15 views

Uploaded by asingh400

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Bernander LSPU Presentation
- 2010-12
- MinedRockOverburdenPile_Investigation+DesignManual
- Comparison of Limit Equilibrium and Limit Analysis for Complex Slopes
- Tutorial 03 Toppling Planar and Wedge Sliding Analysis
- geotechnical engineering practices&development
- ICAGE 2011 Program Final 20111031
- Lf Rd Retaining Wall
- 2005 Prigiarto Yonathan Hokkal Drenaje y Subdrenaje
- Conservation and Management of Unconsolidated Geological Sections (English Nature, Report 563, 2004)
- COMPARISON OF LANDFILL STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS BASED ON LITERATURE RECCOMMENDATIONS
- Bieniawski-rockmass Classif Discussions
- Arch Analysis of Reinforced and Un Reinforced Soil 06
- Wedge Failure
- Fe Do Renko 2017
- Using the Latest Advances in Geotechnical Analysis to Optimise
- GTS 2012(v1.1) Release Notes
- comparative study of reinforced earth retaining wall and conventional wall
- Challenges in Geotechnical Field
- Some Keywords Required to Be Known by Geotech Expert

You are on page 1of 11

version 4.3 (1/13/12) visit www.stonestrong.com to check current version Stone Strong LLC is the owner of this computer file and retains all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights including the copyright. Limited license is granted to copy, print, or use this spreadsheet as an aid in performing design calculations for Stone Strong retaining walls. Thiele Geotech, Inc. and Stone Strong LLC make no warranties, either expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose, and accept no responsibility for the accuracy, suitability, or completeness of information contained herein. Licensee acknowledges that this computer file is the proprietary property of Stone Strong LLC. Licensee certifies that he/she will maintain this computer file as a confidential trade secret and will not copy or distribute the file to any person or entity that is not acting under his/her direct supervision and control. This calculation spreadsheet is provided for general information purposes only. Anyone making use of this spreadsheet and related information does so at their own risk and assumes all liability for such use. Site specific design should be performed by a licensed Professional Engineer who is familiar with the actual site conditions, materials, and local practices. 1 The conventional (non LRFD) calculation methodology generally adheres to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (17th Edition, 2002). Additional methods and practices follow the FHWA Mechinically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines, NHI-00-043. Specific methods, procedures, equations, and nomenclature can be found in the Gravity Wall Design Methodology and Example Gravity Calculations in the Engineering Manual and available on the Stone Strong web site www.StoneStrong.com. The end user is responsible for all highlighted input values and changes to unhighlighted program default values. Properties for soil and other materials should be obtained through testing or from recommendations by an experienced geotechnical engineer with knowledge of local materials and practices. The backfill height defaults to the total wall height, assuming that the wall is backfilled to the top of any Cap units or Dual Face units. The backfill height may be overwritten where the Cap or Dual Face units are allowed to project above grade. The total wall height and backfill height are measured from the top of the base pad, neglecting embedment. The exposed height is the total backfill height less the embedment depth. Note that passive resistance at the toe is neglected per customary engineering practice for modular wall systems. See the Wall Height Terminology sketch located below. The lateral load above the wall will evaluate live loads such as wind loads on a fence, lateral forces on a hand-rail, or barrier loads on an above grade Dual Face section. This live load is not included in seismic calculations (if used). The height above the top of the wall is defined as the height above the blocks, not above the backfill height (where the backfill height is set at less than the wall height for a Cap or Dual Face projection above grade). See the Wall Height Terminology sketch located below. The soil parameters default to uniform conditions. The foundation soils are set to match changes in the retained soils, but can be overwritten for non-uniform soils. For a sound rock foundation, enter "rock" or "ledge" (without quotations) instead of a friction angle for the foundation soil.

The trial wedge routine will automatically solve complex slope, tier, and surcharge geometry. Sloped embankments may be defined by entering the slope value (run per foot of rise) or by entering the elevation change over the defined segment length. Entry method is toggled by entering "slope" or "elevation" in the entry field in the non-printed space to the right of the slope section. The segment lengths for the zoned slopes and surcharges are measured successively beginning from the front face of the wall. Up to 4 segments may be entered, and all segment lengths are horizontal. The total defined distance must exceed the influence distance of the trial wedges, typically beginning at approximatley 30 degrees above horizontal. The length of segment 1 is measured from the face of the wall, and the lengths of segments 2, 3, and 4 are measured from the previous segment. Tiers may be entered between segments. For purposes of the trial wedge analysis, all tiers are assumed vertical. See the Backslope & Surcharge Terminology sketch located below. A rigid boundary, such as a rock ledge or an embedded structural element, may be modeled by entering a negative tier height at the location of the rigid boundary. The boundary is assumed to be vertical. Live load surcharges may be entered for individual zone segments. Live load surcharges would include vehicle loads and other intermittent surcharges. The vertical component of LL surcharges is neglected, and LL surcharges are omitted in seismic analysis (if used). The conventional calculations for overturning and contact pressure use a reduced block base width to account for rounding of the face (reduced by 2 inches by default). Contact pressure can be reduced by increasing the thickness of the granular base (see note #14). The recommended design procedure for extended blocks (24-62, 24-86, or 24-ME) or tail extensions is to determine the maximum gravity height without an extension for the specific soil and loading conditions, and to use extended blocks or tail extension for at least the entire wall section that exceeds this limiting height. Several precast extended block types are included in the Block Library, but the user should verify availabiltity of extended units. Cast in place extensions may be added to individual block courses. For blocks with a height of 3 feet (24SF units), the extender may be limited to the bottom half by selecting "1/2 H" in the cell next to the extension width. This feature is neglected for blocks with a height of 1.5 feet (6SF units). For calculating driving forces applied to the wall, the effective batter of the back of the blocks is taken as the facing batter when a Mass Extender is not used, even if a Dual Face block or cap block is used at the top of the wall. If a Mass Extender is used, the batter on the back of the wall is recalculated following AASHTO recommendations for stepped modules, but ignoring the reduced width of the DF unit as conservative. The soil wedge that is mobilized by the tail extension is included in stability calculations. When an extended block (24-62, 24-86, or 24-ME) or a cast in place tail extension is included, the interface friction angle is taken as 3/4 of the retained soil friction angle per AASHTO recommendations for stepped modules. In other cases, the interface friction angle is taken as 1/2 of the retained soil friction angle. The aggregate infill weight and the weight of the soil wedge (when Mass Extenders or tail extensions are used) are reduced to 80 percent of actual when calculating overturning resistance. If all of the block cells on the bottom course are filled with concrete (including the center void), the ratio may be increased to 100% (see variable in cell O11). Note that AASTHO recommends a maximum unit weight of 110 pounds for the unit fill. The toe embedment should typically be at least 5% of the differential wall height (exposed backfill height/20). If the grade slopes away from the toe, the embedment should be increased. The suggested minimum embedment can be expressed as H'/(20*s/6) where H' is the exposed backfill height and s is the horizontal run per unit of slope (sH:1V). For example, the embedment for a 3H:1V toe slope would be H'/10. Minimum embedment should be 6 to 9 inches for private projects, 20 inches (0.6 m) for AASHTO conventional design, and 12 to 24 inches for AASHTO LRFD design.

10

11

12

13

14

15

The base materials, configuration, and properties are entered to the right of the printable space. Sliding resistance across the surface of the base is evaluated using a composit friction coefficient based on the contributory area for each interface combination. The calculated coefficient can be overridden by entering a composite coefficient in the OVERRIDE entry cell. If ANY value is entered in this cell, it will be used to calculate the sliding resistence regardless of the other values entered. The sliding resistence routine also includes evaluation of sliding failure throught the foundation soils below the base, and the lower result is reported as the sliding resistance Rs. The aggregate base thickness may be adjusted for site and other conditions. The base thickness is typically set at 9 inches, but may be reduced to 6 inches for shorter walls (6 feet or less) or for hard and stable foundation soil conditions. In soft conditions with lower allowable bearing pressures, the contact pressure may be reduced by increasing the thickness of the granular base. The horizontal dimension of the base should be set to provide a minimum projection in front of the face equal to 1/2 of the base thickness plus 3 to 6 inches for construction tolerance. The rear projection of the base behind the tail should provide at least 3 to 6 inches for construction tolerance. The thickness of a concrete base is typically set at 6 inches unless site conditions dictate a thicker base to distribute the wall weight over soft soils. When an unreinforced concrete base is used, the front projection of the footing should be at least equal to the concrete thickness. For calculating the equivalent bearing width and the contact pressure, a 1:1 distribution is taken through the unreinforced concrete base instead of the 1:2 distribution traditionally used for an aggregate base. If a reinforced concrete footing is used, the front projection dimension is used to calculate the equivalent bearing width regardless of the thickness. An allowable bearing pressure may be entered if specified by the geotechnical report or other requirements. This allowable bearing pressure will override the calculation of allowable bearing pressure based on the entered properties of the foundation soil. If a net allowable bearing pressure is indicated, then the overburden at the toe will be added to determine the gross allowable bearing pressure. If unsure as to whether the specified bearing pressure is net allowable, select "gross" to indicate gross allowable (conservative). If an allowable bearing pressure is not entered, bearing capacity is calculated using the Vesic equation. The calculation includes the thickness of the aggregate base and the cover depth in the embedment factor Df. Internal stability analysis can be performed at any unit interface within the wall. To switch to internal analysis, select "internal" in cell O10. At a minimum, internal stability should be checked at each change in module size (i.e. top of Mass Extender or tail extension) and for all courses where lateral loads are applied above the wall or for seismic load cases. Interface shear properties are taken from full scale testing. Seismic analysis follows pseudo-static Mononobe-Okabe methodology. Version 4.0 incorporates the M-O model into the trial wedge analysis. Live load surcharges and lateral loads at the top of the wall are omitted for the seismic load case. Required safety factors are taken as 3/4 of the indicated static condition safety factors. The seismic acceleration PGA is the peak ground acceleration, expressed as a fraction of gravity. The Block Library includes all standard Stone Strong units and some custom or cast in place elements. The user should verify availability of individual units from the precaster/dealer in the area of the project. The Block Library also includes cast in place concrete coping, and the dimensions may be edited by the user. A user entry section is also available to enter custom block units for unique applications.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

The LRFD version follows the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (5th Edition, 2010). Load and Resistance Factor Design methodology applies separate factors to address the variability of the applied loads, materials, and design components that provide support. The factored loads must be less than the factored resistance to satisfy the design requirements. Specific methods, procedures, equations, and nomenclature can be found in the LRFD Design Methodology and LRFD Example Calculations in the Engineering Manual and available on the Stone Strong web site www.StoneStrong.com. A table of load and resistance factors used in the LRFD spreadsheet is included on page 2 of the program output. These are based upon tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 in the AASHTO LRFD specification. Calculations are provided for relevent load cases - Strength I (a & b variations), Strength II, Strength IV, Extreme Event I (seismic), Extreme Event II (collision), and Service I. For this type of Precast Modular Block (PMB) system, load cases Strength I and Extreme Event I (seismic) will typically control design. Results are summarized for load case Strength I (relevent behaviors from a or b cases) and Extreme Event I (seismic, if applicable). Detailed calculations for all of the load cases are presented in tabular form below the summary. If these additional calculations indicate stabiltiy problems, a flag occurs in the Results summary. Lateral loads at the top of the wall are assumed to be guardrail or barrier collision loads in the LRFD analysis (treated as live loads in conventional analysis). Collision loads are treated in Extreme Event II load case. If the lateral load is a different type of loading, this may be investigated by editing the load factor CT and load case designation. Note that the last 2 load case headings and the CT load factor designation are not protected and can be edited by the user, as can all of the individual load factor values.

23

24

Project Name: Gravity Retaining Wall Design Location: Stone Strong, Lincoln, NE Job#: 08110.00 Section: Trial Data Calc by: Author Notes 10/16/13 3:05

6 24 24

OK!

44.0

7.50

8.0

8.0 = '=

1,900

22.42

1,498

25.73

0.00

6.34 deg 6.34 deg interface friction angle d 13.0 deg base embedment base thickness agg/conc/reinf base Toe Slope LL surcharge psf psf psf psf 51.98 deg 9.53 ft

R O N G L L

Foundation Soil allowable bearing pressure (net) n/a psf (if specified) Seismic Load PGA G

g c' f

120 pcf psf 26 deg kh rise in grade ft ft ft ft failure plane a zone of influence 0.00

H:1V slope

Backfill Slope & Surcharge length 1 length 2 length 3 length 4 effective slope b

S

30 feet (horizontal) feet (horizontal) feet (horizontal) feet (horizontal) H:1V slope 0.0 deg

T O N E

avg LL q

Project Name: Gravity Retaining Wall Design Location: Stone Strong, Lincoln, NE Job#: 08110.00 Section: Trial Data Calc by: Author 10/16/13 3:05 Page 2 of 2 Analysis Ka = Ph = Pv = Results 0.311 1,044 lb 122 lb Overturning: Sliding: Bearing Capacity: Qlh = Rs = qult = 0 lb 1,717 lb 4,670 psf 1.5 1.5 DKAE = PIR = PAEh = 0.000 0 lb 0 lb Actual FS= Actual FS= e= Bf' = eeq= Bf'eq = 2.52 1.65 0.44 ft 3.37 ft 0.44 ft 3.37 ft OK! OK! OK!

Desired FS = Desired FS =

qc =

25.0

1200

20.0

1000

400

5.0

200

0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Distance from Face (ft) 25.0 30.0

0 35.0

Project Name: Gravity Retaining Wall Design Location: Stone Strong, Lincoln, NE Job#: 08110.00 Section: Trial Data Calc by: Author Notes 10/16/13 3:05

6 24 24

OK!

44.0

7.50

8.0

8.0 = '=

1,900

24.42

1,498

27.73

0.00

6.34 deg 6.34 deg interface friction angle d 15.0 deg base embedment base thickness agg/conc/reinf base Toe Slope LL surcharge psf psf psf psf 54.29 deg 9.06 ft

R O N G L L

Foundation Soil allowable bearing pressure (net) n/a psf (if specified) Seismic Load PGA G

g c' f

125 pcf psf 30 deg kh rise in grade ft ft ft ft failure plane a zone of influence 0.00

H:1V slope

Backfill Slope & Surcharge length 1 length 2 length 3 length 4 effective slope b

S

30 feet (horizontal) feet (horizontal) feet (horizontal) feet (horizontal) H:1V slope 0.0 deg

T O N E

avg LL q

Project Name: Gravity Retaining Wall Design Location: Stone Strong, Lincoln, NE Job#: 08110.00 Section: Trial Data Calc by: Author

25 1000 900 20 800 700 Resultant (lb) 15 600 500 10 400 300 5 200 100 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Distance from Face (ft) 0 35.0

Height (ft)

Unfactored Loads Ka = 0.260 Ph = 902 lb Pv = 137 lb Qlh = 0 lb DKAE = PIR = PAEh = 0.000 0 lb 0 lb

Load Cases:

Strngth Strngth Strngth Extrme Extrme Service I-a I-b 3,383 1,353 1,416 0.40 3.61 IV 3,383 1,353 1,502 0.34 3.73 I (EQ) 2,256 902 1,026 0.31 3.79 7,179 1,837 5,601 0.92 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.90 II (CT) 2,256 902 1,026 0.31 3.79 7,179 1,837 4,668 0.92 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.90 I 2,256 lb-ft 902 lb 1,026 psf 0.31 ft 3.79 ft 7,179 lb-ft 1,837 lb 4,668 psf 0.92 ft 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.90 OK! OK! OK! OK!

Factored Loading

3,383 1,353 1,238 0.65 3.11 7,063 1,774 4,192 0.92 1.75 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.00 0.50 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.90

Factored Resistance

9,386 10,352 2,392 4,539 0.92 1.75 1.50 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.25 1.35 0.50 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.90 2,639 4,625 0.92 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.35 0.50 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.90

(@ top of base) Max e: Load Factors LL EH EQ CT LL Surcharge over Wall DC EV BC precast to agg CIP to agg/soil soil to soil precast to precast

Resistance Factors

Block Library

2/1/2011

Description 6SF unit (6 square feet) 24SF unit (24 square feet) 24SF Mass Extender unit 24SF w/ 6" Mass Extender (check availability) 24SF w/ 18" Mass Extender (check availability) 24SF w/ 24" Mass Extender (check availability) 24SF-62 unit 24SF-86 unit

Conc. Wt. (lbs) 1,600 6,000 10,000 8,000 12,000 14,000 6,600 7,400

Void Vol (ft3) 10.75 43.74 45.45 44.35 45.56 46.16 75.87 115.07

Length (ft) 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Height (ft) 1.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Lift (in) 19.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Align (in) 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 16.0 14.0

xc (in) 21.0 21.2 32.7 38.5 50.0 44.2 29.1 40.0 16.0 14.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 21.0 21.2 32.7 38.5 50.0 44.2 29.1 40.0 21.0 21.2

xv (in) 23.5 24.8 25.8 25.3 26.5 26.1 33.0 45.1 16.0 14.0

Special Top

Alternate top units (not typically used - regular 24SF top unit is used in most applications, analyzed as regular 24 SF unit) Cap Cap unit 1,600 0.00 8 0.58 32.0 DF Dual Face unit 3,500 0.00 8 1.50 28.0

14.0

Cast-in-place coping (overhang would be 19 inches less than the Alignment dimension entered - custom coping may be entered below) 12" cp cast-in-place concrete coping 604 1 1.00 50.0 27.0 18" cp cast-in-place concrete coping 906 1 1.50 50.0 27.0 24" cp cast-in-place concrete coping 1,208 1 2.00 50.0 27.0 30" cp cast-in-place concrete coping 1,510 1 2.50 50.0 27.0 coping custom cast-in-place concrete coping 755 1 1.25 50.0 27.0 Vertical stack units (modified recess and face to permit construction of a vertical face) V6 6SF unit (6 square feet) 1,600 10.75 V24 24SF unit (24 square feet) 6,000 43.74 V24-ME 24SF Mass Extender unit 10,000 45.45 V24-M6 24SF w/ 6" Mass Extender (check availability) 8,000 44.35 V24-M18 24SF w/ 18" Mass Extender (check availability) 12,000 45.56 V24-M24 24SF w/ 24" Mass Extender (check availability) 14,000 46.16 V24-62 24SF-62 unit 6,600 75.87 V24-86 24SF-86 unit 7,400 115.07 Green Wall units (increased setback - use for green wall or as isolated planter block) G6 6SF unit (6 square feet) 1,600 10.75 G24 24SF unit (24 square feet) 6,000 43.74 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 1.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 3.00 44 44 56 50 62 68 62 86 44 44 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 19.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 -4.5 -4.5

23.5 24.8 25.8 25.3 26.5 26.1 33.0 45.1 23.5 24.8

Custom user entered elements below (use for any dealer specific variances from above default dimensions/weights)

- Bernander LSPU PresentationUploaded byDesmond Sullivan
- 2010-12Uploaded byAfshin Khazaie
- MinedRockOverburdenPile_Investigation+DesignManualUploaded byCarlos A. Espinoza M
- Comparison of Limit Equilibrium and Limit Analysis for Complex SlopesUploaded bySathyamoorthy Venkatesh
- Tutorial 03 Toppling Planar and Wedge Sliding AnalysisUploaded byOlivin
- geotechnical engineering practices&developmentUploaded byshakirhamid6687
- ICAGE 2011 Program Final 20111031Uploaded byd-bhat
- Lf Rd Retaining WallUploaded bysadik268
- 2005 Prigiarto Yonathan Hokkal Drenaje y SubdrenajeUploaded byTigreFlores
- Conservation and Management of Unconsolidated Geological Sections (English Nature, Report 563, 2004)Uploaded bysandycastle
- COMPARISON OF LANDFILL STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS BASED ON LITERATURE RECCOMMENDATIONSUploaded byLeo
- Bieniawski-rockmass Classif DiscussionsUploaded byeduardoarias1973
- Arch Analysis of Reinforced and Un Reinforced Soil 06Uploaded byggsachary
- Wedge FailureUploaded byrandy
- Fe Do Renko 2017Uploaded bymarco antonio
- Using the Latest Advances in Geotechnical Analysis to OptimiseUploaded byTony Chan
- GTS 2012(v1.1) Release NotesUploaded bykatsuratsai
- comparative study of reinforced earth retaining wall and conventional wallUploaded byakshay patel
- Challenges in Geotechnical FieldUploaded byPrakash Singh Rawal
- Some Keywords Required to Be Known by Geotech ExpertUploaded bybarkhabiren
- Retaining WallUploaded bysam samoo
- Simpson 2005Uploaded byRadu Cazamir
- 00010912_55853Uploaded bygoyotech
- Soil Test ReportUploaded bysyahmi mubin
- Vajirkar_Mrutyunjay_M_200412_MS.pdfUploaded byAkmalNasri
- Tension CrackUploaded byAnonymous 1TTYYa
- Saran et alUploaded byabdulqadirghori
- ARMA-2012-133_Evaluation of Structurally-Controlled Failures in Large Quarrying OperationsUploaded bycastille1956
- Ar Banas Danube AdUploaded byrazvanfcs
- Worked Examples to EC2_部分10Uploaded byshen

- Report on cracks in buildingsUploaded byJatin George
- 1-13920Uploaded byasingh400
- Revision of is- 13920 – a Review (Part 1)-Ijaerdv04i1140643Uploaded byasingh400
- SAC Code ForUploaded byasingh400
- 17.4.3-Standard Drawing Steel Structure Staircase DetailsUploaded byodjan21_691446
- bhu-raftUploaded byasingh400
- STAAD - Plate ElementUploaded bykanakanay
- ConversionUploaded byDanilo Artavia
- Wind Load Calculation for VaranasiUploaded byasingh400
- chanel-list.xlsxUploaded byasingh400
- barcombination.xlsxUploaded byasingh400
- Acadamic BlockUploaded byasingh400
- Dynamic ResponseUploaded byV.m. Rajan
- Seismic Analysis Lumped Mass ProcedureUploaded byasingh400
- Member Weight MethodUploaded byV.m. Rajan
- Time History MethodUploaded bypandian
- HUF PPTUploaded byRussell Dias
- HUF Creation DeedUploaded byKuntal Mistry
- HufUploaded byasingh400
- Design of Pile Cap for ESP Supports Unit 2 & 5 ModUploaded byasingh400
- Ann-VII -Structure Repairs Bihar.pptxUploaded byRavi Kumar
- Technical Manual 1Uploaded byHomero Silva
- Third Floor Plan (Cinema)Uploaded byasingh400
- Exam18 ICSE Sample Paper HindiUploaded byasingh400
- CracksUploaded byArchana Rajan
- Supradip DasUploaded byasingh400
- awaleshpurUploaded byasingh400
- Construction DetailsUploaded byasingh400

- Rock MechanicsUploaded byZaka Emad
- 0910-Ch Shallow Foundation C-4Uploaded bychengkh
- Tutorial 08 Probabilistic AnalysisUploaded byrrj44
- Slope StabilityUploaded byviperturk
- Design Criteria of SlopesUploaded bySteve Hughes
- CAP_123B_e_b5Uploaded byJixin Mak
- Assignment A2.0 - Slope StabilityUploaded by2685866
- Brittle FaultingUploaded byRMolina65
- SHRMD REPORT.pdfUploaded byzeeshan761
- Pola Seismic Code 2010Uploaded bynguyenvanduyet
- geo_5_user_guide_enUploaded byAnirudh Saboo
- NSF Thesis_SRF.pdfUploaded byarslanpasa
- GeosyntheticsUploaded bySiPp.T
- 2012 Pastor 2DVP FEMofSlowLandslidesUploaded byIgnasi Aliguer
- Ch7 Earth Pressure (1 33)Uploaded byrafi
- EM 1110-2-3104 Design of Pump StationsUploaded byomar_lozano_26
- Unit 3 ( THE TECHNIQUE OF PLANNING AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION ROAD WORK ( Part 2 ) )Uploaded byZara Nabilah
- Alluvial Fan TM5511-FloodUploaded byenrico66
- (Www.entrance Exam.net) NTPC SyllabusUploaded bySwati Pendam
- Geotechnical Policies & Procedures Manual_Chapt 11Uploaded byAnonymous rQKN6vV
- MURTHY - Geotechnical Engineering - Principles and PracticesUploaded byAndre Mtz
- Slope Stability CalculatorUploaded byjescuer
- Ubc_Tessis Botadero de Desmonte de MinaUploaded bylizabethllanos12
- Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation.pptxUploaded byWaqas Qureshi
- 3D Finite Element Analyses of a Corner at Aitik Tailings Dam in SwedenUploaded byAlejandro Sierra García
- NAVFAC DM-7.01 SOIL MECHANICSUploaded byv
- CV4111 Slope Stability Tutorials March-April 2018_weeks10-13Uploaded byZheng Xian Chua
- Experimental conceptualisation of the Flow Net system construction inside the body of homogeneous Earth Embankment DamsUploaded byCostas Sachpazis
- 5-Geosynthetics and New MaterialsUploaded bySteve Eduardo Reyes
- June 2013 QP - M1 EdexcelUploaded byPavlos Stavropoulos