Conference paper

© All Rights Reserved

1 vues

Conference paper

© All Rights Reserved

- seismic response of circular tunnels
- PARDO 2014 - Biaxial Capacity of Rigid Footings
- 2512 the Aseismic Design and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of a 350m High Braced Steel Frame
- ATC 58 50percentDraft
- Analysis of structure by ETABS- Report
- Paper on Seismic Analysis
- PBD Steel Conference
- Diaz Gomez Lucia v 201411 MAS Thesis
- 3Muri Brief Theory
- A Discussion on the Linear Scaling of Accelerograms
- PaperCI56
- 109CE0463jrtjiorgt
- 1997 UBC vs 2006 IBC Concrete Anchor Design
- Altair Presentation
- Web Peer9103 Yang Etal
- Tech III - Report CBM
- Loading Protocol WCEE2012 2429
- Design Guide 24 Revisions Errata List
- Tank Overturning Due to Wind (Autosaved)
- 19_chapter 14.pdf

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

1

Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., NIT Agartala, Tripura (w) 799055

2

Assistant Professor, School of Infrastructure, IIT Bhubaneswar, Odisha 750013

1*

and environmental friendly structure with minimum material use. Piled-raft

foundations are commonly used to support heavy structures in soft soil. Traditionally,

seismic design of such structure is carried out considering fixity at base level in a soilpile raft-structure system while pile head is considered to be fixed for design of pile.

Major drawback of this fixed base assumption is that it cannot capture soil structure

interaction (SSI) effect. Incorporation of SSI may result in increased or decreased

transmitted shear to the pile and column as compared to fixed base shear which may

lead to unsafe or over-safe pile design. Since natural soil properties vary at different

points within geologically distinct layers. As a result, transmitted shear to the pile and

column depends on in-situ variability of design soil parameters, thus leads to

transformation of the whole problem to reliability based SSI design problem. Thus,

precise estimation of safety margin is needed for rational and sustainable design of

pile. Hence, a probabilistic analysis incorporating SSI is performed in present study to

develop insight into the problem for refining the existing design guidelines.

1.

INTRODUCTION

complex as the mechanism of transfer of lateral loads to the subsurface strata is

essentially dependent on the attributes of sub-soil and pile, which is typically a soil

structure interaction (SSI) problem. Soil-pile foundation-structure interaction is an

important consideration in evaluating the seismic response of structures supported on

pile foundation. Failure of pile foundation supported structure in various seismic

events [e.g. Mexico City (1985), Loma Prieta (1989), Kobe earthquake (1995)]

indicated the importance of SSI in seismic design, while, a conventional perception of

non-consideration of SSI already exists as suggested by codal guidelines (ATC (3)

1978, NIST 2012, NEHRP 1997) due to its beneficial attributes. Several studies

indicated the design implication of SSI on pile foundation considering both kinematic

and inertial interaction (e.g. Gazetas 1984, Rovithis et al. 2009, Tokimatsu et al.

2005). In fact, most of the studies in this direction have mainly focused on intricacy

of dynamic SSI modeling and method of analysis. However, a limited effort has been

Page 1

considering such whole system interaction which may crucial from design point of

view.

A recent study (Saha et al. 2013) has primarily attempted to examine the

influence of SSI with deterministic choice of soil parameters on distribution of

seismic design forces at different elements of a soil-pile raft-structure system. This

study clearly indicates that relative acceleration of heavy raft and upper part of the

pile with respect to the neighboring soil attracts extra lateral force which may lead to

considerable increase in pile head shear. But in reality, in-situ properties of soil in a

distinct geological layer are highly uncertain (Phoon and Kulhway 1999). Such

properties may vary along depth, horizontal directions, and with time. It is reported

that variability of in-situ properties of soil may lead to uncertainty in response of the

system which may invite a variability of safety margin given for evaluating design

forces (Phoon and Kulhway 1999). Hence, the reliability based design is important in

order to predict the safety margin for column and pile foundation. However, few

studies have addressed probabilistic seismic design of pile with emphasis on different

reliability techniques (e.g., Tandjiria et al., 2000, Pula and Rozanski, 2012). Haldar

and Babu (2008) presented the effect of in-situ variability on seismic design of pile

considering pseudo-static analysis. In this context, present study is an attempt to

incorporate the uncertainty of in-situ soil properties associated with this soil-pile raftstructure interaction problem using dynamic analysis in probabilistic domain which

may give a rational prediction of response of the system. In this study, stiffness of soil

is considered as the random variable exhibiting a standard range of coefficient of

variation (COV) with respect to an assumed mean value. Monte Carlo simulation

(MCS) technique is used to obtain the probabilistic response of system. This limited

study may give a valuable input in order to examine conventional seismic design

approach for heavy piled raft supported structural system which may useful for

sustainable design for such structure.

2.

2.1

Superstructure modeling

Single storey structure is idealized by a lumped mass stick model having single

degree of freedom (SDOF) is used in a simplistic manner to represent the three

dimensional space frame superstructure supported by piled raft foundation and fixed

base condition. Column of the stick model is modelled by using elastic beam column

element. Two periods, namely, 0.4 sec and 2.0 sec for typical short and long period

structure are considered in the analysis by adjusting the lumped mass and lateral

stiffness of the column of the stick model.

2.2

Raft-soil modeling

Raft is modeled as a four noded shell element, each having six degrees of freedom

and discretized into (40 40) small elements on the basis of a convergence study.

Page 2

Total mass of the raft is calculated and assigned as a distributed mass to all nodes.

Soil beneath the raft is idealized as an equivalent linear elastic springs (Winkler soil

idealization) connected with each node of raft in all translational degrees of freedom.

Stiffness of distributed lateral springs in two mutually perpendicular horizontal

directions (lateral (Kx1) and longitudinal (Kx2)) are assigned following Dutta et al.

(2009) as presented below,

K x1 = K xG1 n 2

(1a)

K x 2 = K xG 2 n 2

(1b)

Ky =

(n

5 .4

2

+2

GL R

(2)

(1 )

where n is number of elements, G is the shear modulus of soil, LR is the length of raft

and is the Poissons ratio of soil. The shear modulus of soil (in t/ft2) is computed

using the relationship given by Ohsaki and Iwasaki (1973) as presented below.

G = 120N0.8

(3)

where N is the SPT value of soil. Stiffness of all springs connected to the

intermediate nodes of the raft assumed to be same. However, at the corner and

peripheral nodes, spring stiffness one-fourth or half of the stiffness of the springs at

intermediate depending on their influence area. The expressions for K xG1 and K xG 2 are

presented in Table 1 (Dutta et al. 2009). A piled raft having plan area of 10m 10m

is taken into consideration for the present study. The thickness of raft is calculated as

0.9m considering relative stiffness of raft (krs) as moderately rigid having krs = 1.0.

Table 1. Stiffness of equivalent springs along various degree of freedom

Degrees of freedom

Horizontal (KxG1)

[2GL /(2 )](2 + 2.54 0.85 )

(lateral direction)

Horizontal (KxG2)

[2GL /(1 )](0.73 + 1.54 0.75 ) [0.2 /(0.75 )]GL[1 ( B / L)]

(longitudinal direction)

where = Ab / 4 L2 , Ab is the area of the foundation considered; B and L are half width and half

length of a rectangular foundation, respectively; G is shear modulus of soil and is the Poissons ratio

of soil.

2.3

Pile-Soil modelling

each node which is further meshed into 20 divisions in vertical direction. Beams on

Winkler foundation (BWF) modelling approach is followed to model the pile-soil

action under horizontally applied dynamic loading. Soil springs are assumed to be

linear and lateral stiffness of such discrete horizontal springs is calculated following

Makris and Gazetas (1992) as given below,

k x = 1.2Es

(4)

Page 3

where kx and Es are lateral spring stiffness exerted by projected contact area of soil

and Youngs modulus of soil respectively. The variation of Es is considered uniform

throughout the depth in the present study. Stiffness of vertical springs connected to

pile nodes except the end node is calculated from shaft frictional resistance of soil and

pile, while, stiffness of vertical spring connected to tip of pile is calculated from

bearing capacity of pile. The stiffness of vertical spring is calculated by:

(5)

K vertical = cu d

and the stiffness of vertical spring connected to the pile tip node which takes care of

the end bearing action of the pile can be given by:

(6)

K endbearing = N c c u d

where = adhesion factor of soil, cu = cohesion adjacent to the pile tip and average

cohesion near the pile surface which is used to calculate the vertical spring stiffness of

pile, d=diameter of pile, Nc = bearing capacity factor. Finite element modelling of the

whole system, i.e., soil-pile raft-structure system is presented in FIG.1. Further,

details of pile and soil characteristics assumed for deterministic SSI analysis is

presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Pile and Soil data for the deterministic analysis

Pile data

Value

Pile length, L (m)

Youngs modulus of pile, Ep (KN/m2)

Poissons ratio of concrete

Section modulus, Z (m3)

Flexural strength of pile, Fy (KN/m2)

Flexural moment of pile section, My (KN m)

0.3

18

21.78 106

0.17

0.0045

3050

13.725

Soil data

Soil consistency

Undrained cohesion, cu (KN/m2)

SPT N value

sat (KN/m3)

Youngs modulus, Es (KN/m2)

Poissons ratio

2.3

9.80,14.50, 35.00

1, 3, 6

13.50,17.00,18.50

2500, 5000,15000

0.4

Ground Motion

of soil-pile raft-structure system is applied to the support of the structure in both

deterministic and probabilistic SSI analysis. Amplitude of motion is assumed as

0.02g. In case of fixed base systems, frequency of input motions is considered as

fundamental natural frequency of fixed base system. In fact, the fundamental natural

frequency of the considered structural system is selected as frequency of input motion

in present study in order to simulate the resonating response of the system. Since, past

case studies related to failure of pile supported structure in soft soil during past

earthquakes indicated the detrimental effect of SSI highlighting resonating condition.

Page 4

Hence, present study considered a sinusoidal motion in a simplistic way in order to

obtain maximum response of the system considering such exceptional condition

which may occur during an earthquake vibration. The response parameters are

presented in normalized form to understand the effect of soil variability along with

effect of SSI.

2.4

Damping

Roy and Dutta (2010) reported that consideration of 5% of critical damping in each

mode of combined structure-foundation and soil system overestimates the response of

system marginally. Further, it has been also suggested that consideration of 5% of

material damping of soil medium could be a realistic assumption for understanding

the behavior of pile-foundation system (Velez et al., 1984). Therefore, 5% critical

damping in each mode is considered for the present study regardless of structural

support condition.

3.

properties along with depth. The property variations of in-situ soil are considered by

mean value, coefficient of variation (COV) which influences the likely parameters for

design. Youngs modulus (Es) and undrained cohesion (cu) are considered as random

variables and assumed to follow lognormal distribution represented by parameter

mean Es or cu and (COV)Es and (COV)cu . Use of lognormal distribution is

Page 5

appropriate as the soil properties are non-negative and the distribution has a simple

relationship with normal distribution as suggested by Haldar and Babu (2008). The

values of COVs equal to 20%, 30% and 50% are considered for both Es and cu in the

present study. The range of values is selected based on the typical range for COVs of

shear strength (10%-50%) as suggested by Phoon and Kulhway (1999). However, the

soil parameters used in deterministic analysis is considered as same as the mean

value. The in-situ variability of soil is incorporated in the analysis using random

variations of stiffness of soil (Es) and undrained cohesion (cu), which are subsequently

used for estimation soil spring stiffnesses attached to pile and raft . Finally, MCS is

performed to generate sample realisations for soil stiffness considering a particular

COV and for each set of soil spring stiffness. Dynamic analysis is carried out in time

domain using finite element model considering soil and pile as elastic. Dynamic

characteristics and responses of the system are obtained for three different conditions:

(a) under fixed base condition which is considered as deterministic analysis, (b)

response from deterministic SSI analysis and (c) mean of the response obtained from

probabilistic analysis using MCS. Based on the responses, effect of in-situ variability

of soil properties on seismic response of a soil-pile raft-structure system is examined.

4.

PARAMETRIC CASES

embedded in various consistencies of clay deposit is attempted. Pile spacing (S) to

diameter (d) ratio (S/d) is kept constant to be 3 for L/d = 60. A detailed scheme for all

case studies is summarized in Table 3. For all the cases, dynamic analysis for

deterministic SSI and fixed base condition of the structure is performed to obtain the

response.

Table 3: Details of case studies

Subsoil Condition

Ep/Es

Very soft

10,000

Soft

5,000

Moderate stiff

1500

5.

Tfixed (sec)

Raft thickness

(krs= 1.0)

0.40

0.9

Pile

group designed

(m m)

33

L/d

60

10 10

60

2.0

1.1

77

60

2.0

1.6

45

60

2.0

A convergence study is performed to select the number of sample realizations for

MCS analysis. Mean value of fundamental period of the structure incorporating SSI

( Tssi ) in sec is obtained from MCS for different number of trials considering COV =

20%. Structure having fixed base period of 0.40 sec embedded in very soft clay with

Ep/Es = 10000 is considered to evaluate the sample size. It is found that the variation

of results is marginal beyond 200 samples. Hence, 200 number of sample sizes is

adopted in the present study for carrying out the MCS analysis.

Page 6

Results for fundamental period of structure incorporating SSI (Tssi) in sec, shear force

at pile (VB,pile)ssi, is presented using histogram and which is superimposed with known

probability density functions as shown in FIG. 3. Best fit distribution curve is

obtained on the basis of standard error of the mean ( ) and standard deviation ( )

for the data set of given response parameter. It is observe that normal distribution is

found to be a best fit for Tssi with a value of and of 0.00433392 and 0.0030761

respectively. The COV for output Tssi parameter is found to be in order of 7.2% in

contrast to input COV of 20%. Similarly, shear force at pile head follows the

lognormal distribution.

(b)

(a)

Tssi (sec)

(VB,pile)ssi

FIG. 3. Histogram of response parameters (a) Tssi in sec (b) (VB,pile)ssi ,(c) (M,pile)ssi

and (d) ( ,pile)ssi along with distribution fitting for structure having Tfixed = 0.40

sec in very soft soil, pile group of 3 3, S/d = 3, L/d = 60 with COV(%) = 20.

5.3 Effect of in-situ variability of soil on fundamental period of structure

The effect of in-situ variability of soil is studied on fundamental period of structure

for different Ep/Es ratios representing very soft, soft and moderately stiff soil. A

SDOF structure with Tfixed = 2.0 sec is selected to observe the effect of in-situ

variations of soil stiffness for the selected Ep/Es ratios. FIG. 4 presents the normalized

period of structure attributing SSI and fixed-base condition as a function of different

COV(%). Two normalized periods, i.e., (Tfixed/Tssi) and (Tssi(mean)/Tssi) are representing

deterministic and probabilistic response parameter which are presented in order to

assess the effect of variability of soil stiffness. Lateral period of structure

incorporating SSI is calculated considering two different conditions, such as (a) mean

of Tssi obtained from MCS (Tssi(mean)), and (b) Tssi for deterministic soil stiffness. It is

observed that the deterministic values of normalized period (i.e. Tfixed/Tssi) exhibits

marginal variation for change in Ep/Es ratio of 10,000, 5,000 and 1500 respectively.

On the other hand, a significant increase in lengthening of period for different Ep/Es

ratio is observed while considering the variability of soil stiffness which is presented

in terms of Tssi(mean)/Tssi . For instance, in case of Ep/Es=10,000 (i.e. very soft clay), the

value of Tssi(mean)/Tssi attains a maximum value of around 1.2 for COV of 20% which

Page 7

is around 20% higher than the deterministic prediction. However, this increase

remains unchanged for COV of 30% and 50%, respectively which indicates that the

effect of increase in level of uncertainty on response is marginal. However, the effect

of soil stiffness variability is also evidenced for other two Ep/Es ratios i.e., 5000 and

1500. The results indicates that variability in soil stiffness has a considerable effect on

predicting dynamic characteristics of the system which may cause an underestimation

or overestimation of forces in structures supported on piled raft foundation as

compare to deterministic SSI condition. In fact, such effect is found to vary with

variation of Ep/Es ratios. It is observed that in case of higher Ep/Es ratio, the

lengthening of period incorporating SSI may be high, while for lower Ep/Es ratio

indicating moderately stiff soil, such effect is subdued.

1.25

Ep /Es = 10000

1.2

1.15

Ep/Es = 5000

1.1

1.05

Ep/Es = 1500

Tfixed / Tssi

0.95

20

30

40

50

COV(%)

FIG. 4. Variation of normalized period for structure having Tfixed =2.0 sec with

respect to different values of COV(%) of stiffness of soil and Ep/Es ratio of pile.

5.4 Effect of in-situ variability of soil on base shear

The effect of in-situ variability of soil stiffness on shear force at column and pile is

examined by plotting two subsets of graphs presented in FIG. 5 highlighting

normalized shear at column and pile for different Ep/Es ratios as a function of COV

(%) of stiffness of soil. Deterministic and probabilistic results on normalized shear

force at column and pile are presented in similar manner as discussed in previous

section. It is observed from FIG. 5(a) and (b) that the influence of SSI considering

deterministic analysis on column shear is marginal, while, such influence is found to

be significant in case of shear force transferred to pile head. For instance, the value of

normalized shear at column [(VB,col)ssi/(VB)fixed] in FIG. 5(a) is observe to be 1 and the

value of normalized shear at pile head [(VB,pile)ssi/(VB)fixed] in FIG. 5(b) is found to be

nearly 2.4 irrespective of Ep/Es ratio. On the other hand, the probabilistic normalized

shear at column [(VB,col)ssi(mean)/ (VB)fixed] and pile head [(VB,pile)ssi(mean)/ (VB)fixed] with

respect to different COV (%) presented in FIG. 5(a) and (b) exhibits a different

picture. It is observed that shear force at column may be increased due to

incorporation of in-situ soil variability effect and may go upto within a range of 2.8 to

4.0 times depending on Ep/Es ratio of pile group as compared to what is obtained

Page 8

under fixed base condition. However, the effect of in-situ variability of soil may

significantly reduce the shear force transferred to pile head as compared to fixed base

condition which indicates that incorporation of deterministic SSI parameter may

overestimate the response. It is observed from FIG. 5(a) and (b) that incorporation of

SSI with a deterministic analysis may not give correct prediction of response in

column and pile member during seismic event. Moreover, it is also observed that the

effect of soil in-situ variability considerably varies with Ep/Es ratio of pile.

a)

b)

0.5

Ep/Es = 1500

Ep /Es = 10000

2

Ep/Es = 5000

Normalized Shear at Pile head

0.4

0.3

Ep/Es = 1500

0.2

Ep/Es = 5000

0.1

Ep /Es = 10000

0

0

20

30

COV(%)

40

50

20

30

COV(%)

40

50

FIG. 5. Variation of normalized shear force at column and pile head for

structure Tfixed = 2.0 sec and different Ep / Es ratio with respect to COV(%) of

stiffness of soil: (a) and (b) presents normalization made with respect to SSI

condition.

CONCLUSIONS

This limited study indicates that the effect of in-situ variability of soil may have an

implication in seismic design of load resisting elements of heavy structures supported

on piled raft foundation. It is observed that shear force at column significantly

increased due to consideration of soil inherent variability and may even lead to failure

of the structure which may be a serious limitation of deterministic SSI analysis.

However, shear force at pile head obtained from probabilistic analysis yields a

subdued value compared to shear obtained from deterministic SSI which indicates

over safe design of pile. Hence, present study indicates a possibility of

underestimation of design forces in superstructure elements and overestimation in

foundation which may be the possible reason of failure of structures supported on

piled foundation during past earthquakes. Further, it is also observed that the effect of

soil variability is a function of Ep/Es ratio of pile. This limited study shows the

importance of reliability based design for piled raft supported heavy structures with

an emphasis to carry out a detailed study in this direction.

Page 9

REFERENCES

Applied Technology Council (1978). Tentative provisions for the development of

seismic regulations of buildings: A cooperative effort with the design profession,

building code interests and the research community, National Bureau of

Standards, Supt. of Docs, Washington, DC.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (2012). Soil-Structure Interaction for

Building Structures, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg MD.

NEHRP (1997). Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings

and other structures: Parts 1 and 2, Building Seismic Safety Council,

Washington, DC.

Gazetas, G. (1984). Seismic response of end-bearing single piles, Soil Dyn and

Earthq Eng, Vol. 3(2): 82-93.

Rovithis, E., Pitilakis, N.K.D., and Mylonakis, G.E. (2009). Seismic analysis of

coupled soil-pile-structure systems leading to the definition of a pseudo-natural

SSI frequency, Soil Dyn and Earthq Eng, Vol.29: 10051015.

Tokimatsu, K., Suzuki, K., and Sato, M. (2005). Effects of inertial and kinematic

interaction on seismic behavior of pile with embedded foundation, Soil Dyn and

Earthq Eng, Vol.25: 753762.

Saha, R., Dutta, S.C., and Haldar, S. (2013). Seismic response of soil-pile

foundation-structure system. Journal of civil engineering and management

(accepted).

Phoon, K.K. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1999).Characterization of geotechnical

variability.Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.36: 21038.

Tandjiria,V., Teh,C.I., and Low,B.K. (2000) Reliability analysis of laterally loaded

piles using response surface methods. Structural Safety, Vol.22: 335-355.

Pula, W. and Rozanski, A. (2012) Reliability of rigid piles subjected to lateral loads

Structural Safety, Vol.12: 205-218.

Haldar, S. and Babu, G.L. S. (2008) Effect of soil spatial variability on the response

of laterally loaded pile in undrained clay Computers and Geotechnics, Vol.35:

537547.

Dutta, S.C., Bhattacharya, K. and Roy, R. (2009). Effect of Flexibility of Foundations

on its Seismic Stress Distribution. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.13:

22-49.

Makris, N. and Gazetas,G. (1992). Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction. Part II: Lateral

and seismic response, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.

21: 145-162.

Roy, R. and Dutta, S.C. (2010).Inelastic Seismic Demand of Low-rise buildings with

Soil flexibility. International Journal of Nonlinear Mechanics, Vol. 45: 419432.

Velez, A., Gazetas, G. and Krishnan, R., Lateral dynamic response of constrained

head piles, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109(8), 1982, pp

1063-1081.

Page 10

- seismic response of circular tunnelsTransféré parvttrlc
- PARDO 2014 - Biaxial Capacity of Rigid FootingsTransféré parAnonymous wvLOveDR
- 2512 the Aseismic Design and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of a 350m High Braced Steel FrameTransféré pardskumar49
- ATC 58 50percentDraftTransféré parKader Newaj Sakib
- Analysis of structure by ETABS- ReportTransféré pardishant_shah68
- Paper on Seismic AnalysisTransféré parJimmy Domingo
- PBD Steel ConferenceTransféré parGautamgsm
- Diaz Gomez Lucia v 201411 MAS ThesisTransféré parfariasgarciarojas
- 3Muri Brief TheoryTransféré parKuber Bogati
- A Discussion on the Linear Scaling of AccelerogramsTransféré parLuisito Sta. Ines
- PaperCI56Transféré parget
- 109CE0463jrtjiorgtTransféré parKiran Koraddi
- 1997 UBC vs 2006 IBC Concrete Anchor DesignTransféré parSherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- Altair PresentationTransféré parrudolfpetersson
- Web Peer9103 Yang EtalTransféré parmrnicus
- Tech III - Report CBMTransféré parTanvir Islam
- Loading Protocol WCEE2012 2429Transféré pargorgika papand
- Design Guide 24 Revisions Errata ListTransféré parcocococo1
- Tank Overturning Due to Wind (Autosaved)Transféré parlindavg67
- 19_chapter 14.pdfTransféré parKrishna Murari
- Design-of-Strap-Footing.pdfTransféré parVasanthakumar
- 7B125 8PCEE SullivanTransféré parpradeepjoshi007
- Primeras Afirmaciones Acerca de Los Daños Esperados en El Escenario Del Siguiente Terremoto Del 24 en Italia CentralTransféré parcontrerasc_sebastian988
- Rate AnalysisTransféré parsitheeq
- 343-352_HadjigeroriouTransféré parr
- Effects of Column Stiffness Irregularity on the Seismic Response of Bridges in the Longitudinal DirectionTransféré parSteven Estifler
- Paper DBSDTransféré parEdgar
- Modeling seismic loadTransféré parAlexis
- SLRB 70Transféré parAnonymous oVmxT9Kzrb
- Dynamic Soil Parameter.pptxTransféré parR.a. Niar Nauri Ningsih

- 2017 16wcee Buildinginchle Id 3769Transféré parJessB
- EFFEECT_OF_SHEAR_WALL_VERTICAL_DISCONTIN.pdfTransféré parBadr Ammar
- A Detailed Evaluation of Eurocode and ISO Methodology on Earthquake Resistant Geotechnical DesignTransféré parroy anant
- 200608cTransféré parMohit Sharma
- A. Brencich, L. Gambarotta _ S. LagomarsinoTransféré parHasan Ayouby
- Analysis & Design of U-Frame Lock Monoliths.pdfTransféré parhvp1962
- Seismic Design of Retaining WallsTransféré parRutvik Sheth
- ACI 350.3-06 Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures and Commentary.pdfTransféré parThomas John Doblas Agrabio
- Seminar Paper Manish SharmaTransféré parManish Sharma
- Earthquake Design for Civil WorksTransféré parAnonymous 87xpkIJ6CF
- 04 Seismic Design - Comparison Matrix DPWH-LRFD BSDSTransféré parMichael Dixon
- ASCE 7-05 Section 12861 Minimum Base Shear for Computing DriftTransféré parSherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- Csi Bridge Design ManualTransféré parNacer Assam
- p751_ch7-SMRF and IMRF.pdfTransféré parSheraz Bashir
- Performance-assessment-of-irregular-RC-buildings-with Shear Walls after EQ_2015.pdfTransféré parJohn Chiv
- C4-2.2016.09.CourseOutlineTransféré parloginxscribd
- Direct Analysis Method in RSATransféré parNajib Kiwan
- Seismic Earth Pressures SDEE - SitarN_WagnerN v7Transféré parNicole Carrillo
- 1-s2.0-S1687404815000498-mainTransféré parAjayvidyanand Sharma
- AdvanceRetrofittingTechniquesforReinforcedConcreteStructures.pdfTransféré parErick Santiago Cubillos
- PDF - Change Ibc 2003 to Ibc 2006Transféré parMIKHA2014
- Caltrans-Bridge Design Practice Feb 2015Transféré parZain Oo
- Program_130919Transféré parSaid Elias
- Heintz ATC 63Transféré parmohammed_fathelbab
- Large Diameter Drilled ShaftsTransféré parMohamad Arraj
- RSA Using SpreadsheetTransféré parCY Lee
- TS6_3Transféré parmahe32mahe
- Constitutive Model for Full-Range Elasto-Plastic Behavior of Structural Steels With Yield Plateau Formulation (Hu, Et Al. 2016)Transféré parJose Manuel
- 12594941_Main.pdfTransféré parmgrubisic
- seismic behavior of building with transfer floorTransféré parmusiomi2005