5 views

Uploaded by Hasen Bebba

Finite Element

- Qi George Chen - Presentation Paper- Spring 17
- Différences mailleurs HEXA et Mailleurs TETRA
- Galerkin Finite Element Methods
- Simulating Drop Tests in Solid Works
- Diploma Thesis Bernhard Schuberth
- Lecture 3
- fem3 17-10-2015
- Solving PDEs in C
- Performance Measurement of an Industry Using Simple Additive Weightage
- Modulo de Priorizacion
- lec29
- Plaxis_advanced_course_hong_kong_2012.pdf
- Imac16 Tam
- 3
- Slide Chpt07 (1)
- EPFL_TH4771
- 7ME1 Finite Element Method, I Mid-term Paper
- Responses 2
- FEM in Geotech Engineering
- Trabajo de Pseudo-metodos

You are on page 1of 12

We first consider a 1D initial-boundary value problem:

u

2u

+ g(x, t),

=

t

x2

0<x<1

u(1, t)

= b(t),

x

u(0, t) = a(t),

and the initial condition

u(x, 0) = c(x),

where a and b are given functions on [0, ) and c is given on [0,1] (for consistency, we require a(0) = u(0, 0) =

c(0) and c0 (1) = u/x(1, 0) = b(0)). For the finite element solution we select n linear elements with global

nodes at xk = (k 1)/n, k = 1, . . . , n + 1 (element e is the interval [xe , xe+1 ]). We elect to obtain the

weak form for this problem using a modification of our established procedure. For this method (prefered

by the authors of our textbook), we focus on and individual element (rather then the entire domain on the

problem). We obtain the weak form for this element and then assemble these element weak forms to obtain

the global weak form. As usual, we ignore the requirement that u(0, t) = a(t) in the initial stages of the

derivation, and impose this condition later. The element weak form is found as follows: We form the residual

r=

u 2 u

g,

t

x2

multiply it by the test function w(x) which depends only on x (w must vanish at x = 0 where u is prescribed,

but we ignore this for the moment and impose it later). Then we integrate the product rw over an element

I = [a, b] and require the result to vanish (we

R omit an identifying subscript or superscript on the interval

all elements are treated in the same way): I r(x, t)w(x) dx = 0. Using the identity

w

u

u w

2u

=

(w )

x2

x x

x x

b

Z

Z

Z

Z

u

u w

u

0 = r(x, t)w(x) dx = w

dx +

dx wg dx w .

t

x a

I

I

I x x

I

This leads to the element weak form of the problem. We require that the numerical trial function u satisfy

b

Z

Z

Z

u w

u

u

dx +

dx = wg dx + w

w

t

x a

I x x

I

I

for all test functions w. (We must still impose the conditions that the trial function satisfy u(0, t) = a(t)

and take the initial condition u = c at t = 0 and that all test functions must vanish at x = 0.) It is easy to

see that for smooth functions the weak form is equivalent to the original problem.

The weak form is our starting point for finding an approximate solution (which well call the trial function) to

the differential equation. After dividing the interval [0, 1] into elements and requiring that the trial function be

linear on each element and continuous throughout the interval, we see that in each element the trial function

can be expressed in term of the linear shape functions H1 (x) = (b x)/(b a), H2 (x) = (x a)/(b a)

as u = u1 (t)H1 (x) + u2 (t)H2 (x) We take the test function to be arbitrary linear combination of the Hj .

Vanishing of the weak form is then equivalent to the demand that the weak form be satisfied for w = Hj .

Substituting for u and w gives:

2

X

j=1

mij u j +

2

X

kij uj = fi ,

j=1

i = 1, 2

where fi =

b

gHi dx + Hi u

x a

Z

Z dH1

H1

dx

1

M=

( dH

( H1 H2 ) dx, K =

dH2

dx

H

2

I

I

dx

and

F =

Z

I

H1

H2

g(x, t) dx +

u/x(a, t)

u/x(b, t)

dH2

dx

) dx

M U + KU = F,

where M is called the element mass matrix (in keeping with the structural origins of the fem). Note that the

element load vector contains the partial

P derivatives of the test function evaluated end points of the interval.

These cannot be computed using

uj Hj because they would fail to be continuous across the element

R1 P Rx

boundary and then the whole method would fail since it is based on the assumption that 0 = e xee+1 .

Fortunately these unknown partial derivatives all cancel out when the element matrices are assembled into

the global matrices except, that is, for the terms H1 (0)u/x(0, t) and H2 (1)u/x(1, t). But since the

test functions w are required to vanish at x = 0, w = H1 is not admissible in element 1 so this term is to

be omitted, and in the last element nel u/x(1, t) = b(t) is given. The fact that all the internal unknowns,

u/x(xe , t), e = 2, . . . , nel 1, introduced with the element weak form cancel out in the final assembly

makes it fairly reasonable to ignore these unknowns and treat the element load vector as if it consisted of

only

Z e

0

H1

Fe =

g(x,

t)

dx

+

,

e,ne

H2e

b(t)

Ie

that is, only in the final element is there a contribution from the flux terms. I think this is probably an

acceptable fiction as long as the true state of affairs is kept in mind.

For 1D linear shape functions (see pp. 38-39 of the text) we have:

h 2

1 1 1

M [mij ] =

K [kij ] =

h 1 1

6 1

1

2

It is worthwhile looking at the computation of the mass matrix. In integrating over element of the form

I = [a, b] of length h = b a, it is useful to transform the variable of integration setting r = (x a)/h, and

integrate over the unit interval [0, 1]. On this interval the basis functions become: H1 (r) = 1 r, H2 (r) = r,

so that the integral to be computed becomes

Z 1

(1 r)2 r(1 r)

M =h

dr

r(1 r)

r2

0

It is now easy to perform the required integration and verify the results.

The global equations which are assembled, as usual, from the element equations take the form

M U + KU = F.

This is essentially a system of ODEs for the values uj (t) of the solution at the nodes. I say essentially because

all given boundary value information has to be input in order to create a legitimate system. (In this case,

it is required that u1 (t) = a(t). This can be done simply by replacing the first equation with u 1 = a and

tacking on the initial condition u1 (0) = a(0).)

Generally, the numerical solution of the system of ODEs just derived in accomplished using finite difference

methods not finite element methods. For these methods, we pick a sequence of times tj , j = 1, . . . , where

t1 = 0, and attempt to predict U (t) at these times. Let U j = U (tj ), then by the mean value theorem for

derivatives asserts that U (tj + (tj+1 tj )) = (U j+1 U j )/(tj+1 tj ), for some , 0 < < 1. Letting

j = tj+1 tj we have

M (U j+1 U j ) + j KU (tj + j ) = j F (tj + j )

So far this equation is exact, but we dont actually know the value of . So we choose a fixed value, and

each such choice creates a new numerical method. (Once is picked, the U j will represent a numerical

approximation to the original U , but I will continue to ignore this sort of thing.) The standard ones are:

1 The explicit forward difference method is obtained by choosing = 0, and can be written as

M U j+1 = (M j K)U j + j F j

Note that this determines U j for all j = 1, 2, . . .. It is explicit because it determines U at each new time

level explicitly in terms of U at the previous level. It is a forward difference method since the derivative

at level j is represented using the difference between U at this level and U at the next (forward) level.

2 The backward difference or implicit method is obtained using = 1. This gives

(M + j K)U j+1 = M U j + j F j+1

Thus, U at the new level us obtained only by solving a system of equations, i.e., the difference formula

only defines U at the new level implicitly. The backward difference designation obviously refers to the

fact the derivative is approximated at the new level using U at the previous (backward) level. Since,

our problem is linear we can actually solve for U j+1 to obtain

U j+1 = (M + j K)1 (M U j + j F j+1 )

3 The Crank-Nicholson method is obtained using = 1/2, and using the additional approximations

1

1

U ( (tj + tj+1 )) = (U j+1 + U j ),

2

2

1

1

F ( (tj + tj+1 )) = (F j+1 + F j ).

2

2

(2M + j K)U j+1 = (2M j K)U j + j (F j+1 + F j )

.

These methods have different properties. To keep the discussion simple, assume that tj+1 tj = , j =

0, 1, . . . It can be shown that the explicit method is only works (technically, is stable) for small . The

implicit method is stable for all , and its accuracy increases linearly as delta decreases. The CrankNicholson method is also stable for all , its accuracy increases quadratically as decreases, but it involves

more work per step than the implicit method.

I have included a small m-file which uses the backward difference method to solve an initial value problem.

function transient2(n, nstep, dt)

% 1D transient heat conduction problem:

% u_t=u_xx, 0<x<1

% u(0,t)=0, u,x(1,t)=1, u(x,0)= x+sin(pi*x/2)

% exact solution

%

u(x,t)=x+exp(-pi^2 t/4)*sin(pi x/2)

% INPUTS:

% n

= Number of elements

% nstep = Number of time steps

3

% dt

= time increment

%

sdof=n+1;

xvec=linspace(0,1,n+1); % define the node points

h=1/n;

nodes=[[1:n] [2:n+1]]; % configuration matrix

mm=zeros(sdof,sdof); kk=zeros(sdof,sdof); ff=zeros(sdof,1);

ke=elstif(h);

me=elmass(h);

for iel=1:n % assembly loop all elements have same mass and stiffness

for ii=1:2 % assemble mass and stiffness

gn1=nodes(iel,ii);

for jj=1:2

gn2=nodes(iel,jj);

mm(gn1,gn2)=mm(gn1,gn2)+me(ii,jj);

kk(gn1,gn2)=kk(gn1,gn2)+ke(ii,jj);

end

end

end

uold=init_val(xvec); % set inital conditions

effrc=zeros(sdof,1);

t=0;

esol=exac(xvec,0);

close all

hold on

plot(xvec, uold, xvec,esol,o); % plot initial condition

for k=1:nstep % use implicit method

ff(sdof)=1.0; % forcing at time t

effrc=mm*uold+dt*ff; % effective forcing

aa=mm+dt*kk;

aa(1,:)=0; aa(1,1)=1; effrc(1)=0; % impose bc at x=0 and time t

fsol=aa\effrc;

esol=exac(xvec,t+dt);

plot(xvec, fsol, xvec, esol, o); % plot solution at new time, t=t+dt

uold=fsol; t=t+dt;

end

legend(fem soln, exact soln,4)

hold off

%============================================

% end of main program

%============================================

function me=elmass(h)

% element mass matrix

me=(h/6)*[2 1; 1 2];

%============================================

function ke=elstif(h)

% element stiffness matrix

ke=(1/h)*[1 -1; -1 1];

%============================================

function h=init_val(x)

h=sin(pi*x./2)+x;

%============================================

function u=exac(x,t)

u=x+exp(-pi^2*t/4)*sin(pi*x/2)

We now shift our attention to problems with 2 space dimensions. As with the 1D case we consider only the

heat equation in the form

u

2u 2u

+ 2 + g(x, y, t),

=

t

x2

y

(x, y) D, t > 0.

u

= b(x, y, t) on Dq ,

n

u = a(x, y, t) on Du ,

u(x, y, 0) = c(x, y),

(x, y) D,

where, again, c is given. (Again, the usual consistency requirements need to be imposed, e.g., c(x, y)

a(x0 , y0 , 0), as (x, y) (x0 , y0 ) Du .) The weak form is derived just as in the 1D case. We define the

residual

u 2 u 2 u

2 g(x, y, t),

r=

t

x2

y

multiply r by a test function w(x, y) which must vanish on Du (note that w is independent of time t), and

then integrate over D. Using the divergence theorem to integrate by parts just as in the stationary case, we

find

Z

Z

Z

u w u w u

u

wr dA =

(w

+

+

wg) dA

ds.

w

t

x x

y y

n

Dq

D

D

This leads to the weak form. That is, we require that u take the given values on Du , satisfy

Z

Z

Z

u w u w u

(w

+

+

) dA =

wg dA +

wb ds

t

x x

y y

D

D

Dq

for all test functions w vanishing on Du , and take the initial condition u = c at time 0. It is easy to see

that for smooth functions the weak form is equivalent to the original problem.

Now we introduce a division of D into finite elements linear triangles, bilinear rectangles, etc. Ill only

consider linear triangles here but other elements can be handled in a similar manner. We specify that the

trial function be linear on P

each triangular element and continuous throughout the domain. We can then

n+1

write it in the form u =

j=1 j (x, y)uj (t) where the global shape functions, j satisfy the conditions

i (xj , yj ) = ij . We require that the trial solution u satisfy the Dirichlet boundary condition on Du so

that uj (t) = a(xj , yj , t) for nodes on this boundary. We demand that the weak form be satisfied for any

test function w from the set {k , k = 1, . . . , n + 1} ( j corresponding to boundary nodes j on Du should

not be included since w must vanish there, but as usual we ignore this restriction and impose the proper

conditions at the end). Substituting for u and w gives a system of linear equations:

n+1

X

j=1

mij u j +

n+1

X

kij uj = fi ,

i = 1, . . . , n + 1

j=1

Rather than go into the details of these global matrices here, I will focus immediately on a single element

since the global matrices can be assembled from the lower dimensional element matrices. We assume the

element number e is fixed, and therefore to simplify notation do not explicitly indicate it in our formulas.

Letting the element shape functions be denoted by Hj , j = 1, 3 as usual, we can write for an element

Z

H1

M = H2 ( H1 H2 H3 ) dA,

I

H3

5

K=

Z

I

and

H1

x

H2

x

H3

x

( H1

H2

x

H3

x

H1

)+

y

H2

y

H3

y

H1

y

H2

y

H3

y

dA,

Z

H1

H1

H2 b ds

F = H2 g dA +

ID

I

q

H3

H3

Z

M U + KU = F.

For linear triangles the element stiffness matrix is the same as in the static case. The element mass matrix

M is most easily computed by using a transformation of variables to covert the integral over the element to

one over a simpler triangle T = {(r, s) : 0 < r < 1, 0 < s P

< 1 r}. If (xP

j , yj ), j = 1, 2, 3 are the vertices

of the element triangle, a suitable transformation is x = j Hj xj , y = j Hj yj , where Hj are the basis

functions for the triangle T :

H1 (r, s) = 1 r s

H2 (r, s) = r

H3 (r, s) = s

The indicated functions map T linearly onto the element triangle, and the Jacobian of the transformation

(equal to the elemental area ratio) is (x, y)/(r, s) = 2A, where A is the area of the element triangle.

Changing the integration variables then gives

Z 1r

Z 1

2 1 1

1rs

(1 r s r s) = A 1 2 1.

r

ds

dr

M = 2A

12

0

0

1 1 2

s

The corresponding global equations are of the form

M U + KU = F.

This is essentially a system of ODEs for the values uj (t) of the solution at the nodes. As in the 1D case,

all given boundary value information has to be input in order to create a legitimate system. (In this case,

it is required that uj (t) = a(xj , yj , t) whenever node j is on Du . This can be imposed by substituting

u j = a(x

j , yj , t) for the jth equation, and adding the boundary condition uj (0) = a(xj , yj , 0) = c(xj , yj ).)

The remaining considerations involving integrating these equations forward in time are essentially the same

as in the 1D case. Lets look at a slightly altered version of the file ex5111.m from the text which illustrates

the 2D case. The explicit method of time integration is chosen in this file. The numerical solution could be

compared to the exact as computed using the separation of variables technique, but the authors have not

done this. It is easy to show that the exact solution at the center node is given by

!

X

2n

(1)n1

exp( 2 t) ,

u = 100 1 2

n

`

n=1

where n = (2n 1)/2, ` = 2.5. Thus I have included a computation of this value in the file below. Clearly

there are some inaccuracies at the early stages of the computation.

%---------------------------------------------------------------------------%---------------------------------------------------------------------------function ex5111_alt(nx,ny)

% to solve the transient two-dimensional Laplaces equation

%

u,t = u,xx + u,yy , 0 < x < 5, 0 < y < 2

6

% boundary conditions:

%

u(0,y,t) = 100, u(5,y,t) = 100,

%

u,y(x,0,t) = 0, u,y(x,2,t) = 0

% initial condition:

%

u(x,y,0) = 0 over the domain

% using linear triangular elements and forward difference method

%

% Variable descriptions

%

k = element matrix for time-independent term (u,xx + u,yy)

%

m = element matrix for time-dependent term (u,t)

%

f = element vector

%

kk = system matrix of k

%

mm = system matrix of m

%

ff = system vector

%

gcoord = coordinate values of each node

%

nodes = nodal connectivity of each element

%

index = a vector containing system dofs associated with each element

%

bcdof = a vector containing dofs associated with boundary conditions

%

bcval = a vector containing boundary condition values associated with

%

the dofs in bcdof

%---------------------------------------------------------------------------nx1=nx+1; ny1=ny+1;

nel=2*nx*ny;

% number of elements

nnel=3;

% number of nodes per element

ndof=1;

% number of dofs per node

nnode=nx1*ny1;

% total number of nodes in system

sdof=nnode*ndof;

% total system dofs

deltt=0.1;

% time step size for transient analysis

stime=0.0;

% initial time

ftime=10;

% termination time

ntime=fix((ftime-stime)/deltt); % number of time increment

%--------------------------------------------% input data for nodal coordinate values

% gcoord(i,j) where i->node no. and j->x or y

%--------------------------------------------[gcoord, nodes]=gridgen([0,0],[5,2],nx,ny,2);

gridplot(nx,ny,gcoord,nodes,2)

input(Strike any key to continue solution);

bcdof=[1:nx1:nnode-nx, nx1:nx1:nnode ]

lbc=length(bcdof);

bcval=100*ones(1,lbc);

%----------------------------------------ff=zeros(sdof,1);

fn=zeros(sdof,1);

%

fsol=zeros(sdof,1);

%

sol=zeros(2,ntime+1);

%

kk=zeros(sdof,sdof);

%

mm=zeros(sdof,sdof);

%

index=zeros(nnel*ndof,1);

initialization of

solution vector

vector containing

initialization of

initialization of

% initialization

time history solution

system matrix

system matrix

of index vector

%----------------------------------------------------------------for iel=1:nel

nd(1)=nodes(iel,1);

nd(2)=nodes(iel,2);

nd(3)=nodes(iel,3);

x1=gcoord(nd(1),1);

x2=gcoord(nd(2),1);

x3=gcoord(nd(3),1);

% 2nd connected node

% 3rd connected node

y1=gcoord(nd(1),2);%

y2=gcoord(nd(2),2);%

y3=gcoord(nd(3),2);%

for (iel)-th

for (iel)-th

for (iel)-th

coord values

coord values

coord values

element

element

element

of 1st node

of 2nd node

of 3rd node

k=felp2dt3(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3); % compute element matrix

m=felpt2t3(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3); % compute element matrix

kk=feasmbl1(kk,k,index);

mm=feasmbl1(mm,m,index);

% assemble element matrices

end

%----------------------------%

loop for time integration

%----------------------------for in=1:sdof

fsol(in)=0.0;

end

% initial condition

sol(1,1)=fsol(8);

sol(2,1)=fsol(9);

% store time history solution for node no. 9

for it=1:ntime

fn=deltt*ff+(mm-deltt*kk)*fsol;

fsol=mm\fn;

sol(2,it+1)=fsol(9); % store time history solution for node no. 9

end

%-----------------------------------close all

time=0:deltt:ntime*deltt;

for k=1:ntime+1

esol(k)=cntr((k-1)*deltt, 20, 2.5);

end

plot(time,sol(1,:),*,time,sol(2,:),-, time, esol,o);

xlabel(Time)

ylabel(Solution at specified nodes)

legend(node 8, node 9, node 8 exact,0)

%---------------------------------------------------------------

function [index]=feeldof(nd,nnel,ndof)

%---------------------------------------------------------% Purpose:

%

Compute system dofs associated with each element

%

% Synopsis:

%

[index]=feeldof(nd,nnel,ndof)

%

% Variable Description:

%

index - system dof vector associated with element "iel"

%

iel - element number whose system dofs are to be determined

%

nnel - number of nodes per element

%

ndof - number of dofs per node

%----------------------------------------------------------edof = nnel*ndof;

k=0;

for i=1:nnel

start = (nd(i)-1)*ndof;

for j=1:ndof

k=k+1;

index(k)=start+j;

end

end

function [k]=felp2dt3(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3)

%------------------------------------------------------------------% Purpose:

%

element matrix for two-dimensional Laplaces equation

%

using three-node linear triangular element

%

% Synopsis:

%

[k]=felp2dt3(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3)

%

% Variable Description:

%

k - element stiffness matrix (size of 3x3)

%

x1, y1 - x and y coordinate values of the first node of element

%

x2, y2 - x and y coordinate values of the second node of element

%

x3, y3 - x and y coordinate values of the third node of element

%------------------------------------------------------------------% element matrix

A=0.5*(x2*y3+x1*y2+x3*y1-x2*y1-x1*y3-x3*y2); % area of the triangule

k(1,1)=((x3-x2)^2+(y2-y3)^2)/(4*A);

k(1,2)=((x3-x2)*(x1-x3)+(y2-y3)*(y3-y1))/(4*A);

k(1,3)=((x3-x2)*(x2-x1)+(y2-y3)*(y1-y2))/(4*A);

k(2,1)=k(1,2);

k(2,2)=((x1-x3)^2+(y3-y1)^2)/(4*A);

k(2,3)=((x1-x3)*(x2-x1)+(y3-y1)*(y1-y2))/(4*A);

k(3,1)=k(1,3);

k(3,2)=k(2,3);

k(3,3)=((x2-x1)^2+(y1-y2)^2)/(4*A);

function [m]=felpt2t3(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3)

%------------------------------------------------------------------% Purpose:

%

element matrix for transient term of two-dimensional

%

Laplaces equation using linear triangular element

%

% Synopsis:

%

[m]=felpt2t3(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3)

%

% Variable Description:

%

m - element stiffness matrix (size of 3x3)

%

x1, y1 - x and y coordinate values of the first node of element

%

x2, y2 - x and y coordinate values of the second node of element

%

x3, y3 - x and y coordinate values of the third node of element

%------------------------------------------------------------------% element matrix

A=0.5*(x2*y3+x1*y2+x3*y1-x2*y1-x1*y3-x3*y2); % area of the triangle

m = (A/12)* [ 2

1

1

1

2

1

1;

1;

2 ];

function [kk]=feasmbl1(kk,k,index)

%---------------------------------------------------------% Purpose:

%

Assembly of element matrices into the system matrix

%

% Synopsis:

10

%

[kk]=feasmbl1(kk,k,index)

%

% Variable Description:

%

kk - system matrix

%

k - element matri

%

index - d.o.f. vector associated with an element

%-----------------------------------------------------------

edof = length(index);

for i=1:edof

ii=index(i);

for j=1:edof

jj=index(j);

kk(ii,jj)=kk(ii,jj)+k(i,j);

end

end

function [kk,ff]=feaplyc2(kk,ff,bcdof,bcval)

%---------------------------------------------------------% Purpose:

%

Apply constraints to matrix equation [kk]{x}={ff}

%

% Synopsis:

%

[kk,ff]=feaplybc(kk,ff,bcdof,bcval)

%

% Variable Description:

%

kk - system matrix before applying constraints

%

ff - system vector before applying constraints

%

bcdof - a vector containging constrained d.o.f

%

bcval - a vector containing contained value

%

%

For example, there are constraints at d.o.f=2 and 10

%

and their constrained values are 0.0 and 2.5,

%

respectively. Then, bcdof(1)=2 and bcdof(2)=10; and

%

bcval(1)=1.0 and bcval(2)=2.5.

%----------------------------------------------------------n=length(bcdof);

sdof=size(kk);

for i=1:n

c=bcdof(i);

for j=1:sdof

kk(c,j)=0;

end

kk(c,c)=1;

ff(c)=bcval(i);

end

%----------------------------------------------------------function u=cntr(t,n,lx)

11

% t=time, n=number of terms in sum, lx=half-length of region

v=1:2:2*n+1; %n+1 terms

w=cos((0:n)*pi);

lam=pi*v/(2*lx);

series=w.*(v.^-1).*exp(-(lam.^2)*t);

u=100-(400/pi)*sum(series);

12

- Qi George Chen - Presentation Paper- Spring 17Uploaded bycrazyfrog1991
- Différences mailleurs HEXA et Mailleurs TETRAUploaded byerwannlejeune
- Galerkin Finite Element MethodsUploaded bySayan Kar
- Simulating Drop Tests in Solid WorksUploaded byrajeshdhang
- Diploma Thesis Bernhard SchuberthUploaded byEduardo De Los Santos
- Lecture 3Uploaded byRamachandra Reddy
- fem3 17-10-2015Uploaded byVipin Tyagi
- Solving PDEs in CUploaded byNuno Silvestre
- Performance Measurement of an Industry Using Simple Additive WeightageUploaded byIJRASETPublications
- Modulo de PriorizacionUploaded byFran Jimenez
- lec29Uploaded bymahendran
- Plaxis_advanced_course_hong_kong_2012.pdfUploaded byHà Mập
- Imac16 TamUploaded byXi Wang
- 3Uploaded byGURURAJ C
- Slide Chpt07 (1)Uploaded byAkh Il
- EPFL_TH4771Uploaded byJ Jesús Villanueva García
- 7ME1 Finite Element Method, I Mid-term PaperUploaded byडॉ. कनिष्क शर्मा
- Responses 2Uploaded byJavad Rahmany Fard
- FEM in Geotech EngineeringUploaded byWesead Kawayapanik
- Trabajo de Pseudo-metodosUploaded byDiego Julio Mendoza Yerren
- SEM MSc ThesisUploaded bypetmira
- 2008KourepinisPhDUploaded byTej Swaroop
- Finite Element Analysis Techniques SccUploaded byCharlton S.Inao
- 200823Uploaded byRanj N Hassan
- Pt 3 Qustion Control SysUploaded byvarathanps
- Business Decision ProcessesUploaded byOlga Savescu
- FemUploaded byolgajoylabajo
- Thermal 2Uploaded bytauhidboss
- DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN FEM FORMULATION FOR LINEAR THERMO-ELASTO-DYNAMIC PROBLEMSUploaded byMarco André Argenta
- 12_2_jian_sunUploaded byLuiz Dal Castel Missio

- me471s03_q2_ansUploaded byHasen Bebba
- Grease processingUploaded byRishikesh Awale
- صمام عدم الرجوع Check ValveUploaded byHasen Bebba
- CDC UP Project Management Plan TemplateUploaded byMими Кољушкова
- Basic Operation and Function Of_ControlValvesUploaded byAndrew Bailey
- Brainstorming (1)Uploaded byAli M. Chehadeh
- me471s03_syUploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_q1_ansUploaded byHasen Bebba
- Advantages of Globe ValvesUploaded byJohn Rey Tumala
- Structural MechanicsUploaded byDirkPons
- 2015-T-06919-R1.pdfUploaded byHasen Bebba
- ABB Control ValveUploaded byHafzi
- What Plumbing Designers Need to Know About Valves, Part 2.pdfUploaded byHasen Bebba
- What Plumbing Designers Need to Know About Valves, Part 2.pdfUploaded byHasen Bebba
- 1305635132_538742Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471_lec00Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_lec05Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_lec08Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471_hwk06ansUploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471_lec03Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471_prob5_8Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_lec04Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_lec10Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_lec11aUploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_lec07Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471s03_lec06Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- Me471s03 Laplace ExampUploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471_lec01Uploaded byHasen Bebba
- me471_lec02Uploaded byHasen Bebba

- BuildForge-InstallGuide-7114Uploaded byLalit Sharma
- Unidad 6 Protección de GeneradoresUploaded byFrank Loredo
- tda7385-957177Uploaded byanon_676919017
- pbggdUploaded byLuis Rodriguez
- inspiron-17-5748-laptop_Reference Guide_en-us.pdfUploaded byElegguaYemaya
- KvakanisterUploaded byFilip Stojanovic
- tr-3801Uploaded byharis_jebaraj_b
- 03_GE Fanuc- Slovenia-Automation Conference1.pptUploaded byGerardo Onoris Rodriguez
- Vicidial Easy InstallUploaded byjagspaul
- Consumer Reports - December 2015Uploaded bydynetixsd
- Difference Between 4G and LTE _ Difference Between _ 4G vs LTEUploaded byRajasekaran Guruvareddy
- NimbusData ITPTUploaded byGilbert Laszlo Kallenborn
- Map Hidden File System - Top SE ForumUploaded byFreshprince
- IDX Taxonomy 2014 Guide Ver 2Uploaded byEnny Lie
- Project Plan asdUploaded byjohn doe
- HA465084Uploaded byHayden Lovett
- Inverter Drives and Need for Line ReactorsUploaded byLoboDemian
- AutocadUploaded byapi-3717098
- 889676Uploaded byEdwin Otavalo
- Project Management WorkbookUploaded byAr Puneet Arora
- Notebook CLEVO ManualUploaded byhumtydumty3810
- Bad Tests Good TestsUploaded byIrina Yogy
- Getting Started With Stata 11.2Uploaded byDian Fitria
- Grievance Handling SystemUploaded byYogendra Singh Chahar
- CCNA 4 Exam 8 Study GuideUploaded bybrockz26
- Hw Lsp Chart Jan 2017 LSDUploaded byrahulhcl
- Thesis Master v 2Uploaded byHend Ghanem
- BRK3054_DemoTimingsUploaded byMarius Mag
- qrp-z-match-40-10m-iss-1-3Uploaded byAdrianPleată
- Nys Mv-326 - Form Used to Cancel Your Driver's LicenseUploaded byjohnbaptistchruckkdk