This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

L.T. Chen1 and H.G. Poulos 2 ABSTRACT: Piles may be subject to lateral soil movements induced by nearby settling embankments, pile driving operations, excavation operations, tunneling operations, moving slopes, or landslides. Accurate estimation of the soil movement is key to successful estimation of the lateral pile response caused by the soil movement. This paper first briefly describes a theoretical procedure and elastic design charts for analyzing the pile response to lateral soil movements, and then, through a study of published centrifuge model tests and case histories, develops simple guidelines for approximating actual soil movements for theoretical analysis. It is shown tha t in many cases the actual soil movement can be simplified to either a linear or uniform profile, and can be readily applied to the design charts for estimating the maximum pile response with reasonable accuracy. The analysis methods and guidelines described in this paper are simple and efficient to use in practice, especially for undertaking preliminary feasibility studies.

INTRODUCTION In Hong Kong geotechnical engineers are often required to either assess the lateral response of existing piles caused by adjacent settling approach embankments (where piles are supporting bridge abutments), pile driving operations, excavation operations, tunneling operations, moving slopes or landslides, or to design piles to stabilize unstable slopes or potential landslides. In all these cases, the piles are subject to lateral soil movements which induce bending moments and deflections in the piles and may lead to their structural distress or failure. The problem of piles subject to lateral soil movements has become a subject of considerable research work. However, great uncertainties still remain in relation to the theoretical solutions for estimating the pile response (including deflection and bending moment) and the consequent pile integrity, the most notable being the accurate estimation of the magnitude and distribution of the soil movements and the limiting lateral soil pressure which the moving soil applies to the pile. While the estimation of the limiting soil pressure has received reasonably wide discussion in the literature (see for example Poulos & Davis, 1980; Chen & Poulos, 1994, 1997), discussion on the estimation of the soil movement is relatively scarce . It is the main purpose of this paper to first describe briefly a theoretical procedure and some design charts based on elasticity theory for analyzing the lateral pile response, and then, through a study of published centrifuge model tests and case histories, to develop simple guidelines for approximating soil movements for making theoretical estimation of the lateral pile response. The analysis methods and guidelines described in this paper are simple and efficient to use in practice, especially for undertaking preliminary feasibility studies.

1

Senior Geotechnical E ngineer, Atkins China Ltd, 15/F Miramar Tower, 132 Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2 Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Int. Ltd, 142 Wicks Road, North Ryde 2113, and Professor, The University of Sydney, Australia.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Detailed accounts of examples of piles subject to soil movements can be found in the literature, such as Poulos & Davis (1980), Poulos (1988) and Chen (1994). Some typical examples are briefly described below. Piles adjacent to Excavation or Tunneling Operations Finno et al (1991) described a case where a 17.7m deep tieback excavation was made through primarily granular soils within an existing frame structure, which was supported by groups of step-tapered piles about 21 m long. Although the excavation was provided with temporary support by a tieb ack sheet-pile wall, the main column pile caps had moved about 6.4cm laterally toward the excavation by the time the sheet-pile extraction was about to begin. Lee et al. (1994) described a case involving the construction of a tunnel for the Angel Underground Station in London. The tunnel was driven between pile foundations supporting a seven-story building with a two-story basement, the tunnel axis line being about 5.7m from the nearest piles. Measured data showed that some of the piles had moved laterally toward the tunnel by about 10mm when the tunneling operation was complete. Piles for Slope Stabilization Kalteziotis et al (1993) documented a case where more than 30 piles arranged in two rows were used successfully to stabilize an unstable slope. Poulos (1995) described a case where large diameter bored piles were designed to increase slope stability in Australia. Chen & Thomas (1999) described the design of bored pile walls to stabilize two fill slopes in Hong Kong. Piles in Landslide Areas Escario et al (1989) reported a case where three 50m long masonry piers were used to support a viaduct adjacent to unstable steep slopes. The sliding slopes had caused the piers to deflect horizontally and damage the viaduct. Piles adjacent to Pile Driving Hagerty & Peck (1971) reported a case of substantial pile deflections caused by adjacent pile driving. Some step-taper piles were driven behind a bulkhead into a soft clay deposit. The already driven piles were caused by subsequent driving to displace laterally and were tilted towards the bulkhead. The average measured lateral movement of the pile nearest to the bulkhead was estimated to be about 58cm. Piles adjacent to Embankments Hull & McDonald (1992) reported a case where some pier piles were damaged by the lateral soil movements resulting from an adjacent embankment construction.

ANALYSIS METHOD OF LATERAL PILE RESPONSE The problem of a vertical pile subject to lateral soil movements is schematically shown in Fig. 1, where d is pile diameter, L is pile le ngth, and zs is thickness of unstable soil layer.

zs L d

Fig. 1 Pile subject to lateral soil movement

Broadly speaking, the analysis methods of the lateral pile response may be classified into the following three categories: 1) displacement -based methods, as described by Poulos (1973) in which a free-field soil movement profile is imposed on a pile in a simplified boundary element analysis to estimate the pile response. 2) pressure -based methods, in which a soil pressure profile is imposed on the pile in the pile analysis, such as that used by De Beer and Wallays (1972). 3) finite element method, such as that described by Rowe & Poulos (1979). Of these methods, it appears that the displacement-based boundary element analysis can be applied virtually to any type of problems provided that the free-field soil movement can be estimated. In the analysis, the pile is modeled as a simple elastic beam, and the soil as an elastic continuum. The lateral displacement of each element of the pile can be related to the pile bending stiffness and the horizontal pile-soil interaction stresses. The lateral displacement of the corresponding soil elements is related to the soil modulus or stiffness, the pile-soil interaction stresses, and the free-field lateral soil movements. A limiting lateral pilesoil stress can be specified so that local failure of the soil can be allowed for, thus allowing a nonlinear response to be obtained. Based on this analysis, Hull (1987) developed a boundary element program named PALLAS for analyzing the lateral pile response. Using such an analysis method, a series of simple design charts have been developed for estimating maximum pile bending moments and deflections associated with slope stabilization, excavation and tunneling operations, as described by Poulos (1995), Poulos & Chen (1996a, 1996b), Chen & Poulos (1996), and Chen et al (1999, 2000).

Fig. 2 Elastic solutions for unrestrained free-head pile in Gibson soil (Linear Soil Movement Profile) (after Chen & Poulos, 1997)

Elastic design charts to accommodate a more general situation have also been presented by Poulos (1989) and Chen & Poulos (1997, 1999). These elastic design charts cater for two basic soil movement profiles, namely, uniform and linear profiles, although in principle they can be extended to cover other profiles. Some of the design charts are reproduced in Fig. 2. The input parameters required for use of the elastic design charts include pile diameter (d), pile length (L), pile bending rigidity (EpI p), soil Young’s modulus (E s, either uniform with depth or = Nhz for Gibson soil, where Nh is a constant), magnitude of soil movement at ground surface (so ), the limiting soil pressure, and thickness of unstable soil layer (zs). Estimation of the soil movements will be discussed in the next section.

APPROXIMATION OF SOIL MOVEMENTS FOR THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS As the lateral soil movement profile cannot always be obtained before hand for theoretical predictions in practice, an assumed simplified profile may need to be used. Although the actual soil movement profiles vary from case to case, a study of published case histories has indicated that in some cases they can be simplified to either a uniform or linear profile, as demonstrated below. Excavation-induced Soil Movements Example 1: Recently, Leung et al (2000) have presented results from centrifuge model tests on a single pile adjacent to unstrutted deep excavations in dense sand. The model pile was fabricated from a hollow square aluminum tube and instrumented with 10 pairs of strain gauges protected by a thin layer of epoxy. The model pile simulated a prototype concrete bored pile of 0.63m in diameter, 220MN.m2 in flexural rigidity, and 12.5m in total embedded length. The retaining wall supporting the excavation was made of an aluminum alloy plate, equivalent to a KSP-IIA sheet pile wall having a bending stiffness EI of 24000 MN.m2/m and an embedment depth of 8m. The Young’s modulus of the sand, Es , was estimated to increase linearly with depth, z, and may be expressed approximately as Es = Nhz = 6z MPa. Several tests were carried out in which the pile was located at different distances from the retaining wall. The free -field soil movements, pile bending moments and deflections were measured for different depths of excavation. The measured free-field soil movements at different distan ces from the wall and corresponding to an excavation depth of 4.5m are shown in Fig. 3(a). It can be observed that these lateral soil movements decrease almost linearly with depth. In order to use the above-mentioned elastic design charts to back-calculate the pile response, the soil movement profiles shown in Fig. 3(a) were simplified to linear profiles as shown in Fig. 3(b). The procedure of estimating the maximum pile bending moment and deflection is illustrated for Test PC1 in which the pile was located at 1m from the wall. At the location of 1m from the wall, the soil movement at ground surface, so , is about 35mm and the thickness of the unstable soil layer, z , is about 8m, as shown in Fig. 3(b). For s L/d = 12.5/0.63 = 19.8; z/L = 8/12.5 = 0.64; KR = EpIp/NhL5 = 220 x 103 /6 x 10 3 x 12.55) = s 1.2 x 104; and from Fig. 2, m1 = 0.36; and so the maximum pile bending moment Mmax = 0.35 x 6 x103 x 0.632 x 8 x 0.037 = 260 kN.m compared to 220 kN.m (measured). Also m2 = 0.9; and so the maximum pile deflection ρ o = 0.9 x 0.35 = 32mm compared to 28mm (measured). Following the same procedure, the maximum pile bending moments and deflections for other tests can also be similarly estimated. The estimated results are shown in Fig. 4, together with those measured. It can be seen that the elastic design charts using the simplified soil movements generally give an upper bound but fairly good estimation of the pile response.

Maximum bending moment (kN.m)

pile-1

0 Depth below ground surface (m) 5 2.5 7.5 10

**Lateral soil movement (mm) 10 20 30
**

(5) (4) (3) (2)

(1)

40

300 250 Test PC1 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 Distance from retaining wall (m) 8 10 estimated by design charts measured measured pile-2 Test PC3

Test PC4

measured

Depth below ground surface (m) 5 10 7.5 2.5 12.5

**(1) 1m from wall (2) 2m from wall (3) 3m from wall (4) 4m from wall (5) 5m from wall
**

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

0

Maximum deflection (mm)

40 estimated by design charts 30 Test PC1 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 Distance from retaining wall (m) 8 10 Test PC2 measured Test PC3

Test PC4

(b)

simplified

Fig. 3 Lateral soil movement profiles of Example 1

12.5

Fig. 4 Estimated and measured maximum pile bending moments and deflections of Example 1

Embankment-induced Soil Movements Example 2: De Beer and Wallays (1972) reported a field test in Belgium that aimed to study the influence of embankment construction on adjacent pile foundations. Measured results were presented for a steel pipe pile and a reinforced concrete pile. The steel pipe pile was 28m in length, 0.9m in diameter, and 1.5cm in wall thickness, while the reinforced concrete pile was 23.2m in length and 0.6m in diameter. The pile heads were restrained from lateral displacement. The soil deposit consisted mainly of sand, with a Young’s modulus Es of about 30MPa and the limiting soil pressure of about 2pp (where pp is the Rankine passive pressure) (see Chen & Poulos, 1997). The measured free-field lateral soil movements are shown in Fig. 5(a) to generally decrease with depth. Chen & Poulos (1997) have shown that a full analysis via the computer program PALLAS can give estimations of pile bending moments and deflections very close to those measured, using the measured soil movement profile shown in Fig. 5(a). In this paper, the above soil movement profile was simplified to a linear profile in two cases. As shown in Fig. 5(b), one case has a s o value of 20mm, while the other has a so value of 40mm, both cases having a zero value occurring at a depth of about 18m. The pile bending moment and deflection profiles estimated using PALLAS are shown in Fig. 6, together with those measured, and a fairly good agreement between the estimated and the measured values can be observed. As can be seen, the measured profiles are encompassed by those estimated corresponding to the two so values. Clearly , a so value of between 20mm and 40mm should give reasonably good estimations. The elastic design charts were not applied to these two piles because the pile heads were restrained from lateral translation rather than free, and design charts for this case h ave not yet been developed.

Test PC5

Test PC5

(a)

Test PC2

Bending moment (kN.m) -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 soil movement (mm) 0 20 40 60 0 5 Depth (m) 10 15 20 25 30 (a ) measured -5 0 5 depth (m) Depth (m) 10 15 20 25 30 (b) simplified 0 Pile deflection (mm) 5 10 15 20 So==20mm so 20mm so 40mm So==40mm measured

500

Bending moment (kN.m) -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 0

5 Depth (m)

depth (m)

10

15 So==20mm so 20mm so 40mm So==40mm measured 25

20

25 0

-5

0

Pile deflection (mm) 5 10 15 20 25

30

5 Depth (m)

10

15 So= 20mm so = 20mm so = 40mm So= 40mm measured 25

So= 20mm so = 20mm so = 40mm So= 40mm measured

20

Fig. 5 Lateral soil movement of Example 2

(a) steel pipe pile

(b) concrete pile

Fig. 6 Pile bending moments and deflections of Example 2

Landslide or Slope Instability –induced Soil Movements Example 3: Esu and D’Elia (1974) described a field test in which an instrumented reinforced concrete pile was installed into a sliding slope. The slope consisted mainly of clay, with its upper 7.3m thick layer undergoing lateral movement. The test pile was 30m long, 0.79m in diameter, and the bending stiffness was 360MN.m2. The soil Young’s modulus was about 0.53z MPa (where z is depth), while the limiting soil pressure was about 120kPa and 320kPa for the moving soil layer and the stable soil layer, respectively. The soil movements were not measured. Assuming a soil movement of 110mm distributed uniformly with depth, the pile bending moment and deflection estimated by PALLAS were found to agree very well with those measured, as shown by Chen & Poulos (1997). The maximum pile bending moment and deflection estimated by the elastic design charts were also found to agree fairly well with, although larger than, those measured, with the maximum bending moment Mmax being 1.1MN.m as compared to the measured value of 0.9 MN.m. The maximum deflection was 0.15m, as compared to the measured value of 0.147m. Example 4: Carrubba et al. (1989) reported a field test in which a reinforced concrete pile was used to stabilize a sliding slope. The sliding surface was measured to be at about

9.5m deep below the ground surface. The instrumented test pile was 22m in length and 1.2m in diameter. The soil Young’s modulus was about 15MPa uniform with depth, while the limiting soil pressure was about 90kPa and 170kPa for the moving soil layer and the stable soil layer, respectively. Assuming a soil movement of 95mm distributed uniformly with depth, the pile bending moment profile estimated by PALLAS w as found to agree very well with that measured, as shown by Chen & Poulos (1997). The maximum pile bending moment estimated by the elastic design charts was also found to agree fairly well with, although larger than, that measured, with a value of 2.6MN.m as compared to the measured value of 2.3 MN.m. Measured pile deflection data were not available for comparison. Example 5: Kalteziontis et al. (1993) reported a case where two rows of piles were installed to stabilize a moving slope. The soil conditions consisted mainly of lacustrine deposits of over one hundred meters thick, overlying bedrock of Triassic marl. Among the piles were three steel pipe piles instrumented with strain gauges, but measured results were presented only for one of them. All the piles had a length of 12m and the steel piles had an external diameter of 1.03m, a wall thickness of 18mm and a flexural stiffness of 1540MN.m 2. The measured soil pressure was 0.9 and 3.2 MPa for the moving soil layer and the stable soil layer, respectively, while the corresponding soil Young’s modulus values were taken to be 15 and 70MPa. The measured soil movements at the uphill and downhill are shown in Figs. 7(a) & (b) respectively. It can be seen that the soil movements at the uphill are rather uniform with depth, while those at the downhill decrease nearly linearly with depth. Note that the piles were installed at the downhill and were therefore subject to the soil movements shown in Fig. 7(b). Also note that the soil movements shown in Fig. 7(b) were measured after the piles were in place and should therefore be smaller than the free-field soil movements occurring just before the piles were installed. Chen (1994) indicates that the maximum free-field soil movement at the surface was about 3.5mm.

Soil displacement (mm) 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.2

Soil displacement (mm)

0 0.2

3 Depth (m)

6

9

12

(a) uphill Fig. 7 Measured soil movements of Example 5

(b) downhill

Assuming a linear soil movement profile, the pile bending moment and deflection profiles estimated by PALLAS were found to agree very well with those measured, as shown by Chen & Poulos (1997). The maximum pile bending moment and deflection estimated by the elastic design charts were also found to agree fairly well with, although larger than, those measured, with the maximum bending moment Mmax being 0.16MN.m as compared to the measured value of 0.15 MN.m, and the maximum deflection being 3.2mm as compared to the measured value of 2.7mm. Note that, had the piles been installed at the uphill location where soil movements were larger than at the downhill, a uniform soil movement profile would have been more suitable for use in theoretical prediction, as can be seen in Fig. 7(a). Discussion From the study of the above examples, the following preliminary guidelines may be developed for the determination of soil movements in making theoretical predictions in the absence of measured data or more accurate estimation by other methods: 1) For unstrutted excavations or relatively small slope movements, a linear soil movement profile, with a maximum value at the ground surface and zero at a certain depth below the surface, may be adopted. The maximum value may be estimated from measured ground surface settlements or via appropriate empirical approximations. 2) For landslides involving relatively large soil movements, a uniform soil movement profile may be adopted. The above study also shows that either the boundary element program PALLAS or the elastic design charts can give reasonably good estimations of the lateral pile response.

CONCLUSIONS A study of published centrifuge model tests and case histories has shown that in some cases the actual soil movement can be simplified to either a linear or uniform profile, and can be readily applied, with the elastic design charts, to estimate the maximum pile response with reasonable accuracy. The analysis methods and guidelines described in this paper are simple and efficient to use in practice, especially for undertaking preliminary feasibility studies.

REFERENCES Carrubba, P., Maugeri, M., and Motta, E. (1989). Esperienze in vera grandezza sul comportamento di pali per la stabilizaaione di un pendio. Proc. XVII Convegno Nazionde di Geotechica, Assn. Geotec. Italiana, Vol.81-90. Chen L.T., and Poulos, H.G. (1994). A method of pile-soil interaction analysis for piles subjected to lateral soil movement. Proc. of 8th International Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, pp. 2311-2316, USA. Chen, L.T. (1994). The effect of lateral soil movements on pile foundations. PhD Thesis, The University of Sydney, Australia. Chen, L.T., and Poulos, H.G., (1996). Some aspects of pile response near an excavation. Proc. of 7th Australia and New Zealand Conference in Geomechanics, pp.604-609. Chen, L.T. and Poulos, H.G. (1997). Piles subjected to lateral soil movements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 9, pp 802-811. Chen, L.T. and Poulos, H.G. (1999). Design charts for analysis of piles subjected to lateral soil movements. Proceedings of 8th Australia and New Zealand Conference in Geomechanics, pp.367 – 373, Edited by Vitharana and Colman, Hobart, Australia.

Chen, L.T., Poulos, H.G. and Logana than, N. (1999). Pile responses caused by tunnelling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 3, pp.207 – 215. Chen, L.T. and Thomas, B.R. (1999). Design of bored piles for fill slope stabilisation in Hong Kong. Proce edings of 8th Australia and New Zealand Conference in Geomechanics, pp. 69-74, Edited by Vitharana and Colman, Hobart, Australia. Chen, L.T., Poulos, H.G. and Loganathan, N. (2000). Approximate design charts for piles adjacent to tunneling operations, GeoEng2000 - An International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, November 2000. De Beer, E.E., and Wallays, M. (1972). Forces induced in piles by unsymmetrical surcharges th on the soil around the piles. Proc. 5 European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.1, 325-332. Escario, V. & Uriel, A. (1989). Lateral forces induced on a pier of the “canalejas viaduct” by a slope stabilizing fill. Esu, F., and D’Elia, B. (1974). Interazione terreno-struttura in un palo solleciato dauna frana colata. Rivsita Italiana di Geotechica, 111, 27-38. Finno, R.J., Lawence, S.A. Allawh, N.F. and Harahap, I.S. (1991). Analysis of performance of pile groups adjacent to deep excavation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.117, No. 6, pp.934-955. Hagerty, D.J., and Peck, P.B. (1971). Heave and lateral movements due to pile driving. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol.11, 1513-1532. Hull, T.S. (1987). The behaviour of laterally loaded piles. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney. Hull, T.S. & McDonald, P. (1992). Lateral soil movement loading in bridge foundation piles. Proc. 6th ANZ Conf. Geomech., Christchurch, pp. 146-150. Kalteziotis, N., Zervogiannis, F.R., Seve, G., and Berche, J.C. (1993). Experimental study of landslide stabilization by large diameter piles. Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soilssoft Rocks, ISBN90 5410 3442, Anagnostopoulos et al., eds., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1115-1124. Lee, R.G., Turner, A.J., and Whitworth, L.J. (1994). Deformations caused by tunneling beneath a piled structure. Proc. XIII International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, University Press, London, 873-878. Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. and Shen, R.F. (2000). Behaviour of pile subject to excavationinduced soil movement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.126, pp.947-954. Poulos, H.G. (1973). Analysis of piles in soil undergoing lateral movement, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 99, pp. 391-406. Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. (1980).Pile foundation analysis and design, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. Poulos, H.G. (1988). Marine Geotechnics, Unwin Hyman, London. Poulos, H.G. (1989). Pile behaviour-theory and application. Geotechnique, London, England, 39(3), 365-415. Poulos, H.G. (1995). Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability. Can. geot. Jnl., 32:5, 808-818. Poulos, H.G., and Chen, L.T. (1996a). Pile response due to excavation– induced lateral soil movement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, no.2, pp. 94-99. Poulos, H.G., and Chen, L.T. (1996b). Pile response due to unsupported excavation – induced lateral soil movement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 33, pp. 670-677. Rowe, R.K.& Poulos, H.G. (1979). A method for predicting the effect of piles on slope behaviour, Proc. 3rd International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Aachen, pp. 1073-1085.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr T.S. Hull, who developed the PALLAAS program. The first author would also like to thank Ir William Wong of Housing Department, Hong Kong SAR, for his stimulating discussions, encouragement and support in the preparation of this paper.

- CLGSFC
- Design of Reinforcing Piles to Increase Slope Stability [H.G.poulos]
- Errata_2009 IBC 1st Printing
- Lateral Load in Pile - NEHRP
- rezultat
- Behaviour of Laterally Loaded Piles
- Cantilever Walls
- Wingwall Program 3333
- Steel Structures 3 - Composite Structures - Lecture Notes Chapter 10.7
- Bridge Design
- Team
- LateralEarthPressures
- Simple 3 Seater Bed
- Shear Wall Frame ACECOMS AIT Thailand
- IS.806.1968
- 3.1
- r05320103-basic-structural-steel-(design-and-drawing)
- elastron SYMDECK_ENG.pdf
- DRC QB
- rezultat
- Domes
- Handrail Design
- Concrete Design
- Lintels load distribution 2 ways of determing the bending moment.pdf
- 320 Analysis of a Piled-raft Foundation
- Reinforced Concrete Beam Design
- design of ridge MOHAMED.doc
- Structural Analysis Jesselle
- Lecture6
- fema55_volii_ch9

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd