Bridge deck behaviour revisited

© All Rights Reserved

14 vues

Bridge deck behaviour revisited

© All Rights Reserved

- Design of RC Beams With Openings
- 00Complete civil Tech
- Aircraft Structures II Laboratory Manual with model calculations and graphs
- Kupdf.com Ce Reviewer Design
- IS-800-2007 Example 002
- Connection Design
- EN 3-2005 Example 002
- 1
- Applied Mechanics
- Duy Nguyen - A Brief Study of Using Membrane Sheel Plate in Assigning a Slab or Wall P and T Consultants Pte Ltd
- beam column connection
- SOM Lecture
- gate-ce-2009 (1)
- Team1C
- Handout 10
- FEM Report Final
- Analysis of Open in 00 Mal h
- Worked Example 1 – Composite Beam – Normal Design
- 58298000 Timber Design
- dss important civil

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

SYNOPSIS

Since its publication in 1976 up to the present day, Edmund Hamblys book Bridge Deck

Behaviour has remained a valuable resource for bridge engineers. During this period the

processing power and storage capacity of computers has increased by a factor of over 1000

and analysis software has improved greatly in sophistication and ease of use. In spite of the

increases in computing power, bridge deck analysis methods have not changed to the same

extent, and grillage analysis remains the standard procedure for most structures.

In this paper the advantages and disadvantages of using more complex analysis procedures

are examined. The following topics are covered:

Alternatives to grillage analysis

Comparison of design actions and deflections from alternative analysis methods

Analysis of secondary effects

Non-linear analysis

Advanced analysis in the design office. Is it worth the effort?

Recommendations are presented that enable the advantages of advanced analysis techniques

to be realised, whilst retaining the efficiency of grillage analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the conclusion to the chapter on the finite element method in Bridge Deck Behaviour,

Edmund Hambly wrote:

The finite element method is the most powerful and versatile analytical method available at

present because with a sufficiently large computer, the elastic behaviour of almost any

structure can be analysed accurately. For this reason it is often requested by clients, or

proposed to a client, to show that the most accurate analysis possible has been performed.

Unfortunately, the method is cumbersome to use and is usually expensive. In addition, the

choice of element type can be extremely critical and if incorrect, the results can be far more

inaccurate than those predicted by simpler models such as grillage or space frame. However,

perhaps the greatest drawback at present is that while the technique is developing so rapidly,

the job of carrying out finite element computations is a full time occupation which cannot be

carried out at the same time by the senior engineer responsible for the design. He is unlikely

to have time to understand or verify the appropriateness of the element stiffnesses or to check

the large quantity of computer data. This makes it difficult for him to place his confidence in

the results, especially if the structure is too complicated for him to use simple physical

reasoning to check orders of magnitude. (1)

Since the publication of this book the processing power and storage capacity of desk top

computers has increased by a factor of over 1000 and analysis software has improved greatly

in sophistication and ease of use. In spite of the increases in computing power, bridge deck

analysis methods have not changed to the same extent, and grillage analysis remains the

standard procedure for most beam and slab structures.

In this paper the advantages and disadvantages of using more complex analysis procedures

are examined. The following topics are covered:

Alternatives to grillage analysis

o 3D beam models

o Plate models with downstand beams

o Brick models

Comparison of design actions and deflections from alternative analysis methods

Analysis of secondary effects

o Differential shrinkage and creep

o Differential temperature

Non-linear analysis

o Effect of non-linear response on transverse distribution

o Membrane action in deck slabs

Advanced analysis in practice. Is it worth the effort?

2. ALTERNATIVES TO GRILLAGE ANALYSIS

2.1 Drawbacks of grillage analysis

Grillage analysis fails to deal with the following aspects of bridge deck behaviour:

Transverse variation in the level of the neutral axis.

Transverse and longitudinal in-plane forces

Distortion of beam members

Torsional and distortional warping effects

Local bending effects

The ends of skew decks cannot be modelled exactly

In addition the following effects are commonly neglected in the analysis of typical bridges:

Non-linear response of beams and deck slabs

Effects of construction sequence

2.2 3D beam models (downstand grillage)

A downstand grillage consists of beam elements located in space at the centroids of the

members they represent, and connected with rigid links (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Downstand grillage model detail

2.3 Plate models with downstand beams

This is similar to a downstand grillage, but with the transverse beam elements (representing

the deck slab) replaced with plate elements.

2.4 Brick models

In a brick model all components of the deck are modelled with 3D brick elements (Figure 2),

allowing all aspects of the deck geometry to be accurately modelled (with a sufficiently

detailed mesh).

The aspects of bridge deck behaviour that can be modelled with these different types of

analysis are summarised in Table 1:

Downstand

Grillage

Plates with

Downstand beams

3D Brick

models

Transverse variation in the

level of the neutral axis.

= = =

Transverse and longitudinal

in-plane forces

= = =

Distortion of beam members H H =

Torsional and distortional

warping effects

H H =

Local bending effects H = =

Model skew decks exactly H H =

Table 1: Features of bridge deck models

Figure 2: Deck brick model showing live load position

3.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSES

3.1 Bridge Deck Description

For the purposes of a comparison a simply supported single span beam and slab bridge deck

was analysed under a uniformly distributed load and one lane of M1600 loading. The bridge

consisted of 5 Type 4 Super T beams of 30 metres length, giving a deck width of 12.5 metres.

The in-situ concrete deck was 160 mm thick with 800 x 250 mm parapet upstands, which

were assumed to be composite with the deck. The beams were supported on single bearings,

and were longitudinally fixed at one end and sliding at the other.

All the analyses were carried out using the general purpose finite element analysis package

Strand7. A perspective view of the deck modelled with brick elements, and live load location,

is shown in Figure 2.

3.2 Beam section properties

Four models consisting of single simply supported beams with associated transverse slab

members, restrained against torsion, were analysed to verify that the section properties gave

consistent results:

1) Plane grillage

2) Downstand grillage

3) Downstand beam with transverse beams replaced with plate elements

4) Beam and slab modelled with 20 node brick elements

The members in the grillage models (1 and 2) were modelled in accordance with Hambleys

recommendations (1):

Longitudinal members were given the section properties of the composite precast and in-

situ section.

Transverse members were given a torsional stiffness equal to one half of the theoretical

stiffness of a wide slab.

The properties of the members between beam webs were based on the transverse

properties of the composite beam and slab.

For the downstand grillage (2), rigid links were used to connect transverse and longitudinal

members, which were placed at the level of their respective centroids.

For Model 3, using transverse plate elements, these elements contributed to the resistance to

longitudinal bending. The longitudinal beam was therefore given the bending properties of

the precast element only, and was connected to the plate elements with rigid links. The

torsional stiffness of the longitudinal members was adjusted so that the total stiffness was

equal to that of the composite box member in the actual structure. The properties used in the

four models are shown in Table 2.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Longitudinal beams:

A 1.02E+00 1.02E+00 5.10E-01

IXX 3.48E-01 3.48E-01 1.09E-01

IYY NA 3.47E-01 5.27E-02

J 1.74E-01 1.74E-01 1.74E-01

Shear Area 8.01E-01 8.01E-01 2.61E-01

External Transverse Members

Depth 0.235 0.235 0.235

Width 0.75 0.75 0.75

A 1.76E-01 1.76E-01

IXX 8.11E-04 8.11E-04

IYY NA 8.26E-03

J 5.24E-03 5.24E-03

Shear Area 1.47E-01 1.47E-01

Internal Transverse Members

Depth 0.16 0.16 0.16

Width 0.75 0.75 0.75

A 0.12 0.12

IXX 0.16 0.16

IYY NA 5.63E-03

J 0.32 0.32

Shear Area 2.29E-03 2.29E-03

Table 2: Beam section properties

Section properties for Model 4 brick elements and Model 3 plate elements are determined by

the member dimensions.

The following loads were applied to check the behaviour of the beam elements under vertical

loads, torsional loads, and combined vertical and torsion loads:

1) Uniform distributed load (applied as member self weights)

2) Uniform torsional load, applied as equal and opposite vertical loads applied to the ends of

the transverse members

3) Uniform torsional plus vertical load, applied as vertical loads applied to one end of the

transverse members.

The bending stiffness of the beams was set to give close agreement for deflection under

uniform load. Deflections along one edge of the top slab for the torsional load cases are

shown in Figure 3, and deflections across the top slab at mid-span are shown in Figure 4. It

can be seen that the results for combined torsion and vertical load were in good agreement for

all models. Under pure torsion load the grillage models gave a greater edge deflection at mid-

span than the brick model, but the difference in deflection between support and mid span was

similar. The difference in behaviour is because the transverse members in the grillage

analysis do not directly interact. The plate slab model was significantly less stiff torsionally

than the other models, because the high transverse bending stiffness of the longitudinal beams

was not modelled in this analysis.

Figure 3: Beam deflections under torsional loads

Figure 4: Beam mid-span deflections under torsional loads

3.3 Deck Models

One lane of M1600 loading was applied to an outer lane, using the following models:

1a: Plane grillage, wheel loads distributed to longitudinal members

1b: Plane grillage, wheel loads distributed to nodes at the ends of transverse members

Edge Deflection, torsion

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Position, m

D

e

f

l

e

c

t

i

o

n

,

m

m

Beam Downstand Beam Plate Slab Brick

Edge Deflection, torsion + vertical load

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Position, m

D

e

f

l

e

c

t

i

o

n

,

m

m

Beam Downstand Beam Plate Slab Brick

Mid-span Deflection, torsion

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Position, m

D

e

f

l

e

c

t

i

o

n

,

m

m

Beam Downstand Beam Plate Slab Brick

Mid-span Deflection, torsion + vertical load

-26

-25

-24

-23

-22

-21

-20

-19

-18

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Position, m

D

e

f

l

e

c

t

i

o

n

,

m

m

Beam Downstand Beam Plate Slab Brick

1c: Plane grillage, wheel loads applied to transverse members

2: Downstand grillage

3: Downstand beam with plate elements

4: Brick elements

In models 2 to 4 the wheel loads were distributed to the nearest nodes, as for model 1b.

Deflections and stresses at mid span are plotted across the width of the deck in Figures 5 to 8.

3.4 Deflections

Deck deflections at mid-span under M1600 loading are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen

that:

Application of the wheel loads to the longitudinal grillage members (Grillage 1a) gave a

significantly different deflected shape to the other grillage models.

Distribution of the wheel loads to transverse beam nodes (Grillage 1b) gave almost

identical deflections to application of the loads to the transverse members (Grillage 1c)

The downstand grillage (Grillage 2) and the plate slab models gave a greater distribution

of the load, with reduced deflection under the load and slightly greater deflections at the

unloaded beams.

The brick model gave the greatest distribution of the load, with maximum deflections

being reduced by about 15%

Figure 5: Mid-span deflections of decks

Deflections at mid-span

-12

-11

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Position, m

D

e

f

l

e

c

t

i

o

n

,

m

m

Grillage 1a Grillage 1b Grillage 1c Grillage 2 Plate slab Brick

Figure 6: Maximum Bending Moments

Figure 7: Maximum Top Face Stress

Figure 8: Maximum Bottom Face Stress

Maximum Bending Moments

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Position, m

B

e

n

d

i

n

g

M

o

m

e

n

t

,

k

N

m

Grillage 1a Grillage 1b Grillage 1c Grillage 2 Plate slab Brick Model

Maximum Top Face Stress

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Position, m

S

t

r

e

s

s

,

k

P

a

Grillage 1a Grillage 1b Grillage 1c Grillage 2 Plate slab Brick model

Maximum Bottom Face Stress

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Position, m

S

t

r

e

s

s

,

k

P

a

Grillage 1a Grillage 1b Grillage 1c Grillage 2 Plate Slab Brick Model

3.5 Bending Moments and Stresses

Maximum bending moments, top face stresses, and bottom face stresses are shown in Figures

6, 7 and 8 respectively. The results follow a similar trend to the mid-span deflections:

The three plane grillage runs all gave similar results for maximum stress and bending

moment.

The downstand grillage and plate slab models gave slightly lower bending moments and

stresses.

The brick model gave lower bending moments for internal beams, with the external beams

attracting higher bending moments.

Because of the composite action of the parapet upstand, and the resulting higher neutral

axis, the brick model attracted higher bending moments to the stiff edge beams, but gave

significantly lower stresses in all the loaded beams, with the maximum stress in the

bottom face being reduced by about 15%.

3.6 Transverse slab bending moments

Maximum transverse moments in the top slab are shown in Table 3. In the grillage analyses

the maximum sagging moments were found to increase only slightly when the wheel loads

were applied to the transverse members, indicating that the global effects dominated the

behaviour. The grillage models and the plate model gave very similar results, with the brick

model giving slightly lower moments.

For the hogging moments all the grillage models gave substantially higher moments than the

plate or brick models. The reasons for the high hogging moments in the grillage models

were:

The grillage models did not model the support from the twin webs of the longitudinal

beams, but rather modelled the beams as line supports, with short stiff transverse

members.

The plate and brick models include the longitudinal distribution of wheel loads through

the slab, whereas the grillage models transfer the wheel loads directly to longitudinal

beams.

Maximum Transverse Moment Model

Positive Negative

Grillage 1a 25.6 -21.6

Grillage 1b 29.1 -35.2

Grillage 1c 29.6 -35.7

Grillage 2 30.0 -34.5

Plate Slab 30.8 -10.8

Brick 27.5 -11.3

Table 3: Maximum transverse moments

3.7 Torsional Stiffness and Cracking

The analyses presented in this paper used the torsional stiffness of the uncracked concrete

section, since the maximum torsional moments were well below the cracking torque of the

pre-stressed beams. In practice some bridge decks will have much higher torsional moments,

and the torsional stiffness of beams may reduce to as little as one-tenth of the uncracked

value, Warner et al(4). It is therefore important that the effect of torsional stiffness on load

distribution should be considered, and that the torsional stiffness of members should be

reduced in accordance with the Australian Bridge Design Code (3) requirements where

appropriate.

3.8 Data preparation, execution time and post-processing

Grillage models may be prepared automatically for standard bridge types very quickly.

Preparation of brick models will take longer, but with the use of standard elements it will not

require a significant increase in the overall design process.

Analysis time for the linear analysis with two load cases considered in this study was 1 or 2

seconds for the grillage models, about 10 seconds for the plate model, and about 2 minutes for

the brick model. Use of brick elements is therefore perfectly feasible as far as computing time

is concerned, particularly for final design purposes, where the total number of load cases may

be reduced with preliminary analysis using simpler models. Non-linear analysis of the brick

model would require substantially greater computing time, but this would be quite feasible,

particularly for checking specific load cases.

Member actions are output directly from the analyses using beam and plate elements.

Extraction of member actions from brick element results requires considerably greater effort,

nonetheless with the use of appropriate software the process may be automated, so that it may

be carried out without a large increase in engineering time.

4.0 ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY EFFECTS

Three dimensional computer models (i.e. the downstand beam and brick models) allow

secondary effects to be modelled directly in the bridge deck model, allowing these effects to

be combined and enveloped with the primary load effects. This provides a considerable

saving in time and effort, and reduces the risk of error. Effects that may be treated in this way

include:

Longitudinal differential shrinkage; a longitudinal strain may be applied to the top slab

members.

Transverse differential shrinkage; effects due to wide decks being cast in stages, or

due to parapet or cantilever shrinkage, may be easily modelled.

Differential creep; the variation in elastic modulus may be modelled over time,

allowing creep effects to be accurately analysed, and the effect of prestress losses

automatically included.

Differential temperature; differential temperatures may be applied directly to plate and

brick members, allowing the distribution of temperature effects through the deck to be

easily analysed.

Secondary prestress moments; in continuous structures secondary prestress moments

will be automatically included in the analysis, as will secondary moments due to

differential strain effects and prestress losses.

5.0 NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS

5.1 Transverse Distribution

The transverse distribution of vehicle loads may be significantly affected at the ultimate limit

state by the reduction in stiffness of cracked reinforced concrete members. This aspect of

behaviour is most easily investigated using a grillage model, where the moment-curvature

behaviour of the beam members may be specified, allowing a non-linear analysis to be carried

out easily and quickly. Plate members also allow non-linear bending behaviour to be

captured comparatively easily, but the complexity of models using brick elements would need

to be increased considerably to model the non-linear behaviour adequately.

5.2 Membrane Action

Membrane arching action is known to significantly reduce bending moments and

reinforcement stresses in bridge decks, but this effect is usually ignored, due to the difficulty

in modelling the behaviour reliably. It is necessary to model three dimensional effects, and

also the different behaviour of reinforced concrete in compression and tension. It is feasible

to carry out this analysis using non-linear brick elements to model the deck slab, but as noted

above, a substantial increase in the complexity of the model is required to model the non-

linear bending behaviour adequately.

6.0 ADVANCED ANALYSIS IN PRACTICE

The potential advantages of replacing grillage analysis with finite element plate or brick

models may be summarised as follows:

Better modelling of the transverse distribution of live loads may significantly reduce

maximum design stresses in longitudinal members.

Distribution of wheel loads is more accurately modelled and combined with global

effects, resulting in a more accurate estimate top slab bending moments, without the need

for introducing separate local analyses.

Secondary effects such as differential temperature and shrinkage may be combined and

enveloped with live load effects using the same model.

Features such as the ends of skew decks and link slabs between simply supported decks

may be modelled more exactly, including three dimensional effects.

The disadvantages of the use of the finite element method for bridge deck analysis listed by

Hambly have largely been removed with the availability of powerful desk top computers and

sophisticated finite element packages:

Finite element models may now be produced and analysed using standard computing

equipment in a shorter time than a grillage analysis would have taken in the recent past.

The accuracy of complex models may be checked against grillage analysis, or individual

elements may be checked against simple analysis methods.

Three dimensional contour plots of stresses or plots of the deformed shape of structures

are easily produced, allowing engineers not directly involved in the analysis to review the

results, and check the validity of the model.

Remaining drawbacks to the use of finite element analysis, particularly using brick elements,

are:

It is more difficult to extract member actions, particularly for large elements such as

bridge beams.

The design engineer must be trained in the use of complex software to use it efficiently.

The verification process may be more difficult, particularly if detailed analysis has

resulted in lower design actions than a simpler analysis.

In order to take advantage of the benefits of advanced analysis techniques, without

unnecessary complication of the design process, the following recommendations are made:

Use of a plate slab model with longitudinal beam members is recommended as a standard

analysis procedure.

Pre and post-processor software, specifically designed for bridge decks, can greatly reduce

analysis and design time, and allow the efficient use of general purpose analysis software.

Brick models may be used to further refine the design, or to investigate the behaviour of

non-standard features.

Non-linear analysis and consideration of slab membrane action provides the potential for

significant refinement of deck slab design.

REFERENCES

1 HAMBLY, E.C. Bridge Deck Behaviour, CHAPMAN & HALL, 1976

2 Australian Bridge Design code, AUSTROADS, 1992

3 DR 00375, Draft Australian Standard for comment, Bridge Design Part 2: Design

Loads, STANDARDS AUSTRALIA, 2000

4 WARNER, R.F. Concrete Structures, LONGMAN, 1998

- Design of RC Beams With OpeningsTransféré parVatsal Gokani
- 00Complete civil TechTransféré parpuppyviki
- Aircraft Structures II Laboratory Manual with model calculations and graphsTransféré parTAMILSELVAM NALLUSAMY
- Kupdf.com Ce Reviewer DesignTransféré pareleonor
- IS-800-2007 Example 002Transféré parthanzawtun1981
- Connection DesignTransféré parAtta Muhammad
- EN 3-2005 Example 002Transféré parAnitha Hassan Kabeer
- 1Transféré parMohamed Ahmed Esmat Alqadi
- Applied MechanicsTransféré parAmit Pathania
- Duy Nguyen - A Brief Study of Using Membrane Sheel Plate in Assigning a Slab or Wall P and T Consultants Pte LtdTransféré parxuanquilieu
- beam column connectionTransféré parAnonymous mcHqIfbnV1
- SOM LectureTransféré parVishal Tiwarae
- gate-ce-2009 (1)Transféré parapi-279049687
- Team1CTransféré parjosephine-ng
- Handout 10Transféré parbino
- FEM Report FinalTransféré parOmarChehimi
- Analysis of Open in 00 Mal hTransféré parAlexandreSidant
- Worked Example 1 – Composite Beam – Normal DesignTransféré parTudor Tudor
- 58298000 Timber DesignTransféré parikennethseemarfx
- dss important civilTransféré parPrateekAggarwal
- ME LAB 3Transféré parcedric iradukunda
- 07 B Aqueduct DesignTransféré parniranjan
- Dynamic StiffnessTransféré parArshadahc
- bahanTransféré parAnep Buntal
- BendingTransféré parVimal Kek
- Design of Timber BeamTransféré parDipesh
- hw04.docxTransféré parRicky Gunawan
- L5 Formula SheetTransféré pardaveasquith
- Deflexion de VigasTransféré parlayiro2
- CON4335 Structural Analysis B PASTPAPER 2017ENGTY008Transféré parTrevor Ling

- WoodwardTransféré parTamara Knox
- Twodof Base Disp Modal RevATransféré parTamara Knox
- Modal Analysis SpreadsheetTransféré partanha56313955
- Iast.lect19Transféré parSachin Silmana
- Traffic Load Modeling Based on Structural Health Monitoring DataTransféré parTamara Knox
- SITE SPECIFIC WAVE PARAMETERS FOR TEXAS COASTAL BRIDGES: FINAL REPORTTransféré parTamara Knox
- Laplace.pdfTransféré parTamara Knox
- [Mantz Yorke] Grading Student Achievement in Higher EducationTransféré parTamara Knox
- Nodal ForcesTransféré partimsyki
- longitudinalTransféré parTamara Knox
- Design Rating Rail Bridge Majedski 00006Transféré parrkgcrri
- Extreme Value TheoryTransféré parTamara Knox
- ASCE LaTex User Guide 5.24.2016Transféré parTamara Knox
- Civ l 436 Virtual WorkTransféré parTamara Knox
- pvw-intro.pdfTransféré parTamara Knox
- virt-wrkTransféré parJason Mak
- Civ l 436 Notes on BeamsTransféré parTamara Knox
- Examples Paper 4 SOLUTIONSTransféré parTamara Knox
- Examples Paper 4Transféré parTamara Knox
- Sem.org IMAC XIII 13th 13-21-5 the Effects Window Functions Trigger Levels FRF Estimations FromTransféré parTamara Knox
- Condeck HP Composite Decking Product Technical ManualTransféré parTamara Knox
- Column SizingTransféré parTamara Knox
- 1031_Slice Forces and Moments in SolidsTransféré parTamara Knox
- Project III Notes 1011Transféré parTamara Knox
- Instructors Solutions ManualTransféré parTamara Knox
- Shakedown algorithm.pdfTransféré parTamara Knox
- The New Dublin Port Master PlanTransféré parTamara Knox

- PRINT 2Transféré parAww Summ
- BS-2654- Design of Oil Storage TankTransféré parSapan Shah
- 5491R_93Transféré parRene Coronado Vacaflor
- REPORT ChhangunarayanTransféré parSandip Budhathoki
- Power Poles Brochure - Technical InfoTransféré pararshad262
- IJEIT1412201311_56Transféré parqwerty qwerty
- ACI 2009 Manual of Concrete PracticeTransféré parAgnes Digal
- Prestressed-Concrete-LECTURE-1.pdfTransféré parRenz Olex M. Canlas
- BQ for Jawi HallTransféré parRaxKit
- Retrofitting 3rdTransféré pararunachelam
- Strength Design of Anchorage to ConcreteTransféré parcargadory2k
- Old Rebar EDR 48Transféré parkip2001
- The Arup Journal Issue 7 1967Transféré parjuanjosefontana
- A Study on Removal of Water-Soluble Chloride From Incinerator Bottom AshTransféré parDvd CH
- 20320140502006-2Transféré parIAEME Publication
- Permissible Stress Amendment No 2Transféré parstorm7576
- Effects of Stiffness Degradation on DuctilityTransféré parsalman
- Detailing Concrete WorkTransféré parLukman Hakim
- 31. the Optimum Location of Outrigger in Reducing the Along-wind and Across-wind Responses of Tall BuildingsTransféré parBriando
- Some chacarteristics of high strength fiber reinforced lightweight aggregate concreteTransféré parJenny Magaly Pira Ruíz
- CE6506 CTEP I UNITTransféré parPonramar
- is.9893.1981Transféré parharish babu aluru
- 170402 Section 034900 Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete [EI 2017-04-02]Transféré parNagarjuna Muthineni
- 6.Exemple de Reguli de Alcatuire(Bibl. H.bachmann)Transféré parPetre Mihalache
- 5 Stages to Promote IBS in MalaysiaTransféré parsyakiroh
- NEW OMAN SEISMIC DESIGN CODE.pdfTransféré partangouze
- Use of Ferrocrete Technology in Nuclear ShelterTransféré parkhairnar_y87
- Long Span StructureTransféré parMicron Macron
- structural analysis8Transféré parGrantHerman
- National Workshop on Is_456-2000Transféré parThomas Martin

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.