bearing capacity

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 2

2018 - The Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on Slopes

bearing capacity

© All Rights Reserved

- vod mate usage
- GTS NX Interfaces AutoCAD – MIDAS GEN for Tunnel–Soil–Pile Interaction Analysis 1497563781
- Guidelines Legislated Landslide 1
- Bridge-Design of Shallow Foundations (1)
- Part 3 Slope
- PT Ground Anchors
- Slope Stability BW
- Er 260 Links
- Course Book of Foundation for Civil Engineering 2012-2013
- coeficientes sismicos
- Lecture 3
- Points for Discussion on 15-03-15
- Characteristic Shear Strength Values for EC7
- List of Geo Softwares HK
- Soil Engineering
- Prob Slope Stability Oguz
- 2006 Hack Discontinuous Rock Mech5
- Sagaseta Et Al - General Solution Anchor Force in Rock Slopes With Toppling
- 2014-Impact of weathering on slope stability in soft rock mass.pdf
- Impact of weathering on slope stability in soft rock mass.pdf

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

S. Van Baars

University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

ABSTRACT: In 1920 Prandtl published an analytical solution for the bearing capacity of a soil under a strip

load. Over the years, extensions have been made for a surrounding surcharge, the soil weight, the shape of the

footing, the inclination of the load, and also for a slope. In order to check the current extensions of a loaded

strip footing next to a slope, many finite element calculations have been made, showing that these extensions

are often inaccurate. Therefore new factors have been proposed, which are for both the soil-weight and the

surcharge slope bearing capacity, based on the numerical calculations, and for the cohesion slope bearing ca-

pacity, also on an analytical solution.

mic spiral, in which the principal stresses rotate

In 1920, Ludwig Prandtl published an analytical so- through ½ radians, or 90 degrees, from Zone 1

lution for the bearing capacity of a soil under a strip to Zone 3. The pitch of the sliding surface of the

load, p, causing kinematic failure of the weightless logarithmic spiral equals the angle of internal

infinite half-space underneath. The strength of the friction; , creating a smooth transition between

half-space is given by the angle of internal friction, Zone 1 and Zone 3.

, and the cohesion, c. The original drawing of the 3. Zone 3: A triangular zone adjacent to the strip

failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl can be seen load. Since there is no friction on the surface of

in Figure 1. the ground, the directions of principal stress are

horizontal and vertical; the largest principal

stress is in the horizontal direction.

Reissner (1924) with a surrounding surcharge, q, and

was based on the same failure mechanism. Albert S.

Keverling Buisman (1940) and Karl Terzaghi (1943)

extended the Prandtl-Reissner formula for the soil

weight, . It was Terzaghi who first wrote the bear-

Figure 1. The Prandtl-wedge failure mechanism (Original ing capacity with three separate bearing capacity

drawing by Prandtl).

factors for the cohesion, surcharge and soil weight.

George G. Meyerhof (1953) was the first to propose

The lines in the sliding soil part on the left indicate

equations for inclined loads, based on his own labor-

the directions of the maximum and minimum princi-

atory experiments. Meyerhof was also the first in

pal stresses, while the lines in the sliding soil part on

1963 to write the formula for the (vertical) bearing

the right, indicate the sliding lines with a direction of

capacity pv with bearing capacity factors (N), incli-

= 45 - ½ in comparison to the maximum princi-

nation factors (i) and shape factors (s), for the three

pal stress. Prandtl subdivided the sliding soil part in-

independent bearing components; cohesion (c), sur-

to three zones:

charge (q) and soil weight (), in a way it was adopt-

1. Zone 1: A triangular zone below the strip load.

ed by Jørgen A. Brinch Hansen (1970) and it is still

Since there is no friction on the ground surface,

used nowadays:

the directions of the principal stresses are hori-

zontal and vertical; the largest principal stress is pv ic sc cNc iq sq qNq i s 12 BN . (1)

in the vertical direction.

Coulomb (c, ) soil model without hardening, sof-

Prandtl (1920) solved the cohesion bearing capacity tening, or volume change during failure (so the dila-

factor: tancy angle = 0).

1 sin

Nc K p e tan 1 cot with: K p (2)

1 sin 2 MEYERHOF & VESIC

Reissner (1924) solved the surcharge bearing capaci-

ty factor with the equilibrium of moments of Zone 2: Shallow foundations also exist in or near slopes, for

example the foundation of a house or a bridge (Fig-

2

r 1

tan

ure 2). Meyerhof was in 1957 the first to publish

N q K p 3 K p e tan with: r3 r1 e 2 (3) about the bearing capacity of foundations on a slope.

r1 He wrote: “Foundations are sometimes built on

Keverling Buisman (1940), Terzaghi (1943), Caquot sloping sites or near the top edge of a slope…. When

and Kérisel (1953, 1966), Meyerhof (1951; 1953; a foundation located on the face of a slope is loaded

1963; 1965), Brinch Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973, to failure, the zones of plastic flow in the soil on the

1975), and Chen (1975) subsequently proposed dif- side of the slope are smaller than those of a similar

ferent equations for the soil-weight bearing capacity foundation on level ground and the ultimate bearing

factor N. Therefore the following equations for the capacity is correspondingly reduced”.

soil-weight bearing capacity factor can be found in

the literature:

N K p e tan 1 tan 1.4 (Meyerhof),

N 1.5 K p e tan 1 tan (Brinch Hansen),

(4)

N 2 K p e tan 1 tan (Vesic),

N 2 K p e tan 1 tan (Chen).

all based on associated soil ( = ). Loukidis et al

(2008) noticed that non-dilatant (non-associated) soil

is 15% - 30% weaker than associated soil, and has a

rougher failure pattern. Van Baars (2015, 2016a,

2016b) confirmed these results with his numerical

calculations and showed that, for non-dilatant soil,

the following lower factors describe better the bear-

ing capacity:

Nq cos2 K p e tan (5)

the numerical results has been explained by Knudsen

and Mortensen (2016): The higher the friction angle,

the wider the logarithmic spiral of the Prandtl wedge

and the more the stresses reduce in this wedge dur-

ing failure. So, the analytical formulas are only kin-

ematically admissible for an associated flow behav- Figure 2. Footing of a house and bridge near a slope.

iour ( = ), which is completely unrealistic for

natural soils. This means for higher friction angles as Meyerhof published a failure mechanism of a foot-

well that, a calculation of the bearing capacity of a ing in a slope (Figure 3 above) and introduced fig-

footing based on the analytical solutions (Equations ures with reduced bearing capacity factors (Figure 3

2-3), is also unrealistic. below). The problems with these figures are:

Therefore, in this study, the bearing capacity fac- • it is unclear if the figures are based on non-

tors and the slope factors will be calculated with the associated flow behaviour, or not,

software Plaxis 2D for a bi-linear constitutive Mohr-

• the figures are not explained and cannot be veri- Brinch Hansen (1970) also worked on the influence

fied, of a slope. Vesic (1975) combined the work of Mey-

• the figures are only for purely cohesive or pure- erhof and Brinch Hansen and proposed the following

ly frictional soil, bearing capacity equation:

• the important angle (see line EA in the figure

on the left) is never solved, p c cNc q qNq 12 BN , (8)

• the slope bearing capacity does not go to “0” for

with the following slope factors:

= , and

• the reduced bearing capacity factors of Meyer- N q q 1

hof are too high according to the results of Fi- c 0 ,

Nq 1

nite Element Model (FEM load controlled) cal-

culations, made in this article (see the added 2

c 1 0 , (9)

points in Figure 3 below). 2

q 1 tan .

2

slope factors do not depend on the friction angle ,

and that the surcharge slope factor q and the soil-

weight slope factor are identical.

Another mistake is that the cohesion slope factor

Nc is solved based on the assumption that Equation 6

about the relation between the cohesion bearing ca-

pacity Nc and the surcharge bearing capacity Nq, is

also valid for inclined loading, and also for loading

near a slope (cNc = (qNq - 1)cot). This assumption

was published first by De Beer and Ladanyi (1961).

Vesic (1975) calls this “the theorem of correspond-

ence”, and Bolton (1975) calls this “the usual trick”.

The relation between Nc and Nq in Equation 6 is co-

incidently valid for vertical ultimate loads without a

slope (Nc = (Nq - 1)cot), but the assumption that this

is also the case for inclined loading and loading near

a slope, is not correct, according to the results of the

numerical calculations, and also according to the an-

alytical solution given later in this paper.

This indicates that not only the inclination factors,

but also the slope factors proposed by Vesic, are in-

correct and should not be used.

about the bearing capacity of footings on a slope, but

that was mostly limited to, or purely cohesive slopes

(Azzouz and Baligh, 1983; Graham et al., 1988,

Georgiadis, 2010, Shiau et al (2011) or purely non-

cohesive slopes (Grahams et al., 1988), in a ge-

otechnical centrifuge (Shields et al. 1990), or dedi-

cated to even more complex cases like seismicity

(Kumar and Rao, 2003; Yamamoto, 2010), rein-

forced soil (Alamshahi and Hataf, 2009; Choudhary

Figure 3. Above: failure mechanism of a footing in a slope. et al., 2010) or 3D load cases near slopes

Below: reduced bearing capacity factors (according to Meyer- (Michalowski, 1989; De Butan and Garnier, 1998),

hof, 1957). while the more simple non-seismic, non-reinforced,

2D situation is still not fully understood.

Chakraborty and Kumar (2013) were one of the first

to make a more general study, but unfortunately only

used, as most researchers, the lower bound finite el-

ement limit analysis with a non-linear optimization.

They also did not present slope correction factors.

The same applies to Leshchinsky (2015), who used

an upper-bound limit state plasticity failure discreti-

sation scheme.

The currently most used slope correction factors,

are the following slope correction factors mentioned

in the German design norm (in fact the German An-

nex to Eurocode 7 “Geotechnical Engineering”):

N q e 1

c 0 ,

Nq 1

c 1 0.4 tan 0 , (10) (10)

q 1 tan ,

1.9

1 0.5 tan ,

6

avoid slope failure: ≤ .

in the German design norm about these factors,

which is a major problem. It is also remarkable, for

these slope correction factors in the German norm, if

not to say impossible, that the surcharge slope factor

and also the soil-weight slope factor do not depend

on the friction angle.

Because of these problems, the bearing capacity

near slopes has been studied with the well-

established and validated Finite Element Model

Plaxis. First load controlled calculations have been

made, and second, comparisons have been made be-

tween these Finite Element calculations and the re-

sults of the German design norm, the results of

Bishop slip circle calculations (with the program

“GEO5” from “Fine Civil Engineering Software”)

and, for the cohesion slope factor c, also the results

of the analytical solution proposed in this article.

4 SLOPE FACTORS

4.1 Cohesion slope factor c

For two different friction angles = 0, 30 and four

different slope angles = 0, 10, 20, 30, the fail-

ure mechanism for a cohesive (c = 10 kPa), weight-

less (’= 0 kN/m3) soil has been calculated with

numerical calculations (FEM) and compared with

the Prandtl failure mechanism, see Figure 4.

Figure 4. Failure mechanism: Prandtl-wedge versus FEM

(Incremental displacement plots).

This figure shows that a Prandtl-wedge with a re- with a reduced logarithmic spiral-wedge, which is

duced Zone 2 (the logarithmic spiral wedge) de- according to the numerical calculations not the case.

scribes in general the failure mechanism. Also plots of the incremental displacements of the

Because of this, it is also possible to derive an an- FEM calculations, indicating this failure mechanism,

alytical solution for the cohesion slope factor, in the show that this approach is not correct for purely fric-

same way as the derivation of the cohesion inclina- tional soil (Figure 6).

tion factor ic (see Van Baars, 2014):

2

c cos e2 tan e tan (11)

2

The results of this analytical solution, the German

design norm and the Bishop’s slip circle method

have been plotted in Figure 5, together with the re-

sults from the Finite Element calculations. Figure 5

shows that the Bishop calculations are only correct

for a zero friction angle. The analytical solution

functions very well. The German norm would func-

tion just as good, if not the Prandtl solution for large

dilatancy (Equation 2), but the solution for zero dila-

tancy (Equation 6), would have be used. The reason

for this is because:

N q e0.0349 tan 1 2

cos e2 tan e tan

Nq 1 2

(12)

(Incremental displacement plots).

weight slope factor , in a similar way as was done

for the cohesion slope factor c. Although, a simple

approximation can easily be made, for example:

Figure 5. Cohesion slope factor 2

(Analytical solution, German norm and Bishop versus FEM). 3

1 (13)

4.2 Soil-weight slope factor

The results of this equation, the German design

A mistake which can be found in the publication of norm and the Bishop’s slip circle method have been

Meyerhof (1957), but also in many recent publica- plotted in Figure 7, together with the results from the

tions, is the assumption that the failure mechanism Finite Element calculations. This figure shows that

in a purely frictional soil (N), is a Prandtl-wedge the analytical approximation functions reasonably

well. The German design norm does not fit. The q e2 tan , (14)

Bishop calculations do not fit at all. An important

reason for this is the fact that the slip circle in the which is the same equation for the surcharge slope

Bishop calculations has been forced not to cross the factor as the one proposed by Ip (2005). The prob-

foundation plate, while the FEM calculations show lems with this solution are:

that the soil slides somewhere below the plate (see • it neglects the extension (dashed lines) due to

especially Figure 6 for = 20), which causes the the depth, and

plate to tumble over. This tumbling failure mecha- • the surcharge slope factor is not “0” for = ,

nism however, is not part of the Bishop calculation which is the same problem as for the slope fac-

method. tors of Meyerhof in Figure 3.

(Approximation, German norm and Bishop versus FEM).

In order to see the influence of having a shallow sol-

Figure 8. Failure mechanism: Prandtl-wedge versus FEM

id footing, additional finite element calculations (Incremental displacement plots).

have been made for a relative depth of D/B = 1. This

relative depth creates an additional bearing capacity It is therefore better to make, in this case, a simple

mostly due to the surcharge of q = ’D , but also due approximation for the surcharge slope factor q, for

to a larger slip surface, of which the influence is dif- example:

ficult to quantify.

3

Plots of the incremental displacements of the 2

FEM calculations, indicating the failure mechanism, q 1 . (15)

show that the failure mechanism of a shallow foun-

dation in a frictional soil with self-weight, is an ex- The results of this equation, the German design

tended Prandtl-wedge with a reduced logarithmic norm and the Bishop’s slip circle method have been

spiral-wedge, see Figure 8. plotted in Figure 9, together with the results from the

Since Figure 8 shows that in general the failure Finite Element calculations.

mechanism looks like an extended Prandtl-wedge This figure shows that the Bishop calculations fit

with a reduced logarithmic spiral-wedge, it seems

better for steeper slopes this time, but still not for

possible to derive an analytical solution for the sur-

charge slope factor, which is purely based on the re- gentile slopes. The German design norm and espe-

duced logarithmic spiral-wedge. This would give the cially the analytical approximation are functioning

following surcharge slope factor: reasonably well.

Bolton, M. D. (1979) Guide to Soil Mechanics, Macmillian

Press, London, p. 330

Brinch Hansen, J. A. (1970) Revised and extended formula for

bearing capacity, Bulletin No 28, Danish Geotechnical In-

stitute Copenhagen, pp. 5-11.

Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J. (1953) Sur le terme de surface dans

le calcul des fondations en milieu pulverulent. Proc. Third

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-

tion Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 16–27 August

1953, Vol. 1, pp. 336–337.

Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J. (1966) Traité de Méchanique des

sols, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, pp. 349, 353

Chen, W.F. (1975) Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier.

Chakraborty, D. And Kumar, J (2013) Bearing capacity of

foundations on slopes. Geomechanics and Geoengineer-

ing, An International Journal, 8(4), pp 274-285.

Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N., Gill, K.S. (2010) Laboratory inves-

tigation of bearing capacity behaviour of strip footing on

reinforced flyash slope, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,

Volume 28, Issue 4, August 2010, pp. 393-402

De Beer, E. E. and Ladany, B. (1961) Etude expérimentale de

la capacité portante du sable sous des fondations circu-

laire établies en surface, Proceedings 5th Intern. Conf.

Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Paris, Vol 1, pp. 577-581

De Buhan, P. and Garnier, D. (1998), Three Dimensional Bear-

Figure 9. Surcharge slope factor ing Capacity Analysis of a Foundation near a Slope, Soils

(Approximation, German norm and Bishop versus FEM). and Foundations, 38(3), pp. 153-163.

Georgiadis, K. (2010), Undrained Bearing Capacity of Strip

Footings on Slopes, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-

5 CONCLUSIONS tal Engineering, 136(5), pp. 677-685.

Graham, J., Andrews, M. and Shields, D.H. (1988), Stress

A large number of finite element calculations of Characteristics for Shallow Footings in Cohesionless

strip footings next to a slope have been made in or- Slope, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(2), pp. 238-

der to check the failure mechanisms, and to check 249.

the bearing capacities, first for the currently used Ip, K. W. (2005) Bearing capacity for foundation near slope,

equations for the slope bearing capacity factors, pro- Master-thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,

posed by the German Annex of the Geotechnical Eu- Canada. pp. 61-64.

rocode, and second for the bearing capacity calculat- Keverling Buisman, A. S. (1940). Grondmechanica, Waltman,

ed with the Bishop slip circle stability calculation Delft, the Netherlands, p. 243

method. These calculations proof that both the Ger- Knudsen, B. S. and Mortensen, N. (2016) Bearing capacity

man slope factors and the Bishop calculations are of- comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK

ten inaccurate. NA 2013, Northern Geotechnical Meeting 2016, Reykja-

Therefore new factors have been proposed, which vik, pp 577-586

are for both the soil-weight and the surcharge slope Kumar, J. and Rao, V.B.K.M. (2003) Seismic bearing capacity

bearing capacity, based on the numerical calcula- of foundations on slopes, Geotechnique, 53(3), pp. 347-

tions, and for the cohesion slope bearing capacity, 361

also on an analytical solution. Lambe. T.W. and Whitman, R.V. (1969), Soil Mechanics, John

Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.

Leshchinsky, B. (2015). Bearing capacity of footings placed

6 REFERENCES adjacent to c′-ϕ′ slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Ge-

oenvironmental Engineering, 141(6)

Alamshahi, S. and Hataf, N. (2009) Bearing capacity of strip Loukidis, D., Chakraborty, T., and Salgado, R., (2008) Bearing

footings on sand slopes reinforced with geogrid and grid- capacity of strip footings on purely frictional soil under

anchor, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume 27, Is- eccentric and inclined loads, Can. Geotech. J. 45, pp 768–

sue 3, June 2009, pp. 217-226 787

Azzouz, A. S. and Baligh, M. M. (1983) Loaded areas on co- Meyerhof, G. G. (1951) The ultimate bearing capacity of foun-

hesive slopes, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. dations, Géotechnique, 2, pp. 301-332

109, pp. 724-729 Meyerhof, G. G. (1953) The bearing capacity of foundations

under eccentric and inclined loads, in Proc. III intl. Conf.

on Soil Mechanics Found. Eng., Zürich, Switzerland, 1,

pp. 440-445

Meyerhof, G. G. (1957) The ultimate bearing capacity of foun-

dations on slopes, Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Me-

chanics and Foundation Engineering, London, August

1957, pp. 384-386.

Meyerhof, G. G. (1963) Some recent research on the bearing

capacity of foundations, Canadian Geotech. J. , 1(1), pp.

16-26

Meyerhof, G. G. (1965) Shallow foundations, Journal of the

Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 91,

No. 2, March/April 1965, pp. 21-32

Michalowski, R. L. (1989). Three-dimensional analysis of lo-

cally loaded slopes. Geotechnique, 39(1), 27-38.

Prandtl, L. (1920) “Über die Härte plastischer Körper.” Nachr.

Ges. Wiss. Goettingen, Math.-Phys. Kl., pp. 74–85.

Shiau, J., Merifield, R., Lyamin, A., and Sloan, S. (2011) Un-

drained stability of footings on slopes. International

Journal of Geomechanics, 11(5), 381-390.

Shields, D., Chandler, N., Garnier, J. (1990) Bearing Capacity

of Foundations in Slopes, Journal of Geotechnical Engi-

neering, Vol 116, No 3, pp. 528-537

Reissner, H. (1924) “Zum Erddruckproblem.” Proc., 1st Int.

Congress for Applied Mechanics, C. B. Biezeno and J. M.

Burgers, eds., Delft, the Netherlands, pp. 295–311.

Terzaghi, K. (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc, New York

Van Baars, S. (2014) The inclination and shape factors for the

bearing capacity of footings, Soils and Foundations,

Vol.54, No.5, October 2014.

Van Baars, S. (2015) The Bearing Capacity of Footings on Co-

hesionless Soils, The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ISSN 1089-3032, Vol 20

Van Baars, S. (2016a) Failure mechanisms and corresponding

shape factors of shallow foundations, 4th Int. Conf. on

New Development in Soil Mech. and Geotechn. Eng.,

Nicosia, pp. 551-558

Van Baars, S. (2016b) The influence of superposition and ec-

centric loading on the bearing capacity of shallow founda-

tions, Journal of Computations and Materials in Civil

Engineering, Volume 1, No. 3, ISSN 2371-2325, pp. 121-

131

Vesic, A. S. (1973) Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foun-

dations. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(1), pp. 45–76.

Vesic, A.S. (1975) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations,

H.F. Winterkorn, H.Y. Fang (Eds.), Foundation Engineer-

ing Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

(1975), pp. 121–147

Yamamoto, K. (2010), Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundations near Slopes using the Upper-Bound Method,

Int. J. Geotechnical Engineering., 4(2), 255-267

- vod mate usageЗагружено:Sanjay Kumar Roy
- GTS NX Interfaces AutoCAD – MIDAS GEN for Tunnel–Soil–Pile Interaction Analysis 1497563781Загружено:Jose Joaquin Lara Ruiz
- Guidelines Legislated Landslide 1Загружено:Stavroula Fotopoulou
- Bridge-Design of Shallow Foundations (1)Загружено:Abdul Kabasy
- Part 3 SlopeЗагружено:Beniamin Sangeorzan
- PT Ground AnchorsЗагружено:Muhammad Azeem Khan
- Slope Stability BWЗагружено:Arif Rachman Appandi
- Er 260 LinksЗагружено:Nazril Ilham Charisma
- Course Book of Foundation for Civil Engineering 2012-2013Загружено:structuralengineers
- coeficientes sismicosЗагружено:Francisco Bonifaz
- Lecture 3Загружено:sakit786
- Points for Discussion on 15-03-15Загружено:Sushil Dhungana
- Characteristic Shear Strength Values for EC7Загружено:Brian Conner
- List of Geo Softwares HKЗагружено:isaych33ze
- Soil EngineeringЗагружено:Joseph Johnston
- Prob Slope Stability OguzЗагружено:Marcus Lindon
- 2006 Hack Discontinuous Rock Mech5Загружено:Danyel Hidalgo Bruna
- Sagaseta Et Al - General Solution Anchor Force in Rock Slopes With TopplingЗагружено:picochulo17
- 2014-Impact of weathering on slope stability in soft rock mass.pdfЗагружено:Tomy Efraim Situmorang
- Impact of weathering on slope stability in soft rock mass.pdfЗагружено:Tomy Efraim Situmorang
- Stability of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures.pdfЗагружено:Med El Hadi Abidi
- Liu 2004Загружено:Bryan Ramos Agreda
- Jiang 2013Загружено:Pablo Cesar Trejo
- McCombieЗагружено:SHAMIL
- Xiao 2011Загружено:fauzi
- JGSadd_ver.01-170047Загружено:Jonathan Javier Velásquez Quesquén
- 5_6149912092880142413Загружено:Rushikesh patil
- Slope Stabilty Analysis_Layered soil.xlsЗагружено:somenath
- Plate Load Test for Safe Bearing Capacity and SettlementЗагружено:FOZCAN
- Presentation on Slope Staability analysis.pptxЗагружено:toaha

- Checking procedureЗагружено:mnazzal17
- Robertson SCPT Bolvia 2015Загружено:Rodrigo Rivera
- Permeability test Layout1 (1) (1).pdfЗагружено:PranavaDart
- Atkinson, J.H., 2017. Non-linear Soil MechanicsЗагружено:mOchO
- mudippuЗагружено:PranavaDart
- 07 101groundimprovementtechniques 140715150034 Phpapp01Загружено:Raj Sunil
- Flexible Pavement Design - CivilFerbaЗагружено:PranavaDart
- (UNITEXT for Physics) Claudio Chiuderi, Marco Velli (auth.)-Basics of Plasma Astrophysics-Springer-Verlag Mailand (2015).pdfЗагружено:PranavaDart
- அத்திவாரம்.pdfЗагружено:PranavaDart
- Phd Scholarships in Geo Technical EngineeringЗагружено:PranavaDart
- Plaque 1Загружено:PranavaDart
- PileTestingSettlementPrediction Poulos 2013Загружено:PranavaDart
- Tutorial 07 Eurocode DesignЗагружено:r
- Computational Contact Mechanics Yastrebov (1)Загружено:PranavaDart
- ajcea-5-4-1.pdfЗагружено:PranavaDart
- 355_15Загружено:PranavaDart
- GE - Soil Engineering Aug 09 Article.pdfЗагружено:PranavaDart
- bearingcapasityofsoil-170117151149Загружено:PranavaDart
- comprehenssiveppt2017-180124091040Загружено:PranavaDart
- Cost vs UncertainityЗагружено:PranavaDart
- Bearing Capacity of Shallow foundationsЗагружено:Snow Yoshima
- Foundation Site InvestigationЗагружено:Snow Yoshima
- Principles of Site InvestigationЗагружено:PranavaDart
- Foundation engineering Lecture 1Загружено:Hanniel Madramootoo
- 1-s2.0-S0020768306002216-mainЗагружено:PranavaDart
- Ferrocement construction Technology and its Applications.pdfЗагружено:PranavaDart
- EM_1110-2-2300_2Загружено:Soenarto Soendjaja
- Cive444 Chapter 6 LectureЗагружено:PranavaDart

- An Effectual Hybrid Approach Using Data Encryption Standard (DES) and Secured Hash Algorithm (SHA) for Image SteganographyЗагружено:Anonymous lPvvgiQjR
- 1602041044-MD-04-MT-RSANA-PD-076 Rev.00 Maintenance procedure for TOC-COD Analyzer.pdfЗагружено:Ky Nguyen Trong
- MIL DLL October 2-6, 2017 Grade 12Загружено:Maria Victoria Padro
- Coplan. Steve Biko Returns- The Persistence of Black Conciousness in Azania (South Africa)Загружено:MariáteguiVive
- Term PeppaЗагружено:Danica De Villa
- KUMPULAN GAMBARЗагружено:yuni widodo
- Rol Del Anestesiologo en Morbilidad y Mortalidad MaternaЗагружено:Diana Reaño Ruiz
- Burke A. Cunha - Infectious Diseases in Critical Care Medicine - 3rd EditionЗагружено:golden
- News Creative NarrativesЗагружено:nektarini
- HR Roundtable BiosЗагружено:Anonymous 6po1en
- Chemical Mediators of Acute Inflammation 2Загружено:Sashika Tharindu
- Jawapan Soalan Percubaan Matematik 2013 MelakaЗагружено:Insinyur Muhammad Norazam
- IGiftLife Case Study Write-Up.docxЗагружено:Restin Bond
- ArnavCVЗагружено:samik@teradata
- Translate Jurnal Love 1Загружено:Citra Aura
- Chapter 3 - EE603Загружено:Azhani
- Hoang Pham _ CVЗагружено:Phạm Huy Hoàng
- MScMCF2014_AdmissionExerciseЗагружено:bossuBosilor
- 44841584 Integrated Pest Management in SugarcaneЗагружено:dangkyma
- CryptographyЗагружено:Xozan
- Week 5 LectureЗагружено:Faded Rianbow
- Lab_7-Coefficient of Kinetic FrictionЗагружено:Julian Steven Gutierrez
- Simmons PraiseЗагружено:cart_thick
- Butler, Cornelia H._ Schwartz, Alexandra-Modern Women _ Women Artists at the Museum of Modern Art-Museum of Modern Art (2010)Загружено:Ali do Espirito Santo
- Desalting, Concentration, And Buffer Exchange by Dialysis and UltrafiltrationЗагружено:AlejandraBarrónHernández
- Topic 1 Embroidery Tools & MaterialsЗагружено:Angie Filler
- Powerbus SpecificationЗагружено:xiaomu
- Emc Ac MotorsЗагружено:rdsraj
- 167666365-Project-on-Axis-bank.docxЗагружено:ansari naseem ahmad
- Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery- Overview, Preparation, TechniqueЗагружено:Hendra Suttanta

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.