61 views

Uploaded by rowaters

rc wall

save

You are on page 1of 21

**Geotechnical Practice and Research
**

200 Patton Hall

Blacksburg, VA 24061

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

And State University

The Charles E. Via, Jr.

Department of Civil Engineering

CENTER FOR

GEOTECHNICAL PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

Retaining Wall Stability 2.05

Workbook Documentation

by

J. Michael Duncan

and

Bingzhi Yang

Report of a study performed by the Virginia Tech Center for

Geotechnical Practice and Research

May 2002

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

And State University

The Charles E. Via, Jr.

Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering

CENTER FOR

GEOTECHNICAL PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

Retaining Wall Stability 2.05

Workbook Documentation

by

J. Michael Duncan

and

Bingzhi Yang

Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research

200 Patton Hall, Virginia Tech

Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0105

May 2002

Contents

Page

Introduction 3

Features 3

Suggestions for use 3

Methods of Analysis and Assumptions Employed 8

Earth Pressure Loads 8

Sliding Resistance 10

Bearing Pressures 10

Distribution of bearing pressure for bearing capacity 10

Distribution of bearing pressure for footing thickness 12

Bearing Capacity of Cohesive Soil Foundations 12

Bearing Capacity of Granular Soil Foundations 13

Bearing Capacity Factor of Safety 13

Stem Thickness and Footing Thickness 13

Figure 1 – Retaining wall stability computation sheet 4

Figure 2 – Bearing capacity computation sheet for granular soils 5

Figure 3 – Bearing capacity computation sheet for cohesive soils 6

Figure 4 – Suggested sequence for use of retaining wall stability workbook 7

Figure 5 – Freebody and earth pressure loads used in evaluating stability 9

Figure 6 - Bearing pressures for calculating bearing capacity and footing thickness 11

Appendix A: List of Symbols 15

Appendix B: Equations 17

Appendix C: References 20

2

Introduction

This report provides documentation for an Excel workbook named “Retaining Wall

Stability 2.05,” which was developed by the Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research

(CGPR) in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech. The

first version of the workbook was developed for Virginia Tech classes by Mike Duncan and

Robert Mokwa in 1998. The current version, which involves several new features and

refinements, was developed in 2002 by Mike Duncan and Bingzhi Yang, with support from

the CGPR.

The following sections of the report describe the features of the workbook, suggest how it

can be used efficiently, and describe the methods of analysis and assumptions it employs.

The symbols and equations used in the spreadsheet are listed in the appendices.

Features

The Retaining Wall Stability 2.05 Workbook includes 3 worksheets:

1. Retaining Wall Stability Computation Sheet 2.05 (see Figure 1).

2. Bearing Capacity Computation Sheet for Granular Soils 1.00 (See Figure 2).

3. Bearing Capacity Computation Sheet for Cohesive Soils 1.00 (See Figure 3).

As can be seen at the bottom of Figure 1, the retaining wall stability spreadsheet computes

the factor of safety against sliding, the position of the resultant on the base, and the factor of

safety against overturning around the toe of the wall. It also computes stem thickness and

footing thickness based on structural requirements (these are advisory, not intended for

structural design), and the volume of concrete per foot of wall, which provides an

approximate indication of wall cost.

As can be seen at the left side of Figures 2 and 3, the bearing capacity worksheets use data

transferred from the wall stability worksheet to compute bearing capacity factors of safety for

retaining walls founded on granular or cohesive materials. As shown at the right sides of

Figures 2 and 3, these bearing capacity worksheets can also be used, with values input directly

into the sheets, to calculate bearing capacity factors of safety for other footings subjected to

eccentric and inclined loads.

Suggestions for Use

Because the spreadsheets show computed results as quickly as data is entered, they can be

used efficiently to determine wall dimensions that satisfy requirements with regard to safety

against sliding, bearing capacity and overturning. A procedure for using the spreadsheets is

shown in Figure 4. Initial estimates of wall dimensions are entered, along with values of soil

properties and surcharge loads. If the computed factors of safety are found not to be

acceptable, the dimensions of the wall can be adjusted to achieve stability. Possible

modifications include changing the width of the base (B), changing the position of the stem

on the base (b

t

), changing stem and footing thickness, adding a key, or changing the depth of

the key (D

k

).

3

Figure 1 – Retaining wall stability computation sheet

4

Figure 2 – Bearing capacity computation sheet for granular soils

5

Figure 3 – Bearing capacity computation sheet for cohesive soils

6

Input wall dimensions, soil

properties, and structural

properties

Check stem thickness and

footing thickness

If not OK, change stem

and/or footing

thickness

Check factor of safety for

sliding and overturning

If not OK, change base

width, position of the

stem on base, or add a

key

Check factor of safety for

bearing capacity of

foundation

If not OK, change base

width or position of

stem on base

Check volume of concrete Is there a more efficient

shape for the wall cross

section?

Figure 4 – Suggested sequence for use of retaining wall stability workbook

7

Generally, the least costly wall will be one which has all factors of safety close to the

minimum required. The volume of concrete per foot of wall provides an approximate measure

of wall cost. In computing the volume of concrete in the key, it is assumed that the width of

the key is equal to the width of the stem at the bottom of the stem (t

1

).

Methods of Analysis and Assumptions Employed

Earth Pressure Loads.

The earth pressures that result from the weight of the backfill and surcharge load on the

surface of the backfill act on the vertical plane extending from the heel of the wall to the

surface of the backfill. The freebody used to calculate the forces on the base of the footing,

and the factors of safety with respect to sliding and bearing capacity, includes the reinforced

concrete retaining wall and the trapezoidal zone of backfill above the rear portion of the

footing (behind the stem), as shown in Figure 5.

The earth pressure due to the weight of the backfill is defined using the equivalent fluid

pressure method. The earth pressure due to the weight of the soil increases linearly with

depth, according to the relationship

z

eq hb

γ σ = (1)

where σ

hb

= horizontal earth pressure due to weight of backfill (psf), γ

eq

= unit weight of the

“equivalent fluid,” which would exert the same lateral pressure as the backfill (the units of γ

eq

are pcf, or pounds per cubic foot), and z = depth below the surface of the backfill (ft). The

position of the resultant force (E

h2

) due to σ

hb

is specified by the user in terms of y/H, where y

= height of E

h2

above the base of the footing, and H = height of the vertical plane from the

heel of the wall to the surface of the backfill.

The earth pressure due to the surcharge does not vary with depth. Its magnitude is

s s hs

q K = σ (2)

where σ

hs

= horizontal earth pressure due to surcharge (psf), K

s

= surcharge pressure

coefficient (dimensionless), and q

s

= surcharge pressure on the surface of the backfill (psf).

The resultant force (E

h1

) due to σ

hs

is assumed to act at 0.5H above the heel of the wall.

The spreadsheet provides an option to indicate whether the surcharge acts on the backfill

over the portion of the footing behind the stem, or only on the backfill behind the footing.

The factor of safety against sliding is smaller if it is assumed that the surcharge pressure will

not act above the footing.

The spreadsheet provides an option for specifying shear load as well as normal load on the

vertical plane through the heel of the wall. The magnitude of the shear load is

2

2

1

H K E

bf v v

γ = (3)

where E

v

= vertical shear load (lb/ft), K

v

= vertical shear load coefficient (dimensionless), γ

bf

= unit weight of backfill (pcf), and H = height of the vertical plane through heel of the wall

(ft).

8

W

W

W

E

E

E

P

T

N

h1

h2

v

bf

s

p

f

W

k

H

W

ff

(a) Freebody used in evaluating stability

E

h1

H

H

E

h2

(b) Earth pressures due to surcharge (E

h1

) and weight of backfill (E

h2

)

Figure 5 – Freebody and earth pressure loads used in evaluating stability

9

Sliding Resistance.

In computing the factor of safety against sliding, it is assumed that the concrete footing is

cast on a layer of granular material. Factor of safety against sliding is computed using the

following equation:

T

P N

F

p

s

+

=

µ

(4)

where F

s

is factor of safety against sliding (dimensionless), µ = coefficient of friction between

the wall footing and the granular material beneath (dimensionless), N = resultant normal force

on the base due to weight of wall plus the weight of backfill and the vertical earth pressure

loads (lb/ft), P

p

= passive earth pressure force on the front of the key (lb/ft), and T =

mobilized horizontal shear load on the bottom of the footing (lb/ft).

Resistance to sliding due to passive earth pressure on the front of the footing is ignored,

on the basis that the soil above the bottom of the footing may be weak and compressible as a

result of freeze/thaw or poor compaction. However, if there is a key beneath the footing (if

D

k

> 0), passive resistance on the key is included in the resistance to sliding. The passive

pressure resisting sliding is calculated using the Rankine earth pressure theory. The passive

pressure force on the front of the key is:

(

¸

(

¸

+ + + = )

2

(45 tan )

2

(45 tan 2

2

φ

γ

φ

D D

p k p

Z c D P (5)

where D

k

= depth of key below bottom of footing (ft), c = cohesion intercept of soil in front of

key (psf), and φ = friction angle of soil in front of key (degrees). Z

p

is the depth from the

ground surface in front of the wall to mid-height of the key (ft), expressed as

2

k

f p

D

D Z + = ,

where D

f

= depth from ground surface in front of wall to the bottom of the footing (ft), which

is the same depth as the top of the key.

Bearing Pressures.

Different distributions of bearing pressure are used to compute the bearing capacity of the

foundation and to compute the minimum thickness of the footing, as shown in Figure 6.

Distribution of bearing pressure for bearing capacity. To account for the effect of

eccentric loading on the footing, a reduced effective footing width is used, as suggested by

Meyerhof (1953). The effective footing width used in computing bearing pressure is 2x,

where x = distance from the toe of the footing to the point of application of the normal load N.

For a footing width of 2x, the footing is centrally loaded, and the bearing pressure is uniform.

The bearing pressure for a reduced footing width of 2x is given by:

x

N

q

2

= (6)

10

N

B

q

x

Effective width = 2x

x

(a) Bearing pressure for bearing capacity calculations

N

x

B

q

N

x

B

2x

max

q

min

q

max

B-x

e=

6 2

B

x

B

≤ − e=

6 2

B

x

B

> −

(b) Bearing pressures for footing thickness calculations

Figure 6 - Bearing pressures for calculating bearing capacity and footing thickness

11

Using an effective footing width smaller than the actual width is conservative, because a

portion of the footing is neglected, and it simplifies the calculations because the bearing

pressure is uniform.

Distribution of bearing pressure for determining the footing thickness. Non-uniform

bearing pressure (Figure 6b) is adopted for the purpose of computing the minimum footing

thickness, in keeping with conventional structural engineering practice. The maximum and

minimum bearing pressures are given by:

¦

¹

¦

´

¦

≥

≤ +

=

6 3

2

6

)

6

1 (

max

B

e if

x

N

B

e if

B

e

B

N

q (7)

¦

¹

¦

´

¦

≥

≤ −

=

6

0

6

)

6

1 (

min

B

e if

B

e if

B

e

B

N

q (8)

where x

B

− =

2

e is the eccentricity of the normal force, which is the distance between the

normal force and the center of the footing, and B = the width of the footing.

Bearing Capacity of Cohesive Soil Foundations.

The bearing capacity of cohesive soil is computed using the simplified equations

developed by Brinch Hansen (1957) for φ = 0 soils. Brinch Hansen’s equation are expressed

as follows:

f u c ult

D S N q γ + = (9)

where q

ult

= ultimate bearing capacity (psf), N

c

= bearing capacity factor (dimensionless), S

u

=

undrained shear strength of soil (which has φ = 0), γ = unit weight of soil (pcf), and D

f

= depth

from ground surface in front of wall to the bottom of the footing (ft). For the sake of

conservatism, the value of γ used in computing q

ult

is the smaller of the unit weights of the

backfill and foundation.

The value of N

c

in Eq (9) is expressed as follows:

) 3 . 1 1 ( )

2

2 . 0 1 ( 5

N

T

x

D

N

f

c

− + = (10)

where 2x = effective footing width (ft) as discussed above, x = distance from edge of the

footing to the point of application of the normal load (ft), T = shear load on the footing (lb/ft),

and N = normal load on the footing (lb/ft).

12

Bearing Capacity of Granular Soil Foundations.

The bearing capacity of granular soil is computed using the simplified equations

developed by Meyerhof (1956) for c = 0 soils. Meyerhof’s bearing capacity formula can be

expressed as follows:

(

¸

(

¸

− + = ) 2 1 )(

2

(

10

2

2000

2 1

60

N

T

x

D

C C

x N

q

f

w w ult

(11)

where q

ult

= ultimate bearing capacity (psf), N

60

= average value of Standard Penetration Test

blow count, corrected to 60% of the theoretical hammer energy, within a depth equal to 3x

below the bottom of the footing, x = distance from the toe of the footing to the point of

application of the normal load N (ft), 2x = effective footing width (ft) as discussed above

under bearing pressures, T = shear load on the footing (lb/ft), and N = normal load on the

footing (lb/ft).

The dimensionless factors C

w1

and C

w2

adjust for the position of the water table. Their

values depend on the position of the water table with respect to the ground surface and the

bottom of the footing, and are determined as follows:

C

w1

= 0.5 for water table at bottom of footing or higher,

C

w1

= 1.0 for water table 2x below bottom of footing or deeper,

C

w1

= varies linearly with position of the water table between bottom of footing and depth

2x below bottom of footing,

C

w2

= 0.5 for water table at ground surface,

C

w2

= 1.0 for water table at bottom of footing or deeper,

C

w2

= varies linearly with position of the water table between ground surface and bottom

of footing,

Bearing Capacity Factor of Safety.

The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is calculated as:

q q F

ult bc

/ = (12)

where F

bc

= bearing capacity factor of safety (dimensionless), q

ult

= ultimate bearing capacity

(psf), and q = bearing pressure (psf).

Stem Thickness and Footing Thickness.

The stem thickness (at the bottom of the stem) and the footing thickness are calculated

based on considerations of shear and moment capacity, calculated in accordance with the

Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI, 1999). Resistance factors of 0.85

for shear and 0.9 for moment are used in calculating the stem and footing thickness. Cover of

three inches is used for both stem and footing.

13

The required thickness for shear capacity is computed using the following equation:

' 2

c n

f bd V = (13)

Where V

n

= Nominal shear capacity (lb/ft)

b = Section width = 12 in/ft

d = Effective section depth (in)

f

c

’ = 28-day compressive strength of concrete (lb/in

2

)

The required thickness for moment is computed using the following equations:

)

2

(

a

d f A M

y s n

− = (14)

(15)

y s c

f A ab f = ' 85 . 0

max

ρ ρ ≤ =

bd

A

s

(16)

Where

M

n

= Nominal moment capacity (lb·ft/ft)

d = Effective section depth (in)

f

c

’ = 28-day compressive strength of concrete (lb/in

2

)

f

y

= Yield strength of reinforcing steel (lb/in

2

)

A

s

= Area of steel reinforcement (in

2

)

a = Depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress block (in)

b = Section width = 12in/ft

ρ = Reinforcement ratio = steel area divided by concrete area

ρ

max

= Maximum allowable reinforcement ratio = 0.75ρ

b

ρ

b

= Value of ρ corresponding to balanced capacity of concrete and steel

The desired value of ρ/ρ

b

is input by the user. The maximum value of ρ/ρ

b

allowed is

0.75. In practice, walls are usually designed using values of ρ/ρ

b

ranging from 0.35 to 0.50

(MacGregor, 1992).

This workbook has been developed for use by geotechnical engineers to evaluate wall

stability and safety with respect to bearing capacity and sliding. The values of stem and

footing thickness shown in the spreadsheet are advisory. They are intended to provide

guidance with regard to reasonable wall dimensions rather than structural design. Therefore,

the computed values of stem and footing thickness are not inserted automatically as wall

dimensions, leaving the user in full control of all wall dimensions.

14

Appendix A: Symbols

a = Depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress block (in)

A

s

= Area of reinforcement (in

2

)

b = Section width = 12 in/ft

b

h

= Width of heel (ft)

B = Width of the footing (ft)

c = cohesion intercept of soil in front of key (psf)

C

w1

and C

w2

= water table correction factors (dimensionless)

d = Effective section depth (in)

D

f

= depth from ground surface in front of wall to the bottom of the footing (ft)

D

k

= depth of key below bottom of footing (ft)

e = eccentricity of normal force from the center of the footing (ft)

E

v

= vertical shear load (lb/ft)

E

h

= Horizontal earth pressure (lb/ft)

E

h1

= Horizontal earth pressure caused by surcharge (lb/ft)

E

h2

= Horizontal earth pressure caused by the weight of backfill (lb/ft)

f

c

’ = 28-day compressive strength of concrete (lb/in

2

)

f

y

= Yield strength of reinforcing steel (lb/in

2

)

F

bc

= bearing capacity factor of safety (dimensionless)

F

om

= factor of safety against overturning (dimensionless)

F

s

= factor of safety against sliding (dimensionless)

h

w

= Height of the stem (ft)

H = height of the vertical plane from the heel of the wall to the surface of the backfill (ft)

K

s

= surcharge pressure coefficient (dimensionless)

K

v

= vertical shear load coefficient (dimensionless)

M

n

= Nominal moment capacity (lb·ft/ft)

N = normal load on the footing (lb/ft)

N

60

= average value of Standard Penetration Test blow count within 2x below the bottom of

the footing

N

c

= bearing capacity factor (dimensionless)

P

p

= passive earth pressure force (lb/ft)

q = bearing pressure (psf)

q

s

= surcharge pressure (psf)

15

q

ult

= ultimate bearing capacity (psf)

S

u

= undrained shear strength of soil (which has φ = 0)

t

1

= thickness of stem at the bottom (ft)

t

2

= thickness of stem at the top (ft)

T = shear load on the footing (lb/ft)

V

n

= nominal shear capacity (lb/ft)

W

bf

= Weight of backfill (lb/ft)

W

f

= Weight of footing (lb/ft)

W

ff

= Weight of soil in front of the stem and above the footing – above b

t

(lb/ft)

W

s

= Weight of stem (lb/ft)

x = distance from edge of the footing to the point of application of the normal load (ft)

2x = effective footing width (ft)

x

1

= horizontal distance from the weight center of the stem to the toe (ft)

x

2

= horizontal distance from the weight center of backfill to the toe (ft)

y = height of E

h2

above the base of the footing (ft)

z = depth below the surface of the backfill (ft)

Z

p

= depth from the ground surface in front of the wall to mid-height of the key (ft),

φ = friction angle of soil in front of key (degrees)

γ = unit weight of soil (pcf)

γ

bf

= unit weight of backfill (pcf)

γ

eq

= unit weight of the “equivalent fluid,” which would exert the same lateral pressure as the

backfill (pcf)

µ = coefficient of friction between the wall footing and the granular material beneath the

footing (dimensionless)

ρ = Reinforcement ratio (dimensionless)

ρ

b

= Reinforcement ratio corresponding to balanced failure (dimensionless)

ρ

max

= Specified maximum reinforcement ratio (dimensionless)

σ

hb

= horizontal earth pressure due to weight of backfill (psf)

σ

hs

= horizontal earth pressure due to surcharge pressure (psf)

16

Appendix B: Equations

Forces and dimensions:

1

t b B b

t h

− − =

s s eq h

K Hq H E + =

2

5 . 0 γ

s s h

K Hq E =

1

2

2

5 . 0 H E

eq h

γ =

2

5 . 0 H K E

bf V v

γ =

bf h w bf

b d H h W γ ) ( 5 . 0 − + =

150 ⋅ = Bd W

f

(150pcf)

150 ) ( 5 . 0

2 1

⋅ + =

w s

h t t W (150pcf)

150

1

⋅ ⋅ =

k k

D t W

) ( d D b W

f t ff

− ⋅ = γ

) ( 3

2 2

2 1

2

2 2 1

2

1

1

t t

t t t t

B x

t

+

− +

+ =

) ( 3

) 2 (

2

d H h

d H h

b B x

w

w

h

− +

− +

− =

s h ff k s f bf v

q b W W W W W E N + + + + + + = with surcharge over footing

ff k s f bf v

W W W W W E N + + + + + = without surcharge over footing

h

E T =

N

y H H q K W b BW W x W x W x BE

x

eq s s ff t f k s bf V

) 5 . 0 5 . 0 ( 2 / 2 /

2 2

3 1 2

γ + − + + + + +

=

without surcharge over the footing

N

b B b q y H H q K W b BW W x W x W x BE

x

h h s eq s s ff t f k s bf V

) 2 / ( ) 5 . 0 5 . 0 ( 2 / 2 /

2 2

3 1 2

− + + − + + + + +

=

γ

with surcharge over the footing

6 / ) ( 2 / ) (

3 2

d H d H q K M

eq s s

− + − = γ (Moment at the bottom of the stem)

s s eq

K q d H d H V ) ( ) ( 5 . 0

2

− + − = γ (Shear force at the bottom of the stem)

x

B

e − =

2

)

6

1 (

max

B

e

B

N

q + = if

6

B

e ≤

x

N

q

3

2

max

= if

6

B

e >

)

6

1 (

min

B

e

B

N

q − = if

6

B

e ≤

17

x

N

q

2

=

Passive pressure on the key:

{ } ) 2 / 45 ( tan ) 2 / 45 tan( 2

2

φ γ φ + ° + + ° =

p k p

Z c D P

2 /

k f p

D D Z + =

Sliding through granular soil:

T

P N

F

p

s

+

=

µ

Overturning:

y H H q K

B E b W x W x W x W B W

F

eq s s

v t ff k bf s f

om

2 2

3 2 1

5 . 0 5 . 0

2 / 2 /

γ +

+ + + + +

= without surcharge over footing

y H H q K

b B b q B E b W x W x W x W B W

F

eq s s

h h s v t ff k bf s f

om

2 2

3 2 1

5 . 0 5 . 0

) 2 / ( 2 / 2 /

γ +

− + + + + + +

= with surcharge over

footing

Bearing capacity for cohesive soil foundations

f u c ult

D S N q γ + = , γ is the smaller of the unit weights of the backfill and foundation

) 3 . 1 1 )(

2

2 . 0 1 ( 5

N

T

x

D

N

f

c

− + =

q q F

ult bc

/ =

Bearing capacity for granular soil foundations

) 2 1 )(

2

(

10

) 2 (

2000

2 1

N

T

x

D

C C

x N

q

f

w w

SPT

ult

− + =

q q F

ult bc

/ =

Water Table C

w1

C

w2

At the ground surface 0.5 0.5

At Base of the Footing 0.5 1.0

2x below footing 1.0 1.0

For intermediate water table depths, interpolate linearly between these values.

Shear capacity and moment capacity

' 2

c n

f bd V =

)

2

(

a

d f A M

y s n

− =

y s c

f A ab f = ' 85 . 0

max

ρ ρ ≤ =

bd

A

s

18

)

000 , 87

000 , 87

(

' 85 . 0

1

y y

c

b

f f

f

+

=

β

ρ

=

1

β 0.85 when f 4000 ' psi

c

≤

=

1000

'

05 . 0 05 .

c

f

− 1 when 4000 psi f

c

8000 ' ≤ <

= 0.65 when f 8000 ' > psi

c

19

Appendix C: References:

1. ACI(1999), “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete”(ACI 318-99),

American Concrete Institute.

2. Hansen, J. B. and Hansen, B. (1957), “Foundations of structures – (a) General

Subjects and Foundations other than piled foundations”, General Report, 4

th

ICSMFE,

London, Vol II, pp 441-447.

3. MacGregor, James G. (1992), “Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design”, Prentice

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

4. Meyerhof, G. G. (1953), “The Bearing Capacity of Foundations under Eccentric and

Inclined Loads”. Third International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering. Zurich. Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 440-445.

20

- Structure Calculation Concrete u DitchUploaded byHeru Wijanarko
- PIANC Seismic StructuresUploaded byVicky Loreto
- vesicUploaded byLuis Morales
- Bearing Capacity FactorsUploaded byHem Shahi
- Bearing Capacity FactorsUploaded byPoco Smith
- Correlations of Soil and Rock Properties in Geotechnical EngineeringUploaded byHayro Copacalle
- Bearing Capacity FactorsUploaded byNosa Safwanda
- BS 6349-2Uploaded bymedianna
- Bearing Capacity FactorsUploaded bythiru2025
- CGPR #4 - Shear Strength Correlations for Geotechnical EngineeringUploaded byFrapint
- Bearing Capacity FactorsUploaded bydiditjayacute
- Lecture 1 Foundation Engineering IntroductionUploaded byRamesh Adhikari
- Meyerhof Bearing CapacityUploaded bykevin_au18
- Guidance on the Seismic Design of Retaining WallsUploaded byiamcerbzjr
- Bearing Capacity FactorsUploaded byCar Jai
- Carter and Taiebat Bearing Capacity of Foundations With Eccentric LoadingsUploaded byravi.salimath3936
- 2012 SummerUploaded byHIMANSHU
- Bearing Capacity of Foundations by Different MethoUploaded byMohit Rajai
- F17 CVL600 4 ShallowFUploaded byAudi Dzhamolovich
- Graphics TypesUploaded byravi maheshwari
- UMR Installation of Helical AnchorUploaded byIqbal Aamer
- d1.11magnanUploaded byFares Chammam
- CE705 EP-I (AGE)Uploaded byTarang Sheth
- Probe Mackintosh TestUploaded bysalljuraij
- SEISMIC EVALUATION OF EXISTING BASEMENT WALLSUploaded byapirakq
- Retaining WallsUploaded bykibzeam
- MURO H2.00Uploaded byHugoChoc
- Bearing Capacity 2Uploaded byalmadhagi
- Influence of time on the bearing capacitz of precast pilesUploaded byPiotr Zieliński
- Behaviour of Square Footing Resting on Reinforced Sand Subjected to Static LoadUploaded byIJIRST

- Probable Maximum Precipitation Analysis BakunUploaded byrowaters
- 2.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- 2485159044.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- rational.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- 06 (86-87)Uploaded byrowaters
- 13074_SPJ S11-luar.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- 2017 Tekla Steel Fabrication eBook Part1 EnUploaded byrowaters
- New Doc 21Uploaded byrowaters
- 36716-135316-3-PBUploaded byrowaters
- pg351Uploaded byrowaters
- paroi1aUploaded byrowaters
- 12664_pemakluman Perakuan Pematuhan Standard Bagi Perancah (Scaffolding)_22 Disember 2016Uploaded byrowaters
- Work Program GuidelinesUploaded byrowaters
- LaserMap AsiaUploaded byrowaters
- 10Uploaded byrowaters
- Esy FenceUploaded byrowaters
- ukurangl.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- TDS-PLC 118 STUploaded byrowaters
- PL7040 FSI SUMP DESIGN 1 Model.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- PL7040fUploaded byrowaters
- PSI_PE.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- Freak Downpour, Winds Wreck Havoc in PenangUploaded byrowaters
- Turn Pathsem1Uploaded byrowaters
- rts-18 New Zealand on-road tracking curves heavy vehicles.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- ChienUploaded byrowaters
- PL7040 800ls (1)Uploaded byrowaters
- tnbugcable-system-design-manual-gi-crossing.pdfUploaded byrowaters
- Pl7040 Fsi Sump Design 1 ModelUploaded byrowaters
- faq_SOFUploaded byrowaters
- fireaccess.pdfUploaded byrowaters