28 views

Uploaded by fahmyits

OMAE PAPER

- 47896343 ETABS Example
- Proposal of Polynesian Roof Truss
- INCHEON_03_HDA Design Report
- STNW3355ver2internet.pdf
- 90 - Creating Mechanism Loads
- psdest_v6
- Fatigue Assessment Analysis of a Jack-up Platform Pile Leg Structure
- AppNote 07 FPSO and Offshore Platforms
- IRJET-A Comparative Study of Different Configuration of Shear Wall Location in Soft Story Building Subjected to Seismic Load.
- 55599352 Etabs Sample TutorEtabsial 69
- Time Waveform Analysis
- C2_STATIC LOAD CASE EDITOR.pdf
- A Measure of Earthquake Motion Capacity to Damage Medium Period Structures - Fajfar
- Pole Loading
- Code Requirements for the Analysis of Concrete Structures RAM
- Wind Loads on Asia Pacific
- Aerial Apparatus Operations
- 82-87.pdf
- Abme Oakland Duty Statement 623 10-10-13
- LOADS ON HR

You are on page 1of 9

OMAE2011

June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

OMAE2011-49580

EQUIVALENT DESIGN WAVE APPROACH FOR CALCULATING SITE-SPECIFIC

ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS ON AN FPSO

Resmi Sarala

Naval Architect

Mohammad Hajiarab

Floating Structures Team Leader

Richard Bamford

FOI Global Technology Leader

ABSTRACT

This paper demonstrates the method used by Lloyd's

Register (LR) to derive an equivalent design wave from a

response based analysis (RBA) to represent extreme loads on a

weather-vaning FPSO [1] and proceeds to compare the results

with that of the industry practice of the response amplitude

operator (RAO) based approach. The responses investigated

include roll, pitch, vertical wave bending moments, vertical

wave shear forces and vertical acceleration.

The RBA is based on 3 hourly hindcast metocean data and

uses the results of the heading analysis directly, considering the

combined effect of wind, wind-sea, current and swell. An

equivalent design wave is then derived based on the spectral

characteristics of each response instead of the common practice

for ship design [2] which uses only the characteristics of the

RAOs. For each response the design wave for the RBA and

RAO approaches is compared. Deriving equivalent design

waves using only the RAO characteristics is found to give some

non-conservative and unrealistic equivalent design waves in

some cases.

INTRODUCTION

In a harsh environment a turret mooring system is often

utilised to take advantage of its passive weather-vaning

characteristics. The instantaneous equilibrium position is

reached through the combined effects of varying environmental

loads due to wind, wave (wind-sea and swell components), and

current.

Accurate modeling of the FPSO responses is important for

predicting the loads on the structure and the operational

envelope. This requires a good understanding of the vessel

response characteristics and the site-specific environmental

conditions. The relative importance of the environmental

parameters depends upon the response being investigated. To

use the extreme responses (e.g. vertical wave bending moment)

for structural design it is necessary to also derive the associated

responses (e.g. vertical acceleration) which occur at the same

between the responses. Note that the environmental conditions

associated with the extremes are usually different for each

response (e.g. the sea states resulting in large vertical wave

bending moments do not necessarily also result in extreme roll

responses).

The RBA equivalent design wave method as described in

Section 4 of the LR ShipRight-FOI procedure [1] is used to

derive dynamic load combinations associated with the extreme

(100 year return period) values of the following responses at

amidships for an Aframax FPSO operating in a harsh

environment:

Vertical Wave Shear Force

Vertical Acceleration

Transverse Acceleration

Roll

Pitch

based equivalent design waves for each response. The design

waves are used to derive dynamic load combination factors

(DLCFs) as would be used for structural design calculations [4].

NOMENCLATURE

Vertical Acceleration at Port Side tank

av-PS

at-PS

Transverse Acceleration at Port Side tank

FOI

Floating Offshore Installation

Hs

Significant wave height

Mwv

Vertical Wave Bending Moment

Qwv

Vertical Wave Shear Force

Peak spectral period

Tp

a

Numeric spectral parameter [5]

b

Numeric spectral parameter [5]

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the load response analysis is to provide

environmental loads for use in the assessment of the strength,

hull girder ultimate strength, local scantlings, and sloshing

assessment.

The CSR [2] derivation of characteristic design wave loads

is based on a long term statistical approach which includes

representation of the wave environment (North Atlantic scatter

diagram), probability of ship/wave heading and probability of

load value exceedence based on IACS Recommendation 34.

Non-linear effects (due to vessel geometry and wave profile) are

considered for the expected lifetime maximum loads. In

deriving the simultaneously occurring loads, one particular load

component is maximised or minimised and the relative

magnitude of all simultaneously occurring dynamic load

components is specified by the application of dynamic load

combination factors (DLCF) based on the envelope load value.

These dynamic load combination factors based on the

equivalent representative design waves are tabulated in the

CSR [2].

It is not sufficient simply to replace the individual tanker

loads given in the CSR Section 7/3 [2] with FPSO loads unless

the load combination factors given in the CSR Section 7/6 [2]

are also replaced. This is because the heading probabilities,

environmental load characteristics and hence response

characteristics of an FOI differ from those of a trading tanker.

Furthermore the values of f in CSR [2] which account for the

probabilities of head seas and beam seas are not necessarily

applicable to an FOI.

3D Diffraction

Model

Hydrodynamic

database

Metocean

database

Heading

analysis

Wind and

current

coefficients

Heading

database

Response

Analysis

Dynamic Load

combination

factors

RulesCalc

Scantling

calculations

The 100 year return period values for each response is

determined based on spectral analysis methods for each loading

pattern as follows:

The Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) of the

response under investigation for each loading condition

and vessel heading is produced.

The short term response is calculated for each sea-state by

adding the wind sea response spectra and swell sea

response spectra for the response under investigation. The

mean heading for each sea-state determined by the heading

analysis is used.

The long term distribution of the response under

investigation is determined by combining the statistics of

the Rayleigh distributions for each sea-state. From the

long term distribution, the extreme value for the required

(100 year) response is calculated. This procedure assumes

the response to be narrow banded. Where the response is

not narrow banded, a bandwidth correction may be

applied.

LR RBA Method

The LR RBA method makes use of the following for

calculating extreme responses and associated DLCF using the

design wave approach:

A site specific directional scatter diagram or

hindcast/measured data series;

Linear hydrodynamic theory with the hull modeled using

3D-diffraction elements; and

Heading probabilities determined from a heading analysis.

Figure 1 shows a flow chart of the complete hydrodynamic

analysis to calculate required loads for determining the local

scantlings for the hull structure.

response variable defined in each loading condition in the

strength analysis.

The idealised quasi-static load cases that induce the

100 year return period value for each response variable are

derived using the concept of an equivalent design wave. These

design waves yield the information required to replace the CSR

DLCF values. There are numerous possible design waves and

simplification irrespective of the selection method. The LR

method employs the results of the extreme response analysis

rather than only the characteristics of the response RAOs. The

steps in the method are as follows:

1. The relative heading 'H' which produces the greatest

contribution to the 100 year response of interest is

identified. The relative heading 'H' is the dominant relative

heading from cumulative response spectrum (See

Annex A).

2. For relative heading 'H', the frequency 'F' is identified

which produces the greatest contribution to the 100 year

response of interest. The frequency 'F' is the frequency at

the peak of the cumulative response spectrum for relative

heading 'H'.

3. For relative heading 'H', the phase angle 'P' is found which

generates the amplitude of the RAO for frequency 'F'.

4. The amplitude 'A' of a regular wave is calculated with

relative heading 'H', frequency 'F' and phase angle 'P' so

that it produces the 100 year response value. At this step

the design wave can be identified by it's four parameters,

i.e. heading, frequency, phase and amplitude.

5. For relative heading 'H', frequency 'F' and amplitude 'A' all

response components for phase 'P' and phase 'P+180

degrees' are calculated. This will give the positive and

negative loads.

RAO based method

In the RAO based approach the RAOs for a given

parameter are calculated for each heading. The design wave

heading is then taken to correspond to the heading of the largest

RAO from the calculated set of RAOs. Thereafter the method is

the same as the RBA approach.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL

Preparation of the hydrodynamic model and hydrodynamic

analysis was performed using the AQWA software package

from ANSYS.

The AQWA model for the analysis is presented in Figure 2.

z

-900

z

y

00

cog

900

1800

effects of current drag loads and wind loads on the hull were

represented by the current force and wind force coefficients.

The mooring lines are modeled as composite catenary lines

consisting of chains and wire rope components.

The main characteristics of the vessel used for the analysis

in the ballast condition are presented in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Main characteristics of the vessel

Vessel Characteristics (approximately)

LBP (m)

Breadth (m)

Draught (m)

Displacement (t)

GM (m)

LCG from AP (m)

VCG from keel (m)

Tran. radius of gyration (m)

Vert. radius of gyration (m)

Long. radius of gyration(m)

230

45

12

110,000

4.5

110

16

20

65

65

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

The environmental data includes a total of approximately

30,000 continuous three hourly hindcast sea states which

represents more than 10 years of data. Definition of this data is

in accordance to requirements of Section 2.8 of ShipRight FOI

Procedure [1] and no spreading is assumed in the wave data.

The environmental data includes:

Wind wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, ,

a and b) and direction

Swell wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, ,

a and b) and direction

Wind mean speed and direction

Current mean speed and direction

RBA PROCEDURE

Analysis was performed as indicated in Figure 1 based on

the following procedure:

1. A 3-D diffraction model of the vessel's hull was generated

in AQWA-LINE based on the characteristics defined in

Table 1.

2. The calculated linearised roll damping is verified against

field measurements and included in the hydrodynamic

model.

3. A hydrodynamic database containing amplitude and phase

of the RAOs for design parameters stated in Table 2 was

prepared for frequency range of 0.1 rad/s to 1.5 rad/s with

0.05 rad/s increments and heading range of -180 to 180

with 5 increments.

4. The mooring arrangements were added to the AQWALINE model to create the AQWA-LIBRIUM model.

5. Wind and current coefficients from wind tunnel tests were

added to the AQWA-LIBRIUM to include the wind drag

and the current drag forces for the specified loading

condition of the vessel and the headings relative to wind

and current directions.

6. The three hourly environmental data, which contained sets

of wind-sea, swell, wind and current data with their

associated directions were included in the hydrodynamic

model.

7. Using the AQWA-LIBRIUM software, the stable

equilibrium positions for each three hourly sea state was

calculated individually.

8. The vessel headings were post-processed to find the

relative vessel heading to wind seas and swell seas at each

three hourly sea state.

9. Using RAOs calculated in step 3 above and the relative

vessel headings calculated in step 8 above, an extreme

response analysis was performed in accordance with [1] to

calculate the 100 year return period for the parameters

listed in Table 2.

10. The outcome of the response analysis from step 9 is post

processed to define individual design waves associated to

each response. In this process for each sea state the

relative headings of the wind seas and swell seas are

rounded to nearest 5. The response spectra for wind seas

and swell seas with the same rounded headings are added

together and are presented in the form of a histogram. The

total area on the starboard side (i.e. from 0 to 180) and

port side (i.e. from -180 to 0) are calculated and the

biggest area is considered as the "Governing Side". The

dominant heading is chosen from the Governing Side of

the histogram (See Figures 9 to 14 in Annex A).

11. The calculated design waves are used to determine the

associated values in phase with each 100 year return

period responses from the hydrodynamic database

calculated in step 3.

Table 2: Presented FPSO responses

FPSO

Response

Roll

Pitch

Mwv

Qwv

av-PS

at-PS

RESULTS

The calculated 100 year return period values from the

Response Based Analysis (RBA) and their design wave

characteristics for the specified responses stated in Table 2, are

presented in Table 3.

Using the design waves in Table 3 and the RAO database

of the responses, associated loads in phase with each 100 year

return period response can be calculated. The calculated design

parameters associated with each design wave are presented in

Table 4.

For each design wave (i.e. each column in Table 4), the 100

year return period is highlighted for further clarity. For

example, at the time of the 100 year return period vertical wave

bending moment (i.e. Mwv=5.8E9 N.m), the associated vertical

wave shear force, vertical acceleration, transverse acceleration,

roll and pitch are -2.7E7 N, 0.50 ms-2, 0.00 ms-2, 0.00 deg. and

2.46 deg., respectively.

Table 3: The RBA 100 year return period values and design

waves

Response

(x=120 from AP, y=9 from CL, z=9 from BL)

A

F

H

P

(m)

(rad/s) (deg.) (deg.)

Mwv

5.8E9

11.87

0.50

180

167

(N.m)

Qwv

4.3E7

12.06

0.55

-180

37

(N)

av-PS

1.70

16.13

0.60

180

54

(ms-2)

at-PS

5.83

8.66

0.35

150

-133

(ms-2)

Roll

22.93

8.54

0.35

150

-175

(deg.)

Pitch

9.46

13.66

0.50

180

94

(deg.)

Note: A: Amplitude, F: Frequency, H: Heading, P: Phase

Table 4: The RBA associated design parameters for each

design wave

Resp.

At center of gravity

At center of gravity

At 0.5L from AP

(x=115 from AP)

At the trans BHD with max.combined

seagoing permissible SWSF and VWSF in the

midship region, (x=130 from AP)

At COG of the mid tank Port Side

(x=120 from AP, y=9 from CL, z=9 from BL)

100 Yr.

R.P.

Value

Mwv

(N.m)

Qwv

(N)

Design Wave

av-PS

at-PS

(ms-2)

(ms-2)

Roll

(deg.)

Pitch

(deg.)

Mwv

5.8E9 -2.6E9 3.71E8 1.25E9 1.8E9 1.99E9

(N.m)

Qwv

-2.7E7 4.3E7 5.15E7 -9.92E6 -1.1E7 2.72E7

(N)

av-PS

0.50

0.64

1.70

0.20

0.41

0.688

(ms-2)

at-PS

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.83

4.23

0.00

(ms-2)

Roll

0.00

0.00

0.00

17.11

22.93

0.00

(deg.)

Pitch

(deg.)

2.46

3.34

4.05

-3.60

-0.40

9.46

parameter and other associated design parameters for each

design wave is normalized in Table 5. This demonstrates the

dynamic load combination factor (DLCF) for each design wave.

each design wave

Design Wave

Resp.

for each design wave

Design Wave

Resp.

Mwv

(N.m)

Qwv

(N)

av-PS

(ms-2)

at-PS

(ms-2)

Roll

(deg.)

Pitch

(deg.)

1.00

-0.46

0.06

0.21

0.32

0.35

-0.63

1.00

1.18

-0.23

-0.25

0.62

0.30

0.38

1.00

0.12

0.24

0.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.73

0.00

Roll

(deg.)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.75

1.00

0.00

Pitch

(deg.)

0.26

0.35

0.43

-0.38

-0.04

1.00

Mwv

(N.m)

Qwv

(N)

av-PS

(ms-2)

at-PS

(ms-2)

Mwv

(N.m)

Table 6: The RAO based 100 year return period values and

design waves

Response

Mwv

(N.m)

Qwv

(N)

av-PS

(ms-2)

at-PS

(ms-2)

Roll

(deg.)

Pitch

(deg.)

100 Yr.

R.P.

Value

A

F

H

P

(m)

(rad/s) (deg.) (deg.)

5.8E9

11.87

0.50

180

167

4.3E7

8.62

0.55

-57

1.70

3.25

0.65

90

-131

5.83

3.16

0.35

90

-128

22.93

3.28

0.35

90

-169

9.46

9.46

0.60

120

112

Qwv

(N)

av-PS

(ms-2)

Qwv

-2.73E7 4.3E7 -8.99E5

(N)

av-PS

0.51

-0.08

1.70

(ms-2)

at-PS

0.51

0.00

0.37

(ms-2)

at-PS

(ms-2)

Roll

(deg.)

Pitch

(deg.)

9.7E4

1.61E5 -4.28E6

-0.07

-0.02

0.59

5.83

-0.02

-0.26

Roll

(deg.)

0.00

0.00

0.74

17.60

22.93

-0.46

Pitch

(deg.)

2.47

3.57

0.00

-0.01

-0.02

9.46

parameters for each design wave

Resp.

response are presented in Table 6.

The associated responses to each 100 year response, using

the RAO based design waves are shown in Table 7 and the same

values are normalized in Table 8 for further discussion.

Mwv

(N.m)

Mwv

(N.m)

Qwv

(N)

av-PS

(ms-2)

at-PS

(ms-2)

Roll

(deg.)

Pitch

(deg.)

Design Wave

av-PS

at-PS

(ms-2)

(ms-2)

Mwv

(N.m)

Qwv

(N)

Roll

(deg.)

Pitch

(deg.)

1.00

-0.51

0.01

-0.01

0.02

0.32

-0.63

1.00

-0.02

0.00

0.00

-0.10

0.30

-0.05

1.00

-0.04

0.01

0.35

0.09

0.00

0.06

1.00

0.00

-0.04

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.77

1.00

-0.02

0.26

0.38

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

DISCUSSIONS

For each design wave the RBA and RAO based response

parameters are tabulated in Table 3 to Table 8.

It can be seen from Table 5 that at the time of the 100 year

return period av-PS , the associated Qwv is about 18% more than

the calculated 100 year return period Qwv. This is because the

response of the vessel due to two separate wave spectra (i.e.

wind wave and swell) is approximated by only one regular

design wave. In order to eliminate such discrepancies when

calculating local scantlings it is usual to truncate any associated

value exceeding the calculated 100 year value to the

corresponding 100 year value [4]. However when applying the

design wave directly for FE analysis using a full ship FE model

such truncation is not practical.

study, the sea states which contribute the most to the responses

under investigation are shown in Figures 3 to 7.

the DLCFs presented in Table 5 are more representative of

reality than the values in Table 8. This phenomenon is most

significant in transverse responses. For example, by applying

the RAO based design wave approach (i.e. Table 8), at the time

of the 100 year return period at-PS , the corresponding Mwv, Qwv

and av-PS are calculated to be negligible. However using the

RBA based design waves, associated Mwv, Qwv and av-PS at the

time of the 100 year return period at-PS are demonstrated to be

21%, 23% and 12% of their 100 year return period values. This

is due to the fact that the heading and frequency of the RBA

design wave correspond to the peak of the energy concentration

in the response, not the peak of the RAO. Therefore the RBA

design wave is considered to be more realistic.

Furthermore, in order to compare the RBA design wave

approach with the commonly used RAO based design wave

approach, the roll and pitch response are chosen as

representative of transverse and longitudinal responses

respectively. As presented in Table 3, the heading of the roll

using the RBA approach is calculated to be 150 degrees. From

the RAO based approach it can be seen that in this case the

design wave heading of the roll response will be 90 degrees,

since the peak of the RAO occurs in this heading.

As it is demonstrated in Figure 8, by choosing the design

wave heading of 90 degrees for roll response, the minimum

amount of contribution from pitch will be considered in the

design load case. However by choosing the heading of 150

degrees, not only is the 100 year return period roll response

recovered, but a considerable pitch response in phase with the

100 year roll response will be considered as well.

Max. Roll and Max. Pitch RAO Amplitudes

1.2

Max. Roll Ampl.

7

6

0.8

5

0.6

4

3

0.4

2

0.2

1

180

170

175

165

160

150

155

145

135

140

130

125

115

120

110

105

90

95

100

80

85

75

70

60

65

55

45

50

40

35

25

30

20

15

and Roll

5

10

0

0

Heading (deg.)

It should be noted that the response based methods are

based on linear frequency domain analysis which assumes

infinitesimally small wave amplitudes. When applying the

design waves for structural design it is usual to make

corrections for the finite wave height by making assumptions

about the pressure distribution above the waterline [4].

Figure 7: The sea state contributing most to extreme Pitch

CONCLUSIONS

From the preceding discussions, it is concluded that the

RBA design wave approach adopted by Lloyd's Register

commonly used RAO based method. As a result of more

accurate estimation of the site specific responses, a better

optimized hull scantling design can be achieved. Furthermore

the topside process machinery can be designed for more

realistic motion and acceleration operating limits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Lloyd's Register Group Services,

especially Dr. Graham Stewart, for his support of this work.

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the

authors and are not necessarily those of Lloyd's Register.

REFERENCES

[1] Lloyd's Register, 2011, "ShipRight-FOI Design,

Construction and Operation; Floating Offshore

Installations Assessment of Structures, Ship Units,

Guidance on Calculation".

[2] IACS, 2008, "Common Structural Rules for Double Hull

Oil Tankers".

[3] Lloyd, A.R.J.M., 1998,"Seakeeping: Ship behavior in

rough weather".

[4] Lloyd's Register, 2011, "Rules and Regulation for the

Classification of a Floating Offshore Installation at a Fixed

Location," Part 4A.

[5] BS EN ISO 19901-1:2005, "Petroleum and Natural Gas

industries Specific requirements for offshore structures,

Part 1: Metocean design and operating considerations".

ANNEX A

- 47896343 ETABS ExampleUploaded bytalha_be7392
- Proposal of Polynesian Roof TrussUploaded byayu amaliah
- INCHEON_03_HDA Design ReportUploaded byhda_paris
- STNW3355ver2internet.pdfUploaded byAmar Wadood
- 90 - Creating Mechanism LoadsUploaded bySameOldHat
- psdest_v6Uploaded byDasu Vaishnavi
- Fatigue Assessment Analysis of a Jack-up Platform Pile Leg StructureUploaded byKenzari Fouad
- AppNote 07 FPSO and Offshore PlatformsUploaded byRao Madepalli
- IRJET-A Comparative Study of Different Configuration of Shear Wall Location in Soft Story Building Subjected to Seismic Load.Uploaded byIRJET Journal
- 55599352 Etabs Sample TutorEtabsial 69Uploaded byDeepu George T
- Time Waveform AnalysisUploaded bySurika Martalina
- C2_STATIC LOAD CASE EDITOR.pdfUploaded byOluwachidi
- A Measure of Earthquake Motion Capacity to Damage Medium Period Structures - FajfarUploaded byreynaldo1976
- Pole LoadingUploaded byKho C Ahl
- Code Requirements for the Analysis of Concrete Structures RAMUploaded bykiruba
- Wind Loads on Asia PacificUploaded byHomer Silva
- Aerial Apparatus OperationsUploaded byagustin diaz rosas
- 82-87.pdfUploaded byMahmoud Ibrahim
- Abme Oakland Duty Statement 623 10-10-13Uploaded byjoescribd55
- LOADS ON HRUploaded byskverma5724
- LOADS ON HRUploaded byskverma5724
- Chapter 16 - Structural Design (1)Uploaded byAlaym Aguilar
- Progressive Collapse ModellingUploaded byManjari Arasada
- TORRE 15 - 20Uploaded byjose
- 1b-53E-loadcell-enUploaded byStoica Andrei
- CABARET Solutions on Graphics Processing Units for NASA Jets - Grid Sensitivity and Unsteady Inflow Condition EffectUploaded byHassanImran
- Synopsis (1)Uploaded byManjunath HS
- Experiment 3Uploaded byShi Meng
- tmpCED5.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- Eleanor Oliphant is Completely - Gail HoneymanUploaded byVicente Bergamini Puglia

- Oil Platform - WikiwandUploaded byfahmyits
- KacUploaded byfahmyits
- KapUploaded byfahmyits
- Floating Platforms _ TechnipUploaded byfahmyits
- ThroughUploaded byfahmyits
- Book excelUploaded byfahmyits
- Mathcad - InPEX Masela FLNG Korea-Batam (Calm)Uploaded byfahmyits
- Cs Downed CzUploaded byfahmyits
- KeyUploaded byfahmyits
- Ballasted RAOUploaded byfahmyits
- Pages From Chai DrawUploaded byfahmyits
- Pre Bid NisaUploaded byfahmyits
- FA CV dd 3 August 2011Uploaded byfahmyits

- Simply Supported TrussesUploaded byKhalil Barakzai
- Mathematics of Motion Control ProfilesUploaded byGirish Kasturi
- Rf Dynam Pro Tutorial Pushover Analysis EnUploaded byVenreplast Puebla
- Orca Flex FeaturesUploaded byAhmadFauzan
- CHEM F213 Handout 2016Uploaded byShubh
- AeronauticsUploaded byBaldev Ram
- CH2DesignMethodsofRC.pdfUploaded byTrav Black
- What Are the Two Types of IonsUploaded byugna
- Simulation of a Spring Mass Damper System Using MatlabUploaded byshika-san
- Topic 1_Atomic_structureUploaded bysasha_91
- Prokon - Output Beam 12Uploaded byDaniel Kariuki
- Per FilesUploaded byPaúl A Vasquez Gonzalez
- FAN TESTUploaded bywhoelse_i
- Braced FramesUploaded byPriyanka Basu
- 2150609Uploaded byNicholas Thompson
- Timoshenko ErrorUploaded bymarco
- MIT8_04S13_ps8Uploaded byJulio Barrientos
- Reynolds AnalogyUploaded bymojex
- VLE Exercise SolutionUploaded byJomed Barallas
- EBCS & ESCPUploaded byMaekI
- 169397882-Michigan Tech Team Models Molecular TransistorUploaded byDivyesh Dixit
- Finite%20Element%20TrussUploaded byMohannad Saleh
- Exchange bias using a spin glassUploaded byyenisanchez
- fractal_antenna.pdfUploaded bynestor.escala7666
- New Base Isolation Technique for Earthquake Resistant ConstrUploaded byravi1625
- 31295020619382Uploaded byelizabethchemestry
- Short QuestionsUploaded byMalikSohail
- 0625 June 2011 Paper 22 Mark SchemeUploaded byDionisio Ussaca
- Drain Design by STADDUploaded byBilal Ahmed Barbhuiya
- Impulsive Hyperbolic Injection from a Circular Earth Park Orbit (MATLAB)Uploaded bycdeaglejr