response control of wind-excited tall buildings. The
benchmark building is a 76-story 306 meters concrete office
tower proposed for the city of Melbourne, Australia.
Across-wind data obtained from wind tunnel testing at the
University of Sydney, Australia, are used. Control
constraints and evaluation criteria are prescribed for the
benchmark problem.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

5 Aufrufe

response control of wind-excited tall buildings. The
benchmark building is a 76-story 306 meters concrete office
tower proposed for the city of Melbourne, Australia.
Across-wind data obtained from wind tunnel testing at the
University of Sydney, Australia, are used. Control
constraints and evaluation criteria are prescribed for the
benchmark problem.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- 9820690300-01-1
- Croqui Exaustor
- Jobswire.com Resume of koolbreeze1962
- Analysis Report (Louis Ray Visit)
- Senior CAD Designer Civil Mechanical in Las Vegas NV Resume James Little
- Kenmore Installation Instructions Portable Dishwasher
- SU001-06
- Airflow
- Fan Blade Cooling Tower
- Project Manager or Project Engineer or Program Manager or Sales
- Mechanical Engineering 1
- Scheme FINAL 09 Nov 2011
- MI Calculation
- analisis lereng hasil
- LdgPiles_2.1
- Part 2 Basic Principle
- Structure2(With Loads)
- Structure2(With Loads)
- Improving JCCD-II Experimental Platform Design Based on Innovative Experiment Course
- Shear Wall Design to NZ

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Tall Buildings

J.N. Yang

Prof., Dept. Civil & Env. Engrg., Univ. of Calif., Irvine, CA

E-mail: jnvang@uci.edu

A.K. Agrawal

Asst. Prof., Dept. Civil Engrg., City College of New York, New York, NY

E-mail: anil@ce-maiI.enar.ccnv.cuny.edu

B. Samali

Professor, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

and

J.C. Wu

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.

ABSTRACT

This paper briefly describes the benchmark problem for the

response control of wind-excited tall buildings.

The

benchmark building is a 76-story 306 meters concrete office

tower proposed for the city of Melbourne, Australia.

Across-wind data obtained from wind tunnel testing at the

University of Sydney, Australia, are used.

Control

constraints and evaluation criteria are prescribed for the

benchmark problem. Either active, semi-active or passive

control systems can be installed in the building to reduce the

wind response. In the case of active control systems, either

an active tuned mass damper (ATMD) or an active mass

driver (AMD) can be installed on the top floor. In the case

of passive or semi-active systems, such as viscous dampers,

visco-elastic dampers, ERMR dampers, etc., control

devices can be installed in selected story units. Control

constraints and evaluation criteria are presented for the

design problem. A simulation program based on the LQG

has been developed and made available for the comparison

of the performance of various control strategies.

1. INTRODUCTION

Significant progress has been made in structural control

against natural hazards, such as earthquakes and strong

winds. In particular, active control systems have been

implemented in full-scale buildings in Japan to alleviate the

acceleration response under wind excitations. To focus

future efforts in the most effective direction, a series of

structural control benchmark problems have been developed

for earthquake [Spencer et al (1998) Ohtori et al (ZOOO)]

and wind excitations [Yang et al (1998)j. In the previous

wind-excited benchmark problem [Yang et al (1998)], wind

processes defined by the Davenports cross-power spectral

density matrix that was used to calculate rms response

quantities. Further, a set of sample functions of wind forces

simulated from the wind spectra was used to calculate peak

response quantities.

Recently, wind tunnel tests were

conducted on a 76-story scaled building model at the

University of Sydney, Australia, to generate along-wind and

across-wind data [Samali et al (1999)].

The benchmark building is symmetric in both horizontal

directions, and the axis of elastic center coincides with the

axis of mass center to avoid significant coupled lateraltorsional motions. Hence, the motion of the building in

along-wind and across-wind directions can be analyzed

separately. Presently, a single tuned mass damper in acrosswind direction is considered to study the effectiveness of

different control devices and strategies. Further, actuator

dynamics and controller-structure interaction have been

neglected. More sophisticated benchmark problems will be

considered after more experience is gained through the

present study. Active, semi-active and passive control

systems can be installed in the building to reduce the wind

response, although only an active control sample problem

has been worked out to illustrate the control design.

2.76~STORY BUILDING

AND MODEL

tower proposed for the city of Melbourne, Australia. This is

a reinforced concrete building consisting of concrete core

and concrete frame. The total mass of the building,

including heavy machinery in the plant rooms, is 153,000

metric tons. The total volume of the building is 5 10,000 m3,

151

is typical of concrete structures. The building is slender

with a height to width ratio (aspect ratio) of 306.1/42= 7.3;

therefore, it is wind sensitive.

The 76-story tall building is modeled as a vertical cantilever

beam. A finite element model is constructed by considering

the portion of the building between two adjacent floors as a

classical beam element of uniform thickness, leading to 76

translational and 76 rotational degrees of freedom. Then, all

the 76 rotational degrees of freedom have been removed by

the static condensation. This results in 76 degrees of

freedom, representing the displacement of each floor in the

lateral direction. The first five natural frequencies are 0.16,

0.765, 1.992, 3.790 and 6.395 Hz.

The proportional

(76x76) damping matrix for the building with 76 lateral

degrees of freedom is calculated by assuming 1% damping

ratio for the first five modes using Rayleighs approach.

This model, having (76 x 76) mass, damping and stiffness

matrices, is referred to as the 76 DOF Model.

A tuned mass damper (TMD) with an inertial mass of 500

tons is installed on the top floor. This is about 45% of the

top floor mass, which is 0.327% of the total mass of the

building. The undamped natural frequency and damping

ratio of the TMD are 0.16 Hz and 20%, respectively. A

damping ratio for the TMD, higher than the optimal

damping ratio, is used to allow for a bigger stroke for the

active tuned mass damper (ATMD).

The building with

ATMD is referred to as the 77 DOF Model.

3. SIMPLIFIED

EVALUATION

MODEL

ATMD on the top floor can be expressed as

Mi+Ci+Kx+Hu=

nW

(1)

in which x = [xI,x~,...,x76,xm]

is the displacement vector

with xi being the displacement of the ith floor and x, being

the relative displacement of the inertial mass of damper with

respect to the top floor. In Eq. (l), M, C, and K are (77 x 77)

mass, damping and stiffness matrices, u is a scalar control

force, W is the wind excitation vector with dimension 77, H

is a control influence vector, and q is an excitation

influence matrix.

A state order reduction method has been used to derive

lower order models for the building with and without

ATMD.

In this method, a state reduced-order system is

derived such that the eigen properties of the selected modes

as well as the selected states of the original system are

represented in the reduced-order system. Based on this

approach, the 77 DOF model (with ATMD) in Eq. (1) is

reduced to a 24 DOF system such that the first 48 complex

modes (eigenvalues and eigenvectors) of the 77 DOF

system are retained. The resulting state equation is given by

i= Ax+Bu+EW

(73

in which x = [X, tl

x=[x3>

x6,

x26,

x30,

x33> x36> x4O, x43, x46, x5O> x53, x56, x6O~ x63>

x66~ xlO> x73> x76~ xm], A is a (48 x48) system

matrix, B is a 48 location vector, and E is a

(48 x 77) matrix. In the system reduction above, the wind

loads acting on each of the 23 floors above are computed

from the wind loads W acting on each of the 76 floors by

lumping wind forces on adjacent floors at the locations that

correspond to the 24 DOF model. Thus, in Eq.(2), the

dimension of W becomes 24 and E is an appropriately

modified (48 x 24) matrix. This model is denoted as 24

DOF W24

Similarly, the 76 DOF model (building without ATMD) can

be reduced to a 23 DOF system by retaining the first 46

complex modes of the original system such that the

and

E

are

dimensions

of

x,

A,

B,

(46 x 1) , (46 x 46)) (46 x 1) and (46 x 23)) respectively,

u=O and X is the same as that for the 24 DOF model

without xm This model is denoted as 23 DOF with W23.

The computational time for the response quantities is

reduced significantly using these reduced-order models.

To verify the accuracy of different reduced-order models for

the building, numerical simulations were conducted to

calculate the temporal rms and the peak response quantities.

The rms floor accelerations for various models subject to

900 seconds of across-wind loads are shown in Table 1. In

Table 1, oii

represents the rms value of the floor

acceleration ?i

DOF with W23 and 24 DOF with W24 models are quite

close to those for 76 DOF and 77 DOF models, respectively.

The controlled output vector z and measured output vector y

of the evaluation model in Eq. (2) can be expressed as

z=C,x+D,u+F,W,

y=Cyx+Dyu+FyW+v(3)

in which Z [Xl,

x76, Xm, il,

x30 > x50, x55, x60, x65 > x70 > x75,

x30, x50, ijj, x60, x65, x70, x75,

x76, &, , 11, 230, 250, x55, x60, 165, x70, 275 1

276, ji, 1 is a 30-dimensional vector of the response that

canberegulated,and

y=[xt,

i76>

in,> 21, x30 1 x50,x55>

x70>

x75,

260 ,X65 ,t70, 275, 276, x, 1 is a 20-dimensional

vector of the response that can be directly measured by

installing sensors. In Eq. (3), v is a vector of noises, and

C,, D,, Fz> Cy, Dy , and Fy are matrices of appropriate

dimensions. In the notation above, km is the relative

velocity of the mass damper with respect to the top floor.

152

as the evaluation model and it can be used to assess the

performance of candidate control strategies.

4. CONTROLLER

DESIGN PROBLEM

The problem of controller design is to determine a discretetime feedback compensator of the form

u(k) = fAxc(WtWl

(4)

where x,(k),

y(k) and u(k) are the vector of the

compensator, selected measurement output vector, and the

control force, respectively, at time t= kAT with AT being the

sampling time for the compensator.

The maximum

dimension of the compensator is expediently required to be

less than 12, i.e., dim [xc(k)]

212.

5. WIND EXCITATIONS

Wind forces acting on the benchmark building in alongwind and across-wind directions were determined from

wind tunnel tests. A rigid model of the 76-story benchmark

building was constructed and tested in the boundary layer

wind tunnel facility at the University of Sydney, Australia.

The model to prototype scale for the building was 1:400 and

the velocity scale was 1:3, resulting in a time scale of

approximately 1:133. Wind data were recorded for 27

seconds, representing approximately 1 hour of prototype

data. Using the referenced mean wind speed, V,, at the

height of 10 meters from the ground as 13.5 m/s, the mean

wind velocity at the top of the building was calculated to be

approximately 47.25 m/s. The wind force data in both

along-wind and across-wind directions were obtained from

pressure coefficients measured during wind tunnel testing.

The referenced mean wind speed of V, = 13.5 m/s represents

serviceability level winds at which occupants comfort and

motion perception are important design criteria. For the

performance evaluation of control systems, only the first I5

minutes (900 seconds) of across-wind data are used for the

computation of building response quantities to reduce the

computational burden. In these wind data, the mean wind

force on each floor has been removed, since it produces only

the static deflection of the building. Details of the wind

tunnel tests are given in Samali et al (1999).

6. PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA

The second criterion is the average performance

acceleration for selected floors above the 49 floor, i.e.,

1

in which oxio is the rms acceleration of the ith floor

without control [shown in Table 31. The third and fourth

evaluation criteria are the ability of the controllers to reduce

the top floor displacements and are given as follows

1

J3 =cx76/Jx76o ;J4 =? ~(~xi/~xio)

(7)

J2 = i

are the rms displacements of the ith floor with and without

control [e.g., Table 31, respectively, and cx76o = 10.137

cm.

Each proposed control design must satisfy the actuator

capacity

constraints

given

by

ou I 100 kN

and

oxm < 30cm, where cru and oxm are rms control force

and rms actuator stroke, respectively. In addition to above

constraints, the control effort requirements of a proposed

control design should be evaluated in terms of the following

nondimensionalized actuator stroke and average power

l/2

=dp = il,t im(

J5 = a;J6

I2 dt

(8)

Ox760

in which cxm is the rms actuator stroke , x,,,(t) is the

actuator velocity, T is the total time of integration and cp

denotes rms control power.

In addition to the rms performance, the performance in

terms of the peak response quantities is also important and

are given in the following,

J7 = max(: pi ); i=l,30,50,55,60,65,70and75,

xp750

Jg =i

Jl =max( -) cxi

for i = 1,30,50,55,60,65,70 and 75 (5)

cJf750

where ~2; is the rms acceleration of the ith floor, and

c,75o = 9.142 cm/sec2 is the rms acceleration of the 751h

floor without control. In the performance criterion Jl ,

accelerations only up to 75 floor are considered because

~(xpi/iipic);i=50,55,60,65,70and75

I

J9 = %~JIo=~

P

FOR ATMD

ability to reduce the maximum floor rms acceleration for

occupants comfort given by

of

c(xpi/xpio)

I

(9)

(10)

(11)

XPi and

control, iipi and Xpio are peak accelerations of ith floor

with and without

The actuator capacity constraints are: the maximum control

force maxlu(t)l 2 300 kN and the maximum stroke

153

designs should be evaluated for the following control

capacity criteria

u(t)1 (12)

control power. From performance criteria defined above, it

is observed that smaller values of performance indices I,, JZ,

., J,a indicate better the performance of the controller.

7. PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA

SEMI-ACTIVE

DEVICES

FOR PASSIVE

AND

applicable to passive energy dissipation devices, such as

viscous dampers, viscoelastic dampers, etc, and semi-active

devices, such as MR or ER dampers, etc. Likewise, in

addition to the total number and total capacity of dampers,

the locations (e.g., story units) and the number of dampers

as well as their capacities to be installed in each location

should be presented.

8. DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

FOR ATMD

design for an ATMD:

1. A maximum of 6 sensors out of 20 measured output y

defined by Eq. (3) can be used.

2. The controller for the structure is digitally implemented

with At=O.OOl set and a time-delay of 1 msec.

3. The measurement noises are modelled as Gaussian

rectangular pulse processes with a pulse width of 0.001

4.

5.

6.

m21sec31Hz.

The maximum number of states in the compensator, Eq.

(4) is restricted to 12 and it is required to be stable.

The natural frequency and damping ratio of TMD are

design parameters that can be chosen by the designer.

The robustness of the controller should be discussed.

and peak response quantities and the performance indices.

9. SAMPLE CONTROLLER

DESIGN

(LQG) theory is presented for the control of the benchmark

building. In the LQG approach, a reduced-order system is

constructed from the evaluation model in Eqs.(2)-(3) for the

design of the controller, referred to as the control design

model, as follows

ir =Ari,

+B,u+E,W

(13)

2,. = C,,x,

+ Dzru + FzrW

in which XI= 1x16, X30, x46,

x6,,,

(14)

x76,

X,,

x16,

vector, zr= a 30-dimensional controlled output vector

x30,

identical of z defined by Eq.(3), yr = [?50, x76, %m]= a 3dimensional measured output vector, vr = a 3-dimensional

measurement noise, and A,, Br , Er ,C,, , Dzr, Fzr , Cyr ,

Dyr , and Fyr are appropriate matrices. In Eqs.(l3)-(14),

the excitation W and the measurement noise vr are

assumed to be uncorrelated Gaussian white noise vector

processes. However, different components within W can be

correlated.

A state feedback LQG controller is obtained by minimizing

the quadratic objective function

J =

lim LE

]\(?QZ

+ Ru2) dt

(15)

c

?+mT

Z =zr-FzrW=

Czrxr+Dzru,

Q = a

in which

(30 x30) diagonal weighting matrix = diag [ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 105, 105, 105, 105,0, 1, I, 1, 1, 1,

105, 105, 105, 105, 01, and R = I5 x 10e2. Minimizing

the objective function in Eq.(l5), the optimal controller is

obtained as [e.g., Yang et al (1999)]

K = - R-1 (B; PC + 5)

u=Kxr;

(16)

where PC is the solution of the Riccati matrix equation and

q is an appropriate matrix [Yang et al (1999)]. The

controller obtained in Eq. (16) requires the reduced-order

state feedback xr, which can be estimated from an

observer, denoted by ir , as follows

?,=Ar~r+Bru+L(y,-Cyricr-Dyru)

(17)

in which the observer gain matrix L is obtained by solving a

Riccati matrix equation. Detailed information about the

design of the compensator is presented in Yang et al (1999).

Finally the controller in Eqs.(l6)-(17) is converted to the

form in Eq. (4) as follows

x,O<+l)=Acxc(k)+B,~,O<),

(18)

u(k) = CcxcC4 + D,yr(k)

in which dim[xc(k)] = 12 and xc = xr = ii,. Based on the

eigenvalue analysis of the evaluation model and the control

design model, both the controller and the closed-loop

system are found to be stable.

To assess the performance of the controller, response

analyses have been conducted using the computer programs

available at the website [Yang et al (1999)]. Time histories

of the response quantities are determined from the

evaluation model for a duration of 900 seconds. Then, the

temporal rms response quantities are obtained by taking the

temporal average in 900 seconds.

154

Columns (2) and (6) of Table 2. In addition, the required

active control force and the stroke of the actuator are also

shown in Table 2. As observed from Table 2, the hard

constraints

on

the

actuator

requirements,

i.e.,

<3OOkN,

and

ou llOOkN,~xm

I30cm,

m=+(t)\

maxlxm(t)\ 295 cm, are satisfied. The rms and the peak

response quantities are presented in Tables 3 and 4,

respectively, for selected floors and the inertial mass of

damper (last row denoted by md). Based on the design

code for o&e buildings, the maximum allowable floor

acceleration is 15 cmisec (or a rms value of 5 cm/set).

Excluding the 76h floor on which there is no occupant, the

design requirement is satisfied by the use of an ATMD as

observed from Tables 3 and 4. On the other hand, the

installation of a passive TMD does not satisfy the design

code requirement.

To show the robustness of the controller, we only consider

the uncertainty of building stiffness, since it has been

demonstrated in the literature [e.g., Yang et al (1990)] that

active controllers are not sensitive to the uncertainty in

damping. In addition to the building above, referred to as

the nominal building, two additional buildings are

considered; one with a 15% higher stiffness matrix and

another with a 15% lower stiffness. The (76x 76) stiffness

matrix (76 DOF) of the first building, referred to as the

+15% building, is obtained by multiplying 1.15 to the

(76 x 76) stiffness matrix of the nominal building.

Similarly, the (76x76)

stiffness matrix of the second

building, referred to as the -15% building, is obtained by

multiplying 0.85 to the (76 x 76) stiffness matrix of the

nominal building. The controller obtained previously for

the nominal building is applied to the f 15% buildings and

the response analyses were carried out. The peak and rms

response quantities for these two buildings are presented in

Table 5. The performance indices, which are referred to (or

normalized by) the uncontrolled response quantities of the

nominal building in Tables 3 and 4 are shown in Columns

(3), (4), (7) and (8) of Table 2 for comparison. Also shown

in Table 2 are the rms and peak values of the control force

and actuator stroke.

As observed from the results in Tables 3 to 5, the

acceleration response quantities are robust. However, the

displacement response and the required actuator capacity

(stroke, control force and control power) are sensitive to the

stiffness uncertainty. In comparison with the closed-loop

response of the nominal structure (Table 3), the

displacement of the 7? floor, stroke, active control force

and control power for the -15% building increase by about

23%, 30%, 19.27% and 38.5% respectively. Further, the

stroke of the actuator is close to the prescribed limit

(oxm <30cm, Ix,(t)1 5 95 cm). On the other hand, the

displacement response, stroke, active control force and

respectively, for the +15% building in comparison with that

of the nominal building (LQG controller case). These

results indicate that a designer should not overestimate the

stiffness of the building in designing the controller.

It is noticed that the across-wind loads depend on the

building frequency. Hence, wind tunnel tests should be

conducted to generate the across-wind data for the + 15%

buildings considered above. In the absence of such wind

tunnel data, the across-wind loads for the nominal building

have been used for the + 15% buildings for a crude

approximation. Hence, the robustness evaluation above

reflects only a trend rather than the actual performance.

10. CONCLUSIONS

A benchmark problem package for the response control of a

76-story wind-excited building has been developed and is

available at the World Wide Website [Yang et al (1999)].

This package contains all the necessary information and

Matiab-based computer programs to simulate both statistical

and peak response quantities. Any participant, who cannot

access the World Wide Website [Yang et al (1999)] or has

any questions regarding the benchmark problem, can

contact the authors via E-mail at jnyang@uci.edu or

anil@ce-mail.engr.ccny.cuny.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research is partially supported by NSF Grant Nos.

CMS 96-25616 and CMS 96-15731. Valuable suggestions

by the members of the ASCE Committee on Structural

Control are sincerely acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Seismically Excited Nonlinear Buildings, Proc. 2d

European Conf. on Structural Control, 2000, Paris.

t21. Samali, B., Kwok, K., Wood, G. and Yang, J. N.

Wind Tunnel Tests for Wind-Excited

(I999),

Benchmark Problem, Technical Note.

131. Spencer, Jr. B. F., Christenson, R.E., and Dyke, S.

J.(1998), Next Generation Benchmark Control

Problem For Seismically Excited Buildings, Froc. Znd

World Co& on Strucr. Cont., Vo1.2, pp.1351-1360,

John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

[41. Yang, J.N., Wu, J.C., Samali, B. and Agrawal, A.K.

(1998), A Benchmark Problem for Response Control

of Wind-Excited Tall Buildings, Proc. Zndworld ConJ:

on Strucr. Cont., Vol.2, pp. 1407-1416, John Wiley &

Sons,NY.

t51 Yang, J. N., Agrawal, A. K., Samali, B. and Wu, J. C.

Wind-Excited Tall Buildings, World Wide Website

http~//www-ce.engr.ccny.cuny.edulpeople/faculty/Agrawal/

benchmark.html.

155

Table 3 : RMS Response Quantities of the 76-Story Building for the Sample Controller.

156

Table 4: Peak Response Quantities of 76-Story Building for the Sample Controller.

Floor

No.

(1)

1

30

50

55

60

65

70

75

76

Md 1

F

I

32.300

31.17

11

42.600

25.381

46.18

20.52

74.290

23.157

72.67

15.90

Table 5: Peak and RMS Response Quantities of the 76-Story Building for LQG Sample Controller Using

the Building with Uncertainty in Stiffness Matrix.

Uncertainty in Stiffness (AK) = +15 %

II,,,.,= 105.58 kN

ou = 28.29 kN

P mpI= 52.69 kN.m/s

crp= 20.74 kN.m/s

Floor

No.

xpi

cm

Xpi

cm/s

oxi

cm

Oiio

cm/s

umsr= 164.33 kN

q = 44.33 kN

P,,, = 118.33 kN.m/s

ap = 40.69 kN.mis

ipi

0,. 1

xpi

OXi

cm

cm/s*

cm

cm/s

- 9820690300-01-1Hochgeladen vonAnonymous a4Jwz14W
- Croqui ExaustorHochgeladen vonbarrosojms
- Jobswire.com Resume of koolbreeze1962Hochgeladen vonapi-24449980
- Analysis Report (Louis Ray Visit)Hochgeladen vonnitin_v2vfriend3049
- Senior CAD Designer Civil Mechanical in Las Vegas NV Resume James LittleHochgeladen vonJamesLittle2
- Kenmore Installation Instructions Portable DishwasherHochgeladen vonoxotnic
- SU001-06Hochgeladen vonse55y
- AirflowHochgeladen vonlorcreator
- Fan Blade Cooling TowerHochgeladen vonwahyu festiawan
- Project Manager or Project Engineer or Program Manager or SalesHochgeladen vonapi-77363986
- Mechanical Engineering 1Hochgeladen vonPranav Wagh
- Scheme FINAL 09 Nov 2011Hochgeladen vonmanit1963
- MI CalculationHochgeladen vonX
- analisis lereng hasilHochgeladen vonNur Fitriani Seilaseilah
- LdgPiles_2.1Hochgeladen vonpperic13
- Part 2 Basic PrincipleHochgeladen vonHashemAliHashem
- Structure2(With Loads)Hochgeladen vonJoshue Adele
- Structure2(With Loads)Hochgeladen vonJoshue Adele
- Improving JCCD-II Experimental Platform Design Based on Innovative Experiment CourseHochgeladen vonSEP-Publisher
- Shear Wall Design to NZHochgeladen vonAnonymous oVRvsdWzfB
- SOP_ENG_PMT_038Hochgeladen vonsiruslara6491
- Welding Qualification Ranges ASME Sec IX latest edition: By. Nitin Sanjay (Steel Inspector)Hochgeladen vonnitin
- Ansys Front Page 2014-2018Hochgeladen vonஅரவிந்தராஜ் அய்யநாதன்
- Load Analysis-Hard Cross Method.xls-1st AssignmentHochgeladen vonsimon maaakla
- Balaji Ganesh Reume New (1) (1)Hochgeladen vonBalaji Ganesh
- Monthly Safety Report Maret 2019 (Autosaved).xlsHochgeladen vonRamdan Pramedis Setya
- XcelWoBBHochgeladen vonChristian Vega Galvez
- LABO MECANICAHochgeladen vonGiordan Giovanni Tello Corbacho
- Gauge Pressure Steam TableHochgeladen vonZida Idhum Ma'rifa
- 20x30cm fc20MPa.pdfHochgeladen vonWin

- SAGSim RecycleHochgeladen vonFlores Cesar
- Integrating DGNB into the BIM process - Anastasia StellaHochgeladen vonanastasia2stella
- Hole Cleaning GuidelinesHochgeladen vonEya Hentati
- Ref 12Hochgeladen vonAbdulrahman Aldeek
- Rethinking the Water Cycle - Circular EconomyHochgeladen vonashu_scribd007
- Stanislav Grof - Books of the Dead - Manuals for Living and DyingHochgeladen vonRiley Walls
- Aspirin pada pasien CKDHochgeladen vonLexie Dvrels
- MANUAL DE COMPRESOR CENTRAL PNEUMATIC # 69667.pdfHochgeladen vonJuan Miguel Ortiz
- grundig_gmm1100_stf55_1001_t2s08.pdfHochgeladen vonDouglas Reyes
- 28ww19july2012Hochgeladen vonWorkers.org
- 5T4 Oncotrophoblast Glycoprotein Janus Molecule in Life and AHochgeladen vonhllbakri
- Lecture 3 & 4- Composites (Slides)Hochgeladen vonJustDen09
- The Petroleum Engr Handbook-Sustainable Oper (Islam and Khan) Front Matter-FINALHochgeladen vonKashif Mahmood
- Wounds and ScarsHochgeladen vonFateen Rafhan Nadia
- AMRI ISORIA Broad Market Type Series Booklet DataHochgeladen vonrudiskw456
- PROJECT-XIIHochgeladen vonShubham Bharadwaj
- Polymer Multifit MulticonditionsHochgeladen vonClarence AG Yue
- WelcomeHochgeladen vonjim j
- ECE F314Hochgeladen vonShantanu Mishra
- Flow MeasurementHochgeladen vonHarryadi Novry
- 2010 Recreational Fishing RegulationsHochgeladen vonLouisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
- tnn99Hochgeladen vonVinayagam Mariappan
- Animism and the Environment: a modern perspectiveHochgeladen vonRaymond Lam
- Juki DDL8700 InstructionsHochgeladen vonAdmin G-Student
- A Review on crop improvement through marker-assisted recurrent backcrossingHochgeladen vonJournal of Biotechnology and Crop Sciences
- Theoretical prediction and crashworthiness optimization of multi-cell triangular tubesHochgeladen vonNhan Tran
- leaflet Face Master 2.3-1B.pdfHochgeladen vonlorenzo hener
- Variable ExerciseHochgeladen vonRabiah Basar
- Aladin EsiteHochgeladen vonsmallgio
- U.S. Pat. 9,514,727, Pickup With Integrated Contols, John Liptac, (Dialtone) Issued 2016.Hochgeladen vonDuane Blake

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.