Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundation

© All Rights Reserved

53 views

Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundation

© All Rights Reserved

- Advanced Foundation Engineering (57011)
- Load Bearing Capacity
- Geotechnical Engineering - Tata McGraw-Hill-1
- Bearing Capacity Technical Guidance
- Stresses Fadum Etc Scribd Ver.2
- Molecules in Motion: a theoretical study of noise in gene expression and cell signaling
- Lesson 1 Shallow Foundation-Bearing Capacity 2
- Helical Pile
- 9709_w05_qp_5
- Foucault Pendulum Like Problem
- Consideraciones geotecnicas al diseño de minas
- Bearing Capacity - Wikipedia
- Results
- Performance of Jack-In Pile Foundation in Weathered Granite
- Settlement of Soil_calculation
- 76 9 Design of Cranes
- Guide to Foundation_7
- 14_04-02-0018.PDF
- Civil Engineering CV 2
- Axial Load Capacities of Steel Pipe Piles in Sand

You are on page 1of 11

Shallow Foundations

Mr. SukantaKumer Shill

Assistant Professor

Professor

Gazipur, Bangladesh

Gazipur, Bangladesh

Abstract-The principal aim of the paper is to compare the bearing capacity calculation methods proposed by different authors and

codes. To achieve the goal of study, Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963), Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), Indian Standard (1981),

Eurocode7 (1996) and BNBC (1993) are considered in the parametric analysis. Comparison of mathematical expressions of

bearing capacity factors, parametric analysis of these factors and equations are presented in this paper. The most important

conclusion is that the evaluated bearing capacity of soil depends highly on the method used andthe code of practice. It is ob served

that for soil, at lower value of angle of friction for instance 0 0 to 200 , the ultimate bearing capacities for all methods yields

approximately similar value. However,difference o f bearing capacity values among the methods increases exponentially with

increase of friction angle. IS code (1981), Eurocode7 (1996) and Vesics (1973) equations estimate somewhat higher value of

bearing capacity for cohesive soil than skemptons (1951) equation. For c - soil, Meyerhofs (1963) equation is not highly

different from Tarzaghis (1943) equation up to a depth of D/B 1,but Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and

Eurocode7 (1996) highly differ from Tarzaghis (1943) equation.

Key words: Shallow foundation, Footing, Bearing capacity, Internal friction angle, Cohesion, Bearing Capacity Factors.

I. INTRODUCTION

Shallo w foundation is a type of foundation unit that provides support of a structure by transferring loads to soil or rock at

shallow depths. Usually the depth to width ratio of foundation is less than unity and the depth of foundation is within 3m fro m the

surface [1]. To design a shallow footing size and shape of a structure, engineers have to know the ult imate bearing capacit y of

underneath soil. The ultimate bearing capacity of soil is the intensity of loading at the base of a foundation which in itiates shear

failure of the supporting soil [1]. Several bearing capacity equations proposed by different authors and adopted in different codes

are availab le to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of soil at foundation level. But, different method of evaluating bearing

capacity yields different result. However, Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC), 1993 proposed any established bearing

capacity equations shall be used for calculating bearing capacity of soil [1]. The basic equationof bearing capacity concerns strip

footings loaded vertically in the plane of symmetry (Fig.1) which is one of the first fo rmula for bearing capacity calcu latio n of

shallow foundation was given by Terzaghi (1943) asq ult = cNcsc+ q Nq +0.5B N s ... . .. (1)

in which q ult is the ultimate bearing capacity of soil, c is the cohesion of soil, is the unit weight of soil, q is the overburden

pressure, B is the foundation width, Nc is the bearing capacity factors concerning the cohesion of soil c, Nq is the bearing capacity

factors concerning the depth of foundation, N is the bearing capacity factors concerning the internal friction angle of soil [2, 4].

Skempton (1951) proposed a bearing capacity equation for saturated clay soil that is for 0 , asq ult = cu Nc +Df ... . (2)

in which cu =1/ 2 (unconfined compressive strength of clay), Df = depth of footing, = un it weight of soil and Nc is the bearing

capacity factors concerning the cohesion of soil [3]. Meyerhof (1951, 1963) proposed a bearing capacity equation similar to that of

Tarzaghi but included a shape factor sq with the depth term Nq .He also included depth factors d i and inclination factors ii [5]. These

additions produce equation of the general form as q ult = cNc.S c.d c.ic+ q Nq.S q.dq.iq + 0.5BN S d i ... ... ... ... ..(3)

29

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

Hansen (1970) proposed the general bearing capacity equation as q ult = cNc.S c.d c.icg cb c + q Nq.Sq.d q.iqg qb q + 0.5BN S d ig b .. (4)

This equation is readily seen to be a further extension of the earlier Meyerhof (1963) work. Hansen includes base factors for the

footing is tilted fro m the horizontal b i and for the possibility of a slope of the ground supporting the footing to give ground

factors g i [6]. The Vesic (1973) proposed same bearing capacity equation as stated by Hansens (1970) general equation. Also the

expression for Nc and Nq terms are same as Hansen (1970), but N is slightly different. There are also differences in ii , b i , and

g i terms. The vesic (1973) equation is somewhat easier to use than Hansens (1970) because Hansen uses the i terms in co mputing

shape factors si , whereas Vesic does not [7]. IS code (1981) gives a equation of bearing capacity which proposed by Vesic (1973)

[3].Eurocode7 (1996) proposed the equation of bearing capacity [8] asq ult = cNc.S c.ic+d Df Nq.Sq iq + 0.5Bd NS i ... . ...(5)

The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and N are the d imensionless numbers, depending upon the angle of shearing friction resistance

. The factors used by various authors and some codes are listed in Table1.

Terzaghi

(1943)

N

Nc

(Nq -1)cot

K py

(

-1)

2

tan

2 cos

Nq

a2

2 cos ( / 4 ( / 2)

2

) tan

Where a = exp (

4 2

Skempton (1951)

See Table 5

Meyerhof(1963)

(Nq -1)tan(1.4 )

(Nq -1)cot

Hansen(1970)

1.5(Nq -1)tan

(Nq -1)cot

) exp( tan )

4 2

Same as Meyerhof

Vesic(1973)

(Nq -1)cot

Same as Meyerhof

Eurocode7(1996)

(Nq -1)cot

Same as Meyerhof

IS Code(1981)

(Nq -1)cot

Same as Meyerhof

tan 2 (

A. Shape factors

The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the strip footing. To take into account the non -infinite

length of a rectangular footing, a shape factor s i is introduced in each bearing capacity factor. The footing has width B and length

L, here, BL. The shape factors used by different authors and codes are listed in Table2.

30

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

Table2: Shape factors according to authors and codes.

Authors & Codes

Terzaghi (1943)

(i) Strip (continuous)

(ii)Square

(iii) Circular

(iv)Rectangular

M eyerhof (1963)

S

1

0.8

0.6

1

1.3

1.3

(1 0.2 B L)

(1 0.3 B L)

1,

K p tan 2 ( )

4 2

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

Eurocode7 (1996)

IS code (1981)

(i) Strip (continuous)

(ii)Square

(iii) Circular

(iv)Rectangular

Sc

when

(1+ 0.1K p

Sq

1

1

1

1

1,

B

0

), 10

L

B

(1+ 0.2 K p )

L

B

(1 0.4 ) 0.6

L

(1+ 0.2

B

(1 0.4 ) 0.6

L

1+

B

(1 0.3 )

L

1+ 0.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

(1+ 0.1K p

Nq B

B

) for 0 and (1+

)for 0

L

Nc L

Nq B

Nc L

sq N q 1

B

for 0 , and

for 0

L

Nq 1

1.0

1.2

1.2

(1+ 0.2B/L)

(1 0.4 B L )

when

B

sin

L

B

tan

L

B

sin

L

B

0

), 10

L

1.0

1.3

1.3

(1+ 0.2B/L)

B. Inclination factors

The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the strip footing for a vert ical load. To take into

account the inclination of the load in the footing, an inclination factor ii is introduced for each bearing capacity factor. There are

two parameters to characterize the inclination of load. The external load has a vert ical co mponent V and horizontal co mponent H,

H

therefore the inclination angle defined as follo ws: tan

, A second form to describe the inclination of the load consist of

V

H

introducing an angle defined by- tan

, in which A is the effective soil footing contact area, a is the adhesion[9].

V Aa cot

Eurocode7 (1996) assumes (a = c) and Bo wles (1997) assumes a = 0.6 to 1.0 of c [9].Therefore,the inclination factors used by the

different authors are listed in Table3.

Table3: Classical formu lations for inclination factors according to authors

Authors

i c ( 0)

iq

Hansen

(1970)

1 0.5 tan

Vesic

(1973)

1 tan m

iq N q 1

31

2

1

2

1

iq N q 1

Meyerhof

(1963)

Nq 1

Nq 1

ic ( 0 )

2

1

0.5 1

Aa

mH

1

AaN c

comments

i

1

---

1 0.7 tan

1 tan m1

2 1 5

2 2 5

2B

1 B

L

L

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

Eurocode7

(1996)

IS code

(1981)

H

V Ac cot

1

90

iq N q 1

Nq 1

1

90

0.51

H

1

Acu

1

90

H

V Ac cot

---

-----

C. Depth factors

The bearing capacity factors presented in Table1 are defined in the case of the s trip footing at shallow depth DB. To take into

account the depth of footing a depth factor di is introduced for each bearing capacity factor.

Table4: Classical formu lations for depth factors

Authors

dc

dq

d

Meyerhof

(1963)

1+0.2Kp

D

B

Same as d q

D

B

Hansen

(1970)

1+0.4

D

B

1 2 tan (1 sin ) 2

D

B

1.0

Vesic

(1973)

1+0.4

D

B

1 2 tan (1 sin ) 2

D

B

1.0

IS code

(1981)

1+ 0.2

Footing Shape

D

tan(45+ )

2

B

1+ 0.1

D

tan(45+ ) for >100 and 1.0 for <100

2

B

Nc

Strip

5( 1 0.2 D B )

Square/Circular

6( 1 0.2 D B )

Rectangular

Same as d q

5( 1 0.2

D

B

)( 1 0.2 )

B

L

7.5( 1 0.2

B

)

L

To understand the differences obtained with all these methods, some numerical examp les will illustrate the application of the

bearing capacity calculation methods.

A.Effectof angle o f friction and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for c=0.

Soil type

-soil

32

FootingShape

Square

c

(kPa)

(kN/ m3 )

0

17

B

(m)

2.25

Depth

(m)

2.00

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

Fig.2: Effect of friction angle on the ultimate bearing capacity

Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m 2 )

7000

Tarzaghi (1943)

6000

Meyerhof (1963)

5000

Hansen (1970)

4000

Vesic (1973)

3000

IS code (1981)

2000

1000

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Angle of internal friction (degree)

40

45

It is seen from Fig.2 that the ultimate bearing capacities of all methods increase exponentially with increase of angle of frict ion.

At lowervalue of angle of friction for instance 00 to 200 , the ultimate bearing capacities are appro ximately similar to each other but

difference of bearing capacityincreases with increase of frict ion angle. It is also seen from Fig.2 that Terzaghis (1943) equation

estimates lower value of bearing capacity at higher value of frict ion angleco mpare to other authors and codes. IS code (1981) and

Vesics(1973) equations give larger value of bearing capacity at higher value of friction angle than other author and codes. Since

IS code (1981) represents Vesics (1973) equation, the value of bearing capacity obtained using IS code (1981) and Vesics

(1973) equation are almost same.

B.Effect of cohesion and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for 0.

Table 7: Soil and footing characteristics

Soil type

FootingShape

c-soil

Square

(degree)

(kN/ m3 )

B

(m)

17

2.25

Depth

(m)

2.00

kN/m 2 )

350

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

Vesic (1973)

Eurocode7 (1996)

300

250

200

Skempton (1951)

Hansen (1970)

IS code (1981)

150

100

50

0

0

33

)

24

28

32

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

Itis seen fro m Fig.3 that theultimate bearing capacity ofcohesive soil linearly increases with the increase of cohesion. Here, the

differences in u ltimate bearing capacity among the different methods increase with increase of cohesion. It can also be seen from

the Fig.3that IS code (1981), Eurocode7 (1996) and Vesics (1973) equations estimate somewhat higher value of bearing capacity

for cohesive soil than skemptons (1951) equation. On the other hand Tarzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963) and Skemptons (1951)

equation calculates the value of bearing capacity conservatively for cohesive soil than other authors and codes.

C.Effectof cohesion and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant 15, 20 and 25

Soil

FootingShape

c-

Square

(kN/

m3 )

(degree)

15

17

B

(m)

2.25

Depth

(m)

2.00

Fig.3: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant 15

1000

800

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

600

400

200

0

0

12

16

20

24

28

32

One can be seen from Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.5 that the ultimate bearing capacity of c - soil linearly increases with increase of

cohesion of soil.Here, Meyerhofs (1963) equation is not highly different fro m Tarzaghis (1943) equation,but Hansen (1970),

Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) provides ultimate bearing capacity of soil wh ich is highly different from

Tarzaghis (1943) equation.

Soil

FootingShape

c-

Square

34

(kN/

m3 )

(degree)

20

17

B

(m)

2.25

Depth

(m)

2.00

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

Fig.4: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant 20

1600

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0

12

16

20

24

28

32

Soil

FootingShape

c-

Square

(degree)

(kN/ m3 )

B

(m)

25

17

2.25

Depth

(m)

2.00

Fig.5: Effect of cohesion on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant 25

2400

2000

1600

1200

800

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

400

0

0

35

12

16

20

Cohesion of soil, c (kN/m 2 )

24

28

32

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

It is also seen from the Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.5 that Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) provides

almost similar value of ultimate bearing capacity for c- soil, but difference among the methods of bearing capacity wit h

Tarzaghis (1943) equation increases linearly with increase of cohesion of soil.

D. Effect of frict ion angle and method of bearing capacity on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant c = 10, 15 and 20.

Soil

FootingShape

c-

c

(kPa)

(kN/ m3 )

Square

10

B

(m)

17

Depth

(m.)

2.25

2.00

Fig.6: Effect of friction angle on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil for constant c = 10

7500

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

6000

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

4500

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

3000

1500

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Soil

FootingShape

c-

Square

c

(kPa)

(kN/ m3 )

15

17

B

(m)

Depth

(m.)

2.25

2.00

Fig.7: Effect of frict ion angle on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant c = 15

(kN/m 2 )

9000

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

7500

6000

4500

3000

1500

0

0

36

10

15

20

25

Angle of internal friction

30

35

40

45

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

It is seen fro m Fig.6, Fig.7 and Fig.8 that the ultimate bearing capacity of c - soil increases exponentially with the increase of

angle of internal friction. In this case at lower value of angle of internal frict ion such as (00 to 200 ) all methods show

approximately similar result but at larger value of angle of internal friction such as ( >200 ), Tarzaghis (1943) equatio n

represents a lower value of bearing capacity than other authors and codes.

Soil

c

(kPa)

(kN/ m3 )

FootingShape

c-

Square

20

Depth

(m.)

(m)

17

2.25

2.00

Fig.8: Effect of frict ion angle on the Ult imate bearing capacity of soil fo r constant c = 20

(kN/m 2 )

12000

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

Hansen (1970)

Veesic (1973)

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

E.Effect of B/ L of footing on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil.

Table 14: So il and footing characteristics

c

Rectanglefooting,

(kPa)

(kN/ m3 )

B (m)

Soil

(degree)

c-

30

20

17

Depth

(m.)

2.25

2.00

(kN/m 2 )

3000

2500

2000

1500

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

1000

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

500

0

0

37

0.2

0.4

B/L of footing

0.6

0.8

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

It is evident fro m Fig.9 that the ult imate bearing capacity of all equations proposed by different authors and different codes

increase linearly with the increase of B/ L ratio of footing except Tarzaghi (1943). Therefo re, one can be understood from Fig.9

that the square footing that is B/L=1 has a greater bearing capacity than other type of footing though Terzaghis equation differs

fro m this.

F. Effect of D/B rat io of footing on the ultimate bearing capacity of soil.

Soil

Footing

Shape

c-

Square

c

(kPa)

(kN/ m3 )

16

B

(m)

(degree)

17

25

2.25

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Tarzaghi (1943)

Meyerhof (1963)

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973)

IS code (1981)

Eurocode7 (1996)

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

D/B of footing

0.8

1.2

It is seen fro m Fig.10 thatthe ultimate bearing capacity of soil increases with the increase of D/ B ratio of footing for all

methods.Fig.10 shows also that at lower value of D/B rat io, all equations are not highly different fro m each other but, the

difference of bearing capacity among the methods become more p ronounced at larger D/B rat io of footing. In this case, up to a

depth of DB, only the Meyerhofs (1963)q ult is not greatly different fro m the Terzaghis (1943), but Hansen (1970), Vesic

(1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) varies largely than Tarzaghi (1943).

IV. CONCLUS ION

The important conclusion is that the evaluated bearing capacity of soil depends highly on the method used, and therefore on the

codes.Terzaghis (1943) equation is not suited for footing with mo ments and/or horizontal loads or for bases on sloped ground

because Tarzaghi (1943) d id not include load inclination factor in his equation. One can use Terzaghis (1943) equation for quick

estimation of q ult where D/B1.Ho wever, the Terzaghis (1943) equations, being the first proposed, have been very widely used

because of its greater ease of use.For soil, at lower value of angle of friction for instance 00 to 200 , the ult imate bearin g

capacities of all methods are approximately similar to each other but difference of bearing capacities among the methods incr eases

exponentially with increase of friction angle. It can be seen that IS code (1981), Eu rocode7 (1996) and Vesics (1973) equation

estimates somewhat higher value of bearing capacity for cohesive soil than skemptons (1951) equation.It is also seen for c -

soil that Meyerhofs (1963) equation is not highly different fro m Tarzaghis (1943) equation up to a depth of D/B1, but Hans en

(1970), Vesic (1973), IS code (1981) and Eurocode7 (1996) h ighly differ fro m Tarzaghis (1943) equation. However, Bangladesh

National Building Code (BNBC), 1993 proposed any established bearing capacity equations shall be used for calculating bearing

capacity of soil.

38

Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

However, if different engineers use different equations for a particu lar soil at a part icular depth, the result will be

different.Therefore, it will be good practice to use at least two methods and compare the commuted values of bearing capacit ies. If

twovalues are not compared well, use a third method, or use either an arith metic average or weighted average value for allowable

bearing capacity of soil for foundation design.

V. REFERENC ES:

[1].Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC). Housing and Build ing Research Institute, Mirpur Dhaka, and Bangladesh

Standards and Testing Institution, Tejgaon Dhaka, First edition,1993.

[2]. Bowles J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New-Yo rk.1997.

[3]. Arora K.R., Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 6th Edit ion, Delhi, Reprint 2005.

[4]. Terzaghi k. Theoretical Soil Mechanics . Wiley,New Yo rk, 1943.

[5]. Meyerhof G. G. So me recent research on thebearing capacity of foundations. Canadian Geo-technical Journal, 1963, 1, No. 1,

16-26.

[6]. Hansen J. B. A Revised and Extended Formu la forBearing Capacity . Danish Geotechnical Institute,Copenhagen, 1970,

bulletin No. 28.

[7]. Vesic A. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallowfoundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics andFoundations Division, ASCE,

1973, 99, No. SM1,45-73.

[8]. Eurocode 7. CalculGeotechnique. AFNOR, XPENV 1997-1, 1996.

[9] J.G. Sieffert and Ch. Bay-Gress, Co mparison of European bearing capacity calculat ion methods for shallow foundations.Proc.

Instn. Civ. Engrs. Geotech. Engng,2000,143,Apr.65-74

Authors Profiles

Mr.S ukantaKumer Shill is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology

(DUET), Gazipur, Bangladesh. His date of birth is 15 February of 1983 and the place of birth is M anikganj, Dhaka, Bangladesh. SukantaKumer

Shill passed Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology, Gazipur (DUET), Banglades h in

2007. He also earned M .Sc. engineering degree in structural engineering from Dhaka University of Engineering and Technolo gy (DUET),

Gazipur, Bangladesh.M r. Shill is also a member of Institute of Engineers Bangladesh (IEB), Dhaka. His membership number in IEB is

M /25282. He is also chief consultant of Dimension Engineering and Architectural Consultants, Joydevpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh.

Dr. Md.MozammelHoqueis a professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of Dhaka University of Engineering and Technology (DUET),

Gazipur, Bangladesh. M d. M . Hoque passed Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Bangladesh University of Engineering and

Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1994. He also earned M .Sc. engineering degree in Foundation engineering from Bangladesh

University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh. He earned PhD degree in structural engineering from Saitama

University, Japan.Dr. Hoque is also a Fellow member of Institute of Engineers Bangladesh (IEB), Dhaka. He is also chief consultant of Des ign

Development and M anagement (DDM ) Dhaka, Bangladesh.

39

- Advanced Foundation Engineering (57011)Uploaded byAnonymous wByqieJ
- Load Bearing CapacityUploaded byalphading
- Geotechnical Engineering - Tata McGraw-Hill-1Uploaded byBima Abdillah
- Bearing Capacity Technical GuidanceUploaded bysks_242
- Stresses Fadum Etc Scribd Ver.2Uploaded bydkatale
- Molecules in Motion: a theoretical study of noise in gene expression and cell signalingUploaded byMaciej Dobrzyński
- Lesson 1 Shallow Foundation-Bearing Capacity 2Uploaded byRidho Putra Purnomo
- Helical PileUploaded byAntoine Letendre
- 9709_w05_qp_5Uploaded bymichael heng
- Foucault Pendulum Like ProblemUploaded byPetru Andrei Vantur
- Consideraciones geotecnicas al diseño de minasUploaded byJuan David
- Bearing Capacity - WikipediaUploaded byAlkindi Yahya
- ResultsUploaded byVinoth Raj Arumugam
- Performance of Jack-In Pile Foundation in Weathered GraniteUploaded byChong Wee Lin
- Settlement of Soil_calculationUploaded byAbhijit Bhattacharjee
- 76 9 Design of CranesUploaded byrip111176
- Guide to Foundation_7Uploaded byRC Dela Roca
- 14_04-02-0018.PDFUploaded byhapyzhatul
- Civil Engineering CV 2Uploaded byHarshal Bhoite
- Axial Load Capacities of Steel Pipe Piles in SandUploaded byRaihan Lutfianto
- 125760133 Buckling of Thin Metal Shells 60Uploaded bypawkom
- Combined Footing.docxUploaded byMa Zairah Pascual
- AAA(28)Uploaded byravtoronto
- AE1110x 1b SlidesUploaded byKristen Holmes
- 2603-HS (1)Uploaded byGDGGFGF
- p.3 API Hydraulics EquationsUploaded bynasir.hdip8468
- Fast MountUploaded byBasant Shams
- 1_Statically Indeterminate BarUploaded byabhishek
- 1.5. Cement Bond Log.pptxUploaded bybella
- Micro TremorUploaded bydwarika2006

- meyerhof Method - Pile Capacity.xlsUploaded byTee Bun Pin
- Concrete Strength due to timeUploaded bychristopherapss
- 05 Barrett - Case studies in shallow landslideUploaded bychristopherapss
- 04-Ansari PPT.pdfUploaded bychristopherapss
- ENCE 4610 - Foundation Analysis and DesignUploaded bychristopherapss
- CE270 Stress Mohrs S10 Purdue UniversityUploaded bychristopherapss
- 03 Short PPT stabilizing embankment slopesUploaded bychristopherapss
- 02-Loehr PPT Load transfer and failure modes for deep foundationUploaded bychristopherapss
- Coldformed SectionsUploaded bySwapnil Toraskar
- Lesson 09-Chapter 9 Deep Foundations - Part 1 a(Piles)Uploaded byvipkolon
- 01 Gomez PPT Slope Stability and System ForcesUploaded bychristopherapss
- Astm D610 Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel SurfacesUploaded byjariasvazquez
- Deep Foundation Design MethodsUploaded bychristopherapss
- Specification of Scania Truck R580LA-6x4Uploaded bychristopherapss
- Moving Loads on Segmental BridgeUploaded bychristopherapss
- Sedimentary Rocks Cr03281nUploaded byshachen2014
- 461-sl3Uploaded byप्रभु नाथ सिंह
- overseas qualified engineers cv_april2013Uploaded bychristopherapss
- mustafaa_zoheerUploaded bypescanova3
- Flat JacksUploaded bychristopherapss
- AP-Foundation Concepts and FoundationUploaded bychristopherapss
- al_manu Allpile Manual Ver 7.pdfUploaded bychristopherapss
- Settlement of Raft FoundationUploaded byRyan Rakhmat Setiadi
- CE 632 Bearing Capacity HandoutUploaded byLava Sat
- 461-sl21.pdfUploaded bychristopherapss
- Beam ElasticUploaded byPankaj Karna
- limitations of winkler.pdfUploaded bySamitha Soysa

- Cyclone SeperatorUploaded byHemant Kumar
- NdZF2H-Quiz 3 Sample bUploaded byMagdy Abdalla
- CFD Analysis on Finned Tube Heat Exchanger using Alumina Nanofluid As CoolantUploaded byGRD Journals
- 2015 Free Vibration PaswanUploaded byKomal manglani
- Aircraft StabilityUploaded byMahesh Kumbhar
- Valeur Kv Calcul de vanne.pdfUploaded bykhali54
- BARC Interview Experience (Mechanical)_ How to Crack BARC Interview_ _ GateGyanUploaded byjithinaravind007
- Reynolds Transport TheoremUploaded byAnonymous GGtvR65MR
- Separation of Variables - Spherical CoordinatesUploaded bya
- Chapter 04Uploaded byHussain
- Shear StudsUploaded byrahuljoag
- Rossby WavesUploaded bytufflittleunit
- Steel Design Euro CodeUploaded by2011kumar
- Form 5 Science Chapter 5Uploaded byPau Siew Ling
- 13S1 FE1073 C1-Resultants and Equilibrium of ForcesUploaded byglenlcy
- Boundary Layer FlowsUploaded byAmy Ramirez
- ch1Uploaded by葉先峰
- Ece Labmanual With VivaUploaded bysathwik
- Cheguide.com 2015 12 Heat-loss-from-Insulated-pipeUploaded byRamu Nallathambi
- MOM T2 QPUploaded bysutha_me20098282
- PHYF144 C20Uploaded byHaffiz Ating
- A2 Ideal Gases QuestionsUploaded bymandoolala
- A Brief History of Beam-Column DesignUploaded bytaosye
- Why Science Needs Philosophy More than Ever art. 38.docxUploaded byAnonymous ORqO5y
- Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapseUploaded byAli Faizan
- Fundamental Concepts in Fluid MechanicsUploaded bykpvraj
- Seismic Paper.pdfUploaded bySunder
- [Ladyman] Physics MetaphysicsUploaded byMaristela Rocha
- etabs modelare ferm metalicaUploaded byMariana Suciu
- Calculo de Momentos de InerciaUploaded bymr740111