© All Rights Reserved

6 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Application of Remote Sensing & GIS Technology for Landslide .pdf
- Geologist-CV-Example.doc
- SS EN 13791-2009
- Design Guidelines for Horizontal Drains Used for Slope Stabilization
- QuickRWall - Guía de Usuario
- Jefferies_TRB2007.pdf
- Geotech Test
- 0009ND_Self-Elevating Platforms Guidelines for Elevated Operation
- Review of limit equilibrium methods for soil nailing design.pdf
- 47_Mononen
- 22-EmbankmentSeismic201108
- Finite Element Analysis in GeotechnicalEngineering Application by David M. Potts and Lidija Zdravkov
- program calcul geotehnic
- Formulation of Limit Analysis in Optum
- Pg 0269-0280 QuarryEngineeringAndDesign Text
- 40_Wines
- Slide Problem Sets
- Geotechnicai System Reliability of Slopes
- Chapter 3 Road Design
- Slope Stability Analysis

You are on page 1of 6

stability analyses

B. Nilsen

Abstract The paper discusses alternative ap- Mots cls Stabilit de pente rocheuse 7 Analyse

proaches to stability analyses including the tradi- dterministe 7 Facteurs partiels 7 Analyse

tional deterministic principle, the so-called partial probabiliste 7 Facteur de scurit 7 Paramtres de

factor principle and the probabilistic approach calcul

which assesses the probability of failure rather than

the factor of safety. To illustrate the different prin-

ciples and approaches, stability analyses of road

cuts near Trondheim, central Norway, are used as

examples. It is concluded that although the tradi- Introduction

tional deterministic approach has the advantage of

being well established and easy to understand, to Traditionally, in the fields of geological engineering and

conform with new standards and guidelines it is rock mechanics, the deterministic principle of calculating

likely to be replaced by the partial factor principle. the stabilizing and driving forces to arrive at a factor of

To obtain the best possible basis for evaluation it is safety has been the predominant method of rock slope

useful to include a probabilistic analysis. stability analysis. In the last few years, however, alternative

methods have become more widespread. To a great extent,

Rsum Larticle prsente de nouvelles approches this is due to the introduction of new standards and

pour les analyses de stabilit comprenant lanalyse recommendations, such as Eurocode 7 (Comit Europen

dterministe traditionelle, la mthode dite des coef- de Normalisation 1994) and NS 3480 Geotechnical Plan-

ficients partiels et lapproche probabiliste qui ning (Norwegian Council for Building Standardization

value une probabilit de rupture plutt quun 1988) which require all stability analyses to be carried out

facteur de scurit. Afin dillustrer les diffrentes according to the so-called partial factor method, with

mthodes et approches, des analyses de stabilit partial factors for action and strength. In soil mechanics

relatives des dblais routiers prs de Trondheim, this principle was commonly adopted many years ago,

au centre de la Norvge, sont prsentes titre while in geological engineering/rock mechanics the calcu-

dexemples. Bien que lanalyse dterministe tradi- lation principles have been changed only to a minor

tionnelle ait lavantage dtre bien admise et facile extent.

comprendre, on conclut quelle sera probablement In addition, the probabilistic approach, with the calcula-

remplace par la mthode des coefficients partiels tion of the probability of failure instead of a factor of safety

afin de suivre les nouvelles rgles et recommanda- against failure, has become more common practice, as

tions. Pour obtenir la meilleure base possible de reflected by the many international conferences over the

diagnostic il est utile de considrer galement une last few years focusing on this issue (Li and Lo 1993;

approche probabiliste. Shackelford et al. 1996; Lee and Lee 1998).

The steps of the analysis that precede calculation, i.e. defi-

Key words Rock slope stability 7 Deterministic nition of potential stability problem and quantification of

analysis 7 Partial factors 7 Probabilistic analysis 7 input parameters, are crucial for the final result. The main

Factor of safety 7 Input parameters focus of this paper, however, is the advantages and disad-

vantages of the alternative methods, in particular the inter-

pretation of calculation results.

B. Nilsen (Y) Calculation example

Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Department of Geology and Mineral Resources Engineering,

Alfred Getz vei 2, 7491 Trondheim, Norway To illustrate the different approaches and principles, a case

e-mail: bjorn.nilsen6geo.ntnu.no representative of a common stability problem with road

Fax: c47-73-590898 cuts around Trondheim, central Norway, has been used.

B. Nilsen

called active friction angle (wa) is used to define discon-

tinuity shear strength:

tpsn7tanwa

As wa is not a constant but highly dependent on normal

stress, it is crucial to adjust the friction parameters to the

actual normal stress level. If this is not done, serious calcu-

lation and design errors may result (see Nilsen 1985). To

quantify wa, the following empirical equation developed by

Barton and Bandis (1990) is used here:

tpsn7tan [JRC7log (JCS/sn)cwb]

where JRC is joint roughness coefficient, JCS is joint

compressive strength, and wb is basic friction angle. For

H = slope height = 22 m the road-cut case, based on field observations and labora-

f = slope angle = 77 tory testing and taking into account the scale effects as

p = inclination of potential failure plane = 42 described by Barton and Bandis, the following values of the

3

r = unit weight of rock mass (greenstone) = 30 kN/m

3 respective parameters are: JRCp9, JCSp110 MPa, and

w = unit weight of water = 10 kN/m

2

W = (rH /2)(1/tanp 1/tanf )

wbp35.57.

= 6388 kN/m = weight of potentially sliding rock Although central Norway is basically a low seismicity

U = water pressure resultant (kN/m) region, minor earthquakes are occasionally experienced

2

= seismic acceleration in fraction of g (m/s ) and, from a safety point of view, it is recommended that

F = m = earthquake load (kN/m) seismicity is taken into consideration for critical structures

(Dahle et al. 1992). Earthquake load is modelled here as an

Fig. 1 equivalent horizontal load, generally representing the most

Schematic sketch of typical stability problems with road cuts in

the Trondheim area

unfavorable condition for stability (pseudo-static prin-

ciple). In the example, maximum possible seismic accelera-

tion during the lifetime of the project is assumed to be

The geometry and the acting forces of the road-cut

a p0.1 g

example are shown in Fig. 1. The bedrock is a greenstone max

with uniaxial compressive strengths typically in the range This corresponds to a maximum earthquake load of

150200 MPa. The potential stability problem is a result of

F p0.1 W

the special topography along fjords and valley sides caused a

by undercutting of distinct exfoliation joints.

The water pressure during heavy rainfall is assumed to

have a triangular distribution, as suggested by Hoek and Traditional factor of safety

Bray (1991), representing water entering freely at the top of

the slope and being fully drained at the toe after having analysis

reached a maximum pressure corresponding to the

hydrostatic at a height equal to 50% of the slope height. The basic principles of traditional, deterministic analysis

Thus, for the worst case situation, the maximum water are to calculate the stabilizing and driving forces and arrive

pressure is assumed to be at a factor of safety (F). For the situation in Fig. 1:

umaxpgw7H/2 Fp(W coscpPUPFa sincp) tanwa/(W sincpcFa coscp)

and the resultant water pressure As wa is not a constant but a function of sn, the latter has

2 to be calculated in each individual case to define wa:

Umaxpgw7H /4 sincp

snp(W coscpPUPFa sincp)/l

Due to the inhomogeneous and discontinuous character of

rock masses, this idealized triangular distribution seldom where:

corresponds perfectly with the real situation during heavy

lpH/sincpp32.9 mplength of potential failure plane

rainfall. However, in the absence of better alternatives, this

is the configuration most commonly seen in literature. The The first four columns of Table 1 give the results of the

authors own experience is that the triangular distribution factor of safety calculation for the basic conditions in the

often exaggerates the resultant pressure, because joints and example in Fig. 1. As shown, for a dry slope and no earth-

cracks frequently provide a degree of drainage towards the quake (best case) F is 1.88, while for a combination of

slope face. maximum earthquake and maximum water pressure

Due to irregularities, a distinct non-linear relationship (worst case) the factor of safety reduces to 1.02. For

normally exists between shear strength (t) and the normal maximum earthquake but no water pressure F is 1.59,

New trends in rock slope stability analyses

Table 1

Factor of safety calculation (figures for the probabilistic approach are mean values after truncation)

no water earthquake

a (fraction of g) 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.03

Fa (kN/m) 639 0 639 0 179

sn (kN/m 2) 76 144 131 89 125

sn BestFit (kN/m 2) 124

wa (deg) 62.7 59.4 60.2 61.3 61

F 1.02 1.88 1.59 1.26 1.68

while for maximum water pressure but no earthquake it is Table 2 presents the results of the stability analysis using

1.26. the partial factor method for the same basic cases as for

the factor of safety approach. As can be seen, according to

this concept the stabilizing forces are greater than the

driving forces for all situations except for the worst case.

The partial factor method

Probabilistic analysis

According to the partial factor method, partial factors for For the road-cut example, the parameters related to geo-

actions and materials are to be applied instead of an metry and the unit weights are unambiguously defined and

overall safety factor. In principle, the calculation is carriedin the analysis represent constants. Other input parame-

out as follows: ters, i.e. water pressure, seismic acceleration and friction

angle, may, however, vary within wide limits. Thus, a prob-

FdpFk7gf

abilistic approach, with probability distributions assigned

MdpMk/gm to those parameters, has obvious advantages.

The following probabilistic analyses are based on the

where Fd is dimensioning action and Md is dimensioning

computer programs BestFit and 6RISK developed by the

strength; Fk is characteristic action and Mk is characteristic

Palisade Corporation (1996, 1997) and inspired by analyses

strength; gf is partial factor for action and gm is material

described by Hoek (1998). In the probabilistic analysis, the

factor. The design is considered to be satisfactory if:

considerations and quantifications of the respective varia-

Md 1 Fd bles are as follows:

In terms of slope stability, this means: if stabilizing forces

Water pressure (U)

are greater than driving forces.

The build-up of water pressure is assumed to be according

Guidelines for defining partial factors are described by the

to the triangular distribution described earlier. However,

Comit Europen de Normalisation (1994) and Norwegian

during the lifetime of the slope, it is unlikely that the water

Council for Building Standardization (1997). For the

pressure will equate to the maximum value given by the

example:

equation in the figure. The most common situation will be

W, U: gf p1.0 a practically dry slope, i.e. UF0. The most realistic proba-

Fa: gf p1.3 bilistic model of water pressure is believed to be a trun-

tan wa: gmp1.2 cated exponential function, with truncation represented by

Table 2

Stabilizing and driving forces for the road-cut example based on the partial factor method

no water earthquake

sn (kN/m 2) 72 144 127 89

wa (deg) 62.2 59.4 59.9 61.3

Stabilizing forces (kN/m) 3763 6683 6021 4469

Driving forces (kN/m) 4890 4272 4890 4272

Stabilizing forces/driving forces 0.77 1.56 1.23 1.05

B. Nilsen

0.0018 0.16

0.0016 a Water pressure (kN/m)

0.0014 0.14

0.0012 0.12

0.0010

Probability

0.10

0.0008

0.0006 0.08

0.0004

0.06

0.0002

0 0.04

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

0.02

35

2

b Seismic acceleration (m/s ) 0

30 70 78 86 94 102 110 118 126 134 142

2

25 Normal stress (kN/m )

20

Fig. 3

15 Probability distribution of sn as calculated by 6RISK based on

10 2000 iterations

5

0

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

tion of wa with a standard deviation of 57 within the actual

0.08 normal stress range (between the worst case and best

0.07 c Active friction angle (deg) case in Table 1; see also Fig. 2c). Truncation is taken to be

0.06 to the likely highest and lowest realistic wa values 76 and

0.05 467 respectively.

0.04 Generally, most probabilistic analyses are based on

0.03 mutually independent input parameters. In this case,

0.02 however, two of the input parameters, wa and sn, are

0.01

distinctly interrelated and, as a consequence, a two-step

calculation procedure has to be followed. Step 1 of this

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 procedure is the calculation and definition of the sn distri-

Fig. 2

bution. The calculation is carried out by the program

Assumed probability distributions of a water pressure (U), b 6RISK (Palisade Corporation 1996). The result, based on

seismic acceleration (aa) and c active friction angle (wa) Latin Hypercube sampling (a technique giving comparable

results to the Monte Carlo technique but with fewer

samples) and 2000 iterations, is shown in Fig. 3. According

to BestFit, it can be described as a beta distribution with

the Umax value defined earlier and the mean value (prob- parameters a1p3.12/a2p1.0. Step 2 is an 6RISK calcula-

ably somewhat conservatively) defined as Umax/3 (see tion of the factor of safety (F). Here, wa and sn are treated

Fig. 2a). as interdependent variables with a dependency coefficient

of 0.9 (representing a negative correlation during

Seismic acceleration (a) sampling, i.e. high values of wa are selected for low values

Most realistically, earthquake activity is modelled by an of sn and vice versa). The result, based on Latin Hypercube

exponential distribution indicating that large earthquakes sampling and 2000 iterations, is shown in Fig. 4.

are very rare while small ones are common (Hoek 1998). In According to the probabilistic approach, as illustrated by

the present example, the maximum seismic acceleration Fig. 4, the probability of failure of the actual slope is:

during the lifetime of the slope is assumed to be

P (failure)pP (F~1.0)p0.015

amaxp0.1 g and the mean value amax/3. The resulting

exponential distribution of a is shown in Fig. 2b; in the This indicates that during the lifetime of the slope and for

calculation the distribution is truncated according to the assumed combinations of water pressure, seismic

amaxp0.1 g. acceleration and friction, the probability of failure is 1.5%.

Alternatively, the result may be interpreted as indicating

Active friction angle (wa) that for the specified conditions, two out of a hundred

The input parameter of active friction angle is generally slopes could be expected to fail.

associated with a considerable amount of uncertainty and, As can be seen from Fig. 4, the probability distribution

as discussed earlier, it is also a function of the normal closely resembles a normal distribution. The mean value of

stress. For the present example, based on the rock mass F is 1.75 and the standard deviation is 0.43 (for a standard

data and calculated normal stresses (Table 1), a mean wa distribution indicating that 68% of the 2000 calculated F-

value of 617 is assumed and a truncated normal distribu- values are between 1.32 and 2.18).

New trends in rock slope stability analyses

a Probability density

how to quantify the factors and what is to be considered as

0.30

stable. However, the standards, such as Eurocode 7 and NS

Probability of F = x

0.25

3480, are intended mainly for the design of buildings and

0.20 civil engineering works and make no clear distinction

0.15 between different categories of structures or short- and

long-term stability.

0.10

As a result of the basic differences, the partial factor

0.05 method normally tends to give a more conservative design

0 than when the approach uses the deterministic factor of

1.81

3.91

safety. As shown by the example calculations of a road cut

1.29

1.55

2.08

2.34

2.60

2.86

3.13

3.39

3.65

0.51

0.76

1.03

Factor of safety, F

The calculated stability according to the guidelines

1.2 described here is satisfactory for two of the four cases

b Cumulative distribution

1.0 when based on the safety factor approach and for three of

Probability of F x

the four cases when the partial factor method is used (see

0.8 Tables 1 and 2).

0.6 It is important to be aware that, due to the uncertainty of

the input parameters, even Fp1.0 (the calculated stabil-

0.4 izing forces much greater than the destabilizing forces)

0.2 does not necessarily mean that the probability of sliding is

equal to zero. Hence, if not fully understood, the determin-

0 istic approach may sometimes give a false impression of

2.71

2.22

2.95

3.69

0.51

1.24

1.48

1.73

1.97

2.46

3.20

3.44

3.93

0.75

0.99

safety.

Factor of safety, F The final conclusion, i.e. the decision whether the calcu-

lated values represent a satisfactory level of safety or not, is

Fig. 4 not simple to make. In the case discussed in this paper, as

a Probability density function and b cumulative distribution

function of the factor of safety (F) for the road-cut example

earthquake activity is rare and simultaneous heavy rainfall

and maximum earthquake conditions are very unlikely, it

is realistic to assume the stability is satisfactory.

Probabilistic approach

To interpret the result of the probabilistic approach, i.e. to

Interpretation of results determine what probability of failure can be accepted, is

often difficult. Guidelines do, however, exist. For example,

The various calculation methods all give very distinct the Norwegian national guidelines for buildings and civil

results. However, there is a considerable degree of uncer- engineering works in potential slide areas are shown in

tainty connected with the interpretation of the calculated Table 3. According to the guidelines, a structure is consid-

values, i.e. what is the consequence of the calculated value ered to be safe when the probability of slide is lower than

in terms of stability and what value is required to be on the the respective limit given in the table.

safe side? For the road-cut example, with a P (F~1.0)p0.015 and an

assumed structure lifetime of 50 years, the annual proba-

Deterministic approach bility of slide would be 3!10 4. According to the criteria

According to its definition, a safety factor of F 1 1.0 means in Table 3, this would satisfy the stability requirement of a

stabilizing forces are greater than sliding forces and hence structure in safety class 2, including roads of the category

the slope should be stable. As there is always some degree discussed here.

of uncertainty connected to the input parameters, however,

this may not necessarily be the case. To take the uncer-

tainty into account and in order to allow for the different

stability requirements of different types of structures, the Table 3

following criteria for stability are often used: short-term Criteria regarding localisation of structures in potential slide

stability (e.g. temporary slopes in an open pit mine), areas according to Statens Bygningstekniske Etat (1995)

F61.3; long-term stability (e.g. permanent mine slopes or

road cuts), F61.5 Safety Consequence Max. annual

The factor of safety concept is easy to understand and has class of slide probability of slide

the advantage of having been standard procedure for a 1 Minor 10 2

long time. In comparison, the partial factor method may 2 Medium 10 3

be argued to give better control of the calculation by 3 Major ~10 4

assigning partial factors to actions and materials. The

B. Nilsen

Conclusions References

As illustrated by the calculation examples in this paper, Barton N, Bandis S (1990) Review of predictive capabilities of

rock slope stability analysis and particularly interpretation JRC-JCS model in engineering practice. Proceedings of Interna-

of the results is difficult even for simple slope geometry. In tional Conference on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway. AA Balkema,

Rotterdam, pp 603610

addition, different calculation principles give considerably Comit Europen de Normalisation (1994) Eurocode 7:

different results. To conform with new standards and geotechnical design part 1: general rules. European Prestan-

recommendations such as Eurocode 7, traditional deter- dard ENV 19971. Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brus-

ministic analysis based on the calculation of one factor of sels, 123 pp

safety is to be replaced by the partial factor method, Dahle A, Bungum H, Alsaker A (1992) Earthquake hazard at

involving partial factors on actions and material strength. strait crossings. In: Norwegian subsea tunnelling, 8. Norwegian

The principle of considering individual factors obviously Soil and Rock Engineering Association, Tapir, Trondheim,

pp 4346

has certain advantages. However, the available standards Hoek E (1998) Rock engineering. Chapter 8 factor of safety and

and recommendations concerning interpretation of the probability of failure. Course notes, Internet edition, http:/

results are at present largely limited to buildings and civil /www.rockeng.utoronto.ca/hoekcorner.htm, pp 105114

engineering projects. Therefore, in fields such as mining Hoek E, Bray JW (1991) Rock slope engineering, 3rd edn. Insti-

and dam foundation, for instance, it is likely that for some tute of Mineralogy and Metallurgy, London, 358 pp

time to come the traditional factor of safety method will Lee I-M, Lee M-J (1998) Optimization of rock slopes using relia-

continue to be the most commonly used. bility concepts. Proceedings NARMS 98, Cancun, Mexico. Int J

Rock Mech Min Sci 35 : 661

Due to the uncertainty of input parameters, including their Li KS, Lo S-CR (eds) (1993) Probabilistic methods in geotechnical

variability, the probabilistic approach for stability analysis engineering. Proceedings of International Conference,

has obvious advantages. In addition, safety criteria are Canberra. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 333 pp

sometimes based on given probability limits. In important Nilsen B (1985) Shear strength of rock joints at low normal

rock slope stability analyses, the option to include the stresses a key parameter for evaluating rock slope stability.

probabilistic approach as a supplement to more routine Proceedings of International Symposium on Fundamentals of

deterministic analyses should always be considered. Rock Joints, Centek, pp 487494

Norwegian Council for Building Standardization (1988)

It is hoped to further investigate the applicability of proba- Norwegian Standard 3480 geotechnical planning (in Norwe-

bilistic methods and particularly the interpretation of gian). Norwegian Council for Building Standardization, Oslo,

calculation results during a research project to be initiated 11 pp

at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Norwegian Council for Building Standardization (1997)

National Application Document (NAD) for NS-ENV

Acknowledgements Professor Ugur Ozbay of the Colorado 19971 : 1997 Eurocode 7: geotechnical design. Norwegian

School of Mines, Mining Engineering Department, reviewed a Council for Building Standardization, Oslo, 14 pp

draft of this paper. His comments and suggestions are gratefully Palisade Corporation (1996) 6RISK users guide. Palisade

acknowledged. Corporation, New York, 306 pp

Palisade Corporation (1997) BestFit users guide. Palisade

Corporation, New York, 133 pp

Shackelford CD, Nelson PP, Roth MJ (eds) (1996) Uncer-

tainty in the geologic environment: from theory to practice.

Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers Confer-

ence, Uncertainty 96, Madison. American Society of Civil Engi-

neers, 12, 1453 pp

Statens Bygningstekniske Etat (1995) Technical regulations

related to the Planning and Building Law of June 14, 1985

chapter VII: personal and material safety (in Norwegian).

Statens Bygningstekniske Etat, Oslo, 12 pp

- Application of Remote Sensing & GIS Technology for Landslide .pdfUploaded byLucia Camargo
- Geologist-CV-Example.docUploaded byluisgeologo
- SS EN 13791-2009Uploaded byJagan Mohana Rao Chinnala
- Design Guidelines for Horizontal Drains Used for Slope StabilizationUploaded byCostinel Cristescu
- QuickRWall - Guía de UsuarioUploaded bygchoy
- Jefferies_TRB2007.pdfUploaded byjcaz
- Geotech TestUploaded byOwethu Malinga
- 0009ND_Self-Elevating Platforms Guidelines for Elevated OperationUploaded byTomkel Voon
- Review of limit equilibrium methods for soil nailing design.pdfUploaded byJosé Quiroz Olmos
- 47_MononenUploaded byRonan Cayo
- 22-EmbankmentSeismic201108Uploaded byPedro Troncoso Acuña
- Finite Element Analysis in GeotechnicalEngineering Application by David M. Potts and Lidija ZdravkovUploaded byJesus Gonzalez
- program calcul geotehnicUploaded bysimonamartinescu
- Formulation of Limit Analysis in OptumUploaded bya_mohameden
- Pg 0269-0280 QuarryEngineeringAndDesign TextUploaded byMKPashaPasha
- 40_WinesUploaded byRonan Cayo
- Slide Problem SetsUploaded bycannonlica
- Geotechnicai System Reliability of SlopesUploaded bySebastian Trescure
- Chapter 3 Road DesignUploaded byAlvinCrisDonacaoDemesa
- Slope Stability AnalysisUploaded byAhsan Rabbani
- United Kingdom national report on braced excavations in soft groundUploaded byshare4learn
- GTS_NX_Catalog.pdfUploaded bygunjandpatel05
- Hoek+Bray+Rock+Slope+Eng+Ch+2-3+300Uploaded byPari D. ShitPosting
- 2017.docxUploaded byKerol Kerol Kerol
- Road DesignUploaded byRajesh Khadka
- Phase Relationship DiagramUploaded byRajesh Khadka
- 10.1016@j.enggeo.2018.02.001Uploaded byJosé Quiroz Olmos
- 1985_02_0090Uploaded byjuan Perez
- Wirerope Solution Last Updated 3-10-19 4.21PMUploaded byRonnie Ray Dumdum
- Remote Sensing and Planning BonaguaUploaded byJian Bonagua

- Non Store RetailingUploaded byVanishree Pabalkar
- fluid-catalytic-cracking-unitUploaded byNguyễn Tiến Dũng
- International Children's Games 2013 Windsor-Essex: Social Media Strategy & Guidelines for StaffUploaded byTyler Compton
- International Business BookUploaded byhiteshnitu
- Enc 6700 Portfolio Preface RubricUploaded byannmlawrence
- LW Great Spirit Star Mother (Eileen Brooks) 090709Uploaded byEl
- Tutorial 24 Tunnel Lining DesignUploaded bypaulclchong
- Zuñiga et al 2006 Colombia and Ecuadorian Anacroneuria_plecoptera.pdfUploaded bymisslinita20
- Algorithm Analysis 2Uploaded byMahreen Ilahi
- Six SigmaUploaded bykanchan2324
- SFNY Unsatisfactory ReportUploaded byGothamSchools.org
- fpUploaded byHearty Arriola
- How does the music video for Arcade Fire’s ‘The Suburbs’ use a structure of anticipation and closure?Uploaded byIsaac Winterburn
- 1. Basic Physics of Ultrasound and the Doppler PhenomenonUploaded byRamani Ravi Shankar
- Big Data in Smart FarmingUploaded byErwin Dave M. Dahao
- 2020 Tsa Catalogue DigitalUploaded byAnonymous 41I2MkV3Z
- Effective Communication Skills | Karriem a muhammadUploaded byKarriem a Muhammad
- Control System DesignUploaded byAbhinav
- Yemen Genocide (web)Uploaded byAnonymous iDI36msvkH
- 9. Surgical Treatment of Nasal Obstruction in Rhinoplasty.pdfUploaded byzachvuha
- QuestionghfhgfnaireUploaded byKrystel Joy Auro
- Truth is Stranger Than Fiction- Orange is the New Black & the Handmaids TaleUploaded bymorgan hafer
- F.long Term Plan. 7th FormUploaded byStay-at-home-mom
- Anzaldua Borderlands La FronteraUploaded byDaniela Yordanova
- Alfred Korzybsky Science and SanityUploaded byBuzoianu Maria
- Diabetis ThesisUploaded byHannah Caldino
- Exu and Ellegua and Jesus - Owners of the Crossroads | Lukumi and Santeria Initiated Practitioner Eugene EdoUploaded byEugene Edo
- Vak Feb. 16Uploaded byMuralidharan
- ResumeUploaded byPiper Coble
- my monster lesson plan-finalUploaded byapi-240345604

## Much more than documents.

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

Cancel anytime.