© All Rights Reserved

104 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Concrete Construction Terminology
- Reese, Lymon C._ Van Impe, William-Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading (2nd Edition)-Taylor _ Francis (2011)
- Sample Sts02465
- Challenges-and-Recent-Advance-in-Geotechnics-for-Foundation-Engineering.pdf
- GRLWEAP2010WhatsNew2010_2
- Team
- GroundControlforUndergroundMines.pdf
- hybrid fibre
- 2 - BT - Footings and Foundations
- Pile Net (Autosaved)2..3-2..7
- ASTM C267
- Architectural Structures Reviewer
- 9C406.5
- Ductal-Blast Test Australia
- 5 Structural Arrangement
- M.tech Thesis Titles
- Elementos Finitos Nolineal
- 2159-09(+A1).pdf
- Cantilever Wall Sample Report
- Design Criteria

You are on page 1of 8

Kulhawy, Fred H.

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

Prakoso, Widjojo A.

University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Akbas, Sami O.

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

Copyright 2005, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at Alaska Rocks 2005, The 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): Rock Mechanics for Energy, Mineral and Infrastructure

Development in the Northern Regions, held in Anchorage, Alaska, June 25-29, 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by a USRMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,

as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/USRMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of USRMS,

ARMA, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited.

Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where

and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Drilled foundations often are socketed into rock to increase the foundation capacity. However, procedures to

quantify the side resistance capacity of sockets vary considerably. This paper reviews many of the proposed methods to predict

this capacity and critically assesses them. One method then is recommended, based on the currently available data. Statistics for

this method are presented, and design implications are noted.

1. INTRODUCTION

Drilled shafts are a common foundation selection

for all types of structures. When the structure loads

are relatively large or where the soil is of relatively

poor quality, the shafts often are drilled through the

soil to the underlying rock mass. These shafts then

could be founded or seated on the surface of the

rock mass, or they could be drilled into the rock

mass to create a rock socket, as shown in Figure 1.

In this figure, the load or stress applied at the butt is

supported by the socket through both tip and side

resistances, assuming for illustration that the soil is

non-contributory. How the loads are distributed

between the tip and side is a function of the loading

magnitude, problem geometry, elastic properties of

the rock mass and shaft concrete, ultimate bearing

capacity of the tip, and the side resistance of the

socket. A complete discussion of all of these issues

is well beyond the scope of this paper. Herein the

focus is on the socket side resistance.

In this paper, the basics of socket side resistance are

described first. Then early approaches to evaluating

sockets are discussed briefly. Following then are

discussions of pertinent papers that trace the evolution of methods to evaluate socket side resistance,

leading to the most current thoughts on the subject.

for use in design.

2. EARLY APPROACHES

In early literature on the subject, the socket side

resistance was commonly called the socket bond or

the bond stress, using the common analogy of bond

between concrete and reinforcing bars. This analogy

is useful conceptually, but it is not strictly correct

and it negatively influenced some later developments, as will be discussed.

relative lack of sophistication in addressing rock

socket design, although it is frequently mentioned

that load tests can and should be done because of

this lack of knowledge.

In the 1961 Chellis text [1], there is an illustration

and discussion of a test method for rock bond. But

he also states that, on work designed and built to

date, a bond stress of 200 psi (1.38 MN/m2) has

been used on the socket wall. Considering his calculation example, this value likely comes from 0.05

times f 'c, for 4,000 psi (27.6 MN/m2) concrete.

In his 1962 text, Teng [2] differentiates between

hard and soft rocks. In hard rock, he suggests taking

the side resistance as the bond value between concrete and reinforcing bars. In soft rock, he says the

side resistance "is governed by the shear strength of

the rock which must be determined by test of rock

samples".

In their 1972 text, Woodward, et al. [3] stress that

strength reduction factors () have not been developed for rock and the side resistance can only be

determined from load tests. They also note, from a

sampling of typical design practice, that the side

resistance is seldom more than 1/5 or less than 1/10

the allowable tip resistance. Values they tabulated

from practice were 7.5 tsf (104 psi or 720 kN/m2),

except in one locale where values to 250 psi (1.72

MN/m2) were used. They further noted that, in some

areas of practice, the side resistance in relatively

strong and sound rock is considered to be controlled

by the strength of the shaft concrete, using 0.04 to

0.05 f 'c but not exceeding 200 psi (1.38 MN/m2).

In their 1974 text, Peck, et al. [4] do not discuss the

design of rock sockets.

It is clear that, as of the mid-1970s, our collective

knowledge of the behavior of rock sockets was limited, and our ability to predict the side resistance

was rudimentary.

3. GENERALIZED SOCKET BEHAVIOR

Figure 2 depicts the generalized load-displacement

behavior of drilled shafts under axial load. This

general pattern holds in both soil [5] and rock [6],

as shown in many load tests that were carefully conducted and well-documented. There is essentially a

linear response from the origin to L1, followed by a

nonlinear transition region to L2, after which there

is a final linear region. In rock masses, these

followed by bond breakage and progressive slip,

and then full frictional slip with dilation. The same

general pattern holds for both compression and uplift tests, although the relative sizes and importance

of the regions differ somewhat. In all cases, the

occurrence of a clearly defined peak to the curve is

infrequent.

With nonlinear curves such as these, there is always

a major question about how to define the foundation

"capacity" for subsequent design use. Examination

of the literature [5] reveals at least 41 different

methods for the interpretation of axial load tests,

including displacement limits (absolute and percent

of diameter), graphical constructions, and mathematical functions. These also reflect a mix of what

actually are both ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state criteria.

Our detailed studies [5, 7, and many others] indicate

that a consistent and reasonable method for defining

the "interpreted failure load" is to use QL2, which is

the load at L2. The L1 and L2 points are determined

graphically from a plot at a scale similar to that of

Figure 2. [Note that L1 represents the "elastic

limit".] The QL2 value always follows the nonlinearity, sometimes represents the actual curve peak

where there is little or no dilation, and can be evaluated from virtually all quality test data.

Once the "capacity" is defined, then the side resistance (QsL2) can be evaluated from measurements

that separate the tip and side resistances in compression tests of full sockets. In uplift tests, and in

compression tests with a void or frangible material

beneath the tip (i.e., shear tests), the evaluation is

the shaft weight.

Using this side resistance and the actual as-built

socket side area (As), the average or unit side resistance (f) can be computed as follows:

f = QsL2 / As

(1)

the simpler rock material indices, such as the uniaxial compressive strength (qu). The qu tests should

all be done in accordance with proper test procedures, such as those given by ASTM, ISRM , or

others. Estimating qu from simpler tests such as

point load index, Schmidt hammer, or others, is

inappropriate. Strictly speaking, any comparison

also should be with the average qu over the depth of

the socket.

Most of the studies conducted to date have not met

these criteria, based on the documentation presented

or stated. This statement is not intended to fault the

authors, who undoubtedly presented the best information they could. It is intended to point out that

we are frequently dealing with imperfect and sometimes poor data, and therefore our expectations

should be tempered acccordingly.

The first systematic attempt to assess the socket side

resistance was by Horvath [9] and was subsequently

described by Horvath and Kenney [10]. Their database included large and small scale drilled shafts in

the field, rock anchors in the field, and small scale

shafts in the laboratory, with multiple tests at some

sites. Of the 87 field tests reported [10], 75 were in

sedimentary rock (with 50 in the shale family).

Apparently, the capacity was defined as the maximum applied test load, while qu was reported as

given in the original source or was estimated. They

also suggested that the weaker of the concrete or

rock would control the side resistance, so therefore

their property range was for the lesser of f 'c / pa or

qu / pa between 1 and 400. It should be noted that

no other researcher has adopted this convention.

All others use qu /pa. Horvath [9] plotted his data as

shown in Figure 3.

Beginning in the mid-1970s, a number of models

were proposed to compute the socket side resistance. To compare these models, they have been rewritten in consistent form as follows:

f / pa = C (qu / pa)n

(2)

units (1 atm = 1.058 tsf = 101.3 kN/m2 = 14.7 psi)

to make the relationships dimensionless, C = constant, and n = exponent.

4.1. Rosenberg and Journeaux, 1976

Perhaps the first relationship for socket side resistance was given by Rosenberg and Journeaux [8].

They presented a relationship between f and qu that

can be approximated by:

f / pa = 1.09 (qu / pa)0.52

(3)

points, with qu / pa between 5 and 340. Of these six

points, two were not conducted to failure, and two

only had estimated qu values. There were no apparent consistencies in evaluating the capacity and qu.

Fig. 3. Bond strength for shafts and anchors from Horvath [9]

of his data is as follows (f = bond):

f / pa = 1.04 (lesser of f'c / pa or qu / pa)0.5

(4)

Horvath and Kenney [10] gave the following:

f / pa = 0.65 to 0.78 (lesser of f'c / pa or qu / pa)0.5(5)

and then recommended using C = 0.65.

Horvath, et al. [11] subsequently discussed the

improvement of shaft capacity by roughening the

socket. This technique can increase the capacity

significantly in softer rock. However, a detailed

discussion on quantifying roughness effects is

beyond the scope of this paper.

4.3. Meigh and Wolski, 1979

Meigh and Wolski [12] reviewed the Rosenberg and

Journeaux and the Horvath and Kenney relationships, and they compared them to some 13 drilled

the prior relationships, and about half were considered to have "uncertain" data. The range of qu / pa

was from 2 to 200. They suggested a lower bound

for weak rock (qu / pa = 7 to 125) that can be approximated as follows:

f / pa = 0.55 (qu / pa)0.6

(6)

constant lower bound at f = 0.25 qu.

4.4. Williams, et al., 1980

Williams, et al. [13] focused on some 18 field load

tests they conducted at four sites in Melbourne

mudstone. They supplemented their data with

results of some 18 tests by others at several sites in

the same mudstone and in Sydney shale. The range

of qu / pa was from 5 to 800. For their tests, they

achieved peak values of side resistance from the

load-displacement curves. However, the qu values

were determined from correlations between the insitu water content and the drained strength parameters.

The resulting relationship they developed can be

approximated by:

f / pa = 1.84 (qu / pa)0.37

(7)

4.5. Rowe and Armitage, 1984

Another comprehensive summary was done by

Rowe and Armitage [14, 15], with more than 80

tests from over 20 sites. The range of qu / pa was

from over 4 to under 400. Foundation capacity was

largely as defined by the original authors, as was the

rock strength. The resulting data plot is given in

Figure 4, which also shows that a substantial percentage of the tests did not reach failure. From

these data, the following suggested correlation was

given (f = max):

f / pa = 1.42 (qu / pa)0.50

evaluation of 12 of the field load tests, with the

results shown in Figure 5. Basically these analyses

confirmed Eq. (8) for the suggested correlation and

Eq. (9) for the lower bound.

(8)

roughened sockets.

4.6. Carter and Kulhawy, 1988

Carter and Kulhawy [6, 16, 17] examined the Rowe

and Armitage data further and noted that there is an

approximate lower bound to these data that is given

conveniently by:

f / pa = 0.63 (qu / pa)0.50

(9)

Fig. 5. Load test evaluations by Carter and Kulhawy [6, 17]

important design check recommendations. First,

values of f in excess of 0.15 qu, over the full range

of expected values, should be used only when they

are demonstrated to be reasonable by a load test,

local experience, or adequate in-situ testing. And

second, after obtaining the design value of f, typically from Eq. (8), and applying a factor of safety to

this value, a check should be made against the concrete bond value of 0.05 f 'c. The lower value should

be used unless load test data show otherwise.

4.7. Reese and O'Neill, 1988 and 1999

Reese and O'Neill [18] used some of the relationships described previously and have suggested

design recommendations based on them for geomaterials they define as rock, with qu / pa > 17.

For qu / pa > 19, they recommend the Horvath and

Kenney Eq. (8) with C = 0.65. This recommendation is very conservative since others have shown

this to be a lower bound value.

For qu / pa from 17 to 19, they recommend taking

the Carter and Kulhawy design check of f versus

0.15 qu and turning it into a design recommendation

to evaluate f = 0.15 qu. This unintended usage

actually gives values that are even lower than the

lower bound by Meigh and Wolski.

In 1999, O'Neill and Reese [19] revised the above

recommendations. Rock is now defined by qu / pa >

50, and they still recommend the Horvath and

Kenney Eq. (8) with C = 0.65.

4.8. Kulhawy and Phoon, 1993

Kulhawy and Phoon [20] used the database developed by Rowe and Armitage [14], as described previously, and a database for drilled shafts in Florida

limerocks developed by Bloomquist and Townsend

[21] and McVay et al. [22]. For the Florida data,

there were 47 tests from 23 sites. These data had

essentially the same limitations as the other data.

Figure 6 shows these integrated results, along with

those for shafts in clay. Figure 6a shows all of the

data, and Figure 6b shows the data averaged per

site. The second case essentially eliminates the site

bias caused by multiple tests at one site. In both of

these figures, there are regression lines shown (for

a, r2 = 0.46 and standard deviation = 0.25, and for b,

r2 = 0.71 and standard deviation = 0.17).

These results were the first to demonstrate the importance of eliminating site bias and were among

the few to use regression analyses for ther data.

The resulting interpretation of the data suggested

using the Rowe and Armitage Eq. (8), which is

appropriate since these data dominate.

4.9. Zhang and Einstein, 1998, 1999

Zhang and Einstein [23, 24] also looked at the

available data and proposed relationships. Their

initial assessment [23] suggested the following:

f / pa = 1.26 (qu / pa)0.50

(10)

same as the Carter and Kulhawy lower bound, given

by Eq. (9), with C = 0.63, which is 1/2 Eq. (10).

4.10. Prakoso, 2002

More recently, Prakoso [25] re-examined the data

available and attempted to evaluate them in a more

consistent manner. First, the only data used were

those that had load-displacement curves to failure

so that the "interpreted failure load" could be determined for all the data. Therefore, at least all the

load test "capacities" were evaluated in a consistent

manner. However, it was not possible to reevaluate the qu data to ensure consistency in test

conduct and averaging over the shaft depth.

(11)

formats with this one, note that the equations for

these formats are given by:

log10 r = A - B log10 (qu / pa)

(12)

or

(13)

or

(14)

or

(15)

Figure 7 shows the results for all of the data, including multiple tests at the same site and results for (a)

shafts in natural and man-made rocks, (b) grouted

piles in natural rocks, and (c) rock anchors in natural rocks. The regression line is given by:

f / pa = 2.00 (qu / pa)0.69

(16)

test site. The regression line corresponds to:

f / pa = 1.74 (qu / pa)0.67

(17)

the rock anchor data are clustered in the lower portions of the figure, especially in the lower right.

Setting these data aside gives the results for drilled

shafts and grouted piles as shown in Figure 9 by the

r = qL2 / qu = f / qu

0.1

0

0

0.01

m = 52, r2 = 0.69, S.D. = 0.30

0.001

0

I. Intrusive

I. Extrusive

I. Pyroclastic

S. Clastic (fine)

S. Clastic (coarse)

S. Chemical

M. Non-Foliated

Man-Made

0.0001

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

resistance factor (r), which is given by:

0

0.1

0

0.01

log10 r = - 0.01 - 0.50 log10(qu / pa)

m = 41, r2 = 0.51, S.D. = 0.31

0.001

0

I. Intrusive

S. Clastic (coarse)

I. Extrusive

S. Chemical

I. Pyroclastic

M. Non-Foliated

S. Clastic (fine)

Man-Made

Regression Line for Data with Rock Anchors

0.0001

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

per site [25]

0

0.1

0

0.01

which can be conveniently rounded to

m = 104, r2 = 0.72, S.D. = 0.29

0.001

0

I. Intrusive

I. Extrusive

I. Pyroclastic

S. Clastic (fine)

f / pa = (qu / pa)0.50

S. Clastic (coarse)

S. Chemical

M. Non-Foliated

Man-Made

0.0001

0

1

10

100

1000

(18)

10000

(19)

from Eq. (8), which was the recommended value

when the capacity definitions were unknown or uncontrolled. Now, when the "interpreted failure load"

is given at L2, Eq. (19) is the more appropriate one

to use. The lower bound C value of 0.63 that was

for 90% of the data in Figure 9. To capture 100%

of the data points, the absolute lower bound would

be about 0.25.

It should be noted in Figure 9 that the regression is

altered significantly when the rock anchor data are

included. Clearly these data constitute a separate

population.

5. LOCALIZED RELATIONSHIPS

In addition to the general relationships described

above, there have been a number of studies that

have focused exclusively on localized rock units,

such as the chalks of southern England and the

limerocks of Florida. These studies are of local

importance and are too specialized to be discussed

herein. When these are addressed, they should be

considered within the broad framework described

above.

6. ROCK SOCKET SIDE RESISTANCE AND

CONCRETE BOND STENGTH

Carter and Kulhawy [6] made a design check recommendation to compare the allowable side resistance of the rock socket (f / FS) to the concrete

bond strength, given by 0.05 f 'c. The lower value

would control, unless field testing showed otherwise. By using typical safety factors of 2 and 3, the

ultimate side resistance can be compared with the

factored concrete bond strength, as given in Figure

10. Typical ranges of concrete strength, f 'c / pa =

200 - 400, were used for comparison.

As can be seen, most side resistances are below the

limiting concrete values. The percentages are given

in Table 1, which shows that there are more cases of

sockets exceeding the concrete bond strength with

Side Resistance, f / pa

80

60

S. Clastic (coarse)

S. Chemical

M. Non-Foliated

Man-Made

40

FSlim = 3

fc' / pa = 400

2

20

3

fc' / pa = 200

0

1

10

100

concrete

f 'c / pa

200

400

FSlim = 2

FSlim = 3

16

2

4

1

The behavior of normal rock sockets for drilled

shafts has been reviewed, and a survey has been

conducted of various proposals to estimate the

socket side resistance. In general, the side resistance can be estimated from the following:

f / pa = C (qu / pa)n

(2)

The databases used by different authors have varied

widely, as have the controls on the data type and

quality. However, for all practical purposes, nearly

all authors have shown that n = 0.50. On the other

hand, values of C have varied depending on the

author and database. The most recent evaluation,

apparently the only one in which all the load test

data were interpreted in the same manner, gave a

mean value of C equal to 0.98, which is conveniently rounded to 1.0. Therefore, the recommended

equation for predicting the side resistance of normal

rock sockets for drilled shafts is as follows:

f / pa = (qu / pa)0.50

(19)

C is equal to 0.63. For roughened sockets, C will be

larger than 1, but this evaluation is beyond the

scope of this paper.

100

I. Intrusive

I. Extrusive

I. Pyroclastic

S. Clastic (fine)

be noted that all of these cases showed acceptable

behavior when the concrete bond strength was

exceeded. Clearly the concrete behaves better when

it is confined in a socket and reinforced than when it

is unconfined and unreinforced.

1000

10000

the cases, the allowable socket side resistance is

larger than the concrete bond strength. This point

illustrates that the concrete behaves better when it is

confined in a socket and reinforced than when it is

unconfined and unreinforced.

REFERENCES

1.

York: McGraw-Hill.

2.

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

3.

1972. Drilled Pier Foundations. New York: McGrawHill.

4.

Foundation Engineering. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

5.

interpretation of load tests on drilled shafts. Report EL5915. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute.

6.

design of drilled shaft foundations socketed into rock.

Report EL-5918. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research

Institute.

7.

interpretation of drilled foundation load tests. In Deep

Foundations 2002 (GSP116), ed. M.W. O'Neill & F.C.

Townsend, 1018-1028. Reston: ASCE.

8.

end bearing tests on bedrock for high capacity socket

design. Canadian Geotech. J. 13(3): 324-333.

9.

Horvath, R.G. 1978. Field load test data on concrete-torock bond strength for drilled pier foundations.

Publication 78-07, Toronto: Univ. of Toronto.

of rock-socketed drilled piers. In Symposium on Deep

Foundations, Atlanta, Oct. 1979, ed. F.M. Fuller, 182214. New York: ASCE.

11. Horvath, R.G., T.C. Kenney & P. Kozicki. 1983.

Methods of improving the performance of drilled piers

in weak rock. Canadian Geotech. J. 20(4): 758-772.

12. Meigh, A.C. & W. Wolski. 1979. Design parameters

for weak rock. In Proceedings, 7th European

Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering, Brighton, Sep. 1979, 5: 59-79. London:

British Geotechnical Society.

13. Williams, A.F., I.W. Johnston & I.B. Donald. 1980.

Design of socketed piles in weak rock. In Structural

Foundations on Rock, ed. P.J.N. Pells, 327-347.

Rotterdam: Balkema.

14. Rowe, R.K. & H.H. Armitage. 1984. Design of piles

socketed into weak rock. Report GEOT-11-84. London:

Univ. of Western Ontario.

15. Rowe, R.K. & H.H. Armitage. 1987. A design method

for drilled piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotech. J.

24(1): 126-142.

16. Kulhawy, F.H. & J.P. Carter. 1992. Settlement and

bearing capacity of foundations on rock masses. In

Engineering in Rock Masses, ed. F.G. Bell, 231-245.

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

foundations in rock masses. In Engineering in Rock

Masses, ed. F.G. Bell, 509-529. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.

18. Reese, L.C. & M.W. O'Neill. 1988. Drilled shafts:

construction procedures and design methods. Report

FHWA-HI-88-042.

McLean:

Federal

Highway

Administration.

19. O'Neill, M.W. and L.C.Reese. 1999. Drilled shafts:

construction procedures and design methods. Report

FHWA-IF-99-025.

McLean:

Federal

Highway

Administration.

20. Kulhawy, F.H. & K.K. Phoon. 1993. Drilled shaft side

resistance in clay soil to rock. In Design and

Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and Piers in

Soil and Soft Rock (GSP 38), ed. P.P. Nelson, T.D.

Smith & E.C. Clukey, 172-183. New York: ASCE.

21. Bloomquist, D. & F.C. Townsend. 1991. Development

of insitu equipment for capacity determinations of deep

foundations in Florida limestone. Report to Florida

Dept. of Transportation. Gainesville: University of

Florida.

22. McVay, M.C., F.C. Townsend & R.C. Williams. 1992.

Design of socketed drilled shafts in limestone. J.

Geotech. Eng.(ASCE). 118(10):1626-1637.

23. Zhang, L. & H.H. Einstein. 1998. End bearing capacity

of drilled shafts in rock. J. Geotech. Eng.(ASCE).

124(7):574-584.

24. Zhang, L. & H.H. Einstein. 1999. Closure to "end

bearing capacity of drilled shafts in rock". J. Geotech.

Eng.(ASCE). 125(12):1109-1110.

25. Prakoso, W.A. 2002. Reliability-based design of

foundations in rock masses. PhD Dissertation. Ithaca:

Cornell University.

- Concrete Construction TerminologyUploaded byKaren Dela Torre
- Reese, Lymon C._ Van Impe, William-Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading (2nd Edition)-Taylor _ Francis (2011)Uploaded byyukihuyi
- Sample Sts02465Uploaded bychondroc11
- Challenges-and-Recent-Advance-in-Geotechnics-for-Foundation-Engineering.pdfUploaded byCherry Ng
- GRLWEAP2010WhatsNew2010_2Uploaded byKengin
- TeamUploaded byAnonymous ufMAGXcskM
- GroundControlforUndergroundMines.pdfUploaded byJannela yernaidu
- hybrid fibreUploaded byprabindp
- 2 - BT - Footings and FoundationsUploaded byVincent Alcayde
- Pile Net (Autosaved)2..3-2..7Uploaded bygs_shopnil
- ASTM C267Uploaded byHà Khểnh
- Architectural Structures ReviewerUploaded byJC Agpalo
- 9C406.5Uploaded bySHIRISHA YADAV
- Ductal-Blast Test AustraliaUploaded byingeniomeca8800
- 5 Structural ArrangementUploaded bydev_dip_don
- M.tech Thesis TitlesUploaded bysunleon31
- Elementos Finitos NolinealUploaded bychavico113
- 2159-09(+A1).pdfUploaded byneo
- Cantilever Wall Sample ReportUploaded bymanikandan0000000
- Design CriteriaUploaded byMyunSu Goo
- Foundation TypesUploaded byTBCACCOUNTs
- Concrete Maturity MeasurementUploaded byZunur Osman
- Design Criteria SuhanUploaded byamiruddin
- stines2Uploaded bySomamemory Daely
- 110-s43Uploaded byAnonymous 7Rq6IYhLsI
- 05-04-0035Uploaded byEl Jaafar
- Choti Nadhi 13-6-2019Uploaded byEr Navneet Jassi
- Cost of Pile Foundation vs OthersUploaded bylaikienfui
- Reparacion de Muros ChatosUploaded byAnonymous YH4jBAiDOq
- PILe Work(o.s.h) (1)Uploaded byASAD MALIK

- FHWA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CIRCULAR NO. 4 Ground Anchors and Anchored SystemsUploaded byv
- Liao2018GroundAnchorCorrosion TaipeiUploaded byethelyuliana
- 232 Rock Anchors for Dams.pdfUploaded byErisvaldo de Lima
- nhi14007.pdfUploaded byLuis Marcos
- Geotech - Wedge.pdfUploaded bySumanth
- theory-manual_eng_2011.pdfUploaded byErisvaldo de Lima
- Issues in Evaluating Capacity of Rock Socket Foundations KULHAWY and PRAKOSOUploaded byErisvaldo de Lima
- Hoek-Brown failure criterion – 2002 Edition HOEK AND CARRANZA.pdfUploaded byErisvaldo de Lima
- Slope StabilityUploaded byLuigi Garcia Cueva
- Rock FoundationsUploaded byGilmer Rojas Chavez
- EM_1110-1-1905Uploaded byjulesjusayan

- Physics I Problems (16).pdfUploaded bybosschellen
- Special types of bipolar single valued neutrosophic graphsUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- The Art of Black MagickUploaded byhergom
- 1405098910.docxUploaded byJiawen Chong
- Modul 4 (ReceptorLigand)Uploaded byapi-19755462
- Homoeopathy, The Vaccum State & the Formative MindUploaded byJohn Davidson
- how to draw force diagramsUploaded byapi-262120176
- Curious Minds MagazineUploaded byrandyappling
- Asce Epri Guides 1989Uploaded bydavid_rosemberg
- MAYA-The World as Virtual RealityUploaded byArgha Maji
- Dehydration of D-Fructose to Levulinic Acid over LZY.pdfUploaded byBen Yudha Satria
- GPU.pdfUploaded bygeorgebuhay_666
- Foundation Design Philosophy for Rotating EquipmentUploaded byKyaw Kyaw Aung
- Atomic StructureUploaded byMonika Bansal
- A Comparison Between Mechanical Properties of Self Compacting Concrete and the Corresponding Properties of Normal ConcreteUploaded byUmair Baig
- RCCTEUploaded byJosé Carlos
- UEE62111 4 SummaryUploaded bySasho Gjorgjievski
- BRM - Factor AnalysisUploaded byRavinder Kumar
- Unit 5Uploaded bykapil1411
- Bai Tap Hdc a Phan 3Uploaded byHoàng Quốc Việt
- Water Proof and Water Repellant FinishesUploaded byRishav Raj
- Lecture 1Uploaded byjohn
- Estimation of Natural Ground Water Recharge for the Performance Assessment of a Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility at the Hanford SiteUploaded byjafar cad
- AntonioUploaded bycindydmjkt
- Better Amine System Operations Through Chemical Analysis - LRGCC 2013 finalrev2[1].pdfUploaded byShashank N Shah
- Face RecognitionUploaded byAmit Samal
- Effect of power swing on the performance of mho relayUploaded bysubhankar dash
- SJV Selection Ejectors[1]Uploaded bykumarvns111
- UEME 3112 Boundary Layer FlowUploaded by嘉琪
- ORESRUS NL Tenement 4529.docxUploaded byinung84