0 Up votes0 Down votes

191 views16 pagesOne strut Failure

May 05, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

One strut Failure

© All Rights Reserved

191 views

One strut Failure

© All Rights Reserved

- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- Seveneves: A Novel
- The Day the World Came to Town: 9/11 in Gander, Newfoundland
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The Right Stuff
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't
- The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914
- Fault Lines
- The Last Second
- The Wright Brothers
- The Wright Brothers
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone

You are on page 1of 16

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,

37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiea20

TR26 a practical approach for practising engineers

a a a a b

K.F. Pong , S.L. Foo , C.G. Chinnaswamy , C.C.D. Ng & W.L. Chow

a

Geotechnical Engineering Department, Meinhardt Infrastructure Pte Ltd (Member of

Meinhardt Group), Singapore

b

Formerly of Geotechnical Amberg and TTI Engineering Pte Ltd

To cite this article: K.F. Pong, S.L. Foo, C.G. Chinnaswamy, C.C.D. Ng & W.L. Chow (2012): Design considerations for one-

strut failure according to TR26 a practical approach for practising engineers, The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural

Engineering, 5:3, 166-180

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to

anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents

will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should

be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,

proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in

connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering

Vol. 5, No. 3, August 2012, 166180

TECHNICAL PAPER

Design considerations for one-strut failure according to TR26 a practical approach for practising

engineers

K.F. Ponga*, S.L. Fooa, C.G. Chinnaswamya, C.C.D. Nga and W.L. Chowb

a

Geotechnical Engineering Department, Meinhardt Infrastructure Pte Ltd (Member of Meinhardt Group), Singapore; bFormerly of

Geotechnical Amberg and TTI Engineering Pte Ltd

(Received 22 May 2012; nal version received 13 June 2012)

Technical Reference 26: 2010 (TR26: 2010) requires the design of an earth retaining and stabilising system (ERSS) to

be structurally safe, robust and has sucient redundancy to avoid catastrophic collapse of the ERSS system resulting

from an isolated case of overloading or failure of any particular member which may lead to the failure of adjacent

members thus leading to progressive failure. One such redundancy check is the condition, where failure of a single

strut, anchor or tie-rod occurs or more commonly known as one-strut failure (OSF) stated in Clause 3.7.4 of TR26:

2010 at each stage of the construction works. Analysis for OSF is actually a three-dimensional (3D) problem and

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

carrying out such 3D analyses covering all the cases of wall stiness, properties of the soil layers, friction between

retaining wall panels in the case of diaphragm wall, soil arching eect due to the deection of the retaining wall, etc. is

very time consuming. In the conventional approach for OSF using two-dimensional (2D) plane strain analysis, the

whole layer of failing strut is removed and thus provides paths to distribute the forces in the vertical direction only.

This usually leads to more conservative design with heavier struts sections. In this paper, a procedure to rationally

idealise OSF from a 3D analysis to a 2D plane strain analysis is presented. This simplied approach will be more

practical for practising engineers to arrive at a more ecient design without the need for rigorous 3D analysis. The

results of this simplied approach are compared with the conventional approach and results incorporating appropriate

strut stiness from 3D analysis. The comparison showed that the approach is reasonable.

Keywords: numerical modelling; deep excavation; practical approach; three-dimensional analysis; one-strut failure;

redundancy check; catastrophic collapse; overloading; progressive failure; TR26

Due to scarcity of land aboveground especially in loads. The load of the failed strut will be redistributed

urban area, underground infrastructure projects such to the adjacent struts which are not designed for these

as underground rails, roads and utilities tunnels additional loads, thus resulting in the progressive

networks are increasingly built and are often in close failure of the whole strutting system.

proximity to existing structures and buildings. The Clause 3.7.4 of Technical Reference 26: 2010

construction of these underground structures inevita- (TR26: 2010) states that the design for deep excavations

bly requires the use of safe and robust earth retaining should accommodate possible failure of any individual

and stabilising system (ERSS) for the deep excavations strut, tie rod, ground anchor, structural member or

to minimise ground movement and impact to the connection at each stage of the construction works. The

surrounding structures and buildings. Hence, the wall and remaining supporting members, including

structural safety and robustness are the prime con- walings and connections, should be capable of carrying

siderations and requirements of the ERSS design and the load from the failed member. The remaining

construction. Furthermore, the ERSS should have structural system and wall should continue to be safe

sucient redundancy to avoid any catastrophic col- without causing any danger to surrounding adjacent

lapse of the supporting system resulting from an structures and properties. This requirement is commonly

isolated case of overloading or failure of any particular known in Singapore as one-strut failure (OSF). It is

supporting element. In an ERSS system, overall failure necessary to consider the requirement of OSF in the

as described by Puller (2003) is more likely to occur design of the ERSS for deep excavation.

either as a result of inadequate strutting or passive soil In practice, it may not be necessary to check all the

failure if the key-in depth is inadequate. Sometimes, combinations of OSF. For example, if there are six

this inadequacy in the strutting system may occur due struts in a deep excavation, the total number of

2012 The Institution of Engineers, Singapore

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2012.700790

http://www.tandfonline.com

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 167

possible cases of OSF is 21. It is very onerous to check 2. Modelling of strutting system

all 21 cases. In reality, only six cases need to be Figure 1 shows a typical layout of the strutting system

analysed. The rst case is OSF for strut at level 1 (S1) for an ERSS commonly used in deep excavation

when the excavation reaches strut at level 2 (S2) but projects. The soil and water pressures acting on the

before installing S2. The second case is OSF for S2 retaining wall are partially transferred to the struts

when the excavation reaches strut at level 3 (S3) but through the walers and partially to the soil support

before installing S3, etc. The sixth case is OSF for strut below the excavation level. In this force transfer

at level 6 (S6) when the excavation reaches the nal mechanism from soil to strut, the waler acts as a

excavation level. load distributing member and the strut acts as

Analysis for OSF is actually a three-dimensional compression member to balance the soil and water

(3D) problem and carrying out such 3D analyses pressures from both sides of the ERSS to maintain the

covering all the cases of wall stiness, properties of the force equilibrium in the system and thus stabilises the

soil layers, friction between retaining wall panels in ERSS.

the case of diaphragm wall, soil arching eect due to In order to carry out the plane strain analysis, the

the deection of the retaining wall etc. is very time equivalent stiness of the strut supporting system is

consuming. In the conventional design approach for needed in the 2D numerical analysis. This equivalent

OSF using two-dimensional (2D) plane strain analysis, stiness can be obtained as two springs in series as

the whole layer of failing strut is removed and thus shown in Figure 2 and can be derived as follows:

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

provides paths to distribute the forces in the vertical When two springs are serially connected, the total

direction only. This usually leads to more conservative spring displacement due a given load is the sum of the

design with heavier struts sections. In this paper, a individual spring deections while subjected to the

procedure to rationally idealise the OSF case from a same loading. In other words,

3D analysis to a 2D plane strain analysis is presented.

This approach will be more practical for practising

deqvt dw ds 1

engineers to arrive at a more ecient design without

the need for rigorous 3D analysis. The results of this

approach are compared with the conventional ap- where d represents the deections and the suxes

proach and results incorporating appropriate strut eqvt,w and s represent equivalent, waler and struts,

stiness from 3D analysis of OSF. respectively.

168 K.F. Pong et al.

Figure 2. Simplied model of strut-waler support system for retaining wall in deep excavation.

Re-writing the spring displacements in terms of modelling approach. The load combination factors for

spring stiness, the following equation in terms of limit states design of the structural elements are shown

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

ments of design of temporary supports accommodat-

1 1 1

2 ing possible OSF cases can be complied with using the

Keqvt Kw Ks following two approaches:

where K represents the stiness. (1) The rst approach is to consider removal of

Generally, in normal case, walers are supported by one row of struts in the geotechnical modelling

struts and splays which leads to a very short span of 2 using computer software (such as PLAXIS). In

2.5 m for the walers and thus the term Kw becomes too this case, the contribution of struts in the same

large and therefore, the rst term on the right hand layer as the failed strut in the horizontal

side of Equation (2) becomes negligible. Therefore, soil direction is totally ignored and the force from

and water pressures on the retaining wall are partly the failed strut can only be distributed vertically

transferred to the struts through the walers and the rest to the adjacent layers of struts. This conven-

to the soil support below the excavation level, tional approach may lead to a more conserva-

Equation (2) can be simplied as: tive design with higher reinforcement for walls

In normal case, and heavier sections for the struts.

(2) The second approach is to consider failure of a

Keqvt Ks : 3a single strut within a layer of struts in the

horizontal direction. The force of the failed strut

In OSF case, will be transferred both vertically and horizon-

tally. However, the waler at the level of the failed

Ks Kw

Keqvt : 3b strut has to be designed to transfer the load

Ks Kw horizontally. As such the span of the waler for

design would be increased compared with the

3. Modelling with one-strut failure (OSF) normal span. This is a more realistic approach.

The requirement of design for deep excavation to

accommodate possible failure of any individual strut, A case study based on the second approach using the

tie rod, ground anchor is stated in Clause 3.7.4 of analysis of a cross-over cut-and-cover tunnel from the

TR26. A similar clause is stated in BS 8002 (1994) as Downtown Line Stage 3 (DTL 3) Project was carried

well. For projects of Singapore Land Transport out. The objective was to assess that the second

Authority (LTA), consideration of OSF is a design approach is not too conservative for both the wall and

requirement stated in the LTA Civil Design Criteria the strutting system but yet remain robust. Two-

(2010). One-strut failure (OSF) is a 3D problem and it specic aspects were investigated:

will not be an easy task to model the problem using 3D

modelling every time a design of ERSS is carried out. (1) Reduced stiness of the failed strut to be

Therefore, it is necessary to idealise OSF in 2D analysis adopted in the geotechnical nite-element

to obtain a solution that is comparable to the 3D modelling.

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 169

(2) Waler span for the design of waler due to tion in the wall-waler-strut system. The structural

OSF. analysis was carried out using STAAD Pro program

and the geotechnical modelling was carried out using

PLAXIS program.

4. Methodology For the structural analysis, the actual strut and

Both structural and geotechnical modelling were waler stinesses were modelled with four dierent wall

carried out in an attempt to study the force distribu- stinesses as shown in Table 1, to study the waler span

for the design of waler due to OSF. This has been done

to determine the load distribution pattern for various

Table 1. Cases for dierent wall stiness to study eect on types of ERSS system.

waler span. For the geotechnical modelling, cases as indicate in

Cases Wall Table 2, e.g. removal of one layer of strut and dierent

strut stinesses were modelled in an attempt to study

1 Seventy per cent stiness of diaphragm wall of the force distribution in the wall-strut system. The

1200 mm

2 Seventy percent of CBP wall 800 mm diameter example chosen in this paper aims to compare the

3 Sheet Pile Wall KSP IV results of analyses from PLAXIS 2D model and

4 One hundred per cent stiness of diaphragm STAAD Pro 3D model. However, one should note

wall 1200 mm that it may not be necessary to check all combinations

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

critical cases to analyse are the case where OSF occurs

Table 2. Geotechnical modelling with dierent strut sti- at S6 after the excavation reached the nal excavation

ness. level, the case where OSF occurs at S4 after the

Cases Description excavation reached the S5 level but before installing

S5, etc.

1 Removal of one row of struts

2 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular

layer was reduced (Lwaler 2L; Sstrut 2L)

3 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular 5. 3D Analyses with structural models

layer was taken as that from 3D STAAD Pro Figures 312 illustrate the models of 3D structural

Analysis analyses using the STAAD Pro structural nite-

4 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular

layer was reduced to Kstrut/1.5 (or 1.5 element program. The objective of the 3D analyses

reduction factor) carried out using the structural program is to verify the

5 Removal of one strut stiness at the particular eect due to the removal of a single strut and compare

layer was reduced (Lwaler 2L; Sstrut 1.5L)

with 2D PLAXIS plane strain analyses results.

Figure 3. Structural model of a space frame with soil spring and releases between plate elements.

170 K.F. Pong et al.

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

As shown in Figure 3, the retaining wall was the calculation of the lateral earth pressure are shown

modelled with plate elements with release between in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the area of the study for

plate elements to simulate the joints between the the eect of removing a single strut from the level S4

retaining wall such as contiguous bored piles wall, struts.

secant bored piles wall and diaphragm wall. Soil Figure 7 shows the deection mode of the

springs were modelled to simulate the presence of temporary work system and Figure 8 shows the

passive soil resistance. The soil spring constants were deection of waler at level S4 in normal case and

derived using Vesics equation from Vesic (1975). OSF case.

Figure 4 shows the struts and walers sizes and Figures 919 show the bending moment result of

connections adopted in the structural models. waler with dierent wall stiness for both normal case

Figure 5 shows the application of earth lateral and OSF case. Figure 9 shows the eects of the

pressure on the retaining wall. The soil parameters for removal of a single strut at S4 level on the bending

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 171

moment induced in the waler at S4 level for Case 1, Figure 10 shows the eects of the removal of a

where the wall is a 1.2 m thick diaphragm wall and single strut at S4 level on the bending moment induced

cracked section properties (70% of full stiness) in the waler at S4 level for Case 2 where the wall is a

are used for the stiness of the wall. As shown in 0.8 m diameter contiguous bored pile wall and cracked

Figure 9, the maximum bending moment at the mid

span and support of the waler increases to about 1.5

times of the bending moment in normal condition

without OSF.

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 6. Area of study for the 3D structural analyses. Figure 7. Deection mode of the temporary work system.

172 K.F. Pong et al.

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 9. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 1: 70% stiness of 1200 mm thick diaphragm wall).

Figure 10. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 2: 70% of CBP wall 800 mm diameter).

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 173

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 11. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 3: Sheet Pile Wall KSP IV).

Figure 12. Waler bending moment with and without one-strut failure (Case 4: 100% stiness of diaphragm wall 1200 mm).

174 K.F. Pong et al.

section properties (70% of full stiness) are used for Figure 12 shows the eects of the removal of a

the stiness of the wall. As shown in Figure 10, the single strut at S4 level on the bending moment induced

maximum bending moment at the mid span and in the waler at S4 level for Case 4, where the wall is

support of the waler increases to about 1.8 times of 1.2 m thick diaphragm wall with full (100%) wall

the bending moment in normal condition without stiness. As shown in Figure 12, the maximum bending

OSF. moment at the mid span and support of the waler

Figure 11 shows the eects of the removal of a increases to about 2.6 times of the bending moment in

single strut at S4 level on the bending moment induced normal condition without OSF.

in the waler at S4 level for Case 3, where the wall is The comparison of bending moment ratio and span

KSP IV sheet pile wall. As shown in Figure 11, the length ratio for dierent wall stiness are presented in

maximum bending moment at the mid span and Figures 13 and 14, respectively. It is observed that the

support of the waler increases to about 2.2 times of ratio of maximum bending moment in OSF case to

the bending moment in normal condition without maximum bending moment in normal case without OSF

OSF. decreases when the retaining wall stiness increases.

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 13. Graph showing the ratio of waler bending moment with OSF to Normal case.

Figure 14. Graph showing the ratio of waler span with OSF to Normal case.

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 175

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 15. Geometry of the retaining wall and strutting system with details of strut and waler sizes.

A case study based on a cross-over cut-and-cover section, where a single layer of strut was considered for

tunnel from the DTL 3 Project was carried out using OSF case in the analysis.

PLAXIS program. The geometry of the retaining wall There were ve OSF analyses carried out as listed in

and strutting system of the cross-over cut-and-cover Table 2. For OSF Case 1, an entire layer of struts was

tunnel from DTL 3 Project is shown in Figure 15. completely removed. For OSF Case 2, the removal of

Figure 16 illustrates the model of geotechnical analysis one strut was simulated by reducing the stiness at the

modelled in PLAXIS program for the normal case strut. For OSF Case 3, the removal of one strut was

without OSF. simulated by using the stiness for the strut taken from

The various cases of geotechnical modelling carried 3D structural model analysis. For OSF Case 4, the

out are shown in Table 2. These various cases of removal of one strut was simulated by reducing the

analyses attempt to study the force distribution in the stiness for the strut to Kstrut/1.5, i.e. reduction

wall-strut system for the 2D PLAXIS model based on factor 1.5.

dierent input of strut stiness derived from dierent For each of the ve cases listed in Table 2, six

scenarios. In the PLAXIS 2D analyses, the eects of scenarios of OSF have been carried out. The rst case is

OSF on the ERSS were studied by the scenario of OSF for strut at level 1 (S1) when the excavation

failure of a single strut of the ERSS which consists of reaches strut at level 2 (S2) but before installing S2. The

176 K.F. Pong et al.

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 16. Sectional view of the plain strain 2D model in PLAXIS program.

Figure 17. PLAXIS model showing the OSF for strut at level 4 (S4) for Cases 15.

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 177

second case is OSF for S2 when the excavation reaches Figure 13, which shows the comparison of waler

strut at level 3 (S3) but before installing S3. The third span length with dierent wall stiness, indicates that

case is OSF for S3 when the excavation reaches strut at the increase in span length due to OSF ranges from 1.6

level 4 (S4) but before installing S4. The fourth case is L to 1.2 L. Hence, it is reasonable to adopt 1.5 L for

OSF for S4 when the excavation reaches strut at level 5 waler design.

(S5) but before installing S5. The fth case is OSF for As shown Figure 20, in the comparison of dia-

S5 when the excavation reaches strut at level 6 (S6) but phragm wall bending moment with dierent strut

before installing S6. The sixth case is OSF for strut at stiness, the diaphragm wall design is generally gover-

level 6 (S6) when the excavation reaches the nal ned by normal case, though there are locations where

excavation level. removal of one layer of struts governs. However, it

The strut stiness comparisons for all the cases of may be too conservative to consider removal of one

analyses mentioned above are tabulated in Figure 18. layer of struts in geotechnical modelling, hence adop-

The results of strut forces for all the cases of analyses ting combined stiness as illustrated in Figure 21 was

mentioned above are tabulated in Figure 19. The strut found to be reasonable.

forces tabulated are based on the maximum strut It is also noted that the bending moment diagram

forces for each layer of the struts for the various of the diaphragm wall in Cases 3 and 4 analyses are

scenarios and sequence of OSF in each case of analysis very similar. This shows that the assumption of strut

with dierent approach of simulation of OSF analysed stiness equivalent to the original strut stiness

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

As shown in Figure 19, the results of strut forces able simplied assumption of the reduced strut

from analyses of Cases 3 and 4 are similar. This means stiness as a result of a single strut failure as

that the assumption of strut stiness equivalent to the compared to the OSF strut stiness derived from the

original strut stiness multiplied by a reduction factor 3D structural analysis. Based on the results shown in

of 1.5 is a reasonable simplied assumption of the the study, for modelling of OSF in PLAXIS, the

reduced strut stiness as a result of a single strut failure approach of using equivalent strut stiness for OSF

as compared to the strut stiness derived from the 3D as illustrated in Figure 21 is appropriate and can be

structural analysis. used.

178 K.F. Pong et al.

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 19. Comparison of strut forces (in kN/m) for Upper Changi cross-over cut-and-cover tunnel.

(4) and (5) can be adopted for waler design:

Wreduced: Removed strut force (with reduced

2 stiness)

Mw1 1=8 Wreduced 1:5 L ! Factor 1:05 4

WOSF: OSF strut force

WOSF: OSF strut force accounting for removal of

Mw2 1=10 WOSF L2 ! Factor 1:05 5 strut above/below it.

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 179

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

Figure 20. Comparison of diaphragm wall bending moment with dierent strut stiness.

Figure 21. Recommended approach for derivation of OSF strut stiness to be used in PLAXIS modelling.

180 K.F. Pong et al.

In conclusion, analysis for OSF is actually a 3D diaphragm wall design is generally governed by normal

problem and carrying out such 3D analyses covering case, though there are locations where removal of one

all the cases of analyses considering the variability of row strut is governing. However, it may be too

the dierent parameters is very time consuming. In the conservative to consider removal of one row of strut

conventional approach for the analysis of OSF case in geotechnical modelling, hence adopting combined

using 2D plane strain analysis, the entire layer of stiness was found to be reasonable.

failing strut is removed and thus the forces are For design to accommodate possible OSF accord-

redistributed in the vertical direction only. This usually ing to Clause 3.10 of TR26, the results presented in this

leads to more conservative design with heavier strut paper show that the proposed approach of adopting a

sections. A procedure to rationally idealise OSF from a combined stiness and using a simplied method in

3D analysis to a 2D plane strain analysis which is a deriving the reduced equivalent strut stiness for

more practical approach for practising engineers has simulating OSF case in 2D numerical analysis is

been presented. The comparisons of results of various reasonable and appropriate.

cases have been carried out.

The results of strut forces and bending moment of

References

diaphragm wall from analyses of Cases 3 and 4 are

similar. This means that the assumption of strut BS 8002., 1994. Code of practice for earth retaining structures.

London, British Standards Institution.

Downloaded by [Kang Fong Pong] at 18:36 18 July 2012

stiness equivalent to the original strut stiness multi- LTA Civil Design Criteria Revision A7 for Road and Rail

plied by a reduction factor of 1.5 is a reasonable Transit Systems, Land Transport Authority, 2010.

simplied assumption of the reduced strut stiness as a Puller, M., 2003. Deep excavations: a practical manual,

result of a single strut failure as compared to the strut 2nd ed. Thomas Telford Publishing.

stiness derived from the 3D structural analysis. The TR26: 2010. Technical reference for deep excavation, Spring

Singapore, Singapore.

increase in span length due to OSF ranges from 1.6 L Vesic, A.S., 1975. Foundation engineering handbook, 1st ed.

to 1.2 L. Hence, it is reasonable to adopt 1.5 L for Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Chapter 14, Pile

waler design. In the comparison of diaphragm wall Foundation, 561563.

- TR 26 Technical Reference for Deep ExcavationUploaded byPeyman Mzn
- Calculation of Strut StiffnessUploaded bykeroro18
- Strut Waler Connection Design TemplateUploaded byArjun Raja
- Pile Cap DesignUploaded byGanesh Konar
- Independent Research-Pile Foundation DesignUploaded bySabina Ghimire Dhungana
- The Design of Temporary Excavation Support to EC7Uploaded byMichael Batley
- BS5950 - Connections HandbookUploaded byphuongkq832
- Finger 1 Project_ERSS Report for Temporary Drain Diversion_24 Sep 2014Uploaded bymypenta2008
- Org Chart Jhika Gali Murree (Final)Uploaded byJaved Paracha
- RS - Tensartech Earth Retaining Systems Brochure (Issue 8, 2011)Uploaded bysandycastle
- Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils Broms 1964Uploaded bytamlb0507
- Strut Design SheetUploaded byHafiz Kamarudin
- Braced CutsUploaded byArun Goyal
- CEDD Std Drg ListUploaded byFhjkda Lfljkd
- 11b Design of Struttings (2015)Uploaded bysusan87
- Deep ExcavationsUploaded byBatu Gajah
- Failure of Retaining Wall - Case StudyUploaded byRaghav
- P 1335- Performance of Diaphram Walls in Deep Foundation excavations.pdfUploaded byAhmed Arafa
- mine1Uploaded byHarshit Raj Gupta
- 4. Application of Eurocode 7 for Earth Retaining StructuresUploaded byjess
- Eas 356 Retaining WallUploaded byNasrul
- Soil Mixing for Excavation SupportUploaded bySen Hu
- Slope Reinforcement for HousinUploaded byRolando Galigao
- hulme2014_paper3.pdfUploaded byAdam Fredriksson
- 3DG C12 015 Pile FoundationsUploaded bynpwal
- NBTE.pdfUploaded byadelani_oni
- ICSDC_2017_paper_712Uploaded byLe Thanh Phan
- 3d_tunnel_with_pipe_umbrella_excavation_training_1513205777.pdfUploaded byKaotz
- Braced Cut PowerpointUploaded byNina Disamburun
- retaining wallUploaded byKonataVon

- PILE GROUP DESIGNUploaded byHenRy Ngu 旭
- Hitachi Zaxis 330CLUploaded by111111
- Tender Spec for Artificial Tree and Rockwork.pdfUploaded by111111
- One Smart Cprofile-(2018 Sept)Uploaded by111111
- Advisory Note on Software Audit (by ACEM 2013)Uploaded by111111
- SI Book Chapter 9Uploaded byehwanbakti
- D Internet Myiemorgmy Intranet Assets Doc Alldoc Document 12828 12. Flyer for Technical TalkUploaded by111111
- Critical State Soil MechanicsUploaded bycezhua
- Lts Gcc Nat Sma 180001 AUploaded by111111
- 3m Half Facepiece & Full Facepiece Respirator SeriesUploaded by111111
- Buckling Consideration in Pile Design ISFOG 2005Uploaded by111111
- Dynamic Pile Driving FormulaeUploaded byscg1998
- BS 5950 Part 4 1994 - Code of Practice for Design of Composite Slabs With Profiled Steel SheetingUploaded by111111
- BS 5950 Part 2 2001- Specification for Materials, Fabrication and Erection – Rolled and Welded SectionsUploaded by111111
- Chapter 2Uploaded by111111
- Standard Methods Table of ContentsUploaded byYani Rodriguez
- Drone Flight Carry-OnUploaded by111111
- Settings of GameUploaded by111111
- User Empire DesignsUploaded by111111
- 1. Seagc 2016 CoverUploaded by111111
- BK Tan GeologyUploaded by111111
- 017568Uploaded by111111
- ICP Brochure Technical Specs - March 2016 (1)Uploaded by111111

- Geotechnical Course Outline oUploaded byumairfarooq2
- burj al arabUploaded byLarisa Constantin
- IFS Civil Engineering 2014 Part 1Uploaded byrfvz6s
- VupUploaded byGirinath
- Ethiopia Civil Engineering Internship Final ReportUploaded byEyoel Ashagre
- Method of Statement.docxUploaded byhanyalramady
- 岩土英汉专业词典.pdfUploaded byshawn
- Masonry ManualUploaded bynecko77
- Optimize Positioning of Relief Shelf in Cantilever Retaining WallUploaded byGRD Journals
- FHWA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CIRCULAR NO. 4 Ground Anchors and Anchored SystemsUploaded byv
- Ground Improvement Techniques (Sinkhole, Comnpaction)Uploaded by류태하
- Characteristics of Ground Movements Induced by ExcavationsUploaded byNaveen Bansal
- 4.4 Bricks and Blocks (Construction 1)Uploaded byMary Guinness
- Water TankUploaded byvishnumani3011
- Simple Structural EngineeringUploaded byAdam Sniff
- Shoring Manual for Shallow Excavations GroundforceUploaded bykrivco
- Design Criteria for Bridges and Other StructuresUploaded byNaveen Kumar
- Sherif 1984Uploaded byPaloma Cortizo
- ScienceUploaded bySantan Kelapa
- dalotsUploaded byMohammed El Maski
- Geotech Solved ExamplesUploaded byRaj Nigam
- TechSpan Arch - North Kiama Case StudyUploaded byLjubomir Jocic
- Landslides Worksheet 2.pdfUploaded byJohn Gong
- 05.RR-Moh-Nam-Rein-Km.2+279-04commentsUploaded byPraveen Cyssan
- Handbook for Building ConstructionUploaded by26283369
- ST5012-Design of Sub StructuresUploaded byNarayanan Moorthy
- Bab 7 Braced CutsUploaded byNormanzahJunior
- BasementUploaded byVibhuti Yadav
- Masonry CompleteUploaded byZvezdanaKapija
- EC7 - The Use of WALLAP in the Context of Eurocode 7 (Nov 2012)Uploaded bysandycastle

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.