55 views

Uploaded by Luca Brandi

pHASE 2 TUTORIAL, modelling FEM elements laboratory test

- Gl Poseidon User Manual
- General Steps for Solving Problems Using ANSYS
- SolidWORKS (FEA) Simulation Theory Manual
- Failure analysis of bolted steel flanges.pdf
- 124657335 Combined Bending Torsion
- Behaviour of Hollow Concrete-filled Steel Tubular
- YEARLY LESSON PLAN FORM 4.doc
- ex2006-022.pdf
- Multiple Choice Questions in Engineering Mathematics by Venancio i. Besavilla, Jr. Vol1
- The Causes Mechanical Aspects of Deformation (1)
- Stress & Strain
- STRENGTH OF MATERIALS QB 2015.doc
- lec13 (1)
- proof of the fundamental theorem 1-8-2018
- Nnn
- AROPUB-IJPGE-14-142.pdf
- Chapter 033333
- Analisis geomateriales.pdf
- Pen cap
- Xu Buckling Analysis of Tri Axial Woven Fabric Composite Structures Part I Non Linear Finite Element Formulation

You are on page 1of 27

In this tutorial, Phase2 will be used to model the behavior of sand in

triaxial loading conditions, considering both drained and undrained

behavior.

Topics covered

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Problem

The aim of this tutorial is to provide the reader with instructions for

modeling triaxial tests on sand in Phase2. The material properties for the

sands are often not provided in the published results for these triaxial

tests. Therefore, the tutorial will begin by explaining the procedure for

using the experimental data to derive the values of these properties.

Following this, the process of building the model in Phase2, as well as

incorporating the loading conditions of the triaxial test will be described.

Kolymbas and Wu [1] performed a series of triaxial tests on a variety of

samples of granular materials; this included drained triaxial tests on

loose Karlsruhe sand. In Fundamentals of Plasticity in Geomechanics

[2], Pietruszczak presents the experimental results of undrained triaxial

tests on several different sands, including samples of very loose Banding

sand. Both references did not provide the material properties for the

sands being used. This tutorial will provide the reader with instructions

for modeling these triaxial tests in Phase2.

Material Properties

As previously mentioned, the material properties for the sands used in

the triaxial tests were not provided in [1] and [2]. However, the

experimental data can be used to derive the key parameters. These

parameters are the cohesion, friction angle, dilation angle and the

hardening parameter. The process used involved plotting a failure line (pq), using the experimental data to calculate the friction angle and

cohesion, and plotting the tangential friction angle against the deviatoric

stress to approximate the hardening parameter B.

The following section of tutorial will describe the process used to derive

the key material properties for the loose Karlsruhe from the experimental

data given in [1].

Plotting the Failure Line

The experimental data given in [1] includes plots of stress ratio versus

axial strain, as well as volumetric strain versus axial strain, for a range

of different confining stress values.

Initially, the stress ratio was used in order to calculate the deviatoric

stress. Since

is given already (it is the same as the confining stress),

we can multiply this value by the stress ratio ( ) in order to solve for the

major principal stress . Finally, the deviatoric stress is calculated by

finding the difference between the major principal stress and the minor

principal stress.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

(1)

Next, the mean stress was calculated using the minor principal stress

and the deviatoric stress (q) with the following equation.

(2)

The deviatoric stress at failure was plotted against the mean stress at

failure for each of the different confining pressure tests being examined.

This is shown in the following figure. A best-fit line was determined using

Microsoft Excel and the equation is shown below.

The equation of the failure line shown in Figure 2 is:

1.2381

19.315

(3)

(4)

Where

expression to

(5)

is equal to , which simplifies the

(6)

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Excel (Equation 3). By setting Equation 4 equal to Equation 3, we can

solve for the unknown parameters in the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface

equation:

Friction Angle

6 sin

3 sin

sin

1.2381

3

30.9

Cohesion

19.315

tan

19.315 tan

19.135 3 sin

6 cos

9.3

Thus, the failure line was plotted using the results of these tests and the

equation of the line was used to determine the friction angle and the

cohesion of the Karlsruhe sand.

Since the graph of volumetric strain versus axial strain for the Karlsruhe

sand did not show any dilation behavior, the value of the friction angle

was set at a value slightly less than the peak friction angle. A value of 30

was selected for the dilation angle.

Plotting the Hardening Behavior

The last parameter needed to model the behavior of the Karlsruhe sand is

the Hardening parameter. The hardening parameter can be determined

by creating a plot of the tangential friction angle versus the deviatoric

strain, and using the equation of the best fit curve to solve for the

required parameter.

The Mohr-Coulomb hardening equation from [2] is:

tan

tan

(7)

is the failure friction

angle that was previously determined. In this case, since it is a sand that

is being tested, the elastic strain is essentially zero. Therefore, the plastic

deviatoric strain ( ) is approximately equal to the total deviatoric strain.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

The graph given in [1] gives the volumetric strain and the axial strain,

which can be used to solve for the deviatoric strain. First, the lateral

(horizontal) strain ( ) can be determined using:

(8)

Following this, the deviatoric strain can be calculated using the following

equation:

(9)

The second value needed to plot the hardening behavior is the tangential

friction angle corresponding to each deviatoric strain value calculated

using Equation 8. At each point, the mean stress (p) and deviatoric stress

(q) values (calculated using equations 1 and 2) can be used to determine

the value of M using Equation 4, and the values of cohesion and failure

friction angle that have been previously calculated.

Next, the value of the tangential friction angle at each point can be

calculated by substituting the value of M calculated at each point into

Equation 5. The tangent of these friction angles will be used in the plot of

hardening behavior.

The following figure shows a plot of the tangential friction angle versus

the deviatoric strain for all of the different confining pressure tests

conducted.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

in equation 7. The failure friction angle has already been determined;

therefore the only unknown parameter is B, the hardening parameter.

Equation 7 was plotted in Excel on the same plot as the hardening

behavior from the triaxial tests and the value of B was varied until a best

fit curve was obtained. This best fit curve is shown in the following figure.

Figure 4: Hardening behavior for the triaxial tests with the best fit curve

In this example, the value of the hardening parameter that produced the

best fit curve was determined to be B = 0.0075.

The following section of the tutorial will detail the process used to

determine the key material properties for the Banding sand from the

experimental data given in [2]. This procedure is similar to that used for

the drained sand test; a (p-q) failure line was plotted to calculate the

friction angle and cohesion, and the tangential friction angle was plotted

against the deviatoric stress to approximate the hardening parameter.

Plotting the Failure Line

The (p-q) plot for the Banding sand provided in [2] is shown in Figure 5.

As seen in this figure there is a linear region between p values of roughly

0 kPa and 100 kPa.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Figure 5: Graph of Deviatoric stress versus Mean Stress for the Banding

sand triaxial test.

This linear segment represents the failure line. Therefore, a point on this

failure line was selected (p = 100 kPa and q = 125 kPa) and plotted in p-q

space. Since this is a very loose sand, it was assumed that cohesion is

zero and thus the failure line passes through the origin. The failure line

was created by drawing a line that passes through the point and the

origin. The failure line is shown in the following figure:

failure line for the Banding Sand triaxial test.

The equation of the failure line shown in Figure 6 is:

1.25

Phase2 v.9.0

(10)

Tutorial Manual

The same procedure used for the drained test was used to solve the

material properties in this example.

Friction Angle

6 sin

3 sin

1.25

sin

31.1

Cohesion

0

tan

0

Thus, the peak friction angle for the Banding sand was determined to be

31.1. As previously mentioned, since the line passes through the origin

the cohesion is zero.

Similar to the Karlsruhe sand, no dilation behavior was observed in the

plot of volumetric strain versus axial strain given in [2]. Therefore the

dilation angle was set as 31.1, equal to the friction angle.

Plotting the Hardening Behavior

Once again, a plot of tangential friction angle versus deviatoric strain

was created in order to calculate the hardening parameter. The MohrCoulomb hardening equation is given in Equation 7. Once again, it was

assumed that the elastic strain is essentially zero and thus the plastic

deviatoric strain is approximately equal to the total deviatoric strain.

It is important to note that since the tests are undrained and the pore

water is not allowed to escape, no compaction can occur and thus

volumetric strain is zero.

The lateral strain was calculated using Equation 8:

(8)

(9)

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

calculated for each point. At each point, the mean stress (p) and

deviatoric stress (q) values that were previously calculated can be used to

determine the value of M using Equation 4, and the values of cohesion

and failure friction angle that have been previously calculated.

(4)

substituting the value of M at each point into Equation 6. The tangent of

the friction angle calculated using this equation will be used to plot the

hardening behavior.

(6)

The following plot shows the hardening behavior (tangential friction

angle versus deviatoric strain) for the single test on the Banding sand

sample.

Figure 9: Hardening behavior for the triaxial test on the Banding sand

sample

Once again, the value of the hardening parameter (B) was varied in the

hardening equation (Equation 7) until a best-fit curve was obtained for

the data. A value of B = 0.0075 was determined to provide the best fit; the

curve is shown in the figure below.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Figure 10: Hardening behavior for the triaxial test on the Banding sand

sample along with the best fit curve.

The following tables show the material properties determined for the

loose Karlsruhe sand and the Banding sand.

KarlsruheSand

FailureFrictionAngle

30.9

Cohesion

9.3kPa

HardeningParameter(B)

0.0075

Table1:SummaryofMaterialPropertiesforthelooseKarlsruhesand.

BandingSand

FailureFrictionAngle

31.1

Cohesion

0kPa

HardeningParameter(B)

0.0075

Table2:SummaryofMaterialPropertiesfortheBandingsand.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Model

Thefollowingsectionofthistutorialwilldescribetheprocessfor

constructingamodelinPhase2thatwillreplicatethetriaxialtestsfrom[1]

and[2].Thisprocessincludesenteringthemodelgeometryandloading

conditionsfromthetriaxialtestingsetup,aswellasenteringthecorrect

materialpropertiesforthesandsbeingused.

Project Settings

Open the Project Settings dialog from the Analysis menu and select

the General tab. Select Axisymmetric for the analysis type.

Select the Stages tab. Change the number of stages to 51 as shown in the

following figure.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Geometry

As previously mentioned, an axisymmetric analysis is being performed.

The Phase2 model therefore consists of an axisymmetric cylinder with

unit height. This will appear as a 1m by 1m square in Phase2.

1. Enter the coordinates (0,0) in the prompt line and hit enter to set

the first point.

2. Continue to define the remainder of the shape by entering the

coordinates (0,1), (1,1) and (1,0) in the prompt line

3. Hit enter to close the shape. This represents the axisymmetric

cylinder in Phase2, as shown in the following figure.

Mesh

Add the finite element mesh by selecting Mesh Setup from the Mesh

menu. In the mesh setup dialog, change the Element Type to 8 Noded

Quadrilaterals.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Loading

Triaxial tests on sand are performed by applying a hydrostatic confining

pressure on the sample and then applying an axial load. The confining

stress can be modelled in Phase2 by applying a constant field stress with

a constant distributed uniform load on the boundaries.

For these models in Phase2 the horizontal stress and the vertical stress

will both be set equal to the confining stress, which represents the initial

hydrostatic conditions.

The following figure shows the Field Stress conditions entered for the

triaxial test on the loose Karlsruhe sand with a confining stress of 100

kPa; both the horizontal stress and vertical stress have been set at 100

kPa.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

In addition to the field stress being applied, a uniform distributed load

will be applied to the surfaces of the axisymmetric cylinder. The

distributed load is also equal to the confining stress. This balances the

field stress such that the confining stress is constant throughout the

model, and ensures there will be no displacements in the initial stage of

the model before any axial load is applied.

The following figure shows the Distributed Load applied for the triaxial

test on the loose Karlsruhe sand; a confining stress of 100 kPa is being

used.

This uniform load is applied to the top and right edges of the Phase2

model as these correspond to the surface of the axisymmetric cylinder.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Boundary Conditions

In these models, the boundary conditions must be set in order to replicate

the triaxial testing conditions. Since this is an axisymmetric analysis, the

left edge of the model will be restrained in the X direction. The bottom

edge is restrained in the Y direction.

In order to produce the loading conditions from the triaxial testing,

incremental displacements will be applied. The total axial strain from

these tests can easily be converted to a displacement since the model has

a unit height; this displacement will then be divided over the 50 loading

stages and applied to the model incrementally.

Drained Triaxial Test

An incremental vertical displacement was applied to the model in the

drained triaxial test, and the right edge of the model was left as a free

surface. The maximum axial strain observed in the tests on the

Karlsruhe sand was 20%, which corresponds to a displacement of 0.2m

for a model with unit height. This displacement was divided evenly into

50 increments, so a displacement of 0.004m was applied in each stage.

This will ensure that the displacements can be correctly applied to the

boundary nodes. Now the incremental displacements can be applied.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Next, click on the Stage Factor tab and set the stage factors as follows.

This corresponds to an incremental stage factor of 1/50 or 0.02 per stage.

Select the three nodes on the top surface of the model and hit enter to

apply these displacements. The following figure shows the first

displacement increment applied to the model.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

A similar procedure was used to apply the incremental displacements to

model of the drained triaxial test. However, an additional step is required

for the undrained test. Since the water is not allowed to escape in the

undrained test, and water is incompressible, no volume change occurs in

this test. Therefore, in order to maintain a constant volume in the Phase2

model, a positive horizontal displacement equal to one half of the

negative vertical displacement was applied to the right edge of the

axisymmetric model.

The total axial strain recorded in the test was 20%, corresponding to a

displacement of 0.2m in the negative Y direction. This was divided into

displacement increments that were applied over the 50 stages. The total

horizontal displacement was set at 0.1m in the Positive X direction,

which is one half of the axial (vertical) displacement. This displacement

was divided into increments as well.

Click on the nodes on the left side and middle of the top edge of the model

to set the displacements for the top surface. Enter the Nodal

Displacements as follows.

The displacement increments are not identical in all of the stages, as they

were in the drained triaxial test model. Instead, smaller increments have

been used in the early stages, while larger increments are used in the

later stages. Click on the Stage Factors button. The following figure

shows the stage factors used for the first 25 stages.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

We are now setting the displacements for the node at the top-right corner

of the model, so select the node and hit enter. This node will have both a

vertical and a horizontal displacement. Set the Nodal Displacements as

follows.

Click on the Stage Factors button. The stage factors used will be identical

to those used for the displacements of the top edge of the model.

We will now set the displacements for the final nodes on the right edge of

the model; these are the nodes in the middle and bottom corner of the

right edge. These nodes will only have horizontal displacements. Set the

Nodal Displacements as follows.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Click on the Stage Factors button. Once again, we will be using the same

stage factors.

The following figure shows the first incremental displacement applied to

the Banding sand model.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Materials

Drained Triaxial Test

The material properties for the Karlsruhe sand will now be entered in the

Phase2 model. In the elastic properties menu, set the Poissons Ratio

equal to 0.35. This value was selected since the Poissons Ratio of the

sand was not provided in [1], so a typical value for sand was selected. The

Youngs Modulus was not provided as well; therefore once all of the other

material properties had been entered it was varied until the Phase2

model data matched the experimental data.

Set the Failure Criterion as Softening Hardening Model, and enter the

values for friction angle and cohesion that were calculated earlier in the

tutorial. The value of the tensile strength was not provided in [1], so a

typical value of 10 kPa was used.

Click on Model Properties, and select the Cone Property tab in the Model

Properties dialog. The hardening and dilation parameters will be entered

in this window. The hardening parameter (B=0.0075) determined earlier

in the tutorial is entered as the Hardening Property. Next, the dilation

angle (30) is entered.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

The material properties for the Banding sand are entered as follows.

Similar to the Karlsruhe sand, the value of the Poissons Ratio was not

provided, therefore it was set as [2]. In addition, the same procedure was

used to determine the Youngs Modulus; once the other parameters had

been entered, its value was varied until the Phase2 model data matched

the experimental data.

Set the Failure Criterion as Softening Hardening Model, and enter the

values for friction angle and cohesion that were calculated earlier in the

tutorial. The value of the tensile strength was not provided in [1], so a

typical value of 0 kPa was used.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Click on Model Properties, and select the Cone Property tab in the Model

Properties dialog. The hardening and dilation parameters will be entered

in this window. The hardening parameter (B=0.0075) determined earlier

in the tutorial is entered as the Hardening Property. Next, the dilation

angle (31.5) is entered.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Compute

Now that the material properties and loading conditions have been

entered, the results can now be computed. Before you analyze your

model, save this as a new file called TriaxialSandTest.fez

Save the file as TriaxialSandTest.fez.

The Phase2 Compute engine will proceed in running the analysis. When

completed, you will be ready to view the results in Interpret.

Interpret

From Model, switch to the Interpret program.

Now that the results have been computed, it is possible to compare the

results from the Phase2 model with the experimental data.

Drained Triaxial Test

One of the graphs provided in [1] shows the Stress Ratio versus Axial

Strain curves for the experimental triaxial tests conducted on the loose

Karlsruhe sand. In order to produce a similar graph using the Phase2

model results, we must collect the data for Sigma 1, Sigma 3 and Axial

Strain data for each stage from Phase2. For axial strain, we can use the

Absolute Vertical Displacement; the model has a unit height therefore

the displacement is equal to the axial strain.

First select Sigma 1 as the query

Enter the coordinates (1,1) in the prompt line and hit enter. In the graph

query data dialog, select Query Data as the vertical axis and Stage

number as the horizontal axis. Select all stages to plot as shown in the

figure below.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Click the Plot button and the following graph will appear.

Right click on the graph and click Copy Data, then you will be able to

paste the data in Microsoft Excel.

Repeat the steps above to obtain the data for Sigma 3 and Absolute

Vertical Displacement. We can then use Microsoft Excel to calculate the

Deviatoric Stress, by finding the difference between Sigma 1 and Sigma

3. As previously mentioned, since our model has a unit height, the

absolute vertical displacement is equal to the axial strain. Thus, we now

have the Deviatoric Stress and Axial Strain values for each stage.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

In the figure below, the curves of Deviatoric Stress versus Axial Strain

from the Phase2 model results at different confining stresses have been

plotted along with the experimental data, in order to compare the two

sets of results. As seen in the figure, the two sets of results are in close

agreement.

Graph of Stress Ratio versus Axial Strain for the experimental data and

the Phase2 model results for the loose Karlsruhe sand.

The same procedure can be used to compare the Phase2 model results

with the experimental data for the undrained triaxial tests on the

banding sand. In this case, experimental data was provided in a graph of

deviatoric stress versus deviatoric strain.

Repeat the steps above to collect the values of Sigma 1, Sigma 3 and

Absolute Vertical Displacement for each stage. Once again, the deviatoric

stress can be calculated by finding the difference between Sigma 1 and

Sigma 3. As previously mentioned in the Material Properties section of

the tutorial, the volumetric strain for the undrained triaxial test is zero.

Substituting this value into Equation 8, and then using Equation 9 to

solve for the deviatoric strain shows that the deviatoric strain is equal to

the axial strain, which as previously mentioned is equal to the absolute

vertical displacement for a model with unit height.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

Now that we have the Phase2 model results for deviatoric stress and

deviatoric strain at each stage, we can compare the results with the

experimental data. The following figure compares the two sets of results;

once again they are in close agreement. There are some differences

between the two sets of data; this may be due to the fact that the Phase2

model uses a constant value of Youngs modulus, while in reality the

value varies with stress.

experimental data with the Phase2 model results for the Banding sand.

Conclusion

This aim of this tutorial has been to provide the reader with step by step

instructions for using Phase2 to model triaxial tests on sand in both

drained and undrained conditions, beginning with deriving the material

properties for the sand, and subsequently modeling the loading conditions

and geometry of the triaxial test in Phase2.

As shown in the Phase2 verification file Drained and Undrained Triaxial

Tests on Sand, Phase2 can be used to model triaxial tests on a number of

different sands. These include drained triaxial tests on dense and loose

Karlsruhe sand [1], loose Ottawa sand [3], dense and loose Hostun Sand

[4], as well as undrained triaxial tests on Banding sand and loose Reid

Bedford sand [2]. It is left as an exercise for the reader to attempt to build

these other models in Phase2.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

References

[1] D. Kolymbas and W. Wu (1990), Recent Results of Triaxial Tests with

Granular Materials, Powder Technology, 60, 99-119.

[2] S. Pietruszczak (2010), Fundamentals of Plasticity in Geomechanics,

Leiden, The Netherlands: CRC Press.

[3] K. Alshibli and S. Sture (2000), Shear Band Formation in Plane

Strain Experiments of Sand, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126, 495-503.

[4] T. Schanz and P.A. Vermeer (1996), Angles of friction and dilatancy

of sand, Gotechnique, 46, 145-151.

Phase2 v.9.0

Tutorial Manual

- Gl Poseidon User ManualUploaded byIrina Maltopol
- General Steps for Solving Problems Using ANSYSUploaded bymhnkmr9
- SolidWORKS (FEA) Simulation Theory ManualUploaded bySusan Davis
- Failure analysis of bolted steel flanges.pdfUploaded bymoha
- 124657335 Combined Bending TorsionUploaded bynianweewu
- Behaviour of Hollow Concrete-filled Steel TubularUploaded byYoshua Yang
- YEARLY LESSON PLAN FORM 4.docUploaded byphoenixchia
- ex2006-022.pdfUploaded bycolawari
- Multiple Choice Questions in Engineering Mathematics by Venancio i. Besavilla, Jr. Vol1Uploaded byLugabaluga
- The Causes Mechanical Aspects of Deformation (1)Uploaded byKmilo Martinez
- Stress & StrainUploaded byKannan Kandappan
- STRENGTH OF MATERIALS QB 2015.docUploaded bysmg26thmay
- lec13 (1)Uploaded bykriti
- proof of the fundamental theorem 1-8-2018Uploaded byapi-323045358
- NnnUploaded byTajiriMollel
- AROPUB-IJPGE-14-142.pdfUploaded bynanda
- Chapter 033333Uploaded byshimic32000
- Analisis geomateriales.pdfUploaded byDiana Perez
- Pen capUploaded byBalachandran Kalidass
- Xu Buckling Analysis of Tri Axial Woven Fabric Composite Structures Part I Non Linear Finite Element FormulationUploaded byAnonymous zXVPi2Ply
- Long Term Project 1Uploaded bySaiful Islam Tamim
- intro-mmcUploaded byAlagar Samy
- 2006 Engl SoilUploaded bydzingo
- 14 Partial Derivatives 2Uploaded byThanh Thiên Phúc Nguyễn
- art%3A10.1007%2Fs10999-014-9286-6Uploaded byb
- MSS MECH 1001Y 2011-12Uploaded byKadim K-Dream
- FormulasheetUploaded byRuby Smith
- GEAS COACHINGUploaded bycloud
- Structure Study 1 1Uploaded byMajdi Jerbi
- Lecture 9Uploaded byAditya Koutharapu

- Python/C API Reference ManualUploaded by9263026bg
- I-12 PS-08 Geotechnical PS (11!20!09)Uploaded byLuca Brandi
- Flac InterfaceUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Repute 2 brochure.pdfUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Concrete 3 Ds Steel FibreUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Griddle 1.0 64-Bit _ Itasca Consulting GroupUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Gasket Fip t153 TdsUploaded byLuca Brandi
- 02_Geomechanical_Methods.pdfUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Drill and Blast CycleUploaded byDanilo Magallanes Sampaga
- Pages From [Adam Bezuijen, Haike Van Lottum] Tunnelling-3Uploaded byLuca Brandi
- Geomechanics and Tunnelling ULS Design of Tunnel LiningUploaded byLuca Brandi
- ArcGIS Toolbar Manual V8iUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Ensoft Installation Notes Default.pdfUploaded byObed Adhinatapraya
- Design Loads for Bridges Highspeed 10-Design_20bUploaded byJc Wong
- risk.htmUploaded byLuca Brandi
- CT-Bolt, M22_2014-03_En_smallUploaded byLuca Brandi
- CT-Bolt, M20_2014-04_En_small.pdfUploaded byLuca Brandi
- J min sci.pdfUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Data Import Formats.pdfUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Concrete 1 Ds Poly FibreUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Eurock2004_The Swelling Phenomenon of Soils. Proposal of an Efficient Continuum Modelling ApproachUploaded byLuca Brandi
- _idratazione_flac3DUploaded byLuca Brandi
- Hoek–Brown Parameters for Predicting the Depth of Brittle Failure Around TunnelsUploaded byLuca Brandi
- 1030122Uploaded byLuca Brandi
- NOTES5Uploaded byg7aracsonavi
- 7714.pdfUploaded bymilan1115-
- Data Import FormatsUploaded byLuca Brandi

- Call TransactionUploaded bysudhakp
- asa-config-dmz-00.pdfUploaded byRashid Said
- SM Project Final (2)Uploaded bybasit111
- ElectricityUploaded byDeepali Singh
- Stocking FuelingUploaded byMuhammad Yudhi Pramana Dehes
- 92_09Uploaded bymofiw
- Analysis of Heat Transfer in the Material during Pulsed Laser-Metal Interaction by Using Kinetic TheoryUploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- Maryland Heights PD - Homemade Explosives Recognition GuideUploaded byßɭǟčk Öpƨ
- Fluids Mechanics QuestionsUploaded byWill Smith
- ASA 2011-Catalog-WebUploaded byEssien56
- Hydrofoil P72039Uploaded byPukhraj Daga
- PC_910_GettingStartedGuide_en.pdfUploaded bySriyantha Silva
- ElectricalUploaded bydforeman4509
- CO2 vimpUploaded byRimika Madan Kapoor
- CatalogUploaded byMoin Ullah
- Hydrostatics.pdfUploaded byEs Tacio Jay Dok
- As 1371-1973 Toilet Seats of Moulded PlasticsUploaded bySAI Global - APAC
- scjp_730Uploaded byเปรม ครับ
- LT1109 - Micropower Low Cost DC-DC Converter Adjustable and Fixed 5V, 12VUploaded byconti51
- Ads Configuration in Netweaver 73Uploaded bymahboob
- WES 9 X user RUUploaded byVasilt
- Installation Manual TS4 PlatformUploaded byTrần Quang Tuyên
- LG_L1752_1952.pdfUploaded byEduard Popescu
- Chapter_10_(10.3)Uploaded byNguyen Bich Ngoc
- pchardware-stadsdrtecUploaded byUganes Wari
- Atomic Structure (Student)_2014Uploaded byStella Amelia Sultan
- IPTC-17009-MSUploaded byAnyul Lozano Rodríguez
- Switching Theory and Logic DesignUploaded bymadhus.054212692
- CA-5 Copper Based AntiseizeUploaded byAhmed Emad Ahmed
- Analog Applications Journal TI Slyt486Uploaded bythietdaucong