated values of RSD

max

(Lumantarna et al., 2010). Figure 3b shows the example building module which weighs 1000 tonnes

and is supported by columns of square cross-sections and with dimensions in the order of 400 mm

500 mm. The full yield capacity of the columns can be developed with a modest horizontal drift of

Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2010 Conference, Perth, Western Australia

about 30 mm (1.0% drift) based on the stress-strain behaviour of 500 MPa steel. For a modest

displacement ductility of 2, the design ultimate drift limit of the column is about 60 mm (i.e. 2% drift

for 3m tall columns). It can be shown that a total horizontal resistance of 100 kN per module (i.e. 1%

of the gravitational loading) can be provided by these columns even with a nominal amount of

reinforcement. Consequently, the secant stiffness of the columns in such a potentially vulnerable

structure is at least 1667 kN/m (100 kN divided by 0.06 m ) which is translated to an effective natural

period of about 5 seconds. Much lower effective natural period of the building is estimated if

reinforcement exceeding the nominal amount is provided or if the phenonmenon of over-strength is

taken into account. More robust buildings that are braced by shear walls have much lower effective

natural period. Thus, again, the calculation of RSD

max

values for evaluating the risks of collapses of

buildings only need to consider response spectrum properties within the 5 second limit. Alternative

definitions for T

2

that are associated with a higher truncation limit would only be applicable to

systems with exceptionally high natural periods and hence too restrictive in their application

potentials.

10m

4m

T

eff

= 4s 5s

T

eff

= 2s 3s

30 mm 60 mm (2 % drift)

100 kN

100 kN

1000 tonnes

s

K

K

5

kN/m 1667

1000

2 T

M

2 T

kN/m 1667

m 06 . 0

kN 100

effective

secant

effective

effective

secant

~ =

=

~ ~

t

t

Line representing secant stiffness

(a) Free-standing objects (b) Reinforced concrete soft-storey building and force-displacement relationship

Figure 3 Effective natural period of vulnerable systems

3. Recommendations for the Second Corner Period

The value of the second corner period (T

2

) in the displacement spectrum is not unique and is well

known to be sensitive to the moment magnitude of the earthquake. Equation (1) for prediction of the

value of T

2

was developed by the authors through stochastic simulations of the seismological model

(Lam et al., 2000a). Predictions were based on rock conditions and within 30 km from the source of

the earthquake in order that interferences by the earth crusts along the seismic wave travel path were

minimized. Given that the seismological empirical source model was developed from ground motion

data recorded in Central and Eastern North America (Atkinson, 1993), equation (1) should be most

suitable for applications in stable continental regions which are characterised by high stress parameter

values (often referred as stress drop values). The predictive expression is also supported by an early

independent empirical study of ground motion records from stable continental areas in which an

average T

2

value of 0.7 seconds were observed for earthquakes of magnitudes ranging between M5.5

and M6.5 (Somerville et al., 1998).

2

5

5 . 0

2

+ =

M

T (1)

A similar predictive expression (equation 2) was developed more recently based on observations from

response spectra of earthquakes recorded in Japan, Europe and the M7.6 Chi Chi earthquake of 1999,

Taiwan (Faccioli et al., 2004 which was cited in Priestley et al. 2007). Response spectra calculated

from accelerograms recorded from earthquakes of M5.4 M6.4 within 30 km of the earthquake

epicentres featured T

2

values at around 1 second which is consistent with the earlier findings by

Somerville et al. (1998) and Lam et al. (2000a). Consequently, both equations (1) and (2) are roughly

consistent in the low magnitude range (M < 6). However, equation (2) predicts much higher T

2

values

in order to match with observations from the Chi Chi earthquake at M = 7.6.

( ) 7 . 5 5 . 2 0 . 1

2

+ = M T (2)

Figure 4 shows predictions for the T

2

values by the two equations along with recommendations by

Somerville (2003) as cited in Faccioli et al. (2004) and those by FEMA 274 (NEHRP, 1997) as cited

in Priestley et al. (2007). The codes provisions of EC8 (2004) and AS1170.4 (2007) are in general

Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2010 Conference, Perth, Western Australia

agreement with predictions by equation (1). However, EC8 provisions have been claimed to be

severely un-conservative in view of predictions by equation (2).

As shown by the comparative plot of Figure 4, predictions from the presented models are very diverse

and particularly so in the high magnitude range. It is important to note that empirical data recorded

from earthquakes exceeding M6.5 in support of the presented models were very scarce. For example,

no empirical data was available to constrain the models in the magnitude range of M6.5 M7.

Equation (2) was constrained in the high magnitude range by records taken from only one event: the

M7.6 Chi Chi earthquake of 1999.

0

1

2

3

4

5

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

Magnitude

T

2

(

s

)

Lam et al (2000)

Faccioli's Eq 2.3 in

Priestley Calvi Kowalsky

2007

Somerville's Eq.5 in

Faccioli et al 2004

NEHRP FEMA 274

Recorded data in Faccioli

et al 2004

Chi Chi Fig. 4 in Faccioli et al. (2004)

Kobe Fig. 3 in Faccioli et al. (2004)

K-Net + European data

(10km 30 km)

AS1170.4 (2007)

EC 8 (Type 2)

Eqn 2

Eqn 1

Fig. 2b in Faccioli et al. (2004)

Figure 4 Recommendations for second corner periods

To resolve the notable discrepancies between equations (1) and (2), a parametric study was

undertaken by the authors to study the behaviour of T

2

based on ensembles of accelerograms sourced

from the PEER database (that is available for public access via the worldwide web at

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/index.html>). Refer Table 1 for a summary listing of the 168 records

employed in the study. Data presented herein were all recorded from Class C (stiff soil) sites which

have shear wave velocities in the upper 30m varying in between 360 m/s and 760 m/s. Records from

stiff soil sites were used because more records from this site class than from rock sites were available.

Importantly, 22 records from the database were taken from four earthquake events which had

magnitude equal to, or exceed, M6.8.

Figures (5a) and (5b) show the corner periods observed from the individual calculated response

spectra that have been normalised with respect to the respective predicted corner period values as

calculated from equations (1) and (2) respectively. The normalised corner periods were plotted against

the recorded values of RSV

max

obtained from the individual record. The comparison clearly shows

equation (1) to be more consistent with field observations than equation (2). The model of equation

(1) shows negligible overall biases (ie. ~ 1). Current provisions by both AS1170.4 (2007) and EC8

(2004) are well supported by the evaluations presented herein. However, significant outliers are also

shown in both figures indicating systematic effects on the second corner period values that have not

been incorporated into the modelling. Many outliers were associated with records possessing low

velocity properties. The dependence of T

2

on various seismological parameters are investigated

further in the rest of the paper.

4. Dependence of Second Corner Period on magnitude, distance and stress parameters

Figures 6 and 7 reveal no distinct trends on the influence of magnitude and distance on the normalised

values of T

2,

but again indicate that the majority of outliers were associated with records possessing

low velocity properties. Other well known influential factors (other than magnitude, distance and

path/site effects) are namely the stress parameters (which are often referred as stress drop) and

directivity effects. Directivity effects would only be significant in situations where the site was in

close proximity to a major fault source and in alignment with the direction of rupture propagation.

Given that stress drop effects have not been parameterised in most attenuation relationships, the ratio

Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2010 Conference, Perth, Western Australia

of the recorded and predicted peak ground velocities would then be indicative of the stress drop

anomalies. A high recorded/predicted PGV ratio indicates higher than average stress drop behaviour.

Intraplate earthquakes in stable continental regions which are typified by reverse (thrust) faulting

mechanism have been observed to possess high stress drop behaviour. The influence of stress drop

properties on the value T

2

is revealed in Figure 8 ( the legend of the figure shows different symbols to

represent records of different ranges of recorded/predicted PGV values). Interestingly, the great

majority of results associated with recorded/predicted PGV values exceeding 1.5 (ie. high stress

drops) have the normalised values of T

2

< 1.0. This suggests the dependence of T

2

behaviour on

regional stress drop properties as well as the earthquake magnitude and modifications by the wave

travel path. This finding offers a plausible explanation for the diverse range of T

2

values that have

been observed from earthquakes across the globe.

Table 1 Catalogue of recorded accelerograms from PEER database Stiff soil (360m/sec<V30<750m/sec)

Earthquake name Magnitude Distance Range (km) No. of records

Coalinga 6.4 41 - 53 10

Coyote Lake 5.8 4 - 24 8

Friuli 6 15 2

Friuli 6.5 16 4

Imperial Valley 6.5 15 2

Irpinia 6.9 18 - 30 6

Kobe 6.9 7 2

Loma Prieta 6.9 4 - 20 10

Mammoth Lakes 6.3 5 2

Morgan Hill 6.2 3 - 31 12

N. Palm Springs 6 23 - 52 8

Nahanni 6.8 5 - 10 4

Northridge 6.7 7 - 50 52

Parkfield 6.2 15 - 18 6

San Fernando 6.6 23 - 40 8

Santa Barbara 6 12 - 28 4

Superstitn Hills 6.6 6 2

Westmorland 5.9 20 2

Whittier Narrows 6 15 - 49 24

(a) Comparison with predictions by Lam et al. (2000a)

Stiff soil (360m/sec<V30<750m/sec)

(b) Comparison with predictions by Facciolis expression in Priestley et al. (2007)

Stiff soil (360m/sec<V30<750m/sec)

Figure 5 Comparison of recommended second corner period values

+o

+o

Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2010 Conference, Perth, Western Australia

Figure 6 Magnitude dependence of second corner period values

Finally, Figure 9 presents the value of RSD

max

as observed from the individual response spectra

calculated from the recorded accelerograms. The values shown have been normalised with respect to

the respective predicted values. The predictions were based on equations (3a) and ( 3b) which are

primarily based on recommendations in Lam et al. (2000b). It is shown in Figure 9 that there is no

overall bias in the predictions (ie. ~ 1.0).

( ) ( )

t 2

2

max max

T

mm RSV mm RSD =

(3a)

( ) ( ) ( ) sites soil stiff for 4 . 1 5 . 1

30

5 65 . 0 35 . 0 70 /

005 . 0 1

8 . 1

max

+ =

= R

R

M s mm RSV

(3b)

where the value of T

2

is calculated from equation (1); M is the moment magnitude; and R is the site

source distance in km.

Figure 7 Distance dependence of second corner period values

Figure 8 Stress parameter dependence of second corner period values

+ o

Figure 9 Evaluation of recommended values for D

max

Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2010 Conference, Perth, Western Australia

5. Conclusions

a) The potential seismic performance of vulnerable structures including buildings with a soft-

storey, free-standing components and gravity structures can be readily assessed using a displacement-

based approach if the value of T

2

is known. Most structures at ultimate conditions will have their

effective periods considerably smaller than the period limit of 5 seconds. Consequently, definitions

for the second corner period should be based upon the bi-linear displacement response spectrum

which has been truncated at the period limit of 5 seconds. Alternative definitions for T

2

that are

associated with a higher truncation limit would only be applicable to systems with exceptionally high

natural periods and hence too restrictive in their application potentials.

b) Equation (1) which was developed from stochastic simulations of the seismological model

of Central and Eastern North America is also supported by analyses undertaken in this study using

accelerograms collected from a diverse database of shallow earthquakes. All the accelerograms

incorporated into the study were recorded on stiff soil sites and within 50 km from the epicentres of

earthquakes with magnitude of up to M7. Current provisions for T

2

in both the Australian Standard

for Seismic Actions and in Eurocode 8 are generally consistent with equation (1) and hence supported

by the evaluation.

c) Equation (2) developed by Faccioli is roughly consistent with equation (1) in the low

magnitude range but is strongly influenced by accelerograms recorded from the Taiwan M7.6 Chi Chi

earthquake of 1999, which has resulted in larger T

2

values for all higher magnitude events.

d) A new trend showing the dependence of the value of T

2

on regional stress drop properties

has also been identified.

6. References

Al Abadi, H., Lam, N. T. K. and Gad, E. 2006. A Simple Displacement Based Model for Predicting Seismically

Induced Overturning, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 10(6): 775-814.

AS 1170.4 2007. Structural Design Actions Part 4 Earthquake Actions. Sydney: Standards Australia.

Atkinson G. 1993. Earthquake source spectra in Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of

America 83:1778-1798.

EN 1998-1. 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic

actions and rules for buildings, BSI.

Faccioli, E., Paolucci, R., and Rey. J. 2004. Displacement Spectra for Long Periods, Earthquake Spectra 20(2):

347 376.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic

Rehabilitation of Buildings: FEMA274, Washington.

Lam, N. T. K., Griffith, M. C., Wilson, J. L. and Doherty, K. 2003. Time History Analysis of URM walls in out-

of-plane flexure, Journal of Engineering Structures 25(6): 743-754.

Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM, Hutchinson GL. 2000a. Response spectrum modelling for rock sites in

low and moderate seismicity regions combining velocity, displacement and acceleration predictions,

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 29: 1491-1525.

Lam N, Wilson J, Chandler A, Hutchinson G. 2000b. Response spectral relationships for rock sites derived from

the component attenuation model, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 29:1457-1489.

Sommerville, M., McKue, K. and Sinadinovski, C. 1998. Response Spectra Recommended for Australia,

Australian Structural Engineering Conference, Auckland.

Somerville, P. G., 2003. Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse, Physics of the Earth and

Planetary Interiors 137: 201212.

Lumantarna, E., Lam, N., Wilson, J. & Griffith, M. 2010. Inelastic Displacement Demand of Strength Degraded

Structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14(4): 487-511.

PEER 2000. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Regents of The University of California, viewed

22 September, 2010, < http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/index.html>.

Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M. and Kowalsky, M. J. 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures,

IUSS PRESS, Pavia.

- mukut_feq_1Uploaded bybbbbbb
- SeismicUploaded byZain Oo
- IRJET- Design of High Damping Rubber Isolator for RC Multistoried Structures and its Comparative Seismic AnalysisUploaded byIRJET Journal
- ETABS Manual by AtkinsUploaded byRudy Kusardi
- Cosmos VDC User ManualUploaded byRodrigo Garay
- Structural ReportaparajitaUploaded bylaxmi sunder libi
- AP-ISR-2014-15-rastogi-sir_Final_colour _New_Setting.pdfUploaded byashok
- HW 2Uploaded bysaheb_ju
- SDEE Is1893 Method of Seismic CoeffUploaded byPrasadDeshpande
- Bridge Configurations and Details That Improve SeismicUploaded byKhoo Hui Kiang
- Earthquake-Engineering-Analysis-and-Design.pdfUploaded byOli Tan Pretz
- Seismic Analysis of Flat SlabUploaded byIJSTE
- Paper 5 Page29-32Uploaded bykelvincmlau
- Dynamic Analysis of Multistorey BuildingUploaded byAbdul Quddus
- Analysis of Portal Frame Structure with ETABS.pdfUploaded byAnonymous OynOOf
- Disaster Management in India_ Classification, Policies and Other DetailsUploaded bymkshri_in
- Full Text 01Uploaded byMarcrft123
- Diseño de Calderas Sismos de Larga DuracionUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Seismic Design of Tall CLT Buildings - Rodrigo ThiersUploaded byrthiers8586
- Lee Etal BSSA2001p1370Uploaded byjimakosjp
- 2016Chap31F 18.pdfUploaded bysidhappy86
- Van Der Meer_Oblique Wave Transmission Over Low-crested StructuresUploaded byapi-3709579
- The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Caribbean Regional Programme-An IntroductionUploaded bymyronchin
- 1 Bray GEER Peru Nov 2014Uploaded bylrsb
- Brk collapse safety and economic lossesUploaded byhamadani
- ManosUploaded bymilo_122_
- Plain Truth 1956 (Vol XXI No 06) Jun_wUploaded byTheTruthRestored
- 14_S13-071Uploaded byalonso_msn
- easec13-H-1-3.pdfUploaded byAngga Fajar Setiawan
- Chap3 Dam DesignUploaded byAshraf Bestawy

- Seismic Design and Construction of Retaining WallUploaded byManojit Samanta
- Cultivation of Aloe VeraUploaded bymikael37
- New Decking Sheet Load and ProfileUploaded bylove9
- Fungal Problems in Historic BuildingsUploaded bylove9
- SEC 10 Horizont. and Vertical Extn. Box Infn.Uploaded bylove9
- Earth Day Essay 0407Uploaded bylove9
- Is 383 Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates From Nat.180180049Uploaded bylove9
- IS 456-2000 Indian Standard code book for RCC design guidelinesUploaded bylokesh2325

- Laboratory Exercise DescriptionsUploaded byclearcasting
- Model e180 CatalogUploaded byThomas Stempien
- Structural Materials of constructionUploaded bykingdbm
- Steps to Be Followed in the Design of a Tension MemberUploaded bykedir
- Stress - ProblemsUploaded byMilaj Yu
- Fema 454 - a Manual for ArchitectsUploaded byJorge Cherres
- A Recommended Approach to Piping Flexibility Studies to Avoid Compressor System Integrity RiskUploaded byBeomHee Lee
- Sewer Gen Specs11 Concrete 911108Uploaded byVinoth Natarajan
- 14_S30-006Uploaded byCỏPhongSương
- Shear StrengthUploaded byBruce Lim
- Design of Flexible PavementUploaded byAnonymous UncXDPRy
- Struc Analysis Chapter 2Uploaded byMohammad Firdaus Hakimi Borhannudin
- 2014-01-Brown_Drilled Shaft LRFD.pdfUploaded bymikollim
- EFFECT OF QUARRY DUST ON INDEX PROPERTIES OF BLACK COTTON SOILUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Course BookUploaded bygonxos2
- Braced Frames - SteelconstructionUploaded bycheckingnish
- 06C.pdfUploaded byRoberta S.
- Ev g ProfileUploaded bydemonfry69
- WR # 02 AL ARIDA SUBSTATION NEW-09-10-2016 TO 15-10-2016Uploaded byYASIR
- Casing and Formation DamageUploaded byManthan Marvaniya
- Formula Book_ Hyd and PnumUploaded byMike Clancy
- Ch 2,3 Axial Force MemberUploaded byHaftom Gebreegziabiher
- 6.THEORYUploaded byAnonymous 60HDs4Hoa
- PIPE - ScheduleUploaded byionutlaur86
- Turbomachinery.Gopalakrishnan.pdfUploaded bytpmuhammadtp
- 5501r_01.pdfUploaded byJose Roberto Diaz Ruiz
- GEOTEKNIK-Geotechnical Characterization of the Quaternary Alluvial Deposits in Tunis City TunisiaUploaded bytruman
- Hazen Willam'sUploaded byvijayunity
- Finding Errors in Structural Analysis and Design ResultsUploaded bySherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- Plumbness SurveyUploaded byrovaltte