19 views

Uploaded by Peteris Skels

- Dynamic Analysis
- Important Note on Slope stability Analysis
- Slope Modeling
- Zornberg_1994
- Internal Compound Stability Analysis
- 10-Nordal_ICG Nov 2012 Instab in Stain Softening Soils
- Rock Nail Design Guidelines for Roadway Cuts in Central Texas
- GTS_NX_Modules.pdf
- Geotechnical Design
- Large_Scale_Slope_Stability_Literature_Review.pdf
- Geotechnical Engineering
- Ground Support Recommendations
- Soil Stabilization ASSIGNMENT
- L10-DiscontinuumAnalysis.pdf
- Slope Paper
- Infinite Slopes
- L10 Slope Stability - Method of Analysis
- 2D Tutorial Coupled Analysis Non Linear Time History With Slope Stability Analysis
- An Experimental Study of the Earth Pressure Distribution on Cylindrical Shafts
- DE0358

You are on page 1of 6

ISBN 978-0-7277-6067-8

The authors and ICE Publishing: All rights reserved, 2015

doi:10.1680/ecsmge.60678

element limit analysis

lments limite analyse

K. Lim*1, A. Li1 , A. Lyamin2 and M. Cassidy3

1

University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

3

University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia

*

Corresponding Author

2

ABSTRACT This paper investigates the stability of fill slopes often found in embankment cases where frictional fill materials are placed

on purely cohesive undrained clay with increasing strength. By using finite element upper and lower bound limit analysis for this investigation, the limit load can be truly bounded. It is known that two-dimensional analysis yields a more conservative result due to plain strain

condition when compared to three-dimensional analysis. Therefore, this paper will focus on three-dimensional (3D) slope stability analysis

and for comparison purposes two-dimensional analysis results will be employed. In fact, the final results are presented in the form of comprehensive chart solutions for the convenience of practicing engineers during preliminary slope design. The failure mechanism will also be

discussed in order to further illustrate the situation during failure. It should be highlighted that the failure mechanisms are obtained through

the numerical method itself and no prior assumptions are required, therefore, are more realistic and able to provide a better understanding

for the slope failure surfaces.

RSUM Ce document examine la stabilit des pentes souvent trouv en remblai cas o frictionnel matriaux de remplissage sont placs

sur un argile purement cohrent avec vigueur croissante. Aide par lments finis suprieur et infrieur li limite l'analyse de cette enqute,

la charge limite peut tre vritablement dlimite. Il est connu que analyse bidimensionnelle des rendements de plus conservateur grce

souche simple condition lorsque compar aux trois-analyse dimensionnelle. Par consquent, ce document se concentrera sur trois dimensions (3D) pente analyse de stabilit et des fins de comparaison analyse bidimensionnelle rsultats seront employes. En fait, les rsultats

finaux sont prsents sous la forme de comprhensives graphiques solutions pour la commodit des ingnieurs pendant pente prliminaire

design. La dfaillance du mcanisme seront galement abords, afin de mieux illustrer la situation lors de la dfaillance. Il convient de souligner que les mcanismes de dfaillance sont obtenus par la mthode numrique lui-mme et aucun avant hypothses sont requises, par

consquent, sont plus ralistes et capables de fournir une meilleure comprhension de la pente dfaillance du surface.

.

INTRODUCTION

the various geotechnical problems and challenges

ranging from slope stability (Li et al. 2010;

Michalowski 2010), trench stability (Fox 2004; Li et

al. 2014), bearing capacity (Saada et al. 2008; Kuo et

al. 2009) and many others. Slope stability analyses

have been an integral part of geotechnical engineering and therefore a number of methods were developed over the years. In fact, the most conventional

method used in slope stability analysis to date has

fairly simple and is based on the fundamental theorem of moment/force equilibrium. However, on the

other hand, it is well known that the use of the LEM

has its inherent limitations. The detailed discussion

of the LEM has been covered in the study by Duncan

(1996).

While many slope stability analyses have been

done in plain strain condition, it is significant to note

that physical boundary restrictions are an important

factor in the slope stability analyses which greatly influence the results. Such findings are supported and

1597

et al. (1988). These authors show that slopes restricted by physical boundaries yielded a higher factor of

safety compared to the plain strain analysis. Based on

these findings, it is sufficient to say that using a plain

strain analysis on slopes where three-dimensional

conditions prevail will lead to over conservative results and hence unrealistic loading allowances.

The final results of this study will also be presented in the form of stability charts for the convenience

of practicing engineers during preliminary slope design. The use of stability charts can reduce time and

resources required, hence improving work efficiency.

While slope stability problems generally include

natural slopes, cut slopes or fill slopes (such as embankments, earth dams and levees), this paper investigated slope with frictional fill materials placed on

purely cohesive clay with increasing strength. This

type of slope is usually encountered in the construction of embankments in highway projects. In fact, for

comparison purposes, this paper has also incorporated the findings of plain strain analysis in addition

to those of three-dimensional analysis. The method

of analysis employed herein is the finite element limit analysis methods developed by Lyamin and Sloan

(2002b, 2002a) and Krabbenhoft et al. (2005). These

techniques superficially remove the limitations of the

LEM and limit analysis.

2

PREVIOUS STUDY

For the past decades within the context of slope stability analysis, methods such as the LEM, finite element method, limit theorem and others have been developed. While many of these methods have been

fine-tuned, the most popular method to date is still

the limit equilibrium method. This is due to the simplicity of the method which yield a factor of safety

based on the amount of available shear strength to resist the mobilized sliding shear stress. In addition,

this method can be further classified as satisfying

moment/force equilibrium or both (Bishop 1955;

Morgenstern & Price 1965; Spencer 1967; Janbu

1973).

Besides that, as mentioned previously, finite element method is another method that has been utilized

in slope stability analysis and has the capability to

1598

has been utilized by Matsui and San (1992), Griffiths

and Lane (1999) and Manzari and Nour (2000). The

advantage of using this method is further portrayed

by Potts et al. (1997) and Troncone (2005) who investigated the delayed collapse of cut slope and effect of strain softening in progressive failure in their

respective studies.

On the other hand, within the framework of limit

theorem, researchers like Donald and Chen (1997),

Michalowski (2002) and Chen et al. (2003) have investigated different soil and rock slope stability problems. However, it should be noted that these studies

have all utilized only the upper bound limit theorem

and thus are less conservative compared to the lower

bound limit theorem solution.

In light of such limitations, Lyamin and Sloan

(2002b, 2002a) and Krabbenhoft et al. (2005) have

developed the finite element limit analysis methods

which can be applied on different geotechnical problems such as bearing capacity (Shiau et al. 2003;

Merifield et al. 2006), trench stability (Li et al. 2014)

as well as slope stability (Kim et al. 1999; Li et al.

2011). In fact, the finite element limit theorem has

the capability of analysis for both two-dimensional

and three-dimensional problems as stated by Sloan

(2013). Ever since, this finite element limit theorem

has been utilized by Yu et al. (1998), Loukidis et al.

(2003) and Li et al. (2009) and in their respective

studies of slope stability analysis albeit of different

type and nature of slopes. Thus these methods are also utilized herein.

3

PROBLEM DEFINITION

Figure 1 shows the typical slope geometry configuration for the problem presented in this paper. As this is

a fill slope of frictional fill materials placed on purely

cohesive undrained clay, the fill material will be regarded as Region 1 whose strength is defined by only

the friction angle, and the existing base soil will be

regarded as Region 2 and the strength is defined by

the following equation:

cu(z) = cu0 + z

(1)

slope base, is the rate of increase in the undrained

shear strength with depth and z is the depth from the

base of the slope. Hence, in this study of 0.25, 0.5,

0.75 and 1 are considered. For 3D numerical limit

analysis, a range of L/H is investigated.

mesh generation must follow two important guidelines, which are (1) The overall mesh dimensions are

adequate to contain the computed stress field (lower

bound) or velocity/plastic field (upper bound); and

(2) There is an adequate concentration of elements

within critical regions. The final element mesh arrangements (both upper and lower bound) were selected only after considerable refinements had been

made. The typical finite element meshes and boundary conditions of the upper and lower bound limit

analysis (2D and 3D) are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 1. Problem configuration and slope geometry

soil profile in Figure 1(a) has been extended in the xz plane by L/2 (L = Length) into the page as shown in

Figure 1(b). In fact, this extension of L/2 has also

been done to enable a symmetric 3D slope boundary

and thus reducing the elements and nodes. The

boundary conditions shown in the figure have been

applied in various previous studies (Li et al. 2009,

2010) and thus are used herein. It is to be noted that

for symmetric purposes, a boundary condition of =

0 has been assigned to the symmetric face.

Figure 2. Typical two dimensional finite element meshes and

boundary conditions used in this study.

stability numbers as shown in Eq. (2) which is modi1599

Taylor (1937).

N = cu0/HF

(2)

and F is the safety factor.

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.0

d/H = 1.5

L/H = 2

0.076

0.072

0.069

0.067

N = cu0/HF (LB)

d/H = 2

L/H = 4

L/H = 2

0.115

0.078

0.108

0.073

0.103

0.069

0.098

0.067

L/H = 4

0.118

0.110

0.104

0.099

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.0

d/H = 1.5

2D (UB)

0.137

0.128

0.120

0.114

N = cu0/HF

d/H = 2

2D (LB)

2D (UB)

0.142

0.145

0.132

0.131

0.123

0.122

0.117

0.114

2D (LB)

0.147

0.133

0.124

0.117

0.16

0.14

this study.

presented in the form of stability numbers, (N =

cu0/HF) for 2D and 3D analyses. The slope considered in this paper has a slope angle, = 30 with fill

material having a friction angle, = 35. The considered d/H is in the range of 1.5 - 2. It should be noted

that the true solutions (2D) are bracketed by the numerical limit analysis to within 3% or better. In addition to that, it can be observed that a decrease in the

stability numbers is observed when increases in

both the 3D and 2D solutions. This clearly shows that

as the strength of bottom relative to the top of Region

2 increases, the stability number drops which signifies a safer slope.

In addition, the 3D effects on slope are also distinctively shown here as it can clearly be observed

that the stability number increases when L/H ratio increases. In Table 1, for L/H = 2, the stability numbers

are seen to be constant when d/H increases from 1.5

to 2 while a slight increase is observed when L/H = 4.

N = cu0 /HF

2D (LB)

2D (UB)

L/H = 4

L/H = 2

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.16

0.14

0.12

N = cu0 /HF

0.12

2D (LB)

2D (UB)

L/H = 4

L/H = 2

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(b) d/H = 2.

Figure 4. Stability numbers plotted against different

1600

analysis and 3D analysis (L/H = 2). It can clearly be

seen that the stability numbers obtained from the 2D

analysis are much larger than those from the 3D

analysis. This clearly shows that ignoring the 3D effects of slopes can result in a significant difference of

up to 70%. Hence, in other words with the consideration of 3D effects, more cost-effective designs can be

carried out. In fact, where 3D conditions prevail in

the slopes, 3D analysis allows for a more realistic

load allowance to be obtained. While more investigations are being done, it should be noted for discussion purposes, only lower bound solution are shown

here as it yields a more conservative result.

similar conditions shown in Figure 5(b).

for d/H = 1.5 and 2.

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.0

d/H = 1.5

L/H = 2

0.076

0.072

0.069

0.067

N = cu0/HF (LB)

d/H = 2

2D

L/H = 2

0.142

0.078

0.132

0.073

0.123

0.069

0.117

0.067

2D

0.147

0.133

0.124

0.117

in slope stability analysis, it is well known that the

conventional LEM requires the failure surface to be

pre-assumed. Having said that, by using finite element upper and lower bound limit analysis methods,

the determination of failure surface is not required

prior to any safety factor calculation.

Figure 5 shows the plastic zones and velocities obtained in this study for = 0.75 and different d/H ratios. The plastic zones can be seen as the failure

mechanisms. It can be observed that the failure of the

slope can be regarded as base failure while movement in the fill material can also be seen. In addition,

a comparison between Figure 5(a) and (b) indicates

that the failure mechanism will not be always controlled by the ratio of d/H. As shown in Figure 5(b)

the failure surface does not touch the bottom rigid

base.

Figure 6 are the plastic points obtained from 3D

lower bound analysis for L/H = 4. It is shown that the

failure mechanism is influenced by the restricted

physical boundary. For instance, it can be seen that

the failure mechanism is shallower and closer to the

Figure 5. Upper bound plastic zones and velocities

CONCLUSION

This paper presented the slope stability assessment

for frictional fill materials placed on purely cohesive

soil with increasing strength by using finite element

limit analysis method. Then to further clarify the significance of 3D influence on slope stability assessment, both 2D and 3D analyses were performed.

From the comparisons, it can clearly be observed that

ignoring the 3D effects of slope can lead to a difference in stability evaluation of 70%. In other words, a

1601

analyses are considered. Therefore, 2D analyses may

be too conservative and underestimate the factor of

safety. Finally, to produce more comprehensive slope

stability charts, more investigations are required in

the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Kelvin Lim would like to thank his family members

for their support in completing this study and paper.

REFERENCES

Bishop, A.W. 1955. The use of the slip circle in the stability

analysis of slopes, Geotechnique 5, 7-17.

Cavounidis, S. 1987. On the ratio of factors of safety in slope

stability analyses, Geotechnique 37, 207-210.

Chen, J., Yin, J.H. & Lee, C.F. 2003. Upper bound limit analysis

of slope stability using rigid finite elements and nonlinear

programming, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40, 742-752.

Donald, I.B. & Chen, Z. 1997. Slope stability analysis by the upper

bound approach: Fundamentals and methods, Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 34, 853-862.

Duncan, J. 1996. State of the Art: Limit Equilibrium and FiniteElement Analysis of Slopes, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

122, 577-596.

Fox, P.J. 2004. Analytical solutions for stability of slurry trench,

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130,

749-758.

Gens, A., Hutchinson, J.N. & Cavounidis, S. 1988. Threedimensional analysis of slides in cohesive soils, Geotechnique 38,

1-23.

Griffiths, D. & Lane, P. 1999. Slope stability analysis by finite

elements, Geotechnique 49, 387-403.

Janbu, N. 1973. Slope stability computations, Publication of:

Wiley (John) and Sons, Incorporated

Kim, J., Salgado, R. & Yu, H. 1999. Limit analysis of soil slopes

subjected to pore-water pressures, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering 125, 49-58.

Krabbenhoft, K., Lyamin, A.V., Hjiaj, M. & Sloan, S.W. 2005. A

new discontinuous upper bound limit analysis formulation,

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 63,

1069-1088.

Kuo, Y.L., Jaksa, M., Lyamin, A. & Kaggwa, W. 2009. ANNbased model for predicting the bearing capacity of strip footing on

multi-layered cohesive soil, Computers and Geotechnics 36, 503516.

Li, A.J., Merifield, R.S., Lin, H.D. & Lyamin, A.V. 2014. Trench

Stability under Bentonite Pressure in Purely Cohesive Clay,

International Journal of Geomechanics 14, 151-157.

Li, A.J., Merifield, R.S. & Lyamin, A.V. 2009. Limit analysis

solutions for three dimensional undrained slopes, Computers and

Geotechnics 36, 1330-1351.

1602

stability charts for slopes based on limit analysis methods,

Canadian Geotechnical Journal 47, 1316-1334.

Li, A.J., Merifield, R.S. & Lyamin, A.V. 2011. Effect of rock mass

disturbance on the stability of rock slopes using the HoekBrown

failure criterion, Computers and Geotechnics 38, 546-558.

Loukidis, D., Bandini, P. & Salgado, R. 2003. Stability of

seismically loaded slopes using limit analysis, Geotechnique 53,

463-480.

Lyamin, A.V. & Sloan, S.W. 2002a. Lower bound limit analysis

using non-linear programming, International Journal for

Numerical Methods in Engineering 55, 573-611.

Lyamin, A.V. & Sloan, S.W. 2002b. Upper bound limit analysis

using linear finite elements and nonlinear programming,

International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in

Geomechanics 26, 181-216.

Manzari, M.T. & Nour, M.A. 2000. Significance of soil dilatancy

in slope stability analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering 126, 75-80.

Matsui, T. & San, K.-C. 1992. Finite element slope stability

analysis by shear strength reduction technique, Soils and

foundations 32, 59-70.

Merifield, R., Lyamin, A. & Sloan, S. 2006. Limit analysis

solutions for the bearing capacity of rock masses using the

generalised HoekBrown criterion, International Journal of Rock

Mechanics and Mining Sciences 43, 920-937.

Michalowski, R.L. 2002. Stability Charts for Uniform Slopes,

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128,

351-355.

Michalowski, R.L. 2010. Limit Analysis and Stability Charts for

3D Slope Failures, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering 136, 583-593.

Morgenstern, N. & Price, V.E. 1965. The analysis of the stability

of general slip surfaces, Geotechnique 15, 79-93.

Potts, D.M., Kovacevic, N. & Vaughan, P.R. 1997. Delayed

collapse of cut slopes in stiff clay, Geotechnique 47, 953-982.

Saada, Z., Maghous, S. & Garnier, D. 2008. Bearing capacity of

shallow foundations on rocks obeying a modified HoekBrown

failure criterion, Computers and Geotechnics 35, 144-154.

Shiau, J., Lyamin, A. & Sloan, S. 2003. Bearing capacity of a sand

layer on clay by finite element limit analysis, Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 40, 900-915.

Sloan, S. 2013. Geotechnical stability analysis. The 51st Rankine

Lecture, Geotechnique 63, 531-572.

Spencer, E. 1967. A method of analysis of the stability of

embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces, Geotechnique

17, 11-26.

Taylor, D.W. 1937, Stability of earth slopes, Boston Society of

Civil Engineers.

Troncone, A. 2005. Numerical analysis of a landslide in soils with

strain-softening behaviour, Geotechnique 55, 585-596.

Yu, H., Salgado, R., Sloan, S. & Kim, J. 1998. Limit Analysis

versus Limit Equilibrium for Slope Stability, Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124, 1-11.

- Dynamic AnalysisUploaded byBerkonBelez
- Important Note on Slope stability AnalysisUploaded byJerry Ft
- Slope ModelingUploaded byYap Wen Khong
- Zornberg_1994Uploaded byHindreen Mohammed
- Internal Compound Stability AnalysisUploaded byrotciv132709
- Rock Nail Design Guidelines for Roadway Cuts in Central TexasUploaded byTransportation Engineering
- GTS_NX_Modules.pdfUploaded byrlpr
- Geotechnical DesignUploaded byAdriana Daniela Sandu
- 10-Nordal_ICG Nov 2012 Instab in Stain Softening SoilsUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Large_Scale_Slope_Stability_Literature_Review.pdfUploaded byYovani Achata Flores
- Geotechnical EngineeringUploaded bysharan31
- Ground Support RecommendationsUploaded byRigid Joint
- Soil Stabilization ASSIGNMENTUploaded byvishnu_2008
- L10-DiscontinuumAnalysis.pdfUploaded byimamta
- Slope PaperUploaded bypleyvaze
- Infinite SlopesUploaded byThomas Bryan
- L10 Slope Stability - Method of AnalysisUploaded byLi
- 2D Tutorial Coupled Analysis Non Linear Time History With Slope Stability AnalysisUploaded byShanna Aurora Pimentel
- An Experimental Study of the Earth Pressure Distribution on Cylindrical ShaftsUploaded byRamesh
- DE0358Uploaded byDiana Azarina
- Footing Bearing CapacityUploaded byRakesh7770
- Design of SlopeUploaded byVakapalli Dpmr
- TGN11 Enhancing the Reliability and Robustness of Engineered Soil Cut Slopes.pdfUploaded byJakin Chow
- SLOPEW 2007 engineering book.pdfUploaded byfaizal akbar
- Stability of Buildings Near Shallow ExcavationsUploaded byAhmad Pooladi
- http://balkanmine2017.comUploaded byMikan Radenko Mikanović
- 162 Footings in SandUploaded byToan Pham
- 10.1.1.838.6885Uploaded bykris
- Cigre ReferenceUploaded byKar Tik
- Mitigative Measures Against Soil Liquefaction NumeUploaded bySajjad

- Settlement of Piled FoundationsUploaded byWubetie Mengist
- 912 Twintex Short Beam 0.is FlexUploaded byPeteris Skels
- GDM Ch-14 Ground ImprovementUploaded bymarinex_84
- Keller 35 02E Rigid InclusionsUploaded byAnonymous t7uHD8BvD
- FHWA-NHI-10-024 Design & Construction of MSE Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes - Volume IUploaded byKathleen Noonan
- RedBookUploaded byTopaca Paec
- P13+A+Life+Cycle+Cost+Approach+bas+on+the+Caligrated+Mechanistic+Asphalt+Pavement+Design+Model%2C+IUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4thUploaded byyusefmejia
- Prefabricated Vertical DrainsUploaded bylollyb
- GDM-11_2016Uploaded byPeteris Skels
- [Chris_A._Raison]_Ground_and_soil_improvement.pdfUploaded byPeteris Skels
- iYGEC ProgrambookUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Ground Improvement vs Pile FoundationsUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Ground Modification Methods VOLIIUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Ground Modification Methods VOLIUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Asphalt and Concrete PavementsUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Spectra Roadway System OverviewUploaded bybkollarou9632
- PLAXIS _2DUploaded byPeteris Skels
- sensors-14-08829Uploaded bySuraj Kiran Rathod
- 2007 Freedman Pisani Purves StatisticsUploaded byPeteris Skels
- Performance Modelling of Flexible Pavements Tested in a Heavy Vehicle SimulatorUploaded byAnonymous 5exSer
- Diss_BenzUploaded byAnonymous hprsT3WlP

- Ch3 Crack SealingUploaded bySOORI4373
- 04181_NEW.pdfUploaded byDavid Gomez
- Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Newsletter - August 2010[1]Uploaded bySueKrishnan
- Krishna DasUploaded byPri Oliveira
- water harvesting concept.pdfUploaded byritikmdn
- Retaining Wall Design and Soil Improvement MethodUploaded byAngelaDevi
- Foreign Exchange MarketUploaded byFarhad Reza
- Trauma GeriatricoUploaded byAndreaMancera
- Base Plate Uc152x152x23Uploaded bysonofalexander
- BAII Plus Professional TutorialUploaded byOladipupo Mayowa Paul
- steel makingUploaded bys.sam
- 6002 Rex Conveyor Idlers CatalogUploaded byJose Miguel Paredes Lajo
- Tetra Manual v.1.3Uploaded byMikael Nilzén
- 020-100031-01-Christie-CP2000-X-User-ManualUploaded byDSERPAX
- Spheripol AdUploaded byjahsmine Tristan
- COMOSO Fluid Power SID Division Power Unit Start Up ManualUploaded byiossales
- Chem Lab Report 2Uploaded byAndrew Major
- EOC5611P_UserManual_v1.0_20100328Uploaded byDavid Pimentel
- A presentation on analysis of industrial waste waterUploaded byJameel Khan
- Determination of the Oxalate Ions in Guava Fruit at Different Stages of Its RipeningUploaded bySachidanand Singh
- http-www-fatheralexander-org-booklets-english-prayers-htmp.pdfUploaded byDinis JL
- Jill Kraye - Stoicism in the Renaissance From Petrarch to LipsiusUploaded by나경태
- Sony Hcd-s550,s880Uploaded byboroda2410
- unit 7 apesUploaded byapi-368121935
- Rubber ChemistryUploaded byOğuzhan Turan
- amygdalaUploaded byshyzen
- 3 Unit Circle GeoUploaded byMatt Gems
- LELIO CAMILLERIUploaded byFilipeBorato
- Introduction to Operation Management.pptUploaded bySwati Kataria
- HP Smart Array P420Uploaded byMarcelloDM1970