done

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 6

done

© All Rights Reserved

- Buckling of Columns
- ANSI MH16 1-2012
- AS/NZS 4600 2005 Cold-Formed Steel Structures
- Evaluation of Protection Against Collapse From Buckling of Stiffened Column
- Chapter 6
- Earthquake resistant stell design
- Simulation of Ratcheting
- SEI November 2010 Complete Issue
- 2012_9_12_3315_3324
- SESS 6061 Advanced Finite Element Analysis_CW2
- abhrjul-aug-84-89435-durack.pdf
- Introduction to Plate Behaviour and Design
- Adv Dsgn Ebf Popov
- MULTI STORY BUILDINGS
- Load bearing capacity
- Steelwise_ Seismic Fuses[1]
- Khushi Steel Lab5
- Columns
- NEHRP PROVISIONS SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES.pdf
- Inelastic effect on springback in metal

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

concentrically braced steel frames with gusset

plate connections subjected to earthquake ground

motion

Terence Ryan, Brian M. Broderick, Alan Hunt, Jamie Goggins & Suhaib

Salawdeh

To cite this article: Terence Ryan, Brian M. Broderick, Alan Hunt, Jamie Goggins & Suhaib

Salawdeh (2017) Recommendations for numerical modelling of concentrically braced steel frames

with gusset plate connections subjected to earthquake ground motion, Journal of Structural Integrity

and Maintenance, 2:3, 168-180, DOI: 10.1080/24705314.2017.1354154

Article views: 62

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tstr20

Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2017

VOL. 2, NO. 3, 168180

https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2017.1354154

with gusset plate connections subjected to earthquake ground motion

Terence Ryana, Brian M. Broderickb, Alan Huntb, Jamie Gogginsc,d and Suhaib Salawdehc,d

a

Department of Civil Engineering & Materials Science, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Trinity College

Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; cDepartment of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland; dCentre for Marine and Renewable

Energy (MaREI), Galway, Ireland

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS

Concentrically Braced Steel Frames (CBFs) are commonly used as an economic and effective means of Earthquake engineering;

resisting the lateral loading induced during earthquakes and limiting the associated displacements. Here, concentrically braced frames;

an integrated experimental and numerical approach is taken to investigate the performance of CBFs time-history analysis; shake

subjected to seismic action of varying intensity. As part of the BRACED transnational research project, table testing

shake table experiments on full-scale single-storey CBFs recorded the response of test frames employing

various combinations of bracing member sizes and gusset plate connection details to simulated ground

motions scaled to produce elastic response, brace buckling/yielding and ultimately brace fracture. This

recorded experimental data is used to validate a numerical model developed using the OpenSees

seismic response analysis software. Key experimental and numerical model responses are compared.

The sensitivity of the model to variations in modelling parameters is assessed and recommendations

for future numerical modelling are presented. Results indicate model performance is sensitive to the

initial camber applied to the brace members, with a value of 0.8% of overall brace length observed to

achieve a more accurate representation of global frame stiffness and drift response than the lower values

previously recommended in literature, but an underestimate of the compression resistance of the brace.

Bracing is commonly employed in steel framed buildings to In addition to bracing member stiffness, the performance of

provide lateral resistance and limit lateral displacements during CBFs subjected to strong ground motions is influenced by the

seismic events. The response of such buildings during earth- connections between the brace and the rest of the frame, which

quakes is largely dependent on the behaviour of the brace is most commonly a gusset plate connection.

members when subjected to alternating cyclic axial tension and In conventional design, the diagonal bracing members

compression forces. In most cases, the design of the braces must are considered the dissipative elements of the frame, and are

allow for their highly non-linear behaviour. designed to yield before failure occurs in the connections. Gusset

In concentrically braced frames (CBFs) the centre line of plate connections must therefore be designed to have tension

the diagonal bracing coincides with the intersection of the and compression resistances much larger than those of the brace

beam and column members of the frame. During larger earth- and are not considered to contribute to energy dissipation.

quakes, CBFs provide a means of energy dissipation through In compression, global buckling of the brace must be

the alternate cyclic yielding and post-buckling deformation accommodated by allowing out-of-plane member end rotation

of their braces, while the inherent stiffness of the structural through the formation of adequate plastic hinges in the gusset

form serves to minimise non-structural damage and residual plates at either end of the brace. Therefore, the gusset plate

deformations. cannot be designed to remain elastic throughout the earth-

quake response, since the plate must typically yield during the

out-of-plane bending experienced during brace compression.

Diagonal frames and v-frames

Conventional seismic design practice achieves this by providing

CBFs can be further subdivided into diagonal frames and a standard linear clearance (SLC) zone when detailing the gusset

v-frames (CEN, 2004). While both rely on the non-linear plate. The plate must also be sufficiently stiff not to buckle in

behaviour of the brace to resist seismic loading, diagonal compression, even in the presence of the plastic hinges, and it

frames may be designed considering that the design lateral must possess sufficient strength not to yield over the Whitmore

resistance is provided by the tension braces only, whereas in width (AISC, 2011) when the brace is in tension.

v-frames, the resistances of both the tension and compres- In practice, the requirement for the gusset plate to remain

sion members must be considered in seismic design analy- elastic in tension, while stable (not buckling) but ductile (allow-

sis. This study investigates the seismic response of diagonal ing the formation of plastic hinges due to out-of-plane bending)

CBFs only. in compression so as to facilitate global buckling of the brace,

© 2017 Korea Institute for Structural Maintenance and Inspection

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 169

can lead to large gusset plates sizes. These stiff plates have been Fenves, & Scott, 2000) to produce a line-element physical the-

observed to result in local damage to the beam, column and ory model of the BRACED test frame. The limitation of this type

braces in the areas adjacent to the gusset plates. As an alterna- of model is that plane sections are assumed to remain plane

tive, a “balanced” design approach has been proposed (Roeder, and perpendicular to the neutral axis, so section distortion and

Lumpkin, & Lehman, 2011) in which some limited tensile yield- local buckling are not accounted for. The ability of such models

ing of the gusset plate is allowed during strong ground motion. to simulate behaviour after the occurrence of local buckling is

This is achieved through careful sizing and detailing of the plate, therefore limited, although this can be mitigated by calibrating

providing an elliptical clearance (EC) zone in the gusset plate the model parameters against experimental data.

as opposed to the conventional SLC. This approach leads to Goggins and Salawdeh (2013) validated a numerical model

smaller overall gusset plate dimensions, with a shorter effec- using shake table tests carried out in the Laboratory for

tive length and, therefore, increased plate buckling resistance. Earthquake Engineering of the National Technical University of

Gusset plates designed using both the SLC and EC approaches Athens (NTUA) (Elghazouli et al., 2005; Broderick, Elghazouli, &

are considered in this study. Goggins, 2008). These shake table test specimens were ideali-

In addition to its out-of-plane and axial stiffness, the behav- zations of CBFs, where the effect of brace-beam-column con-

iour of the gusset plate is influenced by the form of its connec- nections was not included in the test model. The applicability

tion to the other members of the frame. A gusset plate may of the test results and relevant comparison with numerical pre-

be connected to both the beam and the column of a frame dictions to CBF arrangements used in practice was therefore

(designated arrangement type CA in this study) or to the beam limited (Salawdeh & Goggins, 2016).

only (type CB) as shown in Figure 1.

When modelling the global response of multi-storey CBF

Experimental study

buildings for seismic design analysis, the beam-to-column con-

nection is typically considered to have little or no rotational The numerical model developed in this study is validated

stiffness. However, in the case of connection arrangement CA, against a set of experimental data from the BRACED transna-

the gusset plate can provide significant in-plane rotational tional research project (Broderick et al., 2013; Salawdeh et al.,

resistance. Both arrangements are considered in this study. 2017) funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework

Programme (FP7). It involved a series of shake table experiments

on a full-scale single storey CBF carried out on the Azalee seis-

Modelling approaches

mic testing facility at CEA Saclay, France. A total of 12 iden-

As with all numerical models, when choosing an approach to tical pairs of brace-gusset plate combinations were tested to

model CBFs the required accuracy must be considered in the examine three different test parameters; brace cross section

context of model complexity and computational cost. size, brace connection configuration and gusset plate design.

Three-dimensional finite element models use shell or brick Details of the experimental programme are presented in Table

elements to represent the braces and calculate the hysteretic 1. The following notation is used to describe the properties of

response of the brace using non-linear material models and the brace-gusset plate specimens tested:

large deformation theory. While potentially accurate, these Brace Section Size:

continuum models are not suitable for global non-linear

• S1 80 × 80 × 3.0 SHS

time-history analysis (NLTHA) of building frames due to large

• S2 100 × 50 × 3.0 RHS

computational expense resulting from the model complexity.

• S3 80 × 40 × 3.0 RHS

Line-element models use beam-column elements and

• S4 60 × 60 × 3.0 SHS

zero-length elements to model the brace and the gusset plate

connections (Uriz & Mahin, 2008). These models, which require Connection Configuration:

significantly less computation time than continuum models,

typically provide an accurate simulation of global behaviour. • CA Gusset connection to beam and column flange

This study uses the Open System for Earthquake Engineering • CB Gusset connection to beam flange only Gusset Plate

Simulation (OpenSees) computational platform (McKenna Design

170 T. RYAN ET AL.

Table 1. BRACED project experimental programme. frame, the gusset plates were bolted to the beam and column to

Gusset plate facilitate the replacement of the gusset plate-brace specimens

between tests. Tests 1 to 7 featured connection arrangement

Test Designation Brace Type tplate [mm] Design

CA between the brace and the other frame members, with Tests

1 S1-CA-G1 80 × 80 × 3.0 SHS CA 12 SLC

2 S3-CA-G1 80 × 40 × 3.0 RHS CA 8 SLC 8 to 12 featured connection arrangement CB. At floor level, the

3 S4-CA-G1 60 × 60 × 3.0 SHS CA 8 SLC brace ends were connected to MTS swivels fixed to the shake

4 S2-CA-G1 100 × 50 × 3.0 CA 12 SLC table floor. The swivels have a free in-plane rotation angle range

RHS

5 S1-CA-G2 80 × 80 × 3.0 SHS CA 5 EC of −30o to +90 from the vertical axis, and ±7° maximum out-

6 S2-CA-G2 100 × 50 × 3.0 CA 4 EC of-plane rotation.

RHS The response of each set-up to different levels of earthquake

7 S3-CA-G2 80 × 40 × 3.0 RHS CA 4 EC

8 S1-CB-G1 80 × 80 × 3.0 SHS CB 12 SLC loading was examined. Each test was subjected to shake table

9 S2-CB-G1 100 × 50 × 3.0 CB 12 SLC excitation scaled to induce three different levels of response:

RHS (i) low level with elastic response; (ii) medium level with brace

10 S4-CB-G2 60 × 60 × 3.0 SHS CB 4 EC

11 S2-CB-G2 100 × 50 × 3.0 CB 4 EC buckling and yielding and (iii) high level with brace fracture.

RHS The earthquake levels corresponding to these responses are

12 S3-CB-G2 80 × 40 × 3.0 RHS CB 4 EC referred to as the Operating Basis or Operating Level Earthquake

(OBE), Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE) and Maximum

Credible Earthquake (MCE), respectively.

Gusset Plate Design: In all test runs, the applied shake table accelerations were

• G1 Conventional design with SLC unidirectional along the horizontal X-axis only. The same earth-

• G2 Balanced design with EC quake record was scaled to achieve peak accelerations appro-

priate to the earthquake level to be examined during each

The BRACED test frame had an overall height of 3.167 m with test run to ensure consistency and allow comparison between

a span of 4.9 m. A total seismic mass of 44 tons (Figure 2) was tests. The record used was the El Centro (NGA#006) ground

applied to the frame using a combination of steel plates and motion obtained from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering

concrete masses. The columns were HE 200 B sections with full Research (PEER) Database which was recorded in Imperial Valley,

in-plane rotation allowed at the base, while the beam was an California during the earthquake in 1940 (PEER, 2010).

IPE 400 O section. The test frame beam was connected to the A range of frame response quantities were recorded using

columns by bolting the bottom flange to a cap plate welded high resolution instrumentation including accelerations, dis-

to the top of the column sections. Two additional unbraced placements, brace axial forces and strains during each test

frames were provided on either side of the test frame to provide run (Salawdeh et al., 2017). During testing, the frame was

lateral stability and to support the cross-beams carrying the observed to remain elastic during low-level (OBE) test runs

applied masses. with no brace buckling. At intermediate level runs (CLE) brace

A pair of identical brace-gusset plate specimens was used buckling and yielding was observed, sometimes with large

in each test. While commonly welded in practice, in the test out-of-plane brace buckling deformation but always with

Notes: CA and CB connection types shown for illustration purposes, identical braced specimen pairs used for all test run.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 171

limited plastic deformation demand. A fully inelastic response masses and the accelerograms used to simulate the shake table

was observed in all high level excitation tests (MCE). No gusset excitation in the NLTHA.

plate failures occurred during testing. The yield strengths of the gusset plates and the braces in

White noise tests were conducted in separate runs at the the numerical model are based on tensile coupon tests carried

start of each set of tests on a pair of brace-gusset plate speci- out on samples taken from each test specimen. In the case of

mens, and again after each earthquake excitation test in which the cold-formed brace members, the yield strengths used in

brace failure did not occur. The objectives of these tests were to the numerical model are taken as the increased average yield

evaluate the elastic properties of the structure prior to testing strengths (fya) of the cross section due to cold working as cal-

and the evolution of these properties as the level of excitation culated using the following expression from Eurocode 3 (CEN,

applied to the structure increased. 2009):

Converting a white noise response signal from the time ( )

domain to the frequency domain allows its frequency com- ( ) 2

knt

fu + fyb

ponents to be identified. The structural period can then be fya = fyb + fu − fyb but fya ≤

Ag 2

identified from the dominant frequency and the structural

damping ratio can be established using the half-power band- where fyb is the basic yield value obtained from the coupon tests

width (HPB) method. The HPB method is commonly used for its (N/mm2), Ag is the gross area of the cross section (mm2), t is the

simplicity, and accurate results can be expected for single-de- nominal core thickness of the steel material prior to cold forming

gree-of-freedom systems with small values of damping such as (mm), n is the number of 90° bends in the cross section with an

CBFs subjected to low amplitude loading in elastic shake table internal radius r < 5t (fractions of 90° bends are counted as frac-

tests (Chopra, 2006). In the case of stronger amplitude time tions of n), k is a numerical coefficient depending on the type of

histories, plastic regions are expected to develop in the struc- forming (k = 7 for roll forming, k = 5 for other methods of forming)

ture, thus changing the damping properties and invalidating and fu is the basic ultimate tensile strength of the sheet taken from

the assumption of linear viscous damping. the coupon test. Goggins (2004) recommended that the limit in

To convert the response signal recorded during each white EC3 be omitted, although for the braces in this study the limit did

noise test to the frequency domain the Fast Fourier Transform not influence the increased average yield strengths used.

(FFT) algorithm (Cooley & Tukey, 1965) was performed on the The braces are modelled as square-cornered hollow square

original response signal and a smoothing algorithm (Welch, or rectangular cross sections of constant wall thickness. The

1967) was applied to mitigate the effects of measurement noise specified nominal external height and depth of the brace cross

in the signal. sections are used and the corresponding modelled wall thick-

The natural frequency (fn), structural period (Tn) and damping nesses are determined from the average measured cross-sec-

ratio (ξn) for each pair of brace-gusset plate specimen obtained tional areas of the tested specimen. The measured areas take

from the initial white noise tests are presented in Table 2. account of local variations in cross sectional external dimen-

sions and wall thickness, and the curvature at the corners of

the cross section.

Numerical reference model

A numerical model of the BRACED test frame is created using

Brace members

the OpenSees computational platform. OpenSees is chosen

for its ability to accurately capture the global behaviour of the The braces are modelled using force-based non-linear beam-col-

entire system in a computationally inexpensive manner, allow- umn elements. To represent buckling load and hysteretic behav-

ing for future expansion of the reference model to simulate iour, OpenSees represents elements using a series of fibres with

more complex CBF arrangements. distributed plasticity. Uriz and Mahin (2008) noted that using

fewer fibres in the brace cross section increases the sensitivity

of the model to axial load–bending moment interaction. In the

Model properties

reference model, the brace cross section is represented using

The parameters used in the numerical model are matched to five fibres across the length and thickness of each section wall,

those of the physical tests, including the brace material prop- giving a total of 100 fibres per brace cross section. The Giuffre-

erties, brace dimensions, overall frame dimensions, seismic Menegotto-Pinto steel material model (Menegotto & Pinto,

1973) with isotropic strain hardening (Steel02 in OpenSees) is

used to represent the brace material. A strain hardening ratio

Table 2. BRACED project initial white noise test results – natural frequency (fn), of 0.008 is specified for all brace member elements.

structural period (T1) and structural damping ratio (ξ). Uriz, Filippou, and Mahin (2008) noted that brace models

with two inelastic elements and three integration points per

fn T1 (Exp.) ξn

element gave an accurate representation of inelastic buckling

Test Designation [Hz] [s] [%]

behaviour. Hunt (2013) found that the effect of varying the

1 S1-CA-G1 4.625 0.216 3.56

2 S3-CA-G1 4.250 0.235 2.50 number of elements was minimal when examining the mono-

3 S4-CA-G1 4.438 0.225 4.58 tonic compression and hysteretic performance of test models,

4 S2-CA-G1 4.500 0.222 4.05 but optimum curvature response was observed when using at

5 S1-CA-G2 4.563 0.219 3.14

6 S2-CA-G2 4.438 0.225 2.60 least four elements per brace.

7 S3-CA-G2 4.063 0.246 3.60 The reference model in this study has 2 elements per brace

8 S1-CB-G1 4.438 0.226 1.98 and uses 10 integration points per element. It was found that

9 S2-CB-G1 3.875 0.258 4.27

10 S4-CB-G2 4.125 0.242 1.93 further increases to the number of elements and/or integration

11 S2-CB-G2 4.563 0.220 2.93 points resulted in increased processing times without any clear

12 S3-CB-G2 4.063 0.246 2.12 improvement in model accuracy.

172 T. RYAN ET AL.

Initial brace camber paper and showing the location of all nodes which are num-

bered with the prefix “n”.

When using OpenSees to model the behaviour of a brace

Table 3 presents the boundary conditions applied to the

member subject to axial compression Uriz and Mahin (2008)

model. The prefixes “d” and “r” indicate translation along and

proposed a numerical modelling technique which accounts

rotation about the relevant global axes, respectively. Nodes at

for the effects of global buckling by assigning a geometrical

ground level (n1, n4, n5, n6) are restrained against translation

imperfection in the form of an initial camber applied to the

in all directions and are free to rotate about the global Y-axis.

brace. The value of this initial camber typically varies from 1.0

The MTS swivel bases at the bottom end of each brace have a

to 0.05% of the overall brace length and is applied at the mid-

defined range of in-plane rotation and out-of-plane tilt from the

point of the brace.

vertical. To model this, full rotation is allowed about the global

Uriz and Mahin (2008) recommended a maximum camber

X-axis at nodes n5 and n6. Restraint against rotation about the

between 0.05 and 0.1% of the overall brace length. Wijesundara

Z-axis at the swivel supports is recommended by Hunt (2013)

(2009) employed a value of 0.3%, while Salawdeh and Goggins

and is provided in the reference model.

(2013) found that applying an initial camber of between 0.1

In the experimental set-up, tie beams are provided at the

and 1% of the overall brace length gave satisfactory results.

top of each column to adjacent out-rigger frames which pro-

The degree of the initial camber assigned strongly influences

vide lateral restraint. The nodes at these locations (n2, n3) may

the maximum buckling load achieved by the model brace, with

therefore be considered as restrained against out-of-plane

larger cambers limiting the magnitude of the axial compression

translation along the global Y-axis, but by inspection it is found

developed in the brace. Smaller initial eccentricities delay global

that omitting this boundary condition at these nodes does not

buckling but can lead to overestimation of the buckling force in

influence the global response of the frame. Therefore, to reduce

the member. Use of smaller initial cambers has also been found

computational effort no boundary conditions are imposed on

to cause convergence issues during NLTHA analysis.

the reference model at these locations.

Static pushover analysis can be used to assess the maximum

tension and compression forces in numerically modelled brace

members at buckling and yielding, respectively, allowing com- Gusset plate connections

parisons with corresponding theoretical or experimental values.

Pin connections, rotational spring connections or fibre connec-

Such analysis is typically used to calibrate the value of the initial

tion models are commonly used to represent the behaviour of

camber applied in numerical models of CBF arrangements.

typical gusset plate connections when modelling CBFs. In the

When modelling CBFs in OpenSees, it is found that the ini-

reference model of the BRACED test frame, the gusset plates

tial camber also influences the fundamental natural period of

are modelled using rotational spring-connections defined using

the modelled frame. This natural period can be calculated by

“zero-length” elements. The out-of-plane rotational stiffness

performing an eigenvalue analysis to determine the natural

and plastic moment of resistance of each gusset plate arrange-

period of the modelled arrangement. Larger values of initial

ment are calculated from the relevant measured material and

brace camber reduce global frame stiffness and result in longer

geometric properties.

natural periods.

To simulate the out-of-plane behaviour of the gusset plate

connection at the top of each brace a rotational spring defined

using a zerolength element is used to connect the end of the

Boundary conditions

brace member to a rigidlink element representing the remain-

An overview of the modelled test frame is shown in Figure 3 der of the gusset plate. When the brace buckles in compres-

indicating the orientation of the global axes referred to in this sion the larger out-of-plane deformations it experiences can

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 173

Table 3. Reference model boundary conditions (1 = fully restrained, 0 = unre- The BRACED test frame beam is connected to the columns

strained).

by bolting the bottom flange to a cap plate welded to the top of

Nodes Location dX dY dZ rX rY rZ the column members. In the reference model, where the gusset

n1,4 Column (base) 1 1 1 1 0 1 plate at the end of the brace specimen is bolted to the beam and

n5,6 Swivels 1 1 1 0 0 1 the column (connection type CA), the beam to column connec-

tion is modelled as continuous due to the additional rotational

stiffness provided by the gusset plate. For connection type CB,

a fully pinned connection allowing rotation about the global

Y-axis is modelled at the beam-column interface by providing

an appropriate “zeroLength” element between the nodes at

the interface between the beam and column (nodes n102 and

n1020 in Figure 5).

The numerical model is calibrated by obtaining an appropriate

value for the initial brace camber. The influence of the brace

camber on the peak compression force resisted by the brace

and on the natural period of the global CBF system is assessed

and used to select the camber to be applied to the reference

Figure 4. Lengths used to determine out-of-plane flexural stiffness of rotational model braces. Initial values in the range of 0.1 to 1.0% of the

spring at gusset plate in the reference model.

overall brace length are considered, which are typical of the

practical recommendations to induce buckling in modelled

compression members.

be expected to result in the formation of a plastic hinge in the

gusset plate connection. In the reference model, the approach

Static pushover analysis

proposed by Hsiao, Lehman, and Roeder (2012) is employed,

in which the rotational spring is modelled using the Giuffre- Static pushover analysis is used to determine maximum brace

Menegotto-Pinto steel material model and assigned an initial axial compression and tension resistances for a range of spec-

flexural stiffness (Krot) determined from parameters based on ified initial cambers. In this analysis, increasing horizontal

the member sizes, properties and the design of the connection displacements (with constant gravity loading) are applied in

determined from the expression: 1 mm increments at roof level of the reference model (node

( ) n2), and the resulting brace member internal forces and base

E Ww t 3 reactions are recorded. This is repeated for a range of initial

Krot =

Lave 12 brace cambers from 0.1 to 1.0% of the brace length for the 12

brace-gusset plate specimens considered in the BRACED exper-

where E is Young’s modulus of steel, Ww is the Whitmore width imental programme. It is noted that convergence failures were

(Whitmore, 1950) defined by a 45° projection angle, Lave is the commonly observed when the camber was reduced below

average of L1, L2 and L3 as shown in Figure 4, where L1 and L3 are 0.1%. Figure 6 presents sample output from pushover analysis

found using a smaller projection angle of 30°, and t is the thick- of Test 2 showing the axial forces recorded in both the tension

ness of the gusset plate. The flexural strength of the non-linear and compression braces for a range of initial brace cambers.

rotational spring is calculated using the Whitmore cross section The peak compression force resisted by the model brace prior

of the gusset plate, and a post-yield stiffness of 1% of the ini- to global buckling is clearly sensitive to the magnitude of the

tial rotational stiffness is assumed. In the reference model, the initial camber applied. In contrast, the peak axial tension force

zero-length element is fully rigid in translation in all directions generated in the brace is not sensitive to the initial camber, but

and is assumed to be fully restrained against rotation in plane. the roof level displacement at which this force occurs does vary

A fibre-connection model is also considered as an alternative as the amount of brace straightening required increases with

means of representing the gusset plate. The fibre-connection increasing brace eccentricity.

model uses a force-based element with geometric and material The peak axial compression forces recorded in the braces

properties set to match those of the relevant gusset plate spec- during the pushover analysis are compared to the theoretical

imen. It is found that this method provides similar global and maximum design buckling resistance (Nb, Rd) of the brace cal-

local responses to the rotational spring connection used in the culated from Eurocode 3 (CEN, 2005) to assess the appropri-

reference model. In addition, the reference model is found to ateness of the range of initial cambers applied to the reference

produce fewer convergence failures when the rotational spring model braces. The theoretical buckling resistance of the brace

connection is used to model the gusset plate. is determined assuming an effective buckling length equal to

the distance from the end of the tubular hollow brace section

at the gusset plate to the centre of rotation in the MTS swivel

Beam to column connections

fixed to the shake table. Both ends of the brace are assumed to

RigidLink elements are used between certain nodes at the con- be fully pinned for the purpose of this calculation.

nections to represent the increased member bending stiffness The variation in peak brace axial compression expressed as

in these regions (bold elements, Figure 5). For the reference a percentage of the theoretical brace buckling resistance (Nb, Rd)

model in this study the extent of the rigidlink elements along with the initial camber of the modelled brace-gusset plate spec-

the beam and columns is determined by the location of the imens is shown in Figure 7. Applying an initial brace camber

stiffener plates provided on the experimental test frame. of 0.1% of the effective length overestimates Nb, Rd by 70% on

174 T. RYAN ET AL.

Figure 5. Model node and element arrangement at beam to column connections CA and CB.

Figure 6. Roof level displacement v brace axial compression and tension force from model pushover analyses of Test 2 brace arrangement for a range of initial brace

cambers.

average. This average overestimation is reduced to less than reference model for each pair of brace-gusset plate specimens. It

10% for a camber of 1.0%. The experimentally measured peak is observed that the T1 value calculated for the reference model

brace compression values were also considered as a means of is sensitive to the initial camber applied at the midpoint of the

brace camber calibration, but these experimental values were brace member and to a lesser degree to the rotational stiffness

found to be much larger than the maximum compression forces assigned to the rotational spring at the beam-column connec-

observed in the numerical model with even very small values tion. The seismic response of a structural system to earthquake

of initial camber. The measured fundamental period of the test loading is strongly influenced by its natural period. Hence, com-

frame was therefore considered as an alternative basis for cali- paring the experimental T1 values measured during the initial

brating the reference model. white noise test runs with the eigensolution from OpenSees

for the reference model offers a rational basis of assessing the

appropriate camber to apply to the modelled brace members.

Eigenvector analysis

The variation in the T1 values with initial brace camber in

An eigenvalue analysis in OpenSees is used to determine the the reference model for each pair of brace-gusset plate speci-

natural frequency and, hence, the fundamental period (T1) of the mens is shown in Figure 8. It is clear that reducing the camber

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 175

Figure 7. Effect of initial brace camber on maximum brace compression resistance mean experimental T1 values for brace member types S1 to S4.

(expressed as a percentage of theoretical bucking resistance) from pushover

analysis of model for BRACED Tests 1 to 12.

brace buckling resistance and T1, an initial camber of 0.8% of the

brace effective length is adopted for the braces in the reference

model in this study. This camber is applied to the node at the

midpoint of each brace in the out-of-plane direction only. The

effects on the coordinates of all other nodes along the brace

are obtained by linear interpolation.

The calibrated reference model is used to perform a series of

correlative non-linear time history analyses (NLTHA) of the

response of the test frame during each experimental test run.

The accelerograms used to represent the simulated earth-

quake ground motion applied to the model are the actual table

accelerations recorded during the corresponding test run. The

numerical modelling and solution methods are verified by

Figure 8. Comparison of model fundamental periods for a range of initial brace comparing the recorded responses from these NLTHA to the

cambers from eigenvalue analysis.

corresponding experimentally observed values.

A Krylov–Newton solution algorithm is used. This solution

also reduces T1, i.e. the lateral stiffness of the reference model algorithm tests convergence on the norm of the displacement

is increased. increment vector with a tolerance set to 1e-5 and a maximum

In Figure 9 these data are grouped by brace cross sec- number of iterations set to 10. A Newmark acceleration time

tion type (S1 to S4) and the numerically-modelled T1 values integration method is employed with γ = 0.5 and β = 0.25, (i.e.

are normalised by the values of T1 measured in the corre- assuming a constant acceleration over each time step). A stiff-

sponding experimental tests. The value of brace camber that ness proportional damping model with 3% of critical damping

leads to the closest match between the experimental and is used. This damping ratio is selected based on the damping

numerical T1 values varies by cross section size. For three values from the initial white noise tests (Table 2). The numerical

of the cross sections considered (S1, S2 and S3), the closest model response equations are formed using the BandGeneral

match is observed with a camber in the range 0.8 to 1.0%. system and the constraints are enforced with a transformation

For S4 cross sections, best agreement occurs with a camber constraint handler. A constant time-step of 0.1953 s is used

of approximately 0.5%. For test set-ups with identical brace throughout the NLTHAs to be consistent with the experimen-

sizes, the variations in the modelled T1 values are found to tal data sampling rate.

be consistent with the variation of the angle of inclination A total of 36 test runs are simulated, with each gusset-brace

of the braces. This angle differs slightly between tests due to specimen pair subjected to ground motion intensities corre-

the different gusset plate arrangements. For identical brace sponding to Operation Basis (OBE), Contingency Level (CLE) and

sizes, a lower angle of inclination leads to a shorter modelled Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) levels. For each simulated

T1 value. test run the acceleration and drift at roof level and the axial ten-

The observation that the variation in the experimentally sion and compression forces in each brace member are output

measured structural periods between tests is less than expected and compared to the corresponding experimental responses.

given the relative sizes of the brace members in different tests Figures 10 and 11 compare the roof level acceleration and

suggests that additional secondary sources of flexibility, such drift time-history plots of two OpenSees reference model

as minor bolt slippage, member imperfections, etc. may also responses with the corresponding experimental data. The

have influenced the measured T1 values. test run responses presented are for earthquakes of different

176 T. RYAN ET AL.

Figure 10. Time-history plots comparing reference model and experimental acceleration and drift responses of a test with CA type connection subject to CLE level

ground motion.

intensity level and for tests with gusset connection configura- CA type connections. The extent of peak drift underestimation

tion types CA and CB, respectively. The plots generally show generally increases with increasing ground motion intensity,

good fidelity between the model and experimental responses with the exception of frames with connection configuration

for both configurations at each intensity level. type CB subjected to the highest intensity level (MCE), where the

Peak model roof acceleration, drift and brace axial tension reference model overestimates peak drift by 30% on average.

and compression response values are identified for each simu- At the MCE level intensity, greater brace yielding and buck-

lated test run and expressed as a percentage of the correspond- ling occurs along with corresponding larger roof level displace-

ing peak experimental values. These values are grouped and ments. Brace failure is generally observed during the MCE level

plotted by ground motion intensity and gusset plate configu- experimental runs. Roof level displacements in such test runs

ration type (CA or CB) in Figures 12–15. are limited in part by the rotation allowed at the beam-column

connection.

In frames with type CA connections, the gusset is connected

Relative acceleration

to both the beam and column and acts as a haunch, limiting

The peak experimental acceleration is more reliably estimated significant rotation at the beam-column interface. The model

by the reference model in frames with gusset plate arrangement represents the CA type connection as a fully rigid connection

type CA for all ground motion intensities. Peak acceleration between beam and column, allowing no rotation at the joint.

is overestimated for OBE and CLE ground motion intensities The observed underestimation of peak drift by the model for

with both connection types, although scatter is observed to frames with type CA connections at the MCE level intensity

reduce as the intensity increases. Scatter reduces considerably may be due in part to the model overestimating the rotational

and the peak acceleration is best estimated by the reference resistance provided at the beam-column connection by the

model at the highest ground motion intensity (MCE). At this gusset plate.

level of earthquake loading, the peak acceleration response is In frames with type CB connections, the gusset is fixed to

governed by ultimate resistance of the frame to lateral loads. the beam only, therefore no haunch is present to limit rota-

tion at the beam-column interface. The model represents

the CB type connection as a fully pinned rotational spring

Drift

between the beam and column, allowing full rotation at the

The peak experimental drift values are generally underesti- joint. The overestimation of drift by the reference model

mated by the reference model. The average drift underestima- in MCE level simulations of frames with type CB connec-

tion across the three intensity levels varies from 17 to 38% for tions may be partly attributable to the use of a fully pinned

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 177

Figure 11. Time-history plots comparing reference model and experimental acceleration and drift responses of a test with CB type connection subject to OBE level

ground motion.

rotational spring to model the beam-column connection in length lead to the under-estimation of peak drift increasing

this arrangement when the true nature of the connection from 10 to 43%.

is semi-rigid.

Inspection of time-history analyses found that the reference Brace axial forces

model drift was sensitive to initial brace camber value, with

smaller initial cambers resulting in greater underestimation The reference model significantly underestimates peak brace

of experimental drift. Figure 14 illustrates this for test Run052 axial compression forces for both connection types across all

where reducing the brace camber from 0.8 to 0.1% of the brace ground motion intensities (Figure 15) for all bar one experimental

178 T. RYAN ET AL.

Figure 14. Model drift response in Run052 (MCE level ground motion) for 0.8 and 0.1% initial brace eccentricities.

test run. This follows from the static pushover analyses of the ref- large as the peak experimental values regardless of the initial

erence model which showed that the peak compression forces brace eccentricity value.

that can develop in modelled braces subjected to an initial cam- Peak brace axial tension is more accurately represented in

ber of 0.8% are always less than the observed peak experimental all cases (Figure 16). Scatter reduces in both sets of results as

values. Furthermore, these analyses established that the refer- ground motion intensity increases as the response is governed

ence model braces cannot develop peak compression forces as by the ultimate resistance of the frame to lateral loads, and the

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 179

Figure 15. Comparison of peak brace axial compression force by gusset plate configuration.

peak tension force developed in the model braces is independ- resistance and the model frame structural period (T1) were both

ent of the initial brace camber. observed to be sensitive to the magnitude of this camber. It

was found that an initial camber of 0.8% of the brace effective

length satisfactorily represented both the theoretical buckling

Conclusions resistance of the brace and the experimental natural periods of

The response of CBF structures to earthquake loading is largely the test frames measured in initial white noise tests. The camber

dependent on the behaviour of the brace members when sub- is applied at the brace mid-point in the out-of-plane direction

jected to cyclic tension and compression axial loading. Accurate only, and the brace segments on either side of the mid-point

prediction of CBF response to earthquake loading, therefore, are linear.

requires consideration of brace properties such as tensile yield- The performance of the OpenSees model was assessed by

ing, strain hardening, resistance to buckling and post-buckling comparing key responses recorded during NLTHA with the

resistance. experimentally recorded responses. The modelled response

In this study, a robust numerical model was developed for a of the test CBF was observed to be stiffer than the experimen-

tally observed response, and the model appears to generally

single storey CBF test frame using the OpenSees computational

underestimate the experimental drift response. This under-

platform. Data from a series of shake table tests on a full-scale

estimate increased with increasing ground motion intensity.

single-storey test frame was used to calibrate the OpenSees

For CBFs where the brace is connected to both the beam and

model. In total, 12 pairs of identical brace-gusset plate speci- the column (CA connections), the average modelled peak drift

mens were tested which consisted of various combinations of ranged from 83% of the measured value at the lower inten-

brace cross section size, brace connection configuration and sity Operating Basis Earthquake to 62% at Maximum Credible

gusset plate design. Tests were carried out using a ground Earthquake level. In frames where the brace is connected to

motion record appropriately scaled to produce elastic response, the beam only (CB connections), the average modelled peak

brace buckling/yielding and ultimately brace fracture. drift was between 86% and 65% of the experimental values

The OpenSees model used two force-based non-linear at lower ground motion intensities, but rose to 130% at the

beam-column elements to represent each brace. An initial cam- MCE level. Closer results may have been achieved if the rota-

ber was applied at the mid-point of the brace to simulate the tional spring at the beam-column connection was assigned

effects of global member buckling. The model brace buckling a finite stiffness in the frames with type CB connections (this

180 T. RYAN ET AL.

connection detail was modelled as fully pinned in the refer- Broderick, B., Hunt, A., Mongabure, P., Goggins, J., Salawdeh, S., O’Reilly,

ence model). G., Beg, D., Moze, P., Sinur, F., & A. Elghazouli (2013). Brace response and

assessment: Computation, Experiments and Design (BRACED). Seismic

Peak brace compression was consistently underestimated

engineering research infrastructures for European synergies (SERIES)

by the reference model and was found to be sensitive to the (Project No.227887). Brussels: Seventh Framework Programme,

initial camber applied to the brace. Reducing initial brace Capacities Specific Programme, Research Infrastructure.

camber to 0.1% of the brace length improves prediction of CEN. (2004). EN 1998-1:2004, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake

peak brace compression forces but also increases frame stiff- resistance-part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.

Brussels: European Committee of Standardisation.

ness, leading to greater underestimation of drift. The peak

CEN. (2005). EN 1993-1-1:2005, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part

recorded experimental brace compression forces are signifi- 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee

cantly greater than the theoretical buckling resistance of the of Standardisation.

braces for all specimens. Applying a camber of 0.8% of the CEN. (2009). EN 1993-1-3, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1–3:

overall brace length appeared to give the best overall rep- General rules - Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting.

Brussels: European Committee for Standardisation.

resentation of both drift and brace forces measured in all tests.

Chopra, A.K. (2006). Dynamics of structures: Theory and application to

The reference model achieved more accurate predictions earthquake engineering. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice Hall.

of peak relative accelerations in CBFs with CA connections for Cooley, J.W., & Tukey, J.W. (1965). An algorithm for the machine calculation

all ground motion intensities. In general, the peak accelera- of complex Fourier series. Mathematics of Computation, 19, 297–297.

tion response was underestimated at low level ground motion Elghazouli, A.Y., Broderick, B.M., Goggins, J., Mouzakis, H., Carydis, P.,

Bouwkamp, J., & Plumier, A. (2005). Shake table testing of tubular

intensities, and accurately predicted at high-level intensities.

steel bracing members. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-

This agrees with the comparison of peak brace tension forces Structures and Buildings, 158, 229–241.

which are overestimated at lower ground-motion intensities but Goggins, J. (2004). Earthquake resistant hollow and filled steel braces (PhD

are typically within 10% of the experimentally recorded values Thesis). Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin.

at higher intensity ground motions. Goggins, J., & Salawdeh, S. (2013). Validation of nonlinear time history

analysis models for single-storey concentrically braced frames using full-

Numerical models play a large role in the development and

scale shake table tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42,

refinement of seismic design methodologies and in carrying out 1151–1170. doi:10.1002/eqe.2264

parametric studies to assess the response of various structural Hsiao, P.-C., Lehman, D.E., & Roeder, C.W. (2012). Improved analytical model

configurations to varying ground motions. Global response vari- for special concentrically braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel

ables such as peak acceleration and drift are used to assess struc- Research, 73, 80–94. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.01.010

Hunt, A.D. (2013). Design and analysis of concentrically braced steel frames

tural and non-structural damage effects and, in combination

under seismic loading (PhD Thesis). Trinity College, University of Dublin,

with member forces, to predict structural failure and collapse. Dublin.

The comparisons presented here indicate that while use of a McKenna, F., Fenves, G.L., & Scott, M.H. (2000). Object orientated programme.

non-linear numerical model to represent concentrically braced OpenSees: Open system for eartquake engineering simulation. Retrieved

steel frames can largely capture the response of such structures from http://www.opensees.berkeley.edu

Menegotto, M., & Pinto, P.E. (1973). Method of analysis for cyclic loaded R. C.

to earthquake loading, the choice of initial brace camber applied

Plane frame including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour

has a significant impact on the response of the model. of elements under combined normal force and bending. Proceedings of

While previous studies have evaluated the performance of IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures

numerical models of braced frames through comparison with Acted On by Well Defined Repeated Loads (pp. 15–22). Lisbon: IABSE.

quasi-static cyclic test results, the research described here repre- PEER. (2010). Ground Motion Database [online] Retrieved from http://

ngawest2.berkeley.edu/

sents the only full evaluation of the ability of a numerical model

Roeder, C.W., Lumpkin, E.J., & Lehman, D.E. (2011). A balanced design

to capture the ultimate non-linear dynamic response of a full- procedure for special concentrically braced frame connections.

scale test frame to realistic earthquake loads. Consequently, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 67, 1760–1772. doi:10.1016/j.

while the recommended modelling techniques produced in jcsr.2011.04.016

this paper can be employed to achieve optimum performance Salawdeh, S., & Goggins, J. (2013). Numerical simulation for steel brace

members incorporating a fatigue model. Engineering Structures, 46,

in future modelling studies, the magnitudes of the difference

332–349.

between the measured and modelled frame responses are also Salawdeh, S., & Goggins, J. (2016). Performance based design approach

of considerable interest in guiding the interpretation and use for multi-storey concentrically braced steel frames. Steel and Composite

of future modelling results. Structures, 20, 749–776.

Salawdeh, S., English, J., Goggins, J., Elghazouli, A.Y., Hunt, A., & Broderick,

B.M. (2017). Shake table assessment of gusset plate connection

behaviour in concentrically braced frames. Journal of Constructional

Disclosure statement Steel Research, 138, 432–448.

Uriz, P., Filippou, F.C., & Mahin, S.A. (2008). Model for cyclic inelastic

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

buckling of steel braces. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134, 619–628.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2008)134:4(619)

Uriz, P., & Mahin, S.A. (2008). Toward earthquake-resistant design of

Funding concentrically braced steel-frame structures (Vol. PEER Report 2008).

University of California, Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering

This work was supported by the EC FP7 Capacities Specific Programme, Research Center (PEER).

Research Infrastructures, ‘Seismic engineering research infrastructures for Welch, P. (1967). The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of

European synergies (SERIES)’ [Grant number: 227887]. power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified

periodograms. Audio and Electroacoustics, IEEE Transactions on, 15, 70–73.

Whitmore, R.E. (1950). Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset plates.

References Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.

AISC. (2011). Steel construction manual. (14th ed.). Chicago, IL: American Wijesundara, K.K. (2009). Design of concentrically braced steel frames with

Institute of Steel Construction. RHS shape braces (PhD Thesis). Pavia: European Centre for Training and

Broderick, B.M., Elghazouli, A.Y., & Goggins, J. (2008). Earthquake testing Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE).

and response analysis of concentrically-braced sub-frames. Journal of

Constructional Steel Research, 64, 997–1007.

- Buckling of ColumnsЗагружено:Pradeep Jayasinghe
- ANSI MH16 1-2012Загружено:mloredo
- AS/NZS 4600 2005 Cold-Formed Steel StructuresЗагружено:Fred Flindstone
- Evaluation of Protection Against Collapse From Buckling of Stiffened ColumnЗагружено:Lorenzo
- Chapter 6Загружено:Nagaraj Ramachandrappa
- Earthquake resistant stell designЗагружено:Leki M Choden
- Simulation of RatchetingЗагружено:aerosanth
- SEI November 2010 Complete IssueЗагружено:Tomas Merkevicius
- 2012_9_12_3315_3324Загружено:mapasabc
- SESS 6061 Advanced Finite Element Analysis_CW2Загружено:Cédric Bontemps
- abhrjul-aug-84-89435-durack.pdfЗагружено:yanickdouce5408
- Introduction to Plate Behaviour and DesignЗагружено:Mona Raftari
- Adv Dsgn Ebf PopovЗагружено:Caraiane Catalin
- MULTI STORY BUILDINGSЗагружено:Ravi Shankar
- Load bearing capacityЗагружено:sashka13370
- Steelwise_ Seismic Fuses[1]Загружено:amachmouchi
- Khushi Steel Lab5Загружено:KhushiBairwa
- ColumnsЗагружено:poncatoera
- NEHRP PROVISIONS SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES.pdfЗагружено:Sumanth
- Inelastic effect on springback in metalЗагружено:Arianta Rian
- SFD-CSA-S16-14Загружено:dongheep811
- Ingenieria Glossary VinnakotaЗагружено:asrhael
- 759_1.pdfЗагружено:dineshThangavel
- Metallic Microlattice Materials a Current State of the Art on Manufacturing, Mechanical Properties and ApplicationsЗагружено:Bianca Endo
- Buckling Test_Muhammad Nadeem AttaЗагружено:Hamood
- WCEE2012_3492.pdfЗагружено:Oscar Ortiz Méndez
- ductility of columns.pdfЗагружено:bobos
- Compressive Strength and Behaviour of Gusset PlateЗагружено:RavindraKhandelwal
- Module 4 Buckling 2DЗагружено:Rao Janapa
- MTP Phase 2 Report.pdfЗагружено:Rohan Dharmadhikari

- BCA - Design Guide on Use of Structural SteelЗагружено:sazkha2
- Wind and EarthquakesЗагружено:Nam
- [K.H. Head] Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing Soi(BookFi.org)Загружено:Yahdi Azzuhry
- 2008 Wind SeismicЗагружено:Ro-bert Mago
- [N. S. Trahair]Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Strorg)Загружено:Anonymous lEBdswQXmx
- CWE_Vol10_Spl(1)_p_421-428.pdfЗагружено:Nam
- ModelingЗагружено:Nam
- FEM Modeling of Pile-Raft FoundationЗагружено:Mustafa Sütcüoğlu
- Acud-gt Quan Ly Du an Cong Trinh XdЗагружено:Nam
- Design_of_Piles_in_Sand_Case_Study_of_Le.pdfЗагружено:Nam
- 254348364-ARUP-Worked-Example.pdfЗагружено:Atul Shrivastava
- The Mechanics of Soils and Foundations John AtkinsonЗагружено:Everson BoyDayz Peters
- Foundations for Machines-Analysis & Design_By Shamsher Prakash.pdfЗагружено:Anonymous G38yix
- 1034 Design and Construction of the Jin Mao Towers Mat FoundationЗагружено:Nam
- Steel Structures Behavior and LRFD (Ramulu Vinnakota)Загружено:Ionut Narcis Iuga
- [Hoyos, Laureano R.; Zhang, Xiong; Puppala, AnandЗагружено:Nam
- Vertical Shortening in ColumnsЗагружено:ardikurniawan
- Transmission Tower Foundation DesignЗагружено:Sara Nuon
- 234889066 Foundation Design Handbook Hydrocarbon Processing 1974Загружено:Nam
- Behavior and Shear Design Provisions of ReinforcedЗагружено:Nam
- ResponseSpectrumMethodGuptaЗагружено:gyan_th9229
- The SCP Method.pdfЗагружено:Nam
- 1651 Structural Design and Construction of Hyundai Hyperion Project Seoul KoreaЗагружено:Nam
- ijsrdv3i100623-160128090030.pdfЗагружено:Nam
- Book - Basic Structural Dynamics and Seismic Analysis - PresentationЗагружено:Krishanu Chattopadhyay
- 6. NCHRP REPORT 611 Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls Buried Structures Slopes and EmbankmentsЗагружено:QuangNguyenVan
- DAM Examples.pdfЗагружено:gmlopes
- BondekUsersGuide26Feb2010Загружено:Yoga Pramudya
- Technical-Journal-05.pdfЗагружено:Nam

- What is a Refrigerant and Desired Properties of a RefrigerantЗагружено:Tinku Mittal
- Thermal Volume ExpansionЗагружено:Erwin Ronald Calma
- IntroductionsЗагружено:MAHMOD SHERMOHAMMAD
- Ansys PrelimsЗагружено:Arun Sfrh
- Randy Allen Harris - The Linguistics Wars (1995, Oxford University Press).pdfЗагружено:favillesco
- DC Motor Parameter IdentificationЗагружено:Rashad Haythem
- Thermodynamic-Formulas-watermark.pdf-31.pdfЗагружено:Amar
- Lecture Notes in Computational AstrophysicsЗагружено:diego_munoz_a
- H1 Prelim P1 Including SolutionsЗагружено:jerrtino
- The Series And Parallel Capacitors Formula To Calculate The Right CapacitancesЗагружено:Bejawada Naresh
- Vector and Tensor Analysis 1950Загружено:Ray Minich
- Laminar Free Convection Inside an Inclined L-Shaped EnclosureЗагружено:Srinivas
- Assign 2 PunitЗагружено:JimmyThacker
- Handbook of Formulae and Constants, Power Engineering.pdfЗагружено:Osmar Martinez Gutierrez
- 36-114-1-PBЗагружено:HectorDavidSuarezCarvajal
- motion design vocabularyЗагружено:api-323449449
- Chem Topic 14 Questions + AnswersЗагружено:OscarHigson-Spence
- KennedyB - FEA Using FEMM 4Загружено:cingoski123
- Advanced Beam Analysis for Integrated ModellingЗагружено:nrmahesh
- 2720(XXXIX,sec-)I,1977Загружено:rambinod
- 7.1.Prob.sheet Gas Power CyclesЗагружено:Anonymous mXicTi8hB
- The Science of Measurement: A Primer on Radioactivity Dose CalibratorsЗагружено:Ismet Deniz Yalazkan
- Fact Sheet Geophysical SurveysЗагружено:Jelly Been
- LAB 1-Beam DeflectionЗагружено:Nur Astuty
- Structural and Thermal Analysis of a Single Plate Dry Friction Clutch Using Finite Element Method (Fem)Загружено:dbpublications
- Fluid MechanicsЗагружено:TundeOyedotun
- COE SolutionЗагружено:dist2235
- PCM HabitatЗагружено:Chen Dong
- AttitudeЗагружено:Shreya Jaiswal
- PAP Unit 11 Test Review SolutionsЗагружено:Sandra Miller

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.