22 views

Original Title: hjgdsg dsfji.pdf

Uploaded by Bogdan Constantin-Babii

- Qcon Manual.pdf
- S&T_models2
- AJSR_53_03
- Chapter 2 - Loading Arrangement on Beam
- Composite Slab Design
- Continuous Concr e 00 Port u of t
- ME 2254 — STRENGTH OF MATERIALS nov.dec 2010
- Bridges
- Variable Depth Beam Shear Stress
- CVG3147_Loads_S2017.pdf
- Concrete Deck Computation
- Reinforced concrete deep beams with web openings
- Introduction of MidasGen2015
- D198.PDF
- resbro
- Design for Flexure-wsd (1)
- Problem 1 010
- 1 481 Masonry Beam Design Strength Design
- 2-3
- 1 Steps Singly RC Case 1

You are on page 1of 13

(2016)

Beam for Stadium Using Eurocode 2

Ubani Obinna Uzodimma

Works/Engineering Services Department

Ritman University, PMB 1321, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State

rankiesubani@gmail.com

Abstract

A continuous intermediate raker beam in the first tier of a football stadium was analysed using elastic

method and designed using Eurocode 2. The raker beam was analysed for permanent and variable

actions due to crowd load and permanent loads only. Due to its inclination, it was subjected to

significant bending, axial, and shear forces. However, design results show that the effect of axial

force was not very significant in the quantity of shear reinforcement required. Asv/Sv ratio of 1.175

(3Y10mm @ 200 c/c) was found to satisfy shear requirements. The greatest quantity of longitudinal

reinforcement was provided at the intermediate support with a reinforcement ratio of 1.3404%. The

provided reinforcement was found adequate to satisfy ultimate and serviceability requirements.

1.0 Introduction

The most common construction concept of sports stadiums today is a composite type where usually precast

concrete terrace units (seating decks) span between inclined (raker) steel or reinforced concrete beams and rest

on each other, thereby forming a grandstand (Karadelis, 2012). The raker beams are usually formed in-situ with

the columns of the structure, or sometimes may be preferably precast depending on site/construction constraints.

This arrangement usually forms the skeletal frame of a stadium structure.

In this paper, a raker beam isolated from a double tiered reinforced concrete grandstand that wraps around a

football pitch has been presented for the purpose of structural analysis and design. A repetitive pattern has been

adopted in the design which utilizes a construction joint of 25mm gap between different frame units. By

estimate, each frame unit is expected to carry a maximum of 3600 spectators, under full working conditions.

With ten different frames units, the stadium capacity is about 35000 after all other reservations have been taken

into account. Each grandstand frame has precast L-shaped seating terrace units that span in between reinforced

concrete raker beams inclined at angles between 20 - 22 with the horizontal. Crowd load and other loads are

transferred from the seating units to the raker beams, which then transfers them to the columns and then to the

foundations. Load from the service areas and concourse areas are also transferred using the same method.

Figure 1.1: 3D skeletal structure of each grandstand frame units (slabs and sitting areas removed)

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

The three dimensional view of the skeleton of the grandstand is shown in Figure 1.1, while a section

through the grandstand is shown if Figure 1.2. Section through the L-shaped seating unit is shown in

Figure 1.3.

In simple horizontal beams, vertical forces will produce vertical reactions only. However, once a beam is

statically indeterminate and inclined, vertical forces will produce both vertical and horizontal reactions and as a

result, axial forces which may be compressive or tensile in nature will be induced in the beam. In the design of

horizontal floor beams in normal framed structures, the effect of axial force in the shear force capacity of the

section is usually neglected. This is largely due to the fact that these forces are usually compressive, and in

effect tends to increase the concrete resistance shear stress (Vc) and (VRd,c) of the section in accordance with BS

8110-1:1997 and EC2 respectively. It is a well known phenomenon that compressive axial force increases the

concrete resistance shear stress of a section, while tensile axial force will reduce the concrete resistance shear

stress. So this neglect can be justified in terms of it being a conservative design which can only err in economy.

However for inclined beams members in a frame (as in the case of a grandstand), axial force behaviour can vary

greatly especially when the load is applied in the global direction (which is the prevalent scenario). In other

words, based on the structural configuration of the structure and the loading, it is even common to see the

nature of axial forces moving from positive (tensile) to negative (compressive) in the same span of an

inclined member. If the load is however resolved and applied in the local direction of the inclined member, the

axial forces will be absent. A good design will therefore require the use of less shear reinforcement in the axial

compression zone, and more shear reinforcement in the axial tension zone. While the effect of axial forces may

be neglected in horizontal floor beams under axial compression, it may be unsafe to neglect it in inclined beams

because more often than not, some sections are usually under axial tension.

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

Structural design of stadiums is critical and this becomes more obvious when EN 1990 (Eurocode Basis for

Structural Design) classified it under Consequence Class 3 which by description means high consequence for

loss in terms of human life, economy, environmental considerations, and otherwise if failure should occur.

Several codes of practice across different countries and bodies have provisions made in them for the design of

structures subjected to crowd loading (for example stadiums), but the level of expertise often associated with the

processes in terms of analysis, design and construction is often perceived to be something left to a limited few.

The application of static crowd imposed loads according to both BS 6399-1:1997(Loading on buildings - Code

of practice for dead and imposed loads) and EN 1991-1: (Action on structures: General actions - Densities,

self-weight, imposed loads for buildings) are given in Table 1 below:

Table 1.1: Values of variable actions on grandstands from BS 6399 and EN 1991

LOAD/VARIABLE LOAD (KN)

ACTION (KN/m2)

BS 6399-1:1996 C5 (Areas susceptible to 5 3.6

overcrowding e.g. grandstands)

C5( Areas susceptible to large

EN 1991-1-1 crowds, e.g 5.0 7.5 * 3.5 4.5*

sports halls including stands)

*Exact range of value to be set by various national annex

Raker beams in stadiums usually support precast seating terrace units which may be L-shaped, or extended into

a more complex shape (see Figure 1.5). These seating terrace units are designed as simply supported elements

spanning between the raker beams (Karadelis, 2012, Salyards et al 2005). The crowd loading is supported

directly by these terrace units, which then transfer the load to the raker beams through the bearings. This

construction concept has been adopted in the design of Cape Town Stadium (South Africa) for the 2010 FIFA

world Cup (Plate 1.5). The picture in (Figure 1.4) below shows the formwork and construction of in-situ raker

beams at San Diego State University Student Activity Center (Steele and Larson 1996).

Figure 1.4: Typical formwork and Plate 1.5: Precast seating units being installed

reinforcement for in-situ raker beam (Steele on raker beams at Cape Town Stadium (2010)

and Larson 1996).

In this design, each L-shaped seating unit is 7m long, which means that the raker beams are spaced at 7m centre

to centre. The crowd loading is supported by the terrace seating units, which is then transferred to the raker

ibeams through the end shears. The raker beams can be analysed as sub-frames or as full 3D structures in order

to get the most realistic behaviour of the structure.

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

The partial factor for all permanent actions (dead load) Gk is 1.35 while the partial factor for all variable actions

(imposed load) Qk is 1.5. No reduction factor was applied in the analysis, and the effect of wind was neglected.

Design compressive of concrete fck = 35 N/mm2

Yield strength of steel fyk = 460 N/mm2

Load Value

Density of concrete 25 KN/m3

Imposed load/variable action 5 KN/m2

Weight of finishes, rails, seats, stair units 2 KN/m2

Exposure class = XC1

A concrete cover of 40mm is adopted for the section

From EC2 singly reinforced concrete stress block;

MRd = FCz ------------ (1)

0.85

FC = 0.8 ; z = d 0.4x -------------- (2)

1.5

Clause 5.6.3 of EC2 limits the depth of the neutral axis to 0.45d for concrete class less than or equal to C50/60.

Therefore for an under reinforced section (ductile);

x = 0.45d ----------------- (3)

Combining equation (1), (2) and (3), we obtain the ultimate moment of resistance (MRd)

MRd = 0.167 2 ---------------------- (4)

FS = 1 ------------------ (6)

1.15

Substituting equ (6) into (5) and making 1 the subject of the formular;

1 = -------------------- (7)

0.87

where K = ---------------- (9)

2

Area of compression reinforcement AS2 = ----------------------- (10)

0.87 ( 2 )

Area of tension reinforcement 1 = + AS2 -------------------- (11)

0.87

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

3

0 0 2

L/d = K [11 + 1.5 + 3.2 ( 1) ] if 0 --------------------------- (12)

1

0 1 2

L/d = K [11 + 1.5

+

12

( 0 ) ] if > 0 ---------------------- (13)

Where;

K = Factor to take into account different structural systems

0 = reference reinforcement ratio = 103

= Tension reinforcement ratio to resist moment due to design load

= Compression reinforcement ratio

In EC2, the concrete resistance shear stress without shear reinforcement is given by;

1

VRd,c = [CRd,c.k. (1001 )3 + k1. ]bw.d (Vmin + k1. ) ----------------------- (14)

200 1

CRd,c = 0.18/ ; k = 1+ < 0.02 (d in mm); 1 = < 0.02 (In which 1 is the area of tensile reinforcement

3 1

which extends ( + ) beyond the section considered; Vmin = 0.035 2 2

K1 = 0.15; = NEd/Ac < 0.2fcd (Where NEd is the axial force at the section, Ac = cross sectional area of the

concrete), fcd = design compressive strength of the concrete.

Permanent Actions

Self weight of the 7m precast seating deck (see Figure 1.4)

(GK1) = (25 0.25 0.15 7) + (25 0.95 0.15 7) = 31.5 KN

Variable Actions

Imposed load for structural class C5 (QK) = (5 0.95 7) = 33.25 KN

Total action on L-shaped seating terrace unit at ultimate limit state by Eurocode 2

Width of beam = 400mm

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

Concrete own weight (waist area) = 1.2m 0.4m 25 KN/m3 = 12.00 KN/m (normal to the inclination i.e. in

the local direction)

Height of riser in the raker beam = 0.4m; Width of tread in the raker beam = 0.8m; Angle of inclination () =

20.556

Stepped area (risers) = 12 0.4 25 = 5 KN/m (in the global direction)

For purely vertical load in the global y-direction, we convert the load from the waist of the beam by;

UDL from waist of the beam = (12.00 cos 20.556) = 11.236 KN/m

Total self weight (Gk) = 11.236 + 5 = 16.235 KN/m

n = 1.35(GKi) = 1.35 16.235 = 21.917 KN/m

Total number of the precast seating units on the beam = 24/0.8 = 30 units

For an intermediate beam supporting seating units on both sides;

Total number of precast seating units = 2 30 = 60 units

Therefore, total shear force transferred from the seating units to the raker beam = 55.1775 60 = 3310.65 KN

3310.65

Equivalent uniformly distributed load in the global direction at ultimate limit state = = 137.94 KN/m

24

Total load on intermediate raker beams at ultimate limit state in the global direction = 137.94 + 21.917 =

159.857 KN/m

A full 3D elastic analysis of the whole stadium was performed using Staad Pro with all elements

loaded at ultimate limit state. Also, the raker beam is isolated as a subframe and also analysed. The

results from the two models are very comparable.

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

The internal stresses on the intermediate raker beams from the analysis of the frame at ultimate limit

state are shown in Figures 1.7 to 1.9.

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

The summary of the analysis result of the raker beams is shown in Table 1.3.

(KN.m) (KN) (KN)

MA 1967.54 QAB 934.62 NAB 380.061(C)

MABspan 948.078 QBA 983.88 NBA 339.376(T)

MB 2283.18 QBC 999.52 NBC 510.767(C)

MBCspan 1249.787 QCB 918.98 NCB 208.670(T)

MC 1565.63

The structural design of the of the raker beam using EN 1992-1-1has been carried out and all the

parameters used in the, and steps followed are shown below in the subsequent sections.

Yield strength of steel fyk = 460 N/mm2

bw = 400mm; h = 1200mm; Cc = 40mm

d = h Cc /2 link

d = 1200 40 16 10 = 1134mm

948.078 106

k= = 35 400 11342 = 0.0527

2

Since k < 0.167 No compression reinforcement required

z = d[0.5 + (0.25 0.882) ] = z = d[0.5 + (0.25 0.882(0.0527) ] = 0.95d

948.078 106

1 = = 0.87 460 0.95 1134 = 2199 mm2

0.87

Provide 5Y25mm BOT (ASprov = 2450 mm2)

2 2

fctm = 0.3 3 = 0.3 35 3 = 3.2099 N/mm2

fctm 3.2099

ASmin = 0.26 Fyk

bw d = 0.26 460

400 1134 = 822.962 mm2

Check if ASmin < 0.0013 bw d (589.68 mm2)

3

0 0 2

L/d = K [11 + 1.5 + 3.2 ( 1) ] if 0

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

1

0 1 2

L/d = K [11 + 1.5 + ( ) ] if > 0

12 0

2450

= = = 0.00540 < 103 35

400 1134

3

0.0059 0.0059 2

L/d = 1.5 [11 + 1.535 + 3.235 ( 1) ] = 1.5(20.695 + 0.5333) = 31.842

0.0054 0.0054

310

Modification factor =

310 310 500 2199

= = = 278.241 N/mm2

500 500 2450

310

= =1.11

278.241

7000

Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 31.842

= 1.11 31.842

7000

12816

= 19.374

12816

Actual deflection L/d = 1134

= 11.301

Since 11.301 < 19.374, deflection is ok.

MA = 1967.54 KNm

k = 0.1093; la = 0.8919; AS1 = 4861 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 4Y32mm + 4Y25mm TOP (ASprov = 5180 mm2)

MA = 2283.18KNm

k = 0.1268; la = 0.8717; AS1 = 5772 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 6Y32mm + 4Y20mm TOP (ASprov = 6080 mm2)

MBCSpan = 1249.787 kNm

k = 0.0694; la = 0.9345; AS1 = 2947mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 5Y25mm + 2Y20mm BOT (ASprov = 3083 mm2)

3083

= = = 0.00679 > 103 35

400 1134

1

0 1 2

L/d = K [11 + 1.5 + ( ) ] if > 0

12 0

0.0059

L/d = 1.5 [11 + 1.535 + 0] = 28.066

0.00679 0

310

Modification factor =

310 310 500 2974

= 500

= 500 3083

= 299.039 N/mm2

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

310

= = 1.0366

299.039

7000

Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 28.066

= 1.0366

7000

28.066 12816

= 15.89

12816

Actual deflection L/d = 1134

= 11.301

Since 11.301 < 15.89, deflection is ok.

MC = 1565.63 KNm

k = 0.0870; la = 0.9163; AS1 = 3765 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 5Y32mm TOP (ASprov = 4020 mm2)

1.4.5.1 Support A

VEd = 934.62 KN; N = 380.061 KN (Compression)

Taking shear at the centreline of support; VEd = 934.62 KN

1

VRd,c = [CRd,c.k. (1001 )3 + k1. ]bw.d (Vmin + k1. ) bw.d

200 200

k = 1+ = 1+ = 1.4199 < 2.0

1134

3 1 3 1

Vmin = 0.035 = Vmin = 0.035 (1.4199)2 (35)2 = 0.3504 N/mm2

2 2

5180

1 = = = 0.011419 < 0.02; K1 = 0.15

400 1134

= NEd/Ac < 0.2fcd (Where NEd is the axial force at the section, Ac = cross sectional area of the concrete),

fcd = design compressive strength of the concrete.)

380.061 103

= = 0.7917 N/mm2

400 1200

1

VRd,c = [0.12 1.4199 (100 0.011419 35 )3 + 0.15 0.7917 ]400 1134 = 318111.948 N = 318.11 KN

Let us now investigate the compression capacity of the strut;

35

v1 = 0.6(1 ) = 0.6(1 ) = 0.516

250 250

0.85 35

fcd = Taking = 0.85; fcd = = 19.833 N/mm2; z = 0.9d

1.5

VRd,max = = [ ] 103 = 1440.64 KN > VEd

( + tan ) (cot 21.8 + tan 21.8)

VEd,s = cot = 934620 N

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

934620

= = 0.9153

(0.9 1134 0.87 460 cot 21.8)

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of VRd equation assumes a negative value.

1 = 0.0134; = 0.7070 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 230.6532 KN

Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required

Assuming that the strut angle = 21.8

v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN

Since VRDmax > VEd

= 0.9635

Trying 3Y10mm @ 200mm c/c (235/200 = 1.175)

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of V Rd equation assumes a negative value.

1 = 0.0134; = 1.0641 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 351.161 KN

Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required

Assuming that the strut angle = 21.8

v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN

Since VRDmax > VEd

= 0.9789

Trying 3Y10mm @ 200mm c/c (235/200 = 1.175)

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of VRd equation assumes a negative value.

1 = 0.0089; = 0.4347 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 213.2707 KN

Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required

Assuming that the strut angle = 21.8

v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN

Since VRDmax > VEd

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

= 0.9000

Trying 3Y10mm @ 200mm c/c (235/200 = 1.175)

It is very easy to see that the influence of axial force was not very pronounced in the results produced. It would

have been very significant using BS 8110. The maximum reinforcement was seen at support B due the high

magnitude of moment at that section. This phenomenon is consistent with horizontal continuous beams. See

detailing sketches in Figure 2.0.

Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

References

[1] BS 6399 part 1: 1996: Loading for Building code of practice for dead and imposed loads.

British Standards Institution.

[2] BS 8110 1:1997: Structural use of concrete Part1: Code of practice for design and

construction. British Standard Institutions.

[3] EN 1991-1-1 (2002): General Actions- Densities, self weight, imposed loads for buildings

[4] EN 1992-1-1 (2004): Design of concrete structures: General Rules and rules for building

[5] Jeff Steele, Mark Larsen (1996): Raker-Beam Construction Requires Rugged Steel Forms.

Publication #C960738 The Aberdeen Group

[6] Karadelis J (2009): Concrete Grandstands. Part 1: Experimental investigations. Proceedings

to the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering and Computational mechanics. Volume

162,Issue 1 ISSN 1755-0777

[7] Salyards K.A., Honagan L.M (2005): Evaluation of a finite element model for dynamic

characteristic prediction of stadium facility.

- Qcon Manual.pdfUploaded byaravindtank
- S&T_models2Uploaded bycitizenkaneg
- AJSR_53_03Uploaded byZuzar
- Chapter 2 - Loading Arrangement on BeamUploaded byAyie Ibrahim
- Composite Slab DesignUploaded by_jesseca
- Continuous Concr e 00 Port u of tUploaded byAnonymous g8Q74dM
- ME 2254 — STRENGTH OF MATERIALS nov.dec 2010Uploaded byPunitha Kumar
- BridgesUploaded byFelipe Pérez Pérez
- Variable Depth Beam Shear StressUploaded byPremasiri Karunarathna
- CVG3147_Loads_S2017.pdfUploaded byGreg Loncaric
- Concrete Deck ComputationUploaded byjvdummy
- Reinforced concrete deep beams with web openingsUploaded byMichael Chew
- Introduction of MidasGen2015Uploaded byAnonymous HJe2KXSP6
- D198.PDFUploaded byArnold Rojas
- resbroUploaded byrkanna2006
- Design for Flexure-wsd (1)Uploaded byRichard Tagle
- Problem 1 010Uploaded byRonald Soto
- 1 481 Masonry Beam Design Strength DesignUploaded bysansiddu72
- 2-3Uploaded bysk mukhtar
- 1 Steps Singly RC Case 1Uploaded byAminah Saltat Maniala II
- 128982454815448.pdfUploaded bygreelmind
- Ansys Analysis-Trolley Beam 3T1Uploaded byYe Wint Thu
- 32658_toc.pdfUploaded byanon_857191415
- Information and Pool Sap2000 Manuals English Problem 1-015Uploaded byshaimenne
- m6l15Uploaded byapi-3737235
- Internal Loads determination using finite element analysisUploaded byviluk
- cmaa_ma47.pdfUploaded byAntonio Pérez
- Ebt447-Lecture 1 PrintedUploaded byfatinzalila
- 0964701405_Practical.pdfUploaded byAndy Reynolds
- SCI AD 329 Dealing With Connection Design in a 3D Frame AnalysisUploaded bytun20000

- Imagine Robor StructuralmasfUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- 60497fisa1.pdfUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- detaliu masuri antiseismiceUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- 607fisa1.pdfUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Armare StalpiUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Curs RSA Beton ArmatUploaded byIoan Liviu
- Endo Metrics 2Uploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Endo Metrics 2Uploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Analysis and Design of a Continuous Reinforced Concrete Raker Beam for Stad.pdfUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- pag 2Uploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- A.9 Tablou de TamplarieUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Rezervoare Tg FrumosUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- pagina avizeUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- F1Uploaded byPNV4ever
- ehah167-136Uploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- 6a.mortare, Betoane, Armaturi Pentru ZidarieUploaded bys_relu90
- Caiet de sarcini - Agregate naturale stabilizate cu ciment IIUploaded byZosin Jeni
- Hidden ChurchesUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- ACI 126.3R-99Uploaded byminhnn
- detaliu etrieriUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Rez Rez Apa- Caiet SarciniUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Grupa 13-Prezentare EPR (2)Uploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Raport EXPERTIZA Casa de Pensii (4)Uploaded byDimitriu Constantin
- intinzatori solutieUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- Înlocuirea Unui Singur Dinte Cu Ajutorul Unei Proteze Partiale Fixe Din CeramicaUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- MD6roUploaded byNelly Brg
- MD6roUploaded byNelly Brg
- Direct Analysis Method WhitepaperUploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii
- ehah167-136Uploaded byBogdan Constantin-Babii

- Representation Paradigms for Masonry Modulation in BIM ToolsUploaded byFabFabFabFab
- Blog for Fina With Finite ElementsUploaded bysathishkotha786
- Newton Raphson MethodUploaded byAkansha Yadav
- Kenexa Numerical Test Tutorial SampleUploaded byBen5064
- Liu and Jordan 1963Uploaded byjankahorvath2000
- Guarino FrUploaded bySandro Gibbon Ratto
- ch7Uploaded bykatral-jamerson-9379
- 17.3.beyerchenUploaded byChiorean Raul
- NED-all-tests.pdfUploaded byKhan Sarfaraz
- ABB-S4C+Rapid 4_0_100Uploaded byEduard Lupus Lobo
- Characterizing the Measurement ProcessUploaded bytehky63
- Strohschein-2005-Journal_of_Marriage_and_Family.pdfUploaded byJefrioSuyanto
- Rgression in EconomicsUploaded byMuhammad Umer Farooq Awan
- bput_1470310707Uploaded byPramod Kumar
- Expectation Value (Statisitic Formulae)Uploaded bycorporateboy36596
- En.stargateUploaded byLionel Elyansun
- 326841741-Solution-Manual-for-Basic-Principles-and-Calculations-in-Chemical-Engineering-8th-Edition-by-David-M-Himmelblau-James-B-Riggs.docxUploaded bykembar ayu
- hgmitestUploaded byLapnd
- Econ f241 Econometric Methods_sem II, 2016-17Uploaded byLakshyaGhuliani
- ADITI QUESTIONS.docxUploaded byVinay Shetty
- Thermodynamics of AdsorptionUploaded byFren2008
- 1 Tutorial - Concurrent ForcesUploaded byJeanelle Arpa
- Finance electiveUploaded byzhen
- Simulation of The Electrochemical Machining ProcessUploaded bydavid2404
- 3G RAN Parameter Testing R99Uploaded byNeelesh Kumar Marele
- Creative Convolution: New Sounds From Impulse ResponsesUploaded bynachothefreeloader
- Comparing the Sample Mean and the Population Mean in a Large Sample SizeUploaded byJealyn Flores
- Scour Hazard Assessment and BridgeUploaded byAzizah Ariffin
- LogoUploaded byPawan Raghav
- Ecor 2606 lab 8Uploaded byMike Rocque