10 views

Uploaded by Jia Ruo

oxford engineering project report. Matlab coding and civil engineering knowledge is accomplished in this report. Update the old design of muti-span bridge with optimization. Review on the old design and then check is done on the bridge.

oxford engineering project report. Matlab coding and civil engineering knowledge is accomplished in this report. Update the old design of muti-span bridge with optimization. Review on the old design and then check is done on the bridge.

© All Rights Reserved

- Bolted aluminum aircraft airframe
- Effect of Settlement
- Influence Lines - Qualitative Influence Lines Using the Müller Breslau Principle
- Multi Leaf Spring
- Past Exams Matrix and Solns 1516
- 1904
- stiffener calculation.xls
- Structural Analysis
- 2 Marks Qb Me2254
- Al-hoti.PPT
- Dynamical Bending of Rigid Plastic Annular Plates
- TSE1983SpanDepth.pdf
- Span Depth Ratio
- IMoM-6B
- 89589540-Strength-of-Materials-by-S-K-Mondal-5.pdf
- Eccentric Loading
- Static Formulae.pdf
- una
- Deflections of Beams
- Tutorial 3

You are on page 1of 10

Ruo Jia

1. Objection and theory

The aim of this project is using MATLAB as a tool to optimize the Britannia Bridge

design. The new design should be more efficient than Edwin Clark`s work, as the peak

bending moment was minimised, which leads to a bigger safety factor against yield.

The specification of the design is that the bridge is formed of four spans, length of

each span are shown in Figure 1. It should be built to support a uniformly self-weight

of 99.6kN/m, a box structure with Youngs modulus of 210Gpa and second moment of

area of 12.07m^4.

Compare with a simply supported design at each end by the piers, building the bridge

as one continuous beam supported by all five piers introduces sagging moments at

the middle of each span. The ideal situation is achieved when the maximum sagging

equals the maximum hogging moment in Figure 2.

Controlled settlement method is used to achieve the ideal situation. This method

provides a hogging moment over the pier and connects the spans continuously. The

way to do it is that, every time the newly span installs, angled the span a little

upwards and then lower it down after they joined. With the right controlled settlement

distances being used, the optimum moment distribution could be achieved. Clark has

attempted these calculations by hand but unfortunately he made a few errors so the

design is not optimum.

This report indicates how to carry out controlled settlement using MATLAB.

The first several scripts were written to understand the basic idea then the main

problem is solved by optimization.

2. Simple bending model-via Macaulay Brackets

Specifications for 1) and 2): The bridge length L=1, the load per unit length W/L=1, the

bending stiffness=1

The first scenario is for a uniformly distributed load on a beam simply supported on

each end as shown in figure3. This section need to be done both by hand and

MATLAB.

Firstly, by cutting into the beam and looking left (the length of the cutting is x), the

bending moment equation can be done:

1 2

1

M=

x x

2

2

The first term donates self weight of the span and the second term donates upward

d2 y

reaction on the first end. Using the equation M=EI

, the deflection distribution

d x2

along the beam can be calculated by a double integration with respect to x:

1

d2 y 1 2

= x x

2

2

dx 2

dy 1 3

1 2

= x x +c1

dx 6

4

1

1

y

x4 x3+c1x+c2

24

12

Calculate by hand, as no displacement at each end, two constant can be found easily

1

(x=0, y=0;x=L, y=0): c1=

, c2=0. The bending moment and displacement

24

diagram can be draw.

Instead of substitution of boundary conditions into the displacement function

manually, optimization can be performed in MATLAB to find these unknowns.

Optimization is done by two steps. Firstly, write an optimization function (OB) with

unknowns which need to be minimised. Then, a function `fminsearh` must be

introduced to find the minimum of the optimization function (OB) defined earlier.

To perform fminsearch, initial estimate of every variable set earlier need to be settled.

Then, from the initial estimate, fminsearch will start iterating through values and find

the minimum it could reach at last. The accuracy of fminseach can be improved by

reduce the step size, reduce the tolerance etc.

%bending moment, slope and deflection function

M=@(x)w*x.^2/2-w*L*x/2;

slope=@(x,c1)(-1/EI)*(w*x.^3/6-w*L*x.^2/4+c1);

deflection=@(x,c1,c2)(-1/EI)*(w*x.^4/24-w*L*x.^3/12+c1*x+c2);

%OB defines a boundary condition function. Values of independent terms will be

minimised by fminsearch. Square each term to ensure the whole function will be

minimised instead of cancelled by each other.

OB=@(c1,c2)(deflection(0,c1,c2)).^2+(deflection(L,c1,c2)).^2;

[C]=fminsearch(@(c)OB(c(1),c(2)),[0 2]);

C1=C(1);

C2=C(2);

The output of fminsearch is C, consist the optimum value of C1=0.0417 and C2=

-1.840e-05.Almost same with the calculation by hand. It cannot reach the exact value

since fminsearch find the point discontinuously with tolerance, but it is close enough.

So the bending moment distribution and deflected shape are the same for both

method and shown in figure 4.

Figure 4. Bending moment distribution and deflected shape in first scenario

2) Simply

central rigid

The second

distributed load

with a central

difference

the middle

unknown

middle. This

discontinuity to

prop.

scenario is for a uniformly

on a simply supported beam

rigid prop. The main

made in this situation is that

support gives another

factor, the force in the

force adds a step of

moment equation. If solve it

L

L

by hand, x<

and x>

will have

2

2

different

expressions. Since the

unknown force in the middle does not to take into account when write moment

L

L

expression x<

. After x=

, f*x has to take into account. Therefore, the

2

2

Macaulay bracket is introduced in this situation. This bracket introduces a step

L

L

L

function. Bracket xmeans when x<

, the term equals 0; when x>

, the

2

2

2

term equals 1. In MATLAB, Macaulay bracket can be expressed as Heaviside.

Integration of a term multiplies Heaviside will be the same as the result of integration

of that term in the region of Heaviside. The integration always has to add a constant

(c1, c2) to adjust the expression shape when applies the boundary condition.

%the whole beam length is L, L=1

%bending moment, slope and deflections expressions

%f is the supporting force in the middle of the beam, force at each end is (w*L-f)/2

since symmetric; c1 and c2 are constant as previous

%there are 3 unknowns f, c1, c2 in the equations

M=@(x,f)w*x.^2/2-(w*L-f)/2*w*L*x-f*w*L*(x-L/2).*heaviside(x-L/2); slope=@(x,f,c1)1/EI*(w*x.^3/6-(w*L-f)/2*w*L*x.^2/2-f*w*L/2*(x-L/2).^2.*heaviside(x-L/2)+c1);

deflection=@ (x,f,c1,c2)-1/EI*(w*x.^4/24-(w*L-f)/2*w*L*x.^3/6-f*w*L*(xL/2).^3/6.*heaviside(x-L/2)+c1*x+c2);

function (OB) need 3 terms to limit the boundary condition as well. The deflections at

L

x=0, x=

and x=L all equal to zero. Every term squared with the same reason as

2

before, the situation that they cancel out each other should not exist.

%find the value of c1, c2, f by optimization, the square of each error component should

be zero

OB=@(c1,c2,f)(deflection(0,f,c1,c2)).^2+(deflection(L/2,f,c1,c2)).^2+

(deflection(L,f,c1,c2)).^2;

[C]=fminsearch(@(c)OB(c(1),c(2),c(3)),[2 2 1]);

The process is same as before, but three unknowns need to be searched for in the

fminsearch function. The results are: C1=0.0026; C2=2.1160e-07; F=0.6250. The

bending moment distribution and deflected shape are the same for both method and

shown in figure 5. The results look reasonable as the moment distribution is

symmetrical with zero moment at both ends. The middle moment is a positive value,

which means hogging in the middle and sagging for both sides away from it. The

deflection distribution is symmetric as well with every point deflect downwards and at

ends and middle point, deflections are zero.

This question extends the second scenario into Britannia Bridge which has 4

supporting points. The specifications and structure has been specified in the first part.

Bending moment equation could easily get same as the method in second part,

integrate twice and the deflection expression should be :

% f1=fc, f2=fb=fd, c1 is the integration constant from moment integration, c2 is the

integration constant from slope integration

deflection = @(x,f1,f2,c1,c2) (-1/EI)*(w*(x.^4)/24 -(6*w*L-2*f2-f1)*(x.^3)/12 - f2*((xL).^3)/6.*heaviside(x-L)- f1*((x-3*L).^3)/6.*heaviside(x-3*L)-f2*((x5*L).^3)/6.*heaviside(x-5*L) + c1*x + c2);

As this scenario is more complicated with more unknowns, two ways of increase the

accuracy of optimization has been used. Firstly, as four unknowns from deflection

expression, in correspond, the optimization function (OB) need 4 terms to limit the

boundary condition as well. But it turns out the accuracy is not high enough.

Therefore, every limitation of deflection on the supporting points is added. There is an

extra condition that the moment at the x=6L is zero.

%finds the value of f1, f2, c1 and c2 by optimization with 6 boundary conditions

OB=@(f1,f2,c1,c2)(deflection(0,f1,f2,c1,c2)).^2+(deflection(L,f1,f2,c1,c2)).^2+

(deflection(3*L,f1,f2,c1,c2)).^2+(deflection(5*L,f1,f2,c1,c2)).^2+

(deflection(6*L,f1,f2,c1,c2)).^2++(M(6*L,f1,f2)/(10e5)).^2;

%Set TolFun, MaxFunEvals and TolX in optimset reaches higher accuracy

options = optimset('TolFun',1e-10,'MaxFunEvals',10e5,'TolX',1e-8);

[C]=fminsearch(@(c)OB(c(1),c(2),c(3),c(4)),[10e5 10e5 0 0],options);

Secondly, increase the accuracy of the fminsearch by optimset. Optimset can chang

the default values of fminsearch. Tolfun defines termination tolerance on the function

value, maxFunEvals defines maximum number of function evaluations allowed and

TolX defines termination tolerance on x. With higher accuracy number for these

settings, the result turns reasonable. The initial value of c1 and c2 are in the order of

10e4, as they represent the value of f1 and f2.The total weight of the beam is 4.18e8,

therefore a reasonable order of f1 and f2 should be e8 or e7. The results are

F1=1.4815e+07N, F2=1.1765e+07N, C1=0.0034, C2=0.0022m, and the BM diagram

and Deflection are as shown in Figure6.

=1.048e-09, almost zero, M (0)=0. In defection diagram, y(0)=-7.543e-14, y(L)=5.771e-06, y(3L)=-3.864e-07, y(5L)=-5.771e-06, y(6L)= 2.692e-12. These boundary

conditions all minimised to zero at the extent lower than the order of e-06, which is

accurate enough for construction.

3. Bending moment optimization

4) Optimum bending moment of central supported beam

The fourth script is based on the structure of the second scenario, a uniformly

distributed load on a simply supported beam length2L with a central rigid prop. The

moment equation is same as before, as the moment equation is M=

x2

F

1 xf ( x1 )

2

2

The aim for this part is to optimize the BM distribution reaching the ideal case, which

means make max hogging moment, equals max sagging moment. By adjusting the

middle supporting force, the lowest possible maximum absolute moment in the beam

can be achieved. N-norm is the method used to estimate the maximum bending

moment without searching. Calculate value of norm by the script below.

% each row represents a set of norm with same N, which means first row is for N=2,

second row is N =4, etc. Every column represents a set of norm with same input of same

force, which means the first column is the value of norm for force=1/1001, N=2, 4, 8,

16, INF. Therefore, a 5*1001 normvector matrix is formed to be filled by all the values

of norm and the minimum will be found later.

row=1

for N=[2,4,8,16,inf]

column=1;

F and x both in a range from 0 to2, as they should be the same size, 1001 points

selected. Order of 1000 is for higher accuracy, so more pointed will be near the max

and the biggest value is closer to exact value.1001 is used as the maximum norm

peak expected at the location of supporting point. For higher accuracy, select the

point at the peak instead of select two points near it is preferred.

F=linspace(0,2,1001);

for force=F

x=linspace(0,2,1001);

moment=M(x,force);

normvector(row,column)=norm(moment,N);

%column increment, a new norm calculated with new value of x

column=column+1;

end

%row increment, a new row is added when change to a new N

row=row+1

end

Compare the Norm as a function of F in Figure7. The figure shows that a smooth

parabola of N=2, tends to a pair of intersecting lines. The calculation of 2-Norm is to

make square of each term in BM equation then root square the sum. The 2-norm line

is higher than the rest is because it adds up every terms effect while inf-norm only

takes the maximum term into account. Consider the physical meaning of the curve, if

the central reaction is zero, the bridge will be as same as the first scenario, which

means totally sagging; if only the central force hold the beam then its completely

hogging. Therefore, as two lines intersect at the minimum point, it suggests that the

left line represents sag and the right line represents hog. The minimum point is where

the maximum hogging moment equals the maximum sagging moment. Also, the

optimum has been reached at this point.

After MATLAB calculated every value of Norm, a find function can help to find the

minimum value of norm with F, and F=1.1720. The optimum BM diagram is in Figure8.

It shows the max sagging moment is 0.0857 while the max hogging moment is 0.086,

almost the same.

5) Optimum bending moment of Britannia Bridge

The fifth scenario goes through a similar route as the fourth scenario, with unity EI and

w, total length of the beam 3 with 5 supporting forces. Since the structure is

symmetrical, and total weight of the 5 forces is fixed as 3, there are 2 unknown forces

need to be varied reaching optimum situation. In fourth scenario, only single

supporting force varies and a 5*1001 matrix formed. Therefore, a 5*1001*1001 matrix

of norm needed as 2 unknowns vary with 2, 4, 8, 16, INF norm.

In the 5*1001*1001 matrix, each row represents a set of norm with same N, which

means first row is for N=2, second row is N =4, etc. Every column represents a set of

norm with same input of same f1(supporting force at A and E), which means the first

column is the value of norm for force=1/1001, N=2, 4, 8, 16, INF. Every depth

represents the same f2(supporting force at B and D) in the same way. Therefore, a

5*1001*1001 normvector matrix is formed by all the values of norm and the minimum

will be found later.

The coding is similar, just when filling the normvector, another for loop is nested to

get the matrix three dimensions. By varying the value of f1 and f2, a minimum of max

bending moment can be found using find function in MATLAB and min function twice.

The 3D plot of INF-Norm and optimum BM diagram are shown below:

The same phenomenon as scenario four, the INF-norm 3D plot is sharper edged than

2-Norm and the value of norm is smaller. From the detailed graph, it could be seen

that the surface is not smooth with sharp edges. The optimum situation is reached in

Figure11, with end supporting force f1 (Fa Fe) 0.875 and f2 (Fb Fd) 0.125, the optimum

moment is 0.0625(both max hogging and max sagging).

6) Settlement distance for Britannia Bridge

The first part of Scenario 6 is similar to Scenario 5; only it requests to use Britannia

Bridge specifications. Copy the 5th Scenario script with new scaled constants, the

moment diagram is shown with lower accuracy. This problem arises because the scale

is different. In scenario5, to find the optimum forces supporting at A and B, two force

vectors created in the domain from 0 to3, 1001 points are picked with equal space

out. The 1*1001 force vector is 0, 0.003, 0.006, 0.009, 0.01202.997, 3.000 the gap

between two consecutive forces is 0.003.By calculating 1001*1001 value of norm, the

minimum norm could be found. But in scenario 6, two 1*1001 force vectors have

values: 1.0e+07 *(0, 0.0042, 0.0084, 0.0125, 0.0167 4.1790, 4.1832) the gap

between two consecutive forces is 4.2e+04. The gap increases 14e+06 times using

the Britannia Bridge scale. As the exact value of max BM must be a point between two

values calculate near it, MATLAB can only tell the exact value of these two points

value. As the gap getting bigger, the accuracy is lower. The same thing happens to

the x division. To higher the accuracy, fminsearch function is used after the for loop

found the optimum f1 and f2:

[i,j]=find(n== min(min(normvector)));%find the position of the minimum value by for

loop

F1=f1(i);

%find F1=FA+FE at this minimum

F2=f2(j);

%find F2=FB=FD at this minimum

OBf = @(f1,f2)norm(M(x,f1,f2),inf)

options = optimset('TolFun',1e-20,'MaxFunEvals',10e20,'TolX',1e-20);

[B] =fminsearch(@(b)OBf(b(1),b(2)),[F1,F2],options);

Fopt1=B(1);

Fopt2=B(2);

The optimum function is used to find the minimum value of norm, and fminsearch is

introduced use F1 and F2 as initial value. The optimum force is found combined for

loop and optimization. Fopt1=1.7430e+06, Fopt2=1.2201e+07.

for theideal case ,|M (70)||M (140)||M (210) || M (280) | 1.22e+0 8 , shown in Figure12.

The second part of question is to find settlement distance. This need plug Fopt1 and

Fopt2 in the first step into the deflection equation. Optimization equation limits both

ends deflections are zero. Use fminsearch with tolerance set 'TolX',1e10,'MaxFunEvals',1e30. The deflections at B and D are

0.118m and deflection at C is 0.275m as third plot in Figure 12.

Unfortunately, it is impractical to construct the bridge like the deflection graph. It

needs lower point C 275mm and B,D 118mm after settle the bridge horizontal. This is

also very hard to apply as lower the supporting point displacement of 420m beam is

difficult to hold and control.

7) The controlled settlement distances to obtain the optimum BM distribution

After the optimum moment distribution had been found in scenario 6, the last part is

to obtain this distribution in practice. It can be constructed by parts. Firstly, place BC

as simple support, then attach CD (D is raised with a slight angle). Lower D after two

spans rivets together, a hogging moment introduces at point C. Do the same way to

add span DE and AB, finally an optimum BM diagram will appear as the first graph in

figure12.

For reaching the optimum BM distribution, the distance that each span is to be raised

have to be calculated. This can be achieved by starting with the optimum distribution,

then work backwards to reach a series of simply supported spans like Figure 13.

The general idea is Mtotal = Mideal +Mpoint load. The point loaded beam has the

identical dimensions and properties as the Britannia Bridge without self weight.

Superimpose two moment equation can get the total moment equation which at the

end of elimination, Mtotal is shown as Figure13. When a span is eliminated from the

whole beam, the central moment of connection is zero. With this limitation, the

controlled settlement at the free end can be found. The script below shows how to

eliminate AB as an example.

%remove AB

To remove span AB, point A is released from boundary condition, which means the

defection and moment are not zero at A. As moment at B is zero, Fa1 is calculated by

Fa1*L + Mideal = 0. Therefore, Fa1=Mideal(B)/-L= -122000000/L

Fa1=-122000000/L;

% The moment, slope, deflection of the point load function can be settled with unknown

force Fb1, Fc1, Fd1

M1=@(x,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1)Fa1.*x+Fb1.*(x-L).*heaviside(x-L)+Fc1.*(x-3.*L).*heaviside(x-3.*L)

+Fd1.*(x-5.*L).*heaviside(x-5.*L);

slope1=@(x,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1)(-1/EI).*((Fa1/2).*x.^2+(Fb1/2).*(x-L).^2.*heaviside(x-L)+

(Fc1/2).*(x-3.*L).^2.*heaviside(x-3.*L)+(Fd1/2).*(x-5.*L).^2.*heaviside(x-5.*L)+c1);

deflection1=@(x,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1,c2)(-1/EI).*((Fa1/6).*x.^3+(Fb1/6).*(xL).^3.*heaviside(x-L)+(Fc1/6).*(x-3.*L).^3.*heaviside(x-3.*L)+(Fd1/6).*(x5.*L).^3.*heaviside(x-5.*L)+c1.*x+c2);

Use the optimization function with fminsearch to find the optimum value of unknown force

and constant. With these constant known, the BM distribution and Deflection can be

found. The initial value for the fminsearch is found by a trial run of the script, read the

value of Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1,c2, then use them as initial value reaching higher accuracy value.

%zero deflections at point B,C,D,E and zero moment at point E

OB=@(Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1,c2)(deflection1(L,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1,c2)).^2+

(deflection1(3.*L,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1,c2)).^2+(deflection1(5.*L,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1,c2)).^2+

(deflection1(6.*L,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,c1,c2)).^2+((M1(6.*L,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1)/10.^9).^2);

[c]=fminsearch(@(c)OB(c(1),c(2),c(3),c(4),c(5)),

[3e6,5e6,4e5,1e10,1e10],optimset('TolX',1e-20,'MaxFunEvals',1e30));

Therefore, the deflection at A (the controlled settlement at A) can be found by reading the

value at x=0 on Figure 14. Point A need to be raised by 0.2144m.

Then the new Mtotal can be found by adding the point loaded moment distribution to the

optimum moment distribution, as the red line on figure 15. This distribution takes the

place of the optimum distribution when span DE is removed.

%MT is Mtotal after AB is removed,M is the optimum BM.

MT=@(x,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1,f1,f2) M1(x,Fb1,Fc1,Fd1)+M(x,f1,f2);

When remove DE, the same procedure as before, but the difference is the new x is not

from left to right but the other way around, this is achieved by introducing a new

variable x2=420-x.

The new point force at E is worked out by the same procedure, find the total moment

at D and Fe2=-Md/L. The results are in Figure15, the settlement distance is 0.1966 at

E.

.

Figure15.The controlled settlement at E

A similar procedure for eliminating CD, and the settlement distance is 0.9544 at D.

As a result, a series of simply supported span BM diagram could be reached. In reality,

the bridge is constructed from the last step of coding.

5.Conculsion

The optimum BM distribution is reached from MATLAB analysis. The results are higher

accuracy than Clarks work. The new settlement parameters can reach the max

hogging BM=max sagging BM=1.22e+08Nm, increasing the safety factor from 2.4 to

4.8.

Further analysis to optimize the design further can be done, by taking into account the

weight of vehicles pass by, wind effect and corrosion effect etc.

- Bolted aluminum aircraft airframeUploaded byviorelu99
- Effect of SettlementUploaded byadnan_kasalo
- Influence Lines - Qualitative Influence Lines Using the Müller Breslau PrincipleUploaded byVarun Shastry
- Multi Leaf SpringUploaded byShehzad Ahmad
- Past Exams Matrix and Solns 1516Uploaded bySam
- 1904Uploaded byAnton Antzevil
- stiffener calculation.xlsUploaded byRameshBathala
- Structural AnalysisUploaded byTam Alasadi
- 2 Marks Qb Me2254Uploaded byMohanraj Kulandasamy
- Al-hoti.PPTUploaded byVenugopala Rao Ravu
- Dynamical Bending of Rigid Plastic Annular PlatesUploaded byjodaki
- TSE1983SpanDepth.pdfUploaded bydarlycoupet
- Span Depth RatioUploaded byselina
- IMoM-6BUploaded byDaniel Laurence Salazar Itable
- 89589540-Strength-of-Materials-by-S-K-Mondal-5.pdfUploaded byajaykrishna_99
- Eccentric LoadingUploaded byconfederateyankee
- Static Formulae.pdfUploaded byVINOD DAMODARAN
- unaUploaded byhafinia
- Deflections of BeamsUploaded byaap1
- Tutorial 3Uploaded bysnoozerman
- Rr211402 Mechanics of SolidsUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- Mechanics of Solids Dec 2017Uploaded byMuhammed Sabeeh
- Tidal Turbine Project SchedulingUploaded byGgogpl Yyoggsh
- lec14_4.pdfUploaded byDharmendra Jain
- Problem AsUploaded byRonal Salvatierra
- ResultUploaded byTsukomaru
- StrcUploaded byChrysler Duaso
- Deflection in Concrete BeamsUploaded byMunish Gaur
- AC 302-306Uploaded byAkshat Trivedi
- Strength of Materials Jan 2017 (2015 Scheme)Uploaded byjayanth

- CalculusUploaded byanonretee
- Tabu Search.pdfUploaded byjkl316
- Calculus is a Branch of Mathematicand Most Students From Thr High School Level Find It Difficult to Solve Problems Related to This TopicUploaded byNovalina Damanik
- B.sc. Prog.-physical Sciences Applied Physical SciencesUploaded byaman saxena
- חישוב מבוזר- הרצאה 12 | CutsUploaded byRon
- lec5_lcs.pptUploaded byZain Aslam
- CRUXv35n3Uploaded byMauricio Mallma
- 025Uploaded byMuhammadAzka
- Scott Flansburg - Mega Math - Workbook - Turn on the Human Calculator in YouUploaded byKarthik T Narayan
- Ck 31369376Uploaded byIJMER
- Calculus 1Uploaded byMaita Marie Vargas
- Dynamic Programming: An Application.pptxUploaded byEmMie Lou JAvier
- Discussion of “Optimization of Water Distribution Networks Using Integer and Linear Programming” by Hossein M. V. Samani and Alireza Mottaghi.Uploaded byLeidy Johana Franco
- Gauss Elimination in Numerical MethodUploaded bypaivensolidsnake
- Errata Leon 8 EdUploaded byAnjali Singh
- 2nd Puc Mathematics Topiciwise Imp QuestionsUploaded byvarshashree
- Canonical Correlation AnalysisUploaded byBirat Sharma
- 4 LP Simplex MinimizationUploaded byYozi Ikhlasari Dahelza Arby
- assign3solsUploaded byAvik Mukherjee
- Math151A Latest Version-1Uploaded byJaime R. Sandoval
- viscous fluid flowUploaded byTrym Erik Nielsen
- 4D2-5&6 Hashing Techniques v1.02Uploaded byசு மகேஸ்வரன்
- Linear and Nonlinear Multivariable Feedback Control a Classical Approach~Tqw~_darksidergUploaded byzubairaw
- DC Chap1A FunctionsUploaded byRon Pascual
- Ode-and-pde-pdfUploaded byMike
- Matrix Analysis of TrussesUploaded byRina Arsianti
- Complex NumbersUploaded byNeeraj Giri
- Vol. 90 Generalized Convexity and Vector OptimizationUploaded byIoana Cristina Petrea
- Part Solution of Dummit and FooteUploaded byShubham
- Summer 2012 FinalUploaded byDavid Nguyen