o

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 8

o

© All Rights Reserved

- [Corus] Design of SHS Welded Joints
- Civil2013v3_1_ReleaseNote
- Varying angle Diagrid Structural System
- 3 Structures Beam Calculations
- veriendeel truss
- Internal Truss Structures
- Ale Jan 2015 Reviewer
- Corus - Design of Shs Welded Joints
- Truss
- Precast-Prestressed Concrete Truss-Girder for Roof Applications
- Wind Loads SBC Pt1
- SHS Welded Joints 15-08-01
- 013391545X_section6-1 - 6-3
- F13_CE470Ch 1 - Introduction to Structural Engineering
- 2009_F.ZILM.pdf
- Lecture Notes
- att_2699
- Steel Structures
- FEA Code in Matlab for a Truss StructureA (1)
- Model DBR

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

Stell

staggered truss framing system under earthquake loads

E. Wahyuni1,*, Y. Tethool2

Received: August 2013, Revised: January 2014, Accepted: June 2014

Abstract

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of vierendeel panel width and vertical truss spacing ratio in an inelastic

behavior of the STF system due to earthquake loads. The STF system is applied to a six-storey building that serves as

apartments [2]. The STF system is used in the building in the transverse direction (N-S direction), while in the longitudinal

direction (W-E direction) the building system uses the special moment resisting frame. The structural behavior was evaluated

using nonlinear pushover and time history analyses. The results showed that by increasing the ratio of vierendeel panel width

and vertical truss spacing, the ductility of the structure was increased. Based on the performance evaluation, the ratio of the

vierendeel panel width and vertical truss spacing on the STF buildings that provided satisfactory performance was more or

equal to 1.6. The ultimate drift obtained from non-linear time history analysis was smaller than the pushover analysis. This

result showed that the static nonlinear pushover analysis was quite conservative in predicting the behavior of the six-storey

building in an inelastic condition.

Keywords: staggered truss framing, Static nonlinear pushover analysis, Nonlinear time history analysis, Earthquake.

1. Introduction

series of structured trusses, with an opening in the middle

of truss span (vierendeel panel) that serves as a corridor on

the floor [1]. For more information about STF system can

be seen in Figure 1. The STF system was efficiently used

for mid-height buildings such as apartments, hotels, flats,

hospitals and other structural systems that required low

height between the floors. The staggered-truss framing

system is one of the only framing system that can be used

to allow column-free areas sized 18 to 21 meters, thus the

structural system provided the freedom for architects to set

the floor function [1, 2]. Furthermore, this system is

normally economical, simple to fabricate and erect, and as

a result, is often cheaper than other framing systems. Truss

elements of the STF system require an opening space in Fig. 1 Staggered Truss Framing System [1, 7]

the middle span (vierendeel panel) that serves as a corridor

with the sufficient ratio of the width and height. According Kim and Lee [3] studied the behaviour of the 4-, 10-,

to Tethool and Wahyuni [2] the vierendeel panels has an and 30-storey STF by pushover analysis and are compared

important role in the plasticization process of STF system with concentric braced frame and moment-resisting

that influences the collapse process. frames. The STF system showed superior or at least

equivalent seismic load-resisting capacity to convensional

ordinary concentric braced frames. For low-rise structures

* Corresponding author: endah@ce.its.ac.id with STF turned out to have enough seismic load-resisting

1 PhD Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Civil capacity, however, in mid- to high-rise structures,

Engineering Department, Campus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, localization of plastic damage in vierendeel panel caused

East Java, Indonesia week storey and resulted in brittle failure of structure. To

2 MSc Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Civil explore the vierendeel panel behaviour, the purpose of

Engineering Department, Campus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, this study is to determine the effect of ratio vierendeel

East Java, Indonesia

International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, Transaction A: Civil Engineering, June 2015

panel width and vertical truss spacing in the inelastic impaired mode, with power, water, and other required

behaviour of the STF system due to earthquake loads. utilities provided from emergency sources, and possibly

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

2. Nonlinear Pushover and Time History Analyses meeting this target BPL pose an extremely low risk to life

safety.

Performance evaluation of a structure can be solved by 2. Immediate Occupancy (IO)

four different analyzes namely a linear static, dynamic, This target BPL is expected to sustain minimal or no

nonlinear static and dynamic analyses [4]. Nonlinear damage to the structural elements and only minor damage

analysis (push over analysis) is used to accommodate the to the non-structural components. While it would be safe

post-yielding behavior of the structure, where the applied to reoccupy a building meeting this target BPL

loads are gradually increased by a factor until one lateral immediately following a major earthquake, non-structural

displacement target of the reference point is reached. The systems may not function, either because of the lack of

result of the nonlinear static pushover analysis is a curve electrical power or internal damage to equipment.

that describes the relationship between the base shear Therefore, although immediate re-occupancy of the

forces and the displacement at reference point on the roof building is possible, it may be necessary to perform some

[2, 3]. The nonlinear time history analysis is a way to cleanup and repair and await the restoration of utility

determine the dynamic responses of structures that have service before the building can function in a normal mode.

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

nonlinear behavior caused by earthquake ground motion. The risk to life safety at this target BPL is very low.

The earthquake ground motion is used as an input data, 3. Life Safety (LS)

which is the dynamic response in each time interval Buildings meeting this level may experience extensive

calculated by gradual integration method [2]. This study damage to structural and nonstructural components.

used the El Centro earthquake record (May 18, 1940), Repairs may be required before reoccupancy of the

Denpasar earthquake record (July 14, 1976) and the Kern building, and may be deemed economically impractical.

County earthquake record (July 21, 1952). The risk to life safety in buildings meeting this target BPL

Nonlinear analysis requires plastic hinges modeling to is low.

define the nonlinear behavior of the structural elements 4. Collapse Prevention (CP)

including beams, columns and bracing. Plastic hinges are Little residual stiffness and strength, but load bearing

assumed to occur at both ends of the beams and columns, columns and walls function. Large permanent drifts

and for bracing elements the assumed plastic hinges are occurred. Some exits were blocked and the building nearly

occurred in the middle span. The plastic hinge models are collapses. Buildings meeting this target BPL may pose a

used in this study based on FEMA 356 [6] this is built in significant hazard to life safety resulting from failure of

the SAP2000 program [9]. nonstructural components. However, because the building

itself does not collapse, gross loss of life may well be

3. Building Performance Level avoided. Many buildings meeting this level will be

complete economic losses.

Determination of the building performance level is

based on the safety level for residents in the building 4. Response Spectra Design

during and after an earthquake toward the damage of the

building. The performance level of a building is set as According to Indonesian Standard [7], the response

follows [5, 6]: spectrum of the earthquake plans must be done in advance

1. Operational according to the desired location. Based on the standard

Building can operate normally. This target Building [7] the bedrock acceleration of Manokwari city, Indonesia

Performance Level (BPL) are expected to sustain minimal is Ss = 1.446 and S1 = 0.553. The classified site of SC is

or no damage to their structural and non-structural selected based on the hard soil type. Figure 2 displayed the

components. The building is suitable for its normal spectral response design for the Manokwari city, Indonesia

occupancy and use, although possibly in a slightly that is used in this study.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

Sa (g)

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

T (detik)

Fig. 2 Design Response Spectra Manokwari According RSNI 03-1726-2010 [6]

Based on the Indonesian standard [7], the minimum of The 3D building model with the STF system and the

three earthquake accelerations should be analysed, thus the longitudinal cross-section in W-E direction are shown in

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

earthquake accelerations of El Centro, Denpasar and Kent Figures 4(a) and 4(b), while the cross-section in the

County were analyzed in this study. The calculations of transverse (N-S) direction for odd and even axes are

spectral acceleration and spectral velocity are made by shown in Figures 4(c) and 4(d). The seismic reduction

SREL program based on the acceleration data. The factor (R) of the STF system is equal to 7 in the N-S

earthquake-scale plans of the El Centro, Denpasar and direction due to the STF system, while in the longitudinal

Kent County will be scaled to the spectral response of direction (W-E direction) the seismic reduction factor (R)

Manokwari according to the standard [7]. The scale factors is equal to 8 due to the special moment resisting frame

of the El Centro, Denpasar and Kent County are 1.133, (SMRF) system as mention in AISC [1]. In region high-

2.535 and 2,672 respectively. seismic activity, researchers suggest that the behavior of

STF be evaluated utilizing time history analysis enveloped

5. Staggered Truss Framing System (STF) Models with a spectrum for the site under consideration. The

ductility demands on the chords can then be evaluated

The building plan with the applied STF system can be directly from the analysis. The response characteristics of

seen in Figure 3. The technical data of the building as STF that dissipates energy mainly through Vierendeel

follows: panels are similar to a ductile moment frame or an

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

Building width : 21.00 meters eccentrically braced frame. This would imply that an R

Building length : 48.00 meters factor of 7 or 8 could be used for the design in transverse

Total building height : 20.25 meters (6- direction of the building [1]. The STF building models as

storey) shown in Figure 4 were analyzed with the variations of

ratio of the vierendeel panel width (=a) and the distance

Quality steel profile : BJ41 (fy=250 MPa,

between the vertical truss (=b). Table 2 describes in detail

fu=410 MPa)

the variations of the model that was analysed in this study.

The profile is used as shown in Table 1 based on

Indonesia standard [10, 11]. Table 2 Details of the STF Building Models

Vierendeel Panel Vertical Truss

Table 1 The profil specification of the building Models Ratio (a/b)

Width (a) Spacing (b)

Profile Specification

STF1 2.0m 2.375m 0.842

Names Structural Elements

STF2 2.5m 2.313m 1.081

H 400x400x30x50 Column STF3 3.0m 2.250m 1.333

WF 600x200x11x17 Spandrel Beam STF4 3.5m 2.188m 1.600

STF5 4.0m 2.125m 1.882

WF 300x200x8x12 Truss Chord, Vierendeel Panel

Diagonal Truss, Hanger Truss, Knee

HSS 200x200x12 brace Truss, Post Truss, Vertical

Truss

(a) Level 1

International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, Transaction A: Civil Engineering, June 2015 215

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

Fig. 3 Building Plan

(c) Transverse Frame, Odd Axis (N-S) (d) Transverse Frame, Even Axis (N-S)

Fig. 4 Building Modeling With STF System

the five models for N-S direction are shown in Figure 5(b)

6. Linear Analysis Results and 6(b). There are differences among each of STF

models, which showed that the STF1 model has smallest

The results of the linear analysis of the building total drift while the STF5 model has the greatest total drift.

structure are presented in the inter-story and total drifts of It can be concluded that the total value of inter-story drift

each STF model as shown in Figures 5 and 6. Figures 5(a) is increased by the increasing the vierendeel panel width

and 6(a) showed the typical total drift in the W-E and vertical trusses spacing ratio.

direction, there was no significant difference between the

occurred total drifts of the five models. The total drifts of

7

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

6

STF1

5

STF2

Story

4

STF3

3 STF4

2 STF5

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Total Drift (mm)

(a). W-E Direction

7

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

6

STF1

5

STF2

Story

4

STF3

3 STF4

2 STF5

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Total Drift (mm)

(b). N-S Direction

Fig. 5 Total drift comparison using linear analysis

6

STF1

5

STF2

Story

4

STF3

3 STF4

2 STF5

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Inter Story Drift (mm)

(a). W-E Direction

6

STF1

5

STF2

Story

4

STF3

3 STF4

2 STF5

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Inter Story Drift (mm)

(b). N-S Direction

Figure 6. Inter story drift comparison using linear analysis

International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, Transaction A: Civil Engineering, June 2015 217

Table 3 shows the comparison of periods from the five δu

models. The periods in the longitudinal direction for the μΔ (1)

δy

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

models are similar due to use the same SMRF system. The

STF1 to STF5 models in transversal direction increases the

periods from 0.489 seconds to 0.623 seconds because of Where y is the displacement at the first yield point

increasing the ratio. It is shown that the length of and u is the displacement at the ultimate point. Table 4

vierendeel influences the stiffness of the structure; the and Table 5 summarized the results of the nonlinear

longer the vierendeel will make the weaker the structure. pushover analyses. The tables show the roof displacement

and the base shear at the first yield and at the ultimate

Table 3 Periods of the STF Building Models point, thus the value of building ductility can be obtained.

Periods (seconds) of Periods (seconds) The nonlinear static pushover analyses showed the

Models longitudinal direction of transversal relationship between the roof displacements and the base

(SMRF) direction (STF) forces in both directions of the building as shown in Figure

7 and Figure 8. The comparison of the capacity curve

STF1 0.785 0.489

based on nonlinear static pushover analysis for W-E

STF2 0.775 0.518 direction (SMRF system) is shown in Figure 8. There were

STF3 0.775 0.550 no significant differences in the values of the base forces

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

STF4 0.775 0.585 and roof displacements between the five models, where the

STF5 0.785 0.623 STF5 model the collapsed roof displacement was slightly

larger than in the other models. The comparison of the

7. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Results capacity curve for the N-S direction (STF) showed that in

the first yielding point the base force value decreased, but

Equation (1) is used to calculate the ductility (μΔ) of a the value of the roof displacement increased as shown in

building model [7]: Figure 8.

Models Ratio δy (mm) Vy (kN) δu (mm) Vu (kN) μ∆ Performance Level

STF1 0.842 51.56 6443.85 198.11 14633.25 3.842 Collapse

STF2 1.081 49.873 6394.762 206.930 14768.703 4.149 Collapse Prevention

STF3 1.333 49.807 6378.489 208.270 14730.290 4.182 Life Safety

STF4 1.6 49.716 6358.658 210.245 14670.292 4.229 Life Safety

STF5 1.882 51.282 6373.631 229.020 14811.868 4.466 Life Safety

Models Ratio δy (mm) Vy (kN) δu (mm) Vu (kN) μ∆ Performance Level

STF1 0.842 32.19 11953.84 59.05 19516.31 1.834 Collapse

STF2 1.081 35.896 11845.716 65.940 19609.483 1.837 Collapse

STF3 1.333 37.151 10821.561 72.430 18657.227 1.950 Collapse Prevention

STF4 1.6 39.539 10132.224 82.349 18331.364 2.083 Life Safety

STF5 1.882 42.722 9608.751 94.982 18087.275 2.223 Life Safety

20000

15000

Base Force (kN)

STF1

STF2

10000

STF3

STF4

5000

STF5

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 7 Capacity Curve Comparison for W-E Direction using Pushover analysis

20000

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

15000

STF1

STF2

10000

STF3

STF4

5000

STF5

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 8 Capacity curve comparison for N-S Direction using Pushover analysis

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

trusses spacing ratio can be clearly seen in Figure 9 causes 8. Nonlinear Time History Analysis Results

the increased structural ductility. The increased in ductility

occurred in both directions of the building, but for the W-E Time history analyses were conducted to investigate

direction (SMRF) it has a higher ductility values compared the performance of the models. All models used the El

to the N-S direction (STF). The reason was due to the used Centro, the Denpasar and the Kern County earthquake

truss elements in the N-S direction caused the stiffness in records. The comparisons of deformation and maximum

that direction was increased. Based on the performance drift at each floor of the five models in the ultimate

evaluation results as shown in Table 4 and Table 5, it is conditions obtained by nonlinear time history analyses in

recommended to use a ratio of the vierendeel vertical the N-S direction (STF system) have relatively the same

width and the vertical truss spacing of more than 1. The values as shown in Figure 10. The STF5 model, which has

ratio gave the building performance level of Life Safety to the biggest ratio of the vierendeel panel width and vertical

Collapse Prevention. When the ratio was used more or truss spacing, has the bigger drift to be compared to the

equal to 1.6, it provided an ideal behavior of the building other models. It was clear as shown in Figure 11 that the

with STF system, because the building performance was in effect of adding ratios of the vierendeel panel width and

Life Safety level. spacing vertical trusses caused increasing the deformation

and maximum drift at each floor of the building. The

5 ultimate drift obtained from non-linear time history

4

analysis was smaller than the pushover analysis. This

result showed that the static nonlinear pushover analysis

was quite conservative in predicting the behavior of the

Ductility

3

six-storey building in an inelastic condition.

2

1 W-E

Dir.

0

1 2 3 4 5

Model

Fig. 9 Ductility comparisons using Pushover analysis

5

Story

4 STF1+

STF1-

STF2+

3 STF2-

STF3+

2 STF3-

STF4+

STF4-

1

-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30

Total Drift (m)

(a). Time History of Elcentro

International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, Transaction A: Civil Engineering, June 2015 219

7

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

Story

STF1+

4 STF1-

STF2+

3 STF2-

STF3+

STF3-

2 STF4+

STF4-

STF5+

1

-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30

Total Drift (m)

(b). Time History of Denpasar

7

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

5

Story

STF1+

4 STF1-

STF2+

STF2-

3 STF3+

STF3-

STF4+

2 STF4-

STF5+

STF5-

1

-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30

Total Drift (m)

(c). Time History of Kern County

Fig. 10 Deformation in N-S Directions using Nonlinier Time History Analysis

7 STF1+

STF1-

6 STF2+

STF2-

STF3+

5

Story

STF3-

STF4+

4 STF4-

STF5+

3

1

-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Story Drift (m)

(a). Time History of Elcentro

7 STF1+

STF1-

6 STF2+

STF2-

STF3+

5 STF3-

Story

STF4+

STF4-

4 STF5+

STF5-

3

1

-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Story Drift (m)

(b). Time History of Denpasar

7

STF1+

[ DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.2.213 ]

STF1-

6 STF2+

STF2-

STF3+

5

Story

STF3-

STF4+

4 STF4-

STF5+

STF5-

3

1

-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

(c). Time History of Kern County

Fig. 11 Maximum Drift in N-S Directions using Nonlinier Time History Analysis

Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 3:50 IRDT on Wednesday April 11th 2018

staggered truss framing system (STF) using nonlinear

pushover and time history analysis, Proceedings of the

The effect of increasing the ratios of the vierendeel

National Seminar on Civil Engineering ITS Surabaya IX,

panel width and the vertical truss spacing in the staggered 2013.

truss framing system increased the ductilities in both [3] Kim Jinkoo, Joonho Lee. Seismic behavior of staggered

directions of the building. Increasing the ratio also linearly truss system, First European Conference on Earthquake

increased the displacement of the building that occurred in Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

the N-S direction (STF), but in the W-E direction (SMRF) [4] Dewobroto Wiryanto. Performance evaluation of

there was no significant change in the displacements of the earthquake resistant for steel structures with pushover

five models. The results of the analysis also showed that analysis, Civil Engineering National Conference,

the ductility and the displacement in the W-E direction of Semarang, 2005.

[5] Pranata Yosafat Aji. Ductility assessment of reinforced

the building were larger than the N-S direction, because of

concrete building structures with time history analysis

the increasing stiffness due to the truss elements in the and pushover analysis, Civil Engineering ITS Journal,

building. 2008, No. 3, Vol. 8.

Based on the results of the performance evaluation it [6] ASCE. FEMA 356 - Prestandard and Comentary for the

was shown that the model STF 1, STF 2 and STF 3 (ratios Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency

of 0.842, 1.081 and 1.333) provided a poor level of Management Agency, Washington DC, 2000.

performance because in the critical condition it was in the [7] National Standardization Committee. Design Guideline

Collapse Prevention to Collapse levels. While the model for Earthquake Resistance of Structural and Non

STF 4 and STF 5 (ratios of 1.6 and 1882) showed a good Structural Buildings (SNI 03-1726-2010), Bandung,

BSN, 2010.

performance because the critical condition of the building

[8] Seismology committee structural engineering association

was still at the Life Safety level. of california. seismic design of steel staggered truss

The nonlinear time history analysis using Elcentro, systems, California, Structure Magazine, 2008.

Denpasar and Kern County earthquake record showed that [9] SAP2000 Manual. Computer and Structure Inc, Barkeley,

the deformation from every floor and a maximum drift of California, USA, 2010.

the STF building is smaller than the nonlinear static [10] National Standardization Committee. Design Guideline

pushover analysis. Thus, the nonlinear static pushover for Structural Steel Buildings (SNI 03-1729-2000),

analysis was quite conservative when used in design, Bandung, BSN, 2000.

especially in evaluating the staggered truss framing [11] National Standardization Committee. Loading

structural building. Calculation Procedure for Hauses and Buildings (RSNI

03-1727-1989), Bandung, BSN, 2005.

References

Staggered Truss Framing Systems, USA, American

Institute of Steel Construction, Inc, 2003.

International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, Transaction A: Civil Engineering, June 2015 221

- [Corus] Design of SHS Welded JointsЗагружено:_at_to_
- Civil2013v3_1_ReleaseNoteЗагружено:Edward van Martino
- Varying angle Diagrid Structural SystemЗагружено:JatinTank
- 3 Structures Beam CalculationsЗагружено:douglasjames1968
- veriendeel trussЗагружено:Lim Lip Boon
- Internal Truss StructuresЗагружено:Inam Ullah
- Ale Jan 2015 ReviewerЗагружено:ChumCasilla
- Corus - Design of Shs Welded JointsЗагружено:Dylan Ramasamy
- TrussЗагружено:Gim Huang Lim
- Precast-Prestressed Concrete Truss-Girder for Roof ApplicationsЗагружено:senka
- Wind Loads SBC Pt1Загружено:insane88
- SHS Welded Joints 15-08-01Загружено:Demçe Florjan
- 013391545X_section6-1 - 6-3Загружено:Atef Naz
- F13_CE470Ch 1 - Introduction to Structural EngineeringЗагружено:Chandan Narang
- 2009_F.ZILM.pdfЗагружено:Arthur Rebouças
- Lecture NotesЗагружено:Ayushika Abrol
- att_2699Загружено:LukasPodolski
- Steel StructuresЗагружено:Asuile Liegise
- FEA Code in Matlab for a Truss StructureA (1)Загружено:iScribdR
- Model DBRЗагружено:Arnab Sur
- 244389_1_6-space-trusses (1)Загружено:Alex Ivan Díaz Tafur
- Proposed Design Procedures for Shear and Torsion in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Ramirez_part1Загружено:linghuchong
- Proposed Design Procedures for Shear and Torsion in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Ramirez_part32Загружено:linghuchong
- ME101 Tutorial 02Загружено:alex alb
- Senatore 2018 Smart Mater. Struct. 27 015022Загружено:Anonymous 4OEt4MiZAa
- Full Paper Balint KarolyЗагружено:andradeinsua
- LECTURE-Estimate.pptxЗагружено:Pocholo Bustos
- flo1Загружено:Florin Sapariuc
- BambooЗагружено:oh my god
- trussreportЗагружено:api-271240497

- About PerviousPaveЗагружено:JhonyGámez
- 2014 OudahandEl Hacha SeismicevaluationofRCmoment ResistingframeswithmasonryinfillwallsЗагружено:amikcor
- 2014-OudahandEl-Hacha-SeismicevaluationofRCmoment-resistingframeswithmasonryinfillwalls.pdfЗагружено:amikcor
- MBSM_OpenBuildings (1).pdfЗагружено:JCTJR98
- ASTM-A706-pdf.pdfЗагружено:hgonzalez_552846
- T11_01Загружено:webmacerasi
- Export AffirmatonЗагружено:Doğan Arslan
- CopyingЗагружено:amikcor
- Business Phrasal Verbs - Sample UnitЗагружено:amikcor
- Seismic Design of Composite Steel Deck Diaphragms NEHRPЗагружено:thegerman11
- License texasЗагружено:amikcor
- nistgcr10-917-6 concrete model building subtypes.pdfЗагружено:amikcor
- Confined and Internally Reinforced Concrete Block Masonry BuildingЗагружено:amikcor
- A seismic vulnerability index for confined masonry shear wall buildings and a relationship with the damage.pdfЗагружено:amikcor
- nistgcr10-917-6 concrete model building subtypes.pdfЗагружено:amikcor
- Dynamic in-Plane Behavior of URM Wall Upgraded With CompositesЗагружено:amikcor
- Disaster Resilience a Guide to the LiteratureЗагружено:amikcor
- ICRI - Concrete Repair TerminologyЗагружено:Pablo Dominguez
- 197-208 Nigel Shrive _12 p_.pdfЗагружено:sadi3013
- ACI-364.1R-07-9780870312458-CivilEA.comЗагружено:Joseph Booker
- Neithalath 2003 Development of Quiet and Durable Porous Portland Cement Concrete Paving MaterialsЗагружено:amikcor
- ICSCP 2010 Using Pervious PaveЗагружено:amikcor
- Concrete Construction Article PDF- Portland Cement Pervious Pavement ConstructionЗагружено:amikcor
- Advancements in pervious concrete technology.pdfЗагружено:amikcor
- Developing a Structural Design Method for Pervious Concrete PavementЗагружено:amikcor

- RevitKeynotes Imperial 2004Загружено:Bala Krishna Galla
- CCIP_16167 Concrete Buildings Scheme Extract FINALЗагружено:Derek Ang
- TEC 042226 MET DoR 001b Wall Ties And_restrainЗагружено:velmurug_bala
- Hybrid house construction seminar reportЗагружено:MahaManthra
- halfslabЗагружено:Nanang Junior Civil
- Statically Determinate Structures.pdfЗагружено:essy_ab
- The Concrete Panels HomesЗагружено:chancer2
- FE Modeling of Cyclic Behavior of Shear Wall Structure Retrofitted using GFRP - Paper (20).pdfЗагружено:Julio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- 149369898 6037 Black Decker the Complete Guide to Finishing Walls CeilingsЗагружено:Noel Deus
- Retaining WallЗагружено:Jaya Ram
- Plan Pages 03- StructuralЗагружено:Víctor Murcia
- Bridge's DictionaryЗагружено:kcskc83
- WBSЗагружено:monisani
- Frame for Area 7-8Загружено:Saurabh Gupta
- Spread Footing Design.xlsЗагружено:Aldo Guzmán
- 310 Discussion on Pile StiffnessЗагружено:magdyamdb
- Mini Project Ppt 1Загружено:Akmal Sha
- Principles of Foundation Engineering Solution Manual by Braja M Das 6th Ed 2007 0495082465Загружено:Engr Arbab Faisal
- Advanced Bridge DesignЗагружено:surendra_panga
- Ppt on Strawble ConstructionsЗагружено:Nanditha Mandava Chowdary
- PhangЗагружено:Judy Tan
- SumanЗагружено:Kurra Srikanth
- UntitledЗагружено:shanky22
- An Experimental Behaviour of Concrete-filled SteelЗагружено:paulolubas
- BuildOn Profile PresentationЗагружено:Jemy J Francis
- Chapter 2 - Loading Arrangement on BeamЗагружено:Ayie Ibrahim
- DSM CalculatorЗагружено:Vengatesh Hari
- 044-1_1996_reinforced Concrete Poles (2)Загружено:Luis Aguero Cantillo
- Civil Engineering Educational TourЗагружено:Jane Bonggo
- Dubina_eccsЗагружено:Zamfira Octavian