4 views

Uploaded by Neil Wilsnach

- PILARES KNS1-COLDSN (1).xls
- Day 10- Wind Analysis
- Column Design - As Per BS Code
- Lect25-Concrete Construction-flat Spanning Systems
- Tutorials and Assignments #5
- CFD-ACI-318-11
- Cosmos FEM Validation Samples
- CFD-ACI-318-14
- 20120703 Gen Advanced Webinar Construction Stage Analysis
- Combined Footing
- 133160417 Onouye Statics Strength Materials Architecture Construction 4th Txtbk
- End Plate Connection
- is.13920.1993
- ETABS Vivis Institution
- is.13920.1993
- Primera Parte
- Strength of Cold-Formed Steel Box Columns
- Mat Chapter 13
- Group 6
- Copy Slides Test 2

You are on page 1of 9

Scientific-Sustainable-Holistic-Accessible

14 16 November 2005 Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

SCOURING CAUSED BY TSUNAMIS

Priyan Dias, Lakshan Fernando, Suranjanie Wathurapatha and Yenuka de Silva

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa

Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

priyan@civil.mrt.ac.lk

ABSTRACT: The differing failure modes of boundary walls, low cost single-storey structures, and multi-storey

concrete framed structures under tsunami loading demonstrate the three main effects of such loading, namely

overturning, sliding and scouring. Case studies are used to estimate tsunami forces and velocities and also to

propose more robust construction. The concept of a disaster limit state is explored i.e. allowing failure but

minimizing loss of life. Controlled failure, heavier walls (together with holding down) and alternate load paths

(together with load shedding) are proposed as the design paradigms for boundary walls, low cost single-storey

structures, and multi-storey concrete framed structures respectively.

1.

The three main threats posed by a tsunami against structures are failure by sliding, overturning and scouring [1].

This paper considers some case studies of each, drawn from structural failures on the Sri Lankan coastline

following the tsunami of 26 December 2004.

The objectives of the paper are (i) to propose load and resistance models for tsunami loading and structural

resistance; (ii) to suggest structural forms for mitigating tsunami damage; and (iii) to arrive at some high level

paradigms for designing against tsunamis.

For each case study, the approach is to obtain the structural resistance of the structure concerned (or elements

thereof), using material properties and/or codes of practice. Next, the loading imposed by the tsunami is

quantified and compared to the resistance after performing structural analysis. Neither load nor resistance partial

safety factors are used in the calculations, the objective being to understand the actual failure of the structure

under tsunami loading. The case studies also demonstrate how changes to structural form could eliminate or

mitigate failure. This results in the evolution of certain design paradigms to deal with tsunami loads.

The phenomenon of sliding is considered by studying the performance of some single storey cottages at a beach

hotel, some of which were completely swept off their foundations, while others (having thicker walls) were

spared. The overturning of a toilet structure is considered next. Also under the aspect of overturning, structural

forms that will result in local panel failure, rather than overturning, of boundary walls are explored. Finally,

consideration is made of different structural alterations to prevent disproportionate collapse resulting from the

undermining of a corner column, due to tsunami scouring, in a two storey school building.

2.

TSUNAMI LOADING

Prior to embarking on the objectives above, we need to decide on a model for tsunami loading. Authors differ

regarding both the approach and the formulae for such loading.

Some workers [2] propose an equivalent hydrostatic load (triangularly varying) to represent both the static and

dynamic effects of a tsunami wave, with the height of the triangular load distribution being 3 times the

inundation depth (H), based on empirical observations. On the other hand, other publications [3] prefer a separate

expression for static loading as

Fs = 0.5 H A

(1)

where = specific weight of water and A = surface area of structure impacted by the wave;

while dynamic load is given by [3,4]

Fd = 0.5 Cd V2 A

(2)

where = mass density of water, V = velocity and Cd is a drag coefficient varying from 1.25 to 2.0

The expression for velocity [3,4,5] is given as

V = k (gH)0.5

(3)

where g = gravitational acceleration and k is given various values such as 1.1 [4] and 2.0 [5], although if

the latter is used, velocity reduction factors due to slope and bed roughness are also recommended.

If we substitute for V from eq. (3) in eq. (2), we obtain

Fd = 0.5 (k2.Cd) (g) H A

(4)

Comparing eq. (4) with eq. (1), we note that g = and if (k2.Cd) is approximately equal to 2, Fd will be twice Fs;

this results in an equivalent hydrostatic load based on 3 times H, and constitutes a harmonization of the two

approaches above. The above formulae apply to H values less than the structure height. Appropriate adjustments

can be made if this condition is violated.

In this paper, we use static and dynamic loads separately, because the points of resultant load applications will be

different for the triangular static load and the uniform dynamic load. Also, it will allow us to consider two

loading conditions (Fig. 1), namely (i) point of impact, when both the static and dynamic loads are acting in a

single direction, but the actual total weight of the structure can be mobilized for resistance; and (ii) postsubmergence, when only a net dynamic force will be effective, but resistance is obtained only from the

submerged weight of the structure. We also use a value of k = 1.0 in eq. (3). In fact Bryant [5] indicates that

velocities of between 5.9 and 9.3 m/s can be obtained from a tsunami wave height of 8 m. If we use a value of H

= 8 m in eq. (1) with k = 1, we get V = 8.9 m/s, which is quite close to Bryants upper limit; hence using k = 1

(ignoring slope and bed roughness reduction factors) will be adequately conservative. Finally, in most cases, for

our isolated rectangular structures, Cd is around 1.25 [3].

(i)

(ii)

Fd

Fd

Fs

Fs

Fs

W - V

Fig. 1 Loading conditions (i) point of impact / not submerged; and (ii) post-submergence / submerged

3.

We consider first two sets of beach cottages (around 80 m from the shoreline) at Nilaveli Beach Hotel near

Trincomalee, on the North Eastern shore of Sri Lanka. As shown in Fig. 2, a set of three cottages forms a single

storey building unit. All the brick walls (density taken as 21.5 kN/m3 here and elsewhere) are of 113 mm

thickness, except that in some cottages the external side walls (fully shaded in black in Fig. 2) were 225 mm. All

the wall heights were 3.35 m above plinth level; there were no gable walls. The isolated timber columns in Fig. 2

are mostly decorative and carry little load; they are located into the floor with a single dowel, which is assumed

not to contribute any shear resistance. The shear resistance against lateral load in fact comes only from the

contact between the walls and their plinths. This bond strength was taken as [6]

fb = 0.15 + 0.6 (W/A)

(in MPa)

(5)

where W is the effective weight (including submergence effects) and A the area of wall-plinth contact.

3.7 m

ROOM

225 mm DIA.

TIMBER

COLUMN

3.7 m

TOILET

ROOM

3.7 m

TOILET

ROOM

TOILET

2.3 m

1.8 m

5.6 m

2.3 m

In addition to the weights of the walls, the roof and ceiling loads (timber and asbestos) were approximated to a

uniformly distributed load of 0.75 kN/m2 of plan area. In calculating the submerged weight (and also the tsunami

loads) the density of sea water is taken, here and elsewhere, as 1025 kN/m3.

The height of the tsunami at these cottages was estimated as around 4 m above plinth level, based on eyewitness

accounts and evidence of slight damage to roof eaves of buildings that were left standing. The wave direction

was from the right hand side of the plan view in Fig. 2. The interesting thing about these cottages is that all those

having 113 mm walls throughout were shorn off their plinths in sliding failure, while most of them with 225 mm

external walls remained standing, despite internal damage.

This scenario is captured in Table 1, where both not submerged and submerged conditions are considered

corresponding to the point of impact and post-submergence conditions respectively, described in Section 2

and Fig. 1. The static and dynamic loads, calculated according to eqs. (1) and (2) and other assumptions in

Section 2, work out to 862 kN and 927 kN respectively. It should be noted that forces on the roof (submerged for

0.65 m) were ignored, as was the sliding resistance between the roof and ceiling structures and the tops of the

walls. The area corresponding to static and dynamic loading was taken as the full frontal face of the cottages,

despite the presence of openings, since internal walls behind these openings would have taken the loading if

shutters were either open or had given way.

Table 1 Sliding Resistance of Nilaveli Cottages

Condition

Wall contact area, A (m2)

Weight of roof (kN)

Weight of walls (kN)

Upthrust on walls (kN)

Net effective wt., W (kN)

Shear resistance (MPa)

Sliding resistance (kN)

not submerged

submerged

not submerged

submerged

7.05

133.2

526.6

0

659.8

0.206

1453

7.05

133.2

526.6

240.3

419.5

0.186

1309

8.78

133.2

675.9

0

809.2

0.205

1803

8.78

133.2

675.9

308.4

500.7

0.184

1617

If we consider load condition (i), i.e. point of impact, the tsunami load is 862 + 927 = 1789 kN. When looking at

Table 1, we see that this is greater than the not submerged resistance for cottages with all walls of 113 mm

thickness (1453 kN) but less than the corresponding resistance for cottages with external walls of 225 mm (1803

kN). If we consider load condition (ii), i.e. post-submergence, the tsunami load is 927 kN (i.e. only the dynamic

load). This however is less than the submerged resistance both for cottages with all walls of 113 mm thickness

(1309 kN) and for cottages with external walls of 225 mm (1617 kN).

The above calculations reveal that the point of impact condition may be more critical than the postsubmergence one. Hence use of the latter alone [4] may not be be satisfactory. This exercise also indicates that

our assumptions for tsunami velocity are reasonable, given that our calculations reproduced the actual situation

where one set of cottages stood while the other didnt. The additional weight of the 225 mm external walls

contributed to saving cottages having such a feature, suggesting that heavy walls are required for tsunami prone

structures. In addition, the use of peripheral reinforced concrete columns (225 mm x 225 mm) with even 10 mm

dia. reinforcement, at spacings not exceeding 6 m and tied together by roof beams, is recommended for such

structures [7]. Such columns would have a shear resistance (without a safety factor) of at least around 0.65 MPa

[8], resulting in a total sliding resistance of around 260 kN for 8 columns. If this value is added to the not

submerged resistance of 1453 kN for cottages with all walls of 113 mm thickness, it will result in a total

resistance of 1713 kN, just below the critical point of impact load of 1789 kN. The concrete framing will also

contribute to overall integrity, reducing the possibility of local shearing of wall elements.

4.

The second case study is regarding a toilet structure with a very shallow foundation that was turned over by a

wave height of 2.3 m above ground level, the height being estimated by water level marks on nearby upright

structures. This occurred near Batticaloa, on the South Eastern coast of Sri Lanka, and the structure was around

100 m from the shoreline. Fig. 3 gives the details of the toilet structure. The concrete roof (density taken as 24

kN/m3 here and elsewhere) was not submerged at all. The toilet structure has 4 brick piers of 225 mm x 225 mm

size at its corners and walls of 113 mm thickness. One side (not facing the sea) has a door, for which reductions

were made in the weight of the structure. The foundation is in fact a brick plinth wall of 338 mm thickness.

0.075 m

WL

0.3 m

0.3 m

1.83 m

0.075 m

0.46 m

GL

0.3 m

P

Table 2 gives the relevant load and resistance parameters for the point of impact/ not submerged and the postsubmergence/ submerged conditions. The net static force is zero for the submerged case (Fig. 1) and the net

effective weight for the submerged case is based on submerged density for the parts of the structure submerged.

Overturning about a point P (Fig. 3) is considered when computing the overturning and resisting moments.

In this case we see from Table 2 that the toilet structure will be overturned under both conditions point of

impact/ not submerged and post-submergence/ submerged. Once again however the point of impact case is

more critical, having a greater interval between overturning and resisting moments.

Condition

Point of Impact

Post-Submergence

Net Static force (kN)

41.4

0

Dynamic force (kN)

35.3

35.3

Moment due to Net Static force (kNm)

44.2

0

Moment due to Dynamic force (kNm)

48.4

48.4

Total Overturning Moment (kNm)

92.6

48.4

Net Effective Weight (kN)

70.1

44.1

Resisting Moment (kNm)

67.3

42.3

Structures such as these could be given deeper foundations. However a more effective strategy would be to

construct a row of toilets, with the long way direction of the toilet block structure oriented perpendicular to the

shoreline and parallel to a potential tsunami wave.

5.

Many boundary walls collapsed as a result of the tsunami. Such walls are seldom designed at all, and even if

designed, they account only for wind loading. One of the strategies that could be used for boundary walls is in

fact to allow collapse of a limited nature, but to prevent overturning that could cause many deaths. Once the

limited collapse occurs, the tsunami waters will be able to pass through the wall and most of the unidirectional

lateral load on the wall will disappear.

Fig. 4 indicates the elevation and sectional elevation of a 2.25 m high wall that comprises a concrete framing and

infill solid blockwork (density assumed as 21.5 kN/m2) of 150 mm thickness. The wall height is chosen on the

basis that it will be difficult to scale for a casual passer by. The panel lengths are 3 m between columns that vary

in cross section as seen in the sectional elevation (Fig. 4). The entire wall load is taken to the column

foundations, so that they will be stabilized by the weight. There are beams at ground level and an intermediate

level, but not at the top, because a cantilever height of 0.9 m was considered acceptable, if subjected only to

wind load.

3m

0.225 m

0.225 m

0.9 m

0.15 m

0.30 m

1.2 m

GL

0.225 m

0.85 m

0.375 m

0.15 m

x m

y m

Fig. 4 Boundary wall design for controlled panel failure rather than overturning failure

This configuration was chosen on the basis of subjecting to a triangular sea water load, various heights of wall

panels (all 3 m long) spanning between columns and beams and simply supported thereby. This triangular load

could be considered an equivalent tsunami load [2], although this approach is generally not adopted in our paper.

At any rate the (unfactored) bending stresses for bending moment (BM) axes parallel and perpendicular to the

bedding planes are obtained as given in Table 3. Now the characteristic bending strengths (also unfactored) for

BM axes parallel and perpendicular to the bedding planes are 0.2 and 0.4 MPa respectively [6]. This means that

the stress from the BM axis parallel to the bed is the critical one, and that a panel of 1.2 m height will just fail

under a triangular loading. We then place the intermediate beam at a height of 1.2 m from ground level,

expecting that the lower panel will fail when the water level reaches that height.

Table 3 Bending Stresses (MPa) in Boundary Wall Panels of Various Heights (Panel length = 3 m)

Wall height (m)

BM axis // to bed

BM axis 90o to bed

2.1

0.983

0.543

1.8

0.714

0.202

1.5

0.471

0.174

1.2

0.267

0.087

0.9

0.118

0.036

Next we must ensure that overturning will not take place until the 1.2 m high panel fails. In order to do this

rotational stability about the end of a foundation is considered. The overturning moment is created by the 1.2 m

high water plus a wind load of 0.9 kN/m2 above that level, and the resisting moment is provided by the weight of

the wall (not submerged, since the water is all on one side) and soil above the foundation, plus some soil friction.

Various combinations of x and y (footing dimensions Fig. 4) were tried such that the area was always 1 m2.

The results in Table 4 indicate that a rectangular footing with an aspect ratio of 2 will just about suffice.

Table 4 Variation of Resisting Moment with Column Footing Dimensions

Footing Size x (m) & y (m)

Overturning Moment (kNm)

Resisting Moment (kNm)

1.0 x 1.0

57.25

26.97

0.67 x 1.5

57.25

40.94

0.5 x 2.0

57.25

54.90

This case demonstrates the notion of controlled failure. If the entire 2.25 m wall overturned, a zone

corresponding to that height would be vulnerable with respect to death or injury. On the other hand, if controlled

failure is engineered, a much smaller zone would be vulnerable (Fig. 5). This could be one example of how to

design for a disaster limit state, where failure is accepted as inevitable, but injury or death prevented as far as

possible.

Zone of vulnerability

Fig. 5 Differing zones of vulnerability behind boundary walls, based on failure mode

6.

Concrete framed structures of 2 storeys and higher generally performed well under tsunami loading, probably

because they were more robust, and also because in general the entire unsubmerged weight of most of the upper

storey(s) was available for stability. The problem with multi-storey structures was the undermining of

foundations due to scouring, generally at corner columns, where eddying would have taken place. In some cases

the entire foundation was uncovered and soil support lost. In two school buildings, both on the South Eastern

cost (i.e. at Batticaloa and Amparai), where plinth beams were not provided either, two complete bays of the 2-

storey buildings had collapsed, because the corner column foundations on both sides of the building had been

undermined. The distances to the shoreline and heights of inundation were around 35 m and 3 m respectively at

Batticaloa and around 100 m and 4m respectively at Amparai. The scour depths were around half the inundation

depths or more, corresponding to the case for sandy soils in ref. [3].

Fig. 6 shows the plan view of one end of these typical school buildings, with suggested modifications as well.

The potential tsunami wave direction is in the long way direction of the building from the left hand side of the

plan view in Fig. 6; the same modifications should be provided at the right hand side of the building too (to deal

with the returning wave). These modifications will enhance the performance of the building even if the wave is

in the short way direction of the building. Typically the long way direction has around 9 bays of around 3 m

each. The upper floor beams and roof trusses span around 7.6 m in the short way direction and are supported on

columns that run along the two long way edges. If both corner columns lose their support, it is clear that the end

bay will collapse. Some measures for counteracting this are (i) to increase the founding depths of the footings at

risk; (ii) to provide a central column at the end face in order to create some redundancy; (iii) to provide a plinth

beam, so that the corner columns at risk are tied back to the first internal columns; and (iv) to provide infill walls

at least in the end bays of the building in the long way direction, so that it can function as a sort of shear plate if

the corner columns lose their bearing the infill walls in the short way direction at the ends of the building and

under every alternate main beam are in fact already provided in the type plans.

Fig. 6 Plan view of one end of a typical school building, with suggested modifications

Fig. 7 shows the long way frame of one of these school buildings. The frame itself does not carry much load

directly, apart from a uniformly distributed load of 3.34 kN/m on the first floor beams, due to a parapet wall and

fascia at that level. However, the roof and upper floor loads, carried in the short way direction, are received by

the columns. For example, roof loads of 17.2 and 19.6 kN are carried at points A3 and B3 respectively, and floor

loads of 43.4 kN and 78.4 kN are carried at points A2 and B2 respectively. All reinforced concrete columns and

beams are of dimension 225 mm x 225 mm, and the infill brickwork wall (when used) is of thickness 225 mm.

Beam 2

A3

B3

A2

B2

A1

B1

A0

B0

Column B1

Plinth Beam

Infill wall

Undermined footing

Fig. 7 Long way frame of school building with undermined corner footing and suggested modifications

Table 5 indicates various parameters for 5 cases, namely (1) corner column firmly fixed; (2) bearing lost for

corner column; (3) Case 2 plus the addition of a plinth beam; (4) Case 2 plus the introduction of an infill wall in

the end bay - this wall is assumed not to have a foundation, on the basis that it could be undermined too; and (5)

Case 2 plus plinth beam plus infill wall in the end bay.

Table 5 Stress Resultants and Displacements near Corner Column of School Building

Case (see Fig. 7)

Axial load (kN)

BM (kNm) in

Settlement (mm)

in Column B1

Beam 2 at B2

of Support A0

1 Base Case

124

3.8

0.0

2 Support A0 is lost

229

72.1

36.6

3 Case 2 plus plinth beam B1

229

52.0

22.9

4 Case 2 plus wall panel A1-A2-B2-B1

250

6.9

5.8

5 Case 3 plus Case 4

255

6.3

4.0

We see from Table 5 that when the corner column bearing is lost (Case 2), the axial load on the first internal

column increases significantly; this could precipitate collapse. Some of the remedial measures, i.e. cases 4 and 5,

actually produce the greatest loads, because the added infill brickwork load will also be carried by this column.

Hence strengthening the first internal column should also be considered. The support bending moment in Beam 2

at B2 also increases tremendously with Case 2; once again this could precipitate a cantilever type collapse.

However, all proposed remedial measures improve this situation, especially the introduction of the brickwork

panel. The large settlement at support A0 with the undermining of the foundation is also considerably reduced by

the remedial measures proposed. It should be noted that the largest tensile stress in the brickwork was 0.17 MPa

in both Cases 4 and 5, and that the largest compressive stresses were 2.10 MPa and 0.41 MPa for Cases 4 and 5

respectively. These can be considered tolerable for masonry, especially at an extreme limit state.

What this exercise teaches us is that an effective solution to the undermining of foundations caused by scouring

is to provide redundancy and alternate load paths, so that loads can be shed from the ineffective element to others

that can carry them. Using both a plinth beam and an end bay wall panel is advisable, while strengthening the

first internal column too. Using a plinth beam alone does not improve the situation much. It is the end bay wall

that gives the best improvement, but the plinth beam would ensure that the wall is adequately supported, even if

a separate wall foundation is undermined. It should be noted that the addition of end bay walls is a very easy

retrofitting solution. The first internal columns could also be easily strengthened by jacketing.

7.

DISCUSSION

We have proposed a formula for tsunami velocity that is at the lower bound of what is found in the literature. It

nevertheless appears to explain both the failure and non failure of structures subjected to tsunamis. This formula

for velocity is something that requires consensus among researchers and practitioners.

We have also performed calculations without any load or resistance safety factors. When designing for extreme

events such as a tsunami, not using load safety factors appears to be acceptable. Given the extreme nature (and in

many countries the low frequency of occurrence) of such an event, it may even be acceptable to eliminate

material safety factors as well, so that the factor of safety against failure is just unity. This could be another

feature of designing at the disaster limit state.

8.

CONCLUSIONS

1.

2.

3.

4.

We have shown that static and dynamic components of tsunami loading should be considered

separately, so that two different loading conditions, namely point of impact (when the full weight

of the structure contributes to resistance) and post-submergence (when only the submerged weight

of the structure contributes to resistance) can be considered.

We have found the point of impact condition to be the more critical one, in general.

For single storey structures, it is better that wall weights be increased and that an external reinforced

concrete frame be introduced, to both weigh down and hold down the structure to the foundation.

We have used a boundary wall example to suggest that controlled failure could be a strategy for

designing at the disaster limit state in our case, by allowing the failure of panels before the

overturning of the entire wall, so that the zone of vulnerability behind the wall is reduced.

5.

9.

We have demonstrated through the example of a school building that providing redundancy and

alternate load paths will be effective in situations where an important element (or its bearing) is lost,

so that loads can be shed from the ineffective element to others that can carry them.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Mr Ravihansa Chandratilake who was associated with this study in various ways.

Financial and other assistance given by the University of Moratuwa and Holcim (Pvt) Ltd towards this study is

gratefully acknowledged. In addition, assistance for travel related costs was mediated by Prof. Paul Grundy and

also given by the Institution of Structural Engineers (U.K.).

10.

REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, Designing for Tsunamis, Washington, March 2001, 60 pp.

Okada, T., Sugano, T., Ishikawa, T., Ohgi, T., Takai, S. and Hamabe, C., Structural Design Method of

Buildings for Tsunami Resistance (Proposed), The Building Centre of Japan, communication circulated

by Prof. Paul Grundy, May 2005.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Coastal Construction Manual (3 vols.), 3rd ed. (FEMA 55),

Jessup, MD, November 2003.

Yamamoto, Y., Takanashi, H, Hettiarachchi, S. and Samarawickrama, S. Verification of the destruction

mechanism of structures in Sri Lanka and Thailand due to the Indian Ocean tsunami, in preparation,

communicated by S. Samarawickrama, September 2005.

Bryant, E. , Tsunami: The Underrated Hazard, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 320 pp.

British Standards Institution, Code of practice for use of masonry, Part 1. Structural use of unreinforced

masonry, BS 5628: Part1: 1992, London.

Society of Structural Engineers, Sri Lanka, Guidelines for Buildings at Risk from Natural Disasters,

Colombo, October 2005, 22 pp.

British Standards Institution, Structural use of concrete, Part 1. Code of practice for design and

construction, BS 8110: Part 1: 1997, London, 122 pp.

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

- PILARES KNS1-COLDSN (1).xlsUploaded byTiago Silva
- Day 10- Wind AnalysisUploaded byMaitrayee Aditya
- Column Design - As Per BS CodeUploaded byanuar sidik
- Lect25-Concrete Construction-flat Spanning SystemsUploaded byChris
- Tutorials and Assignments #5Uploaded byLei Chung Hang
- CFD-ACI-318-11Uploaded byVan Du
- Cosmos FEM Validation SamplesUploaded byRicardo Paz Soldan
- CFD-ACI-318-14Uploaded byMuhammad Rizwan
- 20120703 Gen Advanced Webinar Construction Stage AnalysisUploaded bydan1007
- Combined FootingUploaded byKathleen Ybañez
- 133160417 Onouye Statics Strength Materials Architecture Construction 4th TxtbkUploaded byjosephrc8808
- End Plate ConnectionUploaded byMohamed Tahar Allagui
- is.13920.1993Uploaded byhimabindugvsd71
- ETABS Vivis InstitutionUploaded byJayanthan Madheswaran
- is.13920.1993Uploaded bystructuralengineers
- Primera ParteUploaded byF̳̿r̳̿a̳̿n̳̿c̳̿k̳̿ S̳̿o̳̿d̳̿e̳̿r̳̿ Q̳̿u̳̿i̳̿s̳̿p̳̿e̳̿
- Strength of Cold-Formed Steel Box ColumnsUploaded byPauloAndresSepulveda
- Mat Chapter 13Uploaded byhemant_durgawale
- Group 6Uploaded byhutuguo
- Copy Slides Test 2Uploaded byfatin_musa
- Section Properties Calculation.pdfUploaded byAnonymous OnzJpz
- Design for Torsion (Part I)Uploaded bybemd_ali6990
- 7-4 Column ReinforcementUploaded byGovind Gaurav
- Memoris de CalculoUploaded byG Nils C T.
- ASD VS LFRD.pdfUploaded byKaren Vargas
- Iast.lect11Uploaded byNamsu Park
- 6. Approximate AnalysisUploaded byAre Fiq
- Chapter 13Uploaded bySuman Karthik
- DCSCE-307Uploaded byshashikantgaur
- Lecture Plan_MOS (15-16)Uploaded byiplogu

- ConversionUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Modulus of Subgrade Reation2Uploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Foundation.pdfUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Foundations Theory & DesignUploaded bybhavik91
- Tm 5-818 7 Foundations in Expansive SoilsUploaded byjworder
- Determination of floor load requirements.pdfUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Concrete Industrial Floor Design - Engineers EdgeUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- unipile_demo_223.pdfUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Design on Slab on GradeUploaded byAhmad Firdaus
- BM EC7 - Pad Foundations ManuallyUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Analysis of Machine Foundation Vibrations State of the Art by G. Gazetas (1983)Uploaded bythanhtrung87
- Analytical Structural VibrationUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Spillway Capacity SpreadsheetUploaded byAfendi Ariff
- 107.pdfUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- Pond Design and ConstructionUploaded byNeil Wilsnach
- HydrostaticsUploaded bygirish_jagad
- Heavy Vehicle ConfigurationsUploaded byTimonPumba
- 03 DrainageUploaded byNeil Wilsnach

- 102B - Business Organisation & Office ManagementUploaded byAnonymous WtjVcZCg
- Act 300 Distribution Act 1958Uploaded byAdam Haida & Co
- Carino v the Insular GovernmentUploaded byJustin Moreto
- Climbing 2014 03Uploaded bydanegeotehnika
- Project ManagementUploaded byHari Beldona
- Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) - REVISED Manual Edition (March 2015)Uploaded byFreeEnergyWorld
- 202 Labour & Industrial Law - IUploaded bybhatt.net.in
- Camp Jesse TurnerUploaded byNancy
- Differential Equations Problems and SolutionsUploaded byBrian McCann
- Linux Command Line ReferenceUploaded byradetabosko
- CM-SP-L2VPN-I15-150528.pdfUploaded byARUNKUMAR K
- Advances Photonic CrystalsUploaded byMuhammad Shemyal Nisar
- MGT301 Mid Term Current PaperUploaded bycs619finalproject.com
- forex 2Uploaded byAhmad Radzi
- Stacey Siebritz CV - 2012Uploaded bystacey_liezl
- Creating Shared Value Kramer PresentationUploaded byUdruženje Behar Kulturno-edukativna Asocijacija
- Control Procurement ProcessUploaded byfe2908
- MAXIMO CALALANG vs A. D. WILLIAMS.docxUploaded byryusei
- 100 - ETAP Corporate OverviewUploaded byTony Fahmy
- Multiple Criteria Decision Making Integrated With Mechanical Modeling of Draping for Material Selection of Textile CompositesUploaded byAmir Mosavi
- NGN System & NGN Protocol .1Uploaded byfutrono
- DeEP_design_policy_issues_3.pdfUploaded bygokder
- counting principle combinations permutationsUploaded byapi-372576508
- Actions Required to Configure SQL for Use With IFIXUploaded byvalcionei
- The Ins and Outs of a Sound CardUploaded byRui Aurélio
- Rtp Design GuideUploaded byprasathbala
- Aircraft Noise PollutionUploaded byalisungkar
- RA 10951 AND 10175.txtUploaded byJale Espanol
- Graphical Password Authentication for Secure Online ServicesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- EAC_M&WUploaded byMunawwar Ar