27 views

Uploaded by anar

3_TC_211_HK_BERGADO

- Elasticity, Calorimetry & Thermal Expansion (Teaching Notes)
- Chapter 6 - Mechanical Design
- 5. Mathcad - Pipe Gusset Plate
- Torsion Em 327: Mechanics of Materials Laboratory
- Estimating the Intact Rock Strength of a Rock Mass by Simple Means
- Crackwidth Workshop 2017
- Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall
- Flac Phase2
- mechanics of materials 1.pdf
- a05v5n5
- Composite FEM
- Finite element implementation of advanced failure criteria for composites
- ISRM-8CONGRESS-1995-074_A Comprehensive Peak Shear Strength Criterion for Rock Joints
- FE-Civil-CBT-specs.pdf
- Sample Chapter 12
- A Model for Beam-column Corner Joints of Existing r.c
- FW_162_E_362
- Analysis Self Supporting-1
- Sample 2nd Midterm 2
- Applied Hydrology VT Chow 1988

You are on page 1of 47

on Soft Ground

Prof. D.T. Bergado

Geotechnical and Earth Resources Engineering

School of Engineering and Technology

Asian Institute of Technology

(www.ait.ac.th)

Introduction

(MSE) structures have been

effective alternatives for many

applications to retain walls by

adding foreign material to

strengthen the soil.

Unreinforced slope

- Filling materials

- Reinforcements

- Face elements

facing

Filling Materials:

Reinforcement Material :

frictional soil: good drainage, mobilize the friction between soil and

reinforcement

encouraged to be used

cohesive soil: poor drainage sensitivity with moisture content changes

cohesive-friction soil

lightweight geomaterials (rubber sand) reducing the weight of structure

on the foundation

Inextensible reinforcement: hexagonal wire mesh, steel strip, welded

wire, steel grid

Extensible reinforcement: geosynthetics

Facing:

Flexible wall

Stiff wall

Internal failure:

Tension failure: the tension in the reinforcement layers exceeds its tensile

strength rupture of reinforcement

Slippage (pullout) failure: tension is less then tension strength but greater than

pullout resistance of the reinforcement slippage between soil and reinforcement

Pullout resistance of the grid reinforcement:

frictional resistance and or bearing resistance

geogrid reinforcement

Frictional resistance

Pf As x s x tan

inextensible grid reinfo rcement)

= skin friction angle between soil and grid reinforcement

geogrid reinforcement

- about 10% of pullout resistance

(Abiera, 1991)

and the transverse bars

- about 90% of pullout resistance

(Abiera, 1991)

Pp b xnxd

n = number of transverse members

d = diameter or width of a single transverse member being normal

5

to the maximum bearing stress.

reinforcement loads in MSE structures

Simplified Method

(Using limit equilibrium concepts to develop the design model )

Tmax S v K a ( [ z S ] q)

Sv = tributary area for reinforcement layer

Ka = coefficient of active earth pressure, determined with a horizontal

backslope and no wall-soil interface friction

= unit weight of the soil

z = depth of reinforcement layer below the top of the wall

S = equivalent soil height of uniform surcharge pressure.

q = surcharge pressure

6

reinforcement loads in MSE structures

FHWA Structure Stiffness Method

(Using limit equilibrium concepts to develop the design model )

Tmax Sv K r ( [ z S ] q)

Sr

z

z

K r K a (1 (1 0.4

)(1 ) 2 )

47,880

6

6

K r K a 2

if z (m) 6m

if z (m) > 6m

J

Sr

H

( )

n

Sr = global reinforcement stiffness for the wall

1 = 1.0 for strip and sheet reinforcement or 1.5 for geogrid and welded wire mats.

2 = 1.0 if Sr 47,880 kPa or 2 = 1 if Sr > 47,880 kPa.

J = average reinforcement stiffness for the wall

- the predicted loads were greater than the

estimated loads

The load distribution envelope was rather

trapezoidal in shape, not triangular as it

was assumed for design

8

in MSE structures

Sources of conservatism

- stiffness of various wall components and toe restraint were not explicitly

considered in the ASSHTO Simplified Method

- using laboratory shear strength values that are not corrected for the plane strain

conditions

- the assumption that the wall is at a state of limit equilibrium

the strength of the soil and the reinforcement is fully mobilized

everywhere and all wall components of the wall are at a state of incipient collapse

The reinforcement loads do not represent the soil state of stress:

+ the force in the reinforcement only depends on the strain and the stiffness

of the reinforcement

+ shear stress occurring at the soil/ reinforcement interface equating the

soil stress (Ka or K0) to the reinforcement load which assumes that principle stress

direction remains vertical and horizontal is not reasonable

Back

K-stiffness method

Allen and Bathurst (2002b): Ji = J2%

(1) prevent failure of the reinforced soil (i.e., to avoid failure of the soil as a limit state

for internal design of reinforced soil walls)

(2) Good performance of walls with granular backfill defined by acceptable postconstruction outward wall deformation and no cracking at the surface of the

reinforced soil zone behind the wall facing was achieved with typically recorded

strain less than 2% at end of construction

(3) Creep strains and strain rates were observed to decrease as time increases (i.e.,

only primary creep occurs) when end of construction reinforcement strains were less

than 2%.

Back

10

North American working stress design practice: factors of safety have been

assigned to failure modes such as external, internal or facing stability.

Some issues of current working stress design for geosynthetic reinforced soil

retaining walls (Bathurst 2008):

be simply considered to be the scaling of

failure loads and resistance at limit

equilibrium to working stress conditions

using one or more factors of safety or partial

factors

11

The assumption of current practice: connection

loads at the facing of a wall were the same as

those computed for internal stability design

The connection loads have been evidenced

from monitored walls to be the highest loads

in a layer of reinforcement

The cohesive strength component of a backfill soil was often ignored

- connection failures were not systematic in these types of structures

- or good performance many walls even with poor compaction and/or wetted soil due to

poor soil surface drainage management.

12

- largely empirically based: using back-analysis and curve fitting from full-scale tests

- consider the stiffness of various wall components

- reinforcement strains are prevented from getting large enough to allow failure of the

soil follow the objective of working stress design method

granular (noncohesive, relatively low silt content)

K = lateral earth pressure coefficient, K = K0 = 1 - sinps

ps = 1.5tx 17 (tx: peak friction angle from triaxial compression test)

Bolton (1986) and Jewell and Wroth (1987) for dense sand:

ps = tan-1(1.2 tands) (ds: peak direct shear friction angle)

13

Allen et al. (2003)

H

S

Sv

=

=

=

=

height of the wall

equivalent height of uniform surcharge pressure q (i.e. S = q/)

tributary area

local stiffness is considered

Fig c: distribution for polymer

strap walls.

14

Allen et al. (2003)

g: global stiffness factor - influence of the stiffness and spacing of the reinforcement

layers over the entire wall height

S global

g

pa

= = 0.25

pa = 101 kPa (atmosphere pressure)

S global

J ave

i 1

( H / n)

H

Ji = the tensile stiffness of an individual reinforcement layer

local: local stiffness factor - the relative stiffness of the reinforcement layer with

respect to the average stiffness of all reinforcement layers

a

S local

local

S

Slocal = the local reinforcement stiffness for reinforcement layer i

S local

J

Sv

15

Allen et al. (2003)

fs ( F f )

1.5H 4 p a

Ff

ELb 3 (heff / H )

b = thickness of the facing column

L = unit length of the facing (e.g., L = 1m)

H = height of the facing column

E = elastic modulus of the equivalent elastic beam

representing the wall face

heff= the equivalent height of an un-jointed facing column that

is 100% efficient in transmitting moment through the

height of the facing column

, = coefficient terms of 0.5 and 0.14, respectively

16

Tmax = K (H + S) SvDtmaxg local fs fb

fs = 0.35 for modular block and propped concrete panel faced walls

(stiff facings)

fs = 0.5 for incremental precast concrete facings

fs = 1 for other types of wall facings (flexible facings, e.g., wrappedface, welded wire, or gabion faced)

fb: Facing batter factor

fb

K abh

K avh

coefficient accounting for wall face batter.

Kavh = the horizontal component of active earth pressure

coefficient (assuming the wall is vertical).

d = 0.25

17

Allen et al. (2004)

K = K0 = 1 - sinps and K 0.3 (ps = 440) for best correlation between K0 and Tmax

local = 1 because a = 0 for steel reinforcement.

fs could be taken as fs = 1

Dtmax: Load distribution factor

steel strip

18

Miyata and Bathurst (2007a)

re-examine the K-stiffness Method to consider the effect of the facing stiffness

factor on the reinforcement loads

( F )

fs

better estimation for both geosynthetics and steel reinforced soil walls.

Tmax = K (H + S) SvDtmaxglocalfsfbc

c = soil cohesion factor

c 1

c

H

Dtmax = the load distribution factor

19

MSE Wall/Embankment

Reinforcing materials

PP

PET

HDPE

MS

SWG

Instrumentation

DSP-2

DSP-1

RB-1

RB-2

S1

I1

S3

S4

S2

I2

TP1 TP2

S7

I4

TP3

S9

ASP-1

TP5

ASP-2

ASP-3

TP6

TP4

S8

I5

I3

S10

S6

S5

S12

S13

S14

S11

Ground Plan

S15

Instrumentation

Section

BORING LOG

Fine to Coarse sand, greyish brown (SC)

GWL=2.00

2

3

Fine to Coarse sand, greyish brown (SC)

BORING NO

BH-1

ELEV. (m.)

DEPTH (m)

21.45

GWL. (m)

SAMPLE NO.

RECOVERY (cm)

COORD.

METHOD

SOIL DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

LOCATION

Soil profiles

: .

:

DEPTH (m)

PROJECT

-2.00

DATE STARTED

4/20/2010

DATE FINISHED

4/20/2010

Wn

LL

PL

(%)

SPT-N VALUE

(blows/ft)

10

20

30

40

20

SS

15

SS

15

SS

15

SS

15

SS

15

SS

15

15

15

15

10

15

11

15

12

15

34

13

15

33

14

15

15

15

16

15

17

15

18

15

40

60

Su

TOTAL

DENSITY

(t/cu.m)

UC

FVT

(t/sq.m)

80

1.6

47

18

6

6

4

wo

5

SS

wo

14

5.50

SS

31

wo

SS

wo

SS

10.00

33

22

10

wo

Fine to Coarse sand, greyish brown (SC)

11

SS

12

wo

18

11.50

DENSE CLAYEY SAND

Fine to Coarse sand, greyish brown (SC)

SS

13.00

13

wo

14

SS

15

wo

SS

16

Medium plasticity,greyish brown (CL)

wo

17

SS

18

wo

SS

23

19

wo

20

SS

21

wo

END OF BORING

PA = POWER AUGERING

21.45

HA = HAND AUGERING

SS

WO = WASH OUT

30

ST = SHELBY TUBE

SS = SPLIT SPOON

DISK :

1.8

2.0

method

Tmax = K (H + S) SvDtmaxg local fs fbc

Dtmax = the load distribution factor

global and local reinforcement stiffness, facing stiffness, face batter and

soil cohesion, respectively

Tmax vs. Normalized Depth

Metallic Strip_K-stiffness

method

Metallic Strip_Measured

method

Steel Wire Grids_Measured

HDPE_K-stiffness method

HDPE_Measured

PP_K-stiffness method

PP_Measured

PET_K-stiffness method

PET_Measured

Tmax (kN/m)

%Strain vs. Normalized Depth

PET_K-Stiffness method

PET_Measured

HDPE_K-Stiffness

method

HDPE_Measured

PP_K-Stiffness method

PP_Measured

Steel Wire Grids_Kstiffness method

Steel Wire

Grids_Measuered

Metallic Strip_K-stiffness

method

Metallic Strip_Measured

Strain (%)

with internal design by FHWA structure stiffness method

%Strain vs. Normalized Depth

PET_K-Stiffness method

PET_Measured

PET_FHWA

HDPE_K-Stiffness method

HDPE_Measured

HDPE_FHWA

PP_K-Stiffness method

PP_Measured

PP_FHWA

Steel Wire Grids_K-stiffness

method

Steel Wire Grids_Measuered

Steel Wire Grids_FHWA

Metallic Strip_K-stiffness

method

Metallic Strip_Measured

Strain (%)

structures at AIT Campus on soft ground

Bergado et al. (1991)

Facing: vertical wire mesh

Backfills: Clayey sand

Lateritic soil

Weathered clay

Reinforcement: welded wire mats

2.44 m wide and 5.0 m long, 6 x 9 in. (0.15 x 0.225 m) grid opening

H = 5.7m

L = 14.64m at the top, divided into three sections along its length

structures at AIT Campus

Bergado et al. (1991)

- Sv = 0.45m

- 7 mats instrumented with selftemperature compensating

electrical resistant strain gages

structures at AIT Campus

Bergado et al. (1991)

Variation of tensions in the

longitudinal bars immediately

after construction and for

different periods after

construction (Clayey sand)

structures at AIT Campus

Bergado et al. (1991)

Variation of tensions in the

longitudinal bars immediately

after construction and for

different periods after

construction (Lateritic

Residual soil)

structures at AIT Campus

Bergado et al. (1991)

Variation of tensions in the

longitudinal bars immediately

after construction and for

different periods after

construction (Weathered

clay)

33

structures at AIT Campus

Voottipruex (2000)

Facing: gabion facing, 10 degree inclined

Reinforcement: hexagonal wire

galvanized coated and PVC-coated

Backfill: silty sand

H = 6m

Sv = 0.5m

Front section and view of the reinforced wall

structures at AIT Campus

Voottipruex (2000)

Reinforcement tension of PVCcoated wire mesh in different

period after construction

35

structures at AIT Campus

Voottipruex (2000)

Reinforcement tension of zinccoated wire mesh in different

period after construction

36

Modification of

K-stiffness Method

Factors Affecting

The Kinked Steel Grid Reinforcement

Simplified method (AASHTO, 2002)

Original K-stiffness method

(Allen et al., 2004)

Embankments of

Bergado et al. (1991)

Voottipruex (2000)

(Miyata and Bathurst, 2007b)

- Comments

- Modify these data by K-Stiffness Method

Percent finer (%)

100

80

Lateritic residual soil

60

Clayey sand

Weathered clay

40

Silty sand

20

0

100

10

1

0.1

Diameter (mm)

0.01

0.001

Bergado et al. (1991)

Voottipruex (2000)

Clayey

sand

Lateritic

residual

soil

Weathered

clay

Gavalnized

coated wire

mesh

mesh

Ftx (0)

24

25.2

24

30

30

c (kN/m2)

10

20

30

g(kN/m3)

17

19.3

16.3

18

18

H(m)

5.7

5.7

5.7

Sv (m)

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.5

0.5

Ji (kN/m)

36000

36000

36000

2170

1140

39

c

(kN/m2)

ps

(c = 0)

ps

(c > 0)

Silty sand

30

39

36

Clayey sand

10

24

29

24

20

25.2

33

25.2

Weathered clay

30

24

40

27

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

z/H

z/H

AASHTO (2002)

0.4

0.6

AASHTO (2002)

Original K-Stiffness Method

0.4

0.6

0.8

Clayey sand

0.8

galvanized coated

1.0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

1.0

40

Tmax (kN/m)

10

15

20

Tmax (kN/m)

25

30

35

0.0

FHWA Structure Stiffness Method

z/H

0.2

0.0

AASHTO (2002)

0.4

0.2

FHWA Structure Stiffness Method

0.4

AASHTO (2002)

0.6

z/H

0.6

0.8

lateritic soil

0.8

1.0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tmax (kN/m)

PVC - coated

1.0

0

10

15

20

0.0

Tmax (kN/m)

0.2

z/H

0.4

AASHTO (2002)

0.6

0.8

weathered clay

1.0

0

10

15

20

Tmax (kN/m)

25

30

35

40

25

30

35

Reinforcement loads estimated by FHWA Structure Stiffness Method are 1.5 times

higher than those by Simplified Method.

Original K-Stiffness Method: suitable for high stiffness steel reinforced structures

not suitable for the low stiffness steel reinforced structures

Modified K-Stiffness Method: much smaller reinforcement load than other approaches

not applicable for all backfill material with different

values of soil cohesion

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

Observed value (89 days)

Observed value (203 days)

Observed value 180 days

0.6

0.8

Clayey sand

0.8

1.0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

galvanized coated

40

1.0

Tmax (kN/m)

0.0

10

15

0.2

0.4

20

25

30

35

40

Tmax (kN/m)

0.0

Observed value (203 days)

0.2

lateritic soil

0.4

0.6

0.8

z/H

z/H

0.4

0.6

z/H

z/H

z/H

0.4

1.0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tmax (kN/m)

Observed value 180 days

0.6

0.8

PVC - coated

0.0

0.2

1.0

0

0.4

0.8

weathered clay

1.0

0

10

15

20

Tmax (kN/m)

25

30

35

10

15

20

Tmax (kN/m)

0.6

40

25

30

35

40

Days after construction

0.2

0.4

AASHTO (2002)

z/H

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

z/H

Observed values (89 days)

Observed values (203 days)

0.8

AASHTO (2002)

0.6

galvanized coated

0.6

Observed values (120 days)

0.8

1.0

0

10

15

Clayey sand

20

25

30

35

40

1.0

Tmax (kN/m)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tmax (kN/m)

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.4

PVC - coated

0.2

z/H

AASHTO (2002)

AASHTO (2002)

0.4

z/H

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.8

1.0

lateritic soil

10

15

20

25

Tmax (kN/m)

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tmax (kN/m)

0.0

0.2

be applied to estimate reinforcement

loads for steel reinforced walls

constructed on soft foundation.

0.4

z/H

AASHTO (2002)

0.6

Observed values (89 days)

0.8

1.0

0

5 clay

10

weathered

1.0

15

20

25

Tmax (kN/m)

30

35

40

40

Tmax = K (H + S) SvDtmax g local fs fb s( s = the settlement factor )

s (back calculated )

Tmxmx (measured )

K ( H S ) Sv g local fb fs

fs = 746.64(S/gH) + 2.59

fs = 50(S/gH) 0.74

Validation of modification

Modified original K-stiffness Method:

Tmax = K (H + S) Sv g local fs fb s

Recalculated reinforcement load

20

15

10

Clayey sand

5

Weathered Clay

0

0

10

15

20

reinforcement loads for steel reinforced structures constructed on soft ground

47

- Elasticity, Calorimetry & Thermal Expansion (Teaching Notes)Uploaded bySankar Kumarasamy
- Chapter 6 - Mechanical DesignUploaded byMXR-3
- 5. Mathcad - Pipe Gusset PlateUploaded byPradeep Chitluri
- Torsion Em 327: Mechanics of Materials LaboratoryUploaded byfrankjono
- Estimating the Intact Rock Strength of a Rock Mass by Simple MeansUploaded byschpiplik
- Crackwidth Workshop 2017Uploaded byAnonymous HrZXzhB
- Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shear WallUploaded byyrdgcgf5664
- Flac Phase2Uploaded bypbldzcms
- mechanics of materials 1.pdfUploaded byEj Apelo
- a05v5n5Uploaded byWael Kassem
- Composite FEMUploaded bybookdigit
- Finite element implementation of advanced failure criteria for compositesUploaded bySimone Ragionieri
- ISRM-8CONGRESS-1995-074_A Comprehensive Peak Shear Strength Criterion for Rock JointsUploaded bycastille1956
- FE-Civil-CBT-specs.pdfUploaded bykyle
- Sample Chapter 12Uploaded bythanhphuc1011
- A Model for Beam-column Corner Joints of Existing r.cUploaded byMuhammad Rizwan
- FW_162_E_362Uploaded byHans Goethe
- Analysis Self Supporting-1Uploaded byTiago Cunha
- Sample 2nd Midterm 2Uploaded byDr. Madhukar Vable
- Applied Hydrology VT Chow 1988Uploaded bykaica
- fea unique chair designUploaded byapi-272385014
- a06v10n5.pdfUploaded bydhans20051
- StrengthUploaded byJean Digosman
- PCBC_TowardIntegrated.pdfUploaded byMatias Bustamente
- Critical Stress Analy_KramachandraUploaded byB Bala Venkata Ganesh
- ce003-psUploaded byJaime
- SPE-172496-PAUploaded byParth Chauhan
- Science__Finite Element Evaluation of Clearance Effect OnpdfUploaded byav8b
- CW 2 problem.pdfUploaded byPonsamuel
- de4677_20e1c308f9424c97a1784aee673e2512Uploaded byazur0301

- Fabio Corsanego 1Uploaded byanar
- Hardening Soil Model (Plaxis)Uploaded bybogdan tanasoiu
- Keynote 003Uploaded byanar
- Wong Design Analysis Deep Excavations Session01 (1)Uploaded byanar
- manual de autocad basicoUploaded byinfected521
- Settlement Assessment for the Burj Khalifa, Dubai-HGP-6 (1)Uploaded byanar
- 252707036-Vermeer-1984Uploaded byanar
- 01_Schweiger.pdfUploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Cam ClayUploaded byRico Bartolome
- Strength ReductionUploaded byssheafi
- 9.Coupled Effects in Stability Analysis of Pile-slope Systems (1)Uploaded byanar
- 137911851 a W BISHOP the Strength of Soils as Engineering MaterialsUploaded byanar
- 2010d Gebreselassie,Lüking,Kempfert - Influence FactorsUploaded byanar
- 2013_Becker_Importance retaining structures in soft soils.pdfUploaded byanar
- External BoundaryUploaded byivbecerra
- 9780784409497Uploaded byanar
- 10.1.1.473.964Uploaded byanar
- 1-s2.0-S1877705815017919-mainUploaded byanar
- 2_R01Uploaded byanar
- 1-s2.0-S0266352X15000944-mainUploaded byanar
- 03 Back Calculation of Embankments With a Simple Creep Model Using an Improved Determination of OCR. Grimstad & AshrafiUploaded byanar
- Kyoto 2014- IndraratnaUploaded byanar
- 39-47a Khabbaz Et Al SEAGS E-Journal 2014-03 (1)Uploaded byanar
- Burland - Rankine LectureUploaded byanar
- Keller 10 02E Deep Vibro TechniquesUploaded byFabio De Paiva Brumano
- chapter4 (1)Uploaded byanar

- 2012Oct_Satellite_2ndEdition_120925_v1.1_fin.pdfUploaded bymuzammalsafdar
- Tema ArsitekturUploaded byJoseph Hughes
- Ph.d Thesis Iupware by LiuyongboUploaded byWayaya2009
- 187 thinkpad sl410 l410 l412 sl510 l510 l512Uploaded bySoporte Tecnico Buenos Aires
- Vandelay Case(3)Uploaded byBernie Clinton
- Soil Sub-Grade ModulusUploaded byxbitman
- Stra Case StudyUploaded byishaan kainth
- BLOCK 1Uploaded byPrasanta Debnath
- Pile Driving MethodUploaded byMermaid co
- Developing Critical and Creative Thinking Through ChessUploaded byChess in Schools and Academic Excellence
- CONEX 2017 Reaction Paper.docxUploaded byLeonoralynn Sapungan
- Protecting Traditional Knowledge Digitally a CaseUploaded byMSKC
- Noli Me Tangere and El FilibusterismoUploaded bynikko norman
- Bhushan Traioning Report 786Uploaded byDeepak Giri
- String Theory Only Game in Town TestsUploaded bySilvino González Morales
- Pdc Course FileUploaded bysaftainpatel
- LM1801Uploaded bysbgayen
- 1 - Introduction Production ProcessesUploaded byValeria Stratulat
- Mv JuanitaUploaded byronny-su
- Marcin Czaplicki CV (1)asdasdasdasUploaded byEu Genio
- microorganisms in airUploaded byrepotente
- RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION OF SEISMIC PROFILE A CASE STUDY OF Z FIELD NIGER DELTA NIGERIA (1).pdfUploaded bySanjeev Singh Negi
- Modelica Stream-Connectors-OverviewUploaded byDaniel Fernandez
- Mckinsey’s 7s Framework_pptUploaded byfar_07
- Metal ForgingUploaded bySufi
- Literature Survey Microsoft SurfaceUploaded byB_Chetan
- Organizational Silence a Barrier to Change and Development in a Plurastic WorldUploaded bybalbir
- 2009 - Stock Price Forecasting Using Exogenous Time Series And Combined Neural NetworksUploaded byFranck Dernoncourt
- EXP 1 DC AmmeterUploaded byjoyce ramirez
- Question Bank Brand ManagementUploaded byAshutosh Sharma