16 views

Uploaded by gabrielhii1995

University Of Melbourne Mechanics & Materials FEA Project

- Finite-Element-Analysis-Revealed
- Caeschemesyll
- IRJET-Analysis of Effects of Quench Nozzle on Pressure Vessel Design – A Review
- IRJET- Design Analysis & Optimization of two Wheeler Handlebar
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- IRJET-THERMAL ANALYSIS OF GLAZED SURFACE BY FEM
- Anch
- Detailing
- Spalling Prediction Methods in High Stress Conditions
- Strut–tie analysis of beams with external tendons - El Ariss
- Technical Advances in Lightweight Structure Design
- IRJET-Comparative Analysis Between Structural Steel & Cast Iron for Design and Analysis of Dehulling Machine for Biba using ANSYS
- Board Exam Syllabus
- IJCIET_08_03_113
- D.concreteStruc.N27
- 3222-14189-1-PB_2.pdf
- Wrinkled Membranes
- 02 Torsion 2017 03 30
- 108963_4414677_CHW4
- Assignment 1

You are on page 1of 23

The angle bracket can be simplified into 2D truss structure shown as below, with retaining outer

dimensions as shown in diagram above.

For element no. 1, = 45

1 2

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

1

1 1 1 1

1 = 2 2 2 2

2 1

1

1

1

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

[ 2 ]

2 2 2

For element no. 2, = 180

2 3

1 0 1 0

0 2

2

= [ 0 0 0 ]

1 0 1 0

3

0 0 0 0

1 3

0 0 0 0

3

0 1 0 1 ] 1

= [

0 0 0 0

3

0 1 0 1

The like-numbers elements are identified to construct the global stiffness matrix.

11 1 1

1

[ 2 2] 0 0

2 1 1 1 [ ]

0 1

2 2

12 1 1

1

[ 2 2]

2 1 1

2 2

13 0 0

1 [ ]

0 1

21 1 1

1

[ 2 2]

2 1 1

2 2

22 1 1

1

[ 2 2] 1 [

1 0

2 1 1 ]

0 0

2 2

23 1 0

1 [ ]

0 0

31 0 0

1 [ ]

0 1

32 1 0

1 [ ]

0 0

33 1 0 0 0

1 [ ] 1 [ ]

0 0 0 1

Hence, the global stiffness matrix for whole truss structure of angle bracket can be

determined based on table written above. The final global stiffness matrix for given truss

structure is shown as below:

1 1 1 1

0 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 4 2 1 1

2 2 0 1

4 2 2 2 2

1 4 2

0

1 1

1

2 2 2 2 4 2 2

1

1 1 1

0 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

0 0 1 0 1 0

0 1 0 0 0 1

Question 1(b) From question 1(a), write a matrix form of equations, relating applied

forces to nodal displacements.

1 1 1 1

0 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 r1 x

1 4 2 1 1

2 2 0 1 0

4 2 2 2 2 r1 y

0

4 2

1 0 u

1 1

1 0

EA 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2x

l u 707

1

1 1 1

0 0 2 y

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2

r

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3x

707

r3 y 2

0 1 0 0 0 1

Question 1(c) Calculate reaction forces, nodal displacements and stress in all members.

From matrix expression listed above, we can work out unknown line by line.

2 2

At line no.1, ( 22 22) = 1

2 2

At line no.2, ( 22 22) = 1

(4+2)2 2 2 (122)

At line no.3, ( + 22) = 0 , hence 2 =

4 7

2 2 707

At line no.4, ( + )=

22 22 2

At line no.5, (2 ) = 3

707 707

At line no.6, 0 = 3 , hence 3 = = 353.5N

2 2

2 (122) 2 (4+2) 2

Substitute 2 = to line no.4, ( + 22) = 353.5N

7 28

35

2 = 353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) 6.4183 103 mm

35 122

2 = 353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) ( ) 1.6765 103 mm

7

At line no.1, 1 = 22 (2 + 2 )

205000 36 35 35 122

= 22 35

(353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) 353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) ( 7

))

353.68N

205000 36 35 122

At line no.5, 3 = (353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) ( ))

35 7

-353.5N

1 353.68N 2 6.4183 103 mm 3 353.5N

Since all members shared same cross sectional area of 36mm2 , therefore the stress at fixed

nodes are computed as below:

1 353.68 3 353.5

| 36mm2 | = 9.824MPa | 36mm2 | = 9.819MPa

1 353.68 3 353.5

| 36mm2 | = 9.824MPa |36mm2 | = 9.819MPa

Question 2 Construct a model for angle bracket of Solidworks and provide a figure

showing the mesh, loads and boundary conditions.

Picture below shows 3d angle projection of schematic drawing for angle bracket part.

The load distribution is set to be 707N on top surface while the surface with two 3mm

diameter bolt holes is set to be fixed as regarding to boundary conditions of this angle bracket.

The picture on left below shows load exertion while on right below shows the configuration

of fixture on surfaces within the bolt holes (open cylinder surface).

The picture below shows default global mesh size of 1mm applied on the angle bracket:

The picture below shows set up of local mesh control around two cylindrical surfaces of bolt

holes from angle bracket with default local mesh size of 0.5mm:

Applying 1mm global mesh size and 0.5mm local mesh size, the result mesh is shown below:

Question 3 Perform mesh sensitivity analysis to find an appropriate global/local mesh

size.

To begin mesh sensitivity analysis, the average von misses stress along cylindrical surfaces of

threaded bolt cutouts are obtained along increasing parametric distance for all local mesh

sizes range between 0.5mm and 0.04mm with unified global mesh size of 1mm.

Local Mesh Degree Of Computational Average Stress (#1) Average Stress (#2)

Size (mm) Freedom Time (s) (107 N/mm^2) (107 N/mm^2)

(DOF)

0.5 135231 4 3.4705 2.1258

0.4 142203 5 3.4252 2.1254

0.3 157380 5 3.5555 2.2402

0.2 207246 7 3.6110 2.3078

0.1 408081 14 3.7963 2.4252

0.09 459813 17 3.8116 2.4485

0.08 565224 20 3.8254 2.4680

0.07 641751 24 3.8652 2.4879

0.06 816771 30 3.8911 2.5165

0.05 1106391 42 3.9216 2.5337

0.04 1607997 61 3.9442 2.5544

Table 2.0.1 Tabulation of degree of freedom (manipulated by local mesh size) effect on computational

time and average Von Mises stress developed on cylindrical surface #1 and cylindrical surface #2

Average Von Mises Stress On Cylindrical Surface #1

4.0E+07

3.9E+07

3.8E+07

Stress (N/mm^2)

3.7E+07

3.6E+07

3.5E+07

3.4E+07

0 400000 800000 1200000 1600000 2000000

Degree Of Freedom (DOF)

Graph 2.0.2 Average Von Mises stress on cylindrical surface #1 is found to be converged gradually

starting at region between 6 DOF to 8 DOF

2.6E+07

2.5E+07

Stress (N/mm^2)

2.4E+07

2.3E+07

2.2E+07

2.1E+07

0 300000 600000 900000 1200000 1500000 1800000

Degree Of Freedom (DOF)

Graph 2.0.3 Average Von Mises stress on cylindrical surface #2 is found to be converged gradually once

passing through 9 DOF mark point

Current Local Mesh Size Next Local Mesh Size Rate of increase

(mm) (mm) #1 (%) #2 (%)

0.50 0.40 1.31 0.02

0.40 0.30 3.80 5.40

0.30 0.20 1.56 3.02

0.20 0.10 5.13 5.09

0.10 0.09 0.40 0.96

0.09 0.08 0.36 0.80

0.08 0.07 1.04 0.81

0.07 0.06 0.67 1.15

0.06 0.05 0.78 0.68

0.05 0.04 0.58 0.82

Table 2.0.4 Rate of increase for average Von Mises stress developed on transition between consecutive

local mesh sizes set on both cylindrical surface #1 and #2 is determined to have clear visualisation of

indication for stress magnitude to start converge towards real value of stress magnitude.

Based on table 2.0.4, the rate of increase for both cylindrical surfaces #1 and #2 had

dramatically fall to 1% starting from transition between local mesh size of 0.10mm and

0.09mm, in which local mesh size of 0.1mm indicated to be starting point of converging for

stress magnitude towards real stress magnitude for same cylindrical surfaces #1 and #2 of

angle bracket. As computation time grows gradually with increasing local mesh size as

shown in table 2.0.1, it is concluded that the appropriate global/local mesh size to have great

balance between required computational power/time and accuracy of representation for real

Von Mises stress magnitude would be 1mm/0.1mm.

The critical area of bracket can be determined by observation on distribution of Von Mises

Stress as shown on figures below:

Figure 4.0.1 & 4.0.2 Picture from left to right shows critical area of stress distribution on edge of end

surface for cylindrical cutout #1 (Maximum stress area region) and cylindrical cutout #2

The critical area of bracket is located at the edge of end surface of both threaded bolt cutouts,

in which the maximum stress is developed at end surface of upper threaded bolt cutout.

Question 5 Provide Von Mises stress plot of the bracket, showing the Maximum stress

annotation.

Figure 5.0.1 & 5.0.2 Detailed close-up view of Von Mises stress plot with maximum stress annotation for

global mesh size of 1mm and local mesh size of 0.1mm

Top View

Front View

Bottom View

Left Right

View View

Rear View

Figure 5.0.3, 5.0.4, 5.0.5, 5.0.6, 5.0.7 & 5.0.8 Demonstration of Von Mises plot with maximum stress

annotation from different perspective view of angle bracket

Question 6 Compare the results obtained from Solidworks and those calculated in

question 1 and discuss potential reasons for the observed difference.

Based on manual FEA calculations done in question 1, the stress developed on fixed nodes

are approximately 9.8 MPa while the displacement for node no.2 is found to be

approximately 6.63 103 mm (node stress and displacements are tabulated on table 6.0.1

and 6.0.2). By obtaining simulation data based on preferred global/local mesh size of

1mm/0.1mm, the average displacement for surface of angle bracket (represent node #2 in

manual calculation) is found to have value of 5.3458mm 103 mm which is less than value

of node displacement from manual FEA calculation. On the other hand, the average stress

value for surface of angle bracket (represent node #1 and node #3 in manual calculation was

evaluated to be 19.63 MPa which is much greater than manual FEA calculation.

1 353.68N 2 6.4183 103 mm 3 353.5N

Table 6.0.1 Tabulation of reaction forces and nodal displacements by manual calculation

1 353.68 3 353.5

| 36mm2 | 9.824MPa | 36mm2 | 9.819MPa

1 353.68 3 353.5

| 36mm2 | 9.824MPa |36mm2 | 9.819MPa

Table 6.0.2 Tabulation of stress developed on nodal of truss structure of angle bracket

Average displacement

5.3458mm 103 mm

Figure 6.0.3 Simulation of node displacement with preferred global/local mesh size of 1mm/0.1mm.

Average stress

19.63 MPa

Figure 6.0.4 Simulation of average node stress with preferred global/local mesh size of 1mm/0.1mm.

The key difference based on manual FEA calculations and simulation data is that manual

FEA calculation is executed on basis of multiple assumptions as well as simplifications,

while simulation data deals with greater complexity of given model, in which the design

parameters of model would introduce greater randomness and interdependence present

among computed nodes of given model. The manual FEA calculations simplify model into

two-dimension truss elements which only external horizontal and vertical dimensions are

considered. Hence, the connection between outer horizontal and vertical dimensions are

assumed to be fixed single dimensionless nodes, as compared to the fixed constraints set on

simulation model are cylindrical surfaces present as threaded bolt cutout. While manual

calculation presumes even cross sectional area for entire model, simulation action took

account of actual design parameters that would affect computational stress and strain

developed by given load conditions such as fillet radius and depth of threaded bolt cutout.

Besides that, the simulation of Von Mises plot on model can be affected by stress singularity

developed around sharp edges of angle bracket model. As the local mesh size set to be

smaller over simulation periods, the stress developed along ninety-degree edge surfaces of

bolt cutout would be increase infinitely and defer greater from nominal stress value. It is

important to note that the displacement computed based on simulation data does not affect by

stress singularity problem, thus explains that the simulated displacement value does not defer

as much simulated stress value compared to manual calculation values. Hence, it is

acceptable that the Von Mises stress based on simulation data would result in greater values

compared to manual calculated values.

Question 7 How confident are you that the FEA results are correct? Why?

FEA results may defer from outcome performance of actual model due to difference in

complexity introduction but it is confident enough to declare that the FEA results are correct

in sense of representing model response under given load conditions. The simulation

outcomes can be compared with manual calculations to verify if both outcomes are

complementing each other or not.

Node 2 Node 2

Node 2

Node 2

2 1.6765 103 mm

2 6.4183 103 mm

Figure 7.0.1 Comparison of displacement sequences from simulation results and nodal displacements

From figure 7.0.1 above, the animation frames of displacement for angle bracket model

matches with description given by manual calculation in terms of direction. The tip of angle

bracket is displaced downwards and its vertical edge is found to be deformed slightly slanted

under simulated load conditions. Based on manual calculations, the magnitude of vertical

displacement for node #2, in which it is intended to represent the tip of angle bracket, is

greater than magnitude of horizontal displacement for node#2. Since the simulation outcome

shown on figure 7.0.1 falls on expectation given by the manual calculations, therefore the

FEA result based on nodal displacement are predicted to be nearly accurate compared to

actual displacement of tip of angle bracket.

Above verification method can be implied similarly on verifying the FEA results regarding

on reaction forces developed on fixture region of angle bracket. At figure 7.0.2, the transition

of node displacements demonstrates the absence of given fixture point to determine the

possible of reaction forces in resisting such deformation when it is present on angle bracket

model. Under given load conditions, the absence of upper fixture region has caused the

focused region that represents node #3 moves right on horizontal direction and downwards at

same time from its origin position. On the other hand, the absence of lower fixture region has

caused the focused region that represents node #1 moves left on horizontal direction and

downwards at same time from its origin position. Hence, the resisting reaction force for node

#3 should be pointed upwards and to the left, while the reaction force for node 1 should be

pointed upwards and to the right. Since the manual calculations have matched the expectation

of reaction forces based on reasonable interpretation on simulated model reactions, therefore

FEA result based on reaction forces is predicted to be near the magnitude of actual reaction

forces developed on cylindrical region of angle bracket.

1 353.68N 3 -353.5N

1 353.68N 3 353.5N

Part 2: A new design is required for the bracket to withstand a load which is 50%

higher than that used in the initial design. The design goal is to minimise the mass of the

bracket, while the maximum von-Mises stress is less than 320 MPa.

Question 8 How does any increase in fillet radius or beam thickness change the

maximum stress in the body? Which parameter has a greater effect on the maximum

stress?

Changes in fillet radius or beam thickness will eventually influence maximum load capacity

of angle bracket, thus changing the value of maximum Von Mises stress around edge surface

of bolt cutout. However, beam thickness has greater effect on maximum stress compared to

fillet radius, which this assumption would be further backed up by outcome of design study

shown on question 9. To understand the difference of changing either one of design

parameters in influencing stress distribution for overall stress bracket structure, it is important

to interpret the relationship between those parameters and overall cross-sectional area of the

structure.

Increasing beam thickness will eventually expanding the cross-sectional area across all three

major beams of angle bracket, in which it would drastically decrease internal stress of those

beams at given load condition. A simple way to understand this principle is to observe the

difference in Von Mises stress plot for multiple designs of angle bracket with increasing

beam thickness as shown in figure 8.0.1.

On the other hand, changes in fillet radius are related to transitional cross sectional area in

which it involves redistribution of internal stress as it travels from fixed cross-sectional area

of beam to larger area region where two beams are connected to one another. A smaller fillet

radius would allow cross sectional area to increase gradually until reaching merged region

between two major beams, thus reducing possibility of excessive stress concentration since

the internal stress can redistribute evenly due to smooth transition in shape. Although the

maximum cross-sectional area of merged region connecting two beams would increase due to

raise in fillet radius, the potential risk of stress concentration occurrence around the fillet

edge would counteract the effect of increasing cross-sectional area in reducing maximum

stress of angle bracket. The explanation can be further demonstrated through figure 8.0.2 as

shown below.

Figure 8.0.1 Increasing beam thickness at fixed fillet radius would decrease max stress drastically

2 2 2

1 1 1

Figure 8.0.2 Increasing in fillet radius would lead to greater shape transition of critical region for

slanted part of angle bracket at a given height, thus increasing possibility of stress concentration occur

around the edge of bottom fillet, although it is generally increasing cross-sectional area specifically at the

merged region of two connected beams.

Figure 8.0.3 Increasing fillet radius at fixed beam thickness would decrease max stress drastically

To sum up, the increase in beam thickness would influence more on reducing maximum Von

Mises stress compared to increase in fillet radius.

Question 9 - Find the optimal geometry by changing both the beam thickness and the

fillet radius according to the information in table 1. Plot the results on a stress vs. beam

thickness graph, with separate lines for each fillet radius value. Display the optimal

geometry in a table.

The distributed load is set to 1060.5N which is 50% more than current load. In given design

scenarios, the optimization on angle bracket with preferred global mesh size of 1mm and

local mesh size of 0.1mm has failed entirely. Hence, the angle bracket is set to have global

mesh of 1mm and local mesh size of 0.2mm for optimization to carried out successfully

among given design scenarios. The failure of conducting optimization with preferred mesh

size is due to stress singularity occur at the sharp edge of end surface of threaded bolt cutout

as shown in figure below, in which stress magnitude will increase infinitely as the mesh size

getting smaller and smaller.

Figure 9.0.1, 9.0.2 & 9.0.3 As the local mesh size adjusted to be smaller and smaller around the surface

of threaded bolt cutout, the magnitude of maximum Von Mises stress grows infinitely due to sharp edge

developed around the edge corner of threaded bolt cutout.

Figure 9.0.4 Set up of simulation study with 1060.5N (50% additional load) and global/local mesh size of

1mm/0.2mm

Figure 9.0.5 Set up of design study with different beam thickness and radius fillet to find optimal

geometry design with minimum amount of mass while not exceeding 320MPa (320N/ )

Figure 9.0.6 Outcome of different design studies followed by demonstration of optimal design scenario

Maximum Von Mises Stress For Multiple Scenarios With Distinct Design Parameters

Fillet Radius 2.0mm 2.5mm 3.0mm 3.5mm 4.0mm

Beam Thickness

Failed

3 mm Simulation Rebuild 805.94MPa 624.94MPa 588.93MPa

Failed Error

4 mm 479.59MPa 468.13MPa 444.14MPa 437.50MPa 435.87MPa

5 mm 374.73MPa 374.95MPa 368.67MPa 381.86MPa 341.34MPa

6 mm 314.95MPa 320.63MPa 298.24MPa 284.37MPa 297.52MPa

Table 9.0.7 Maximum Von Mises stress developed under different fillet radius and beam thickness.

Mass Of Angle Bracket For Multiple Scenarios With Distinct Design Parameters

Fillet Radius 2.0mm 2.5mm 3.0mm 3.5mm 4.0mm

Beam Thickness

3 mm - - 2.08101g 2.13341g 2.19386g

4 mm 2.61017g 2.64644g 2.69078g 2.74317g 2.80362g

5 mm 3.14999g 3.18627g 3.23060g 3.28299g 3.34345g

6 mm 3.61988g 3.65615g 3.70048g 3.75288g 3.81333g

Table 9.0.8 Mass of angle bracket under different fillet radius and beam thickness.

Max Von Mises Stress Versus Beam Thickness

3500

3000

2500

Stress (N/mm^2)

2000

2.5mm fillet radius

3mm fillet radius

1500

3.5mm fillet radius

1000 4mm fillet radius

Stress Limit

500

0

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Beam Thickness (mm)

Graph 9.0.9 Maximum Von Mises stress developed versus beam thickness for different fillet radius

From graph 9.0.9, the design scenario that falls closest below 320MPa maximum Von Mises

stress limit would be having 6mm thickness of beam design at given range of fillet radius

between 2mm to 4mm, excluded 2.5mm. Since the design goal is set to minimise angle

bracket mass as much as possible, the optimal design would be 6mm beam thickness and

2mm fillet radius with minimum weight of approximate 3.61988 g as shown in figure 9.0.6

and table 9.0.8.

Question 10 - Provide the von-Mises stress plot of the optimized bracket, showing the

maximum stress annotation.

Figure 10.0.1 Modified beam bracket design with optimal beam thickness and fillet radius given by

question no.9

Figure 10.0.2 Set up of simulation study for new optimal geometry design of angle bracket with

global/local mesh size of 1mm/0.2mm

Figure 10.0.3 Von Mises Stress plot of optimized bracket with demonstration of maximum stress

Left Right

View View

Front View

Top View

Figure 10.0.4 Demonstration of Von Mises plot with maximum stress annotation from different

perspective view of optimized angle bracket

- Finite-Element-Analysis-RevealedUploaded byvijendra_1893
- CaeschemesyllUploaded byNarayana Swamy G
- IRJET-Analysis of Effects of Quench Nozzle on Pressure Vessel Design – A ReviewUploaded byIRJET Journal
- IRJET- Design Analysis & Optimization of two Wheeler HandlebarUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Chapter 1 IntroductionUploaded byNik Haslida Nik Ali
- IRJET-THERMAL ANALYSIS OF GLAZED SURFACE BY FEMUploaded byIRJET Journal
- AnchUploaded byP Allen Samuel Ignatius
- DetailingUploaded byAsifur Rahman
- Spalling Prediction Methods in High Stress ConditionsUploaded byAlexandre Gomes
- Strut–tie analysis of beams with external tendons - El ArissUploaded byviniciuslt
- Technical Advances in Lightweight Structure DesignUploaded byRudi Enos
- IRJET-Comparative Analysis Between Structural Steel & Cast Iron for Design and Analysis of Dehulling Machine for Biba using ANSYSUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Board Exam SyllabusUploaded byDarwin Atizado Bas
- IJCIET_08_03_113Uploaded byjayanth
- D.concreteStruc.N27Uploaded bySaleem N Khashan
- 3222-14189-1-PB_2.pdfUploaded byHako Khechai
- Wrinkled MembranesUploaded byAnticristo69
- 02 Torsion 2017 03 30Uploaded byngyt77
- 108963_4414677_CHW4Uploaded bybauemmvss
- Assignment 1Uploaded byAJier CHuky
- b17 Handout 4Uploaded byKristinochka Slavenkovna
- K01-ISO-ORTHO-TH-2Uploaded byTanu Rd
- Net DesignUploaded byRobert Florez
- 040Uploaded byhomesaru77
- Xu Buckling Analysis of Tri Axial Woven Fabric Composite Structures Part I Non Linear Finite Element FormulationUploaded byAnonymous zXVPi2Ply
- Comparison-ejsr29415.pdfUploaded bySantiago Urgiles
- TQ407C-GUploaded bypraveena61
- 1-s2.0-S0141029613002897-main.pdfUploaded bypaulkohan
- Chapter5.pdfUploaded byHamzaBaig
- Types of LoadsUploaded byAbhishek

- Marcet Boiler ReportUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Assignment 3 2019 Economics Analysis For EngineersUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Flagstaff gardens Sports Courts Booking Form (5)Uploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Assignment 2Uploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Taylors Engineering Student Project August 2015Uploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Scholars@Work Mentoring Programme - List of Mentors (Oct 2015 - March 2016)Uploaded bygabrielhii1995
- DNA+ToyotaUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Final ReportttttUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Lab apparatus fluid flow.pptxUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Cnc ReportUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Ultimate Failure AnalysisUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Lab Apparatus Fluid FlowUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Return on FailureUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- PortfolioUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Strain Gauge MeasurementUploaded bygabrielhii1995
- Team Analysis Week 2 5 Finalised (1)Uploaded bygabrielhii1995

- Bent ruleUploaded byHARSHIT KHANNA
- 7_substitution_postUploaded byapi-3767370
- ANSYS-SimplorerUploaded byahcene2010
- HotTap Tie-In Analysis Caesar IIUploaded byvarshneydushyant
- SVC-commandhelpUploaded bymanas199
- tankler familirazationUploaded bykurtmus
- Astm 5617 Tdm BrasilUploaded byErik Zavarize
- 54997729 WinCC Flexible Time Switch EnUploaded bySaid Boubker
- SPUploaded byHema Kuppi
- 01-NORA_Steam Power Plant.pdfUploaded bymasriza
- Casting processUploaded byPankaj
- 6_16v6i1_1Uploaded byMayur Swamy
- Basic C# OOP Concept - CodeProjectUploaded byKalyan Alapati
- ProgramsUploaded byMoses Dhinakar
- Group Theory and the Rubik’s CubeUploaded bys v k
- Use Case DiagramsUploaded byRajalakshmi Raviprakash
- % Yield LabUploaded byiDeA
- 132424Uploaded bySesha Sai Kumar Vemula
- electron_charge_and_mass.pdfUploaded byAbdul Basit Mughal
- 8.TestUploaded byHari Prasadh
- BMS-Sem6.pdfUploaded bypradyotjayakar1473
- distancia intercaninaUploaded byÑañis Zamacona
- Phase-2 Voided SlabUploaded byKetan Dhameliya
- LarocheUploaded byPhilline Kate Vera Palaña
- Presentation CAPMUploaded bySaami Awan
- CUSP or KP CHART(Placidus System)Uploaded bySamar Vaishampayan
- IMRaD SampleUploaded byPhoebe Viviane Llanera
- Assignment 2Uploaded byZARGHAM KHAN
- Catia v5 Basic Training English Cax 2012Uploaded bySuryas Siva
- FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF FAST DISSOLVING TABLETS OF ACECLOFENAC BY USING ISPAGHULA HUSK POWDER AS NATURAL SUPER DISINTEGRANTUploaded byBaru Chandrasekhar Rao