17 views

Original Title: Reul Randolph Geotechnique2003

Uploaded by YuryPasichny

- The Hardening-soil Model
- Constitutive Model for Partially Saturated Soils. ALONSO
- 1301_ENME442_lab7.pdf
- DM7.2
- Yield
- Site Supervision
- Ground Anchors 2010
- AASHTO GeoTechnical Design of Pile
- Savio Et Al. (2015)
- ASTM A 615
- Simple Stresses and Strains
- parry
- FEMA451-Chapter04
- Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Profile Evolution in Cylindrical Roller Bearings
- JPCS Exp 2
- EN 10168_2004_Steel products - Inspection documents.pdf
- Vertical Cyclic Pile Load Test_lec18
- gkjfsd
- af4_
- Yield theories (1).doc

You are on page 1of 15

3, 301315

and numerical analyses

O. R E U L a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H

This paper presents the results of detailed back-analysis, Cet expose presente les resultats dune retro-analyse

using three-dimensional finite-element analysis, of three detaillee utilisant une analyse delements finis en trois

piled raft foundations on overconsolidated clay. Compari- dimensions, de trois fondations en tables a piles sur une

sons of overall settlement, differential settlements and the argile surconsolidee. Les comparaisons du tassement gen-

load carried by the piles show reasonably good agree- eral, des tassements differentiels et de la charge portee

ment, although the finite-element analyses generally show par les piles, correspondent assez bien, meme si les

a higher proportion of the overall load being carried by analyses delements finis montrent dans lensemble que la

the piles than estimated from the field measurements. proportion de la charge generale supportee par les piles

Three main performance indicators of the piled raft are est plus elevee que celle suggeree par les mesures sur le

proposed: the proportion of load carried by the piles, terrain. Nous proposons trois indicateurs de performance

and the maximum settlement and maximum differential principaux pour les fondations en tables: la proportion

settlement, both as a proportion of the corresponding de charge portee par les piles et le tassement maximum

quantity for an unpiled raft foundation. The last indica- ainsi que le tassement differentiel maximum, tous deux

tor, in particular, suggests that improved layout of the comme proportion de la quantite correspondante pour

pile support can lead to a reduction both in the maxi- une fondation sans piles. Le dernier indicateur, en parti-

mum differential settlement and in the overall quantity of culier, suggere quen ameliorant lagencement ameliore

piles. This is illustrated for one of the case histories. des piles de support, on peut obtenir une reduction du

tassement differentiel maximum et de la quantite globale

KEYWORDS: case history; numerical modelling and analysis; de piles. Ceci est illustre dans une des histoires de cas.

piles; rafts; settlement; soilstructure interaction

The piled raft is a geotechnical composite construction Therefore three coefficients are introduced to quantify the

consisting of three elements: piles, raft and soil. The performance of piled rafts:

design of piled rafts differs from traditional foundation

design, where the loads are assumed to be carried either by (a) The piled raft coefficient, pr , describes the ratio of the

the raft or by the piles, considering the safety factors in each sum of all pile loads, Ppile , to the total load on the

case. In the design of piled rafts the load share between the foundation, Ptot :

piles and the raft is taken into account, and the piles are

used up to a load level that can be of the same order of Ppile

pr (1)

magnitude as the bearing capacity of a comparable single Ptot

pile or even greater. Therefore the piled raft foundation

allows reduction of settlements and differential settlements A piled raft coefficient of unity indicates a free-

in a very economic way compared with traditional founda- standing pile group, whereas a piled raft coefficient of

tion concepts. In this foundation concept the piles are zero describes an unpiled raft.

usually required not to ensure the overall stability of the (b) The coefficient of maximum settlement, s , is defined

foundation but to act as settlement reducers (Burland et al., as the ratio of the maximum settlement of the piled

1977). In recent decades an increasing number of structures, raft, spr , to the maximum settlement of the correspond-

especially tall buildings, have been founded on piled rafts ing unpiled raft, sr :

(ONeill et al., 1996; Katzenbach et al., 2000; Poulos,

2001). As an example, Table 1 summarises instrumented spr

s (2)

piled rafts in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, most of which sr

have been instrumented by the Institute and Laboratory of

Geotechnics of Darmstadt University of Technology (Arslan (c) The coefficient of differential settlement, s , is defined

et al., 1999). correspondingly. Unless otherwise stated, this is the

Key questions that arise in the design of piled rafts differential settlement between the centre and the

concern the relative proportion of load carried by raft and middle of the shorter side of the raft.

piles, and the effect of the additional pile support on

In the scope of this paper three of the case histories

summarised in Table 1Westend 1, the Messeturm and the

Torhaushave been studied by means of three-dimensional

elasto-plastic finite-element analyses, and the calculated

Manuscript received 4 April 2002; revised manuscript accepted 18

October 2002. results have been compared with the in situ measurements.

Discussion on this paper closes 1 October 2003; for further details Additionally, for Westend 1 the results achieved with the

see p. ii. finite-element analysis are compared with the results

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The University of achieved with eight different analysis methods, including the

Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. results given by Poulos et al. (1997).

301

302

Table 1. Piled rafts in Frankfurt, Germany

Building References H: m Peff : MN A: m2 tr : m zr : m n Lp : m Dp : m nip Pp : MN s: mm t: years

American Express Rollberg & Gilbert (1993); Reul 75 723 3575 20 140 35 200 09 6 2751 55 10

(2000)

Congress Centre Barth & Reul (1997); Reul (2000) 52 1440 10 200 27 142 141 125345 13 12 2459 58 0

Eurotheum Katzenbach et al. (1998); 110 425 1893 25 130 25 250300 15 4 2647 29 10

Moormann (2000)

Forum-Kastor Lutz et al. (1996); 95 750 2830 30 135 26 200300 13 3 50126 55 0

Ripper & El Mossallamy (1999)

Forum-Pollux Lutz et al. (1996); 130 760 1920 30 135 22 300 13 3 74117 70 0

Ripper & El Mossallamy (1999)

Japan Centre Lutz et al. (1996); 115 630 1920 35 158 25 220 13 6 79138 65 05

Ripper & El Mossallamy (1999)

Main Tower Katzenbach et al. (1998); 199 1470 3800 38 21 112 300 15 17 1480 25 0

Moormann (2000)

Messeturm Sommer et al. (1990, 1991); 256 1570 3457 60 140 64 269349 13 12 58201 144 8

Sommer & Hoffmann (1991a, b);

Sommer (1993); Reul (2000)

Torhaus Sommer (1986, 1991); Sommer et al. 130 2 3 200 2 3 429 25 30 2 3 42 200 09 6 1769 140 2

(1984, 1985)

Westend 1 Franke & Lutz (1994); Lutz et al. 208 950 2940 47 145 40 300 13 6 92149 120 25

(1996); Wittmann & Ripper (1990)

Haus der Wirtschaft, Reul (2000) 68 605 5120 20 85 47 250 12 6 1431 25 0

Offenbach 6 375410

H, height of the building; Peff , effective load (settlement-inducing total load minus uplift); A, area of raft; tr , maximum thickness of raft; zr , maximum depth of raft below ground level; n, number of piles;

Lp , pile length; Dp , pile diameter; nip , number of instrumented piles; Pp , measured pile load resistance; s, maximum measured settlement; t, time of settlement measurement after completion of

construction of building.

Foundation in Rupel clay.

Indicates completion of shell only.

PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 303

STRUCTURAL MODEL special interface elements. The contact between structure

The analyses in the scope of this paper have been carried and soil was described as perfectly rough. This means that

out with a structural model based on the finite-element no relative motion takes place between the nodes of the

method. The soil and the foundation are modelled with finite finite elements that represent the structure and those of the

elements, which allows the most rigorous treatment of the finite elements that represent the uppermost layer of soil.

soilstructure interaction. The soil and the piles are repre- The material behaviour in the contact area was simulated by

sented by first-order solid finite elements of hexahedron the material behaviour of the soil.

(brick) and triangular prism (wedge) shape. For the model- The verification and calibration of the structural model is

ling of the raft, first-order shell elements of square and based on the back-analysis of static load tests and the

triangular shape with reduced integration have been used. measured bearing behaviour of foundations. Reul (2000)

Only the soil below the foundation level is modelled with gives a detailed description of the structural model. All

finite elements. The soil above the foundation level is con- finite-element analyses presented in this paper have been

sidered through its weight. The circular piles have been carried out with the program ABAQUS.

replaced by square piles with the same shaft circumference.

A discussion of the influence of the mesh refinement on the

results of the finite-element analyses can be found in Reul & SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

Randolph (2002). The subsoil condition in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, is

In the finite-element analyses the soil, which is in reality characterised mainly by tertiary soils and rock. They consist

a multiphase medium consisting of the three components of Frankfurt clay at the top underlain by the rocky Frankfurt

solid phase (grains), liquid phase (pore water) and gaseous limestone. The Frankfurt clay is a stiff, overconsolidated

phase (pore air), was simplified to a one-phase medium. The clay with liquid limit, plastic index and natural moisture

long-term behaviour of this one-phase medium was consid- content very similar to the London clay (Butler, 1975). Sand

ered with the drained shear parameters c9 and 9. The non- and limestone bands of varying thickness are embedded in

linear material behaviour of the soil (grains) has been the Frankfurt clay, which results in a non-homogeneous

modelled with a cap model that consists of three yield appearance of the layer as a whole. The compressibility of

surface segments: the pressure-dependent, perfectly plastic the Frankfurt limestone, which is composed of massive lime-

shear failure surface, Fs ; the compression cap yield surface, stone and dolomite layers, algal reefs, marly calcareous

Fc ; and the transition yield surface, Ft . Changes of stress sands and silts and marly clay, is small compared with that

inside the yield surfaces cause elastic deformations, whereas of the Frankfurt clay. As the boundary between Frankfurt

changes of stress on the yield surfaces cause plastic defor- clay and Frankfurt limestone dips slightly to the north-west,

mations. The shear failure surface is perfectly plastic, the thickness of the clay layer varies in the vicinity of the

whereas volumetric plastic strains cause hardening or soft- Messeturm, the Westend 1 and the Torhaus studied in this

ening of the cap. Plastic flow is defined by the non-asso- paper.

ciated flow potential, Gs , of the shear surface and the As mentioned previously, the material behaviour of the

associated flow potential, Gc , of the cap. The parameters soilthat is, the Frankfurt clay, the Frankfurt limestone and

and d can be derived from the angle of friction, 9, and the (in the case of the Torhaus) the quaternary sand and

cohesion, c9, of the soil. A complete description of the cap gravelis modelled with an elasto-plastic cap model. How-

model can be found in the ABAQUS Theory Manual ever, as the Frankfurt clay is overconsolidated, assuming a

(ABAQUS, 1998). maximum previous vertical stress of 450 kPa at its top

For the modelling of the contact zone between soil and surface, the analyses are dominated by the soil stiffness

raft, and between soil and the large-diameter bored piles, rather than the soil strength. Therefore an elastic model with

thin solid continuum elements have been applied instead of non-linear elements at the interface of the soil and piles

Parameter Frankfurt clay Frankfurt Sand Raft Piles

limestone

Youngs modulus, E: MPa Equation (3) 2000 75 34 000 25 000

22 000{

23 500}

Poissons ratio, 015 025 025 02 02

Total unit weight of moist soil, : kN=m3 19 22 18 25 25

Buoyant unit weight, 9: kN=m3 9 12 15 15

Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K 0 072 (0 < z , 25) 05 046

057 (z > 25)

Angle of internal friction, 9: egrees 20 15 325

Slope of the conical yield surface in the 3767 2953 5262

pt plane, : degrees

Cohesion, c9: kPa 20 1000 0

Intersection of the conical yield surface with the 4242 2114 0

t-axis, d: kPa

Shape parameter of the transition surface between 0 0001 0

cone and cap,

Shape parameter of the cone, K 0795 0841 0778

Shape parameter of the cap, R 01 001 01

z in m below surface of tertiary layers.

Parameters sand only for analyses Torhaus.

Messeturm.

{ Westend 1.

} Torhaus.

304 REUL AND RANDOLPH

would yield very similar results for the back-analyses of the linear elasto-plastic algorithm such as the cap model. The

case histories presented in this paper. The application of the distribution of the Youngs modulus of the Frankfurt clay

cap model for the Frankfurt clay was motivated by the need with depth is described by the following empirical formula-

for consistency with previous analyses that have been tion based on the back-analysis of boundary value problems

reported (e.g. Katzenbach et al., 1994, 1997) and because it in Frankfurt clay (Reul, 2000):

allows, in principle, the complete failure or loss of service-

ability of the foundation system to be modelled (Reul, z 30

E 45 tanh 1 3 0:7z (3)

2000). 15

For overconsolidated clays, small-strain non-linearity can

have an important influence on the simulated ground move- where E is Youngs modulus (MPa), and z is the depth below

ments (e.g. Atkinson, 2000). However, it is the opinion of the surface of the tertiary layers (m). Within ABAQUS, an

the authors that the general principles demonstrated in the external text file allows interpolation of E values according

present paper are not altered by the adoption of a robust to the vertical coordinate. The raft and piles are considered

208 m

Tower

0.0 m 47.3 m

Quaternary

14.5 m Instrumented piles

44.5 m

Multi-point borehole extensometers

Inclinometer/multi-point borehole

(a) extensometers

(b)

325 m Piled raft

clay 68 m

kfurt

Fran

307.2 m 32 m

e

eston

kfu rt lim

Fran

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Westend 1: cross-section of the building, ground plan of the raft, and finite-element mesh. (a) Cross-section; (b)

ground plan of the raft of the tower; (c) finite-element mesh of the system; (d) finite-element mesh of the piled raft

PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 305

to behave linear-elastically. Note that no site-specific mod- thin soil element at the pile shaft to zero. While this is an

ifications of the soil parameters have been applied, which extreme assumption, it allows bracketing of the possible

might be justified because of the non-homogeneous nature effect of shaft friction on the piled raft response.

of the Frankfurt clay and Frankfurt limestone. All finite- Figure 2 shows the comparison of the measured centre

element analyses presented in this paper have been carried settlement, the maximum pile load, the minimum pile load

out with the same set of soil parameters. The material and piled raft coefficient with the results of the finite-

parameters used in the finite-element analyses are sum- element analyses and the following analysis methods:

marised in Table 2.

(a) simplified hand calculation method (Poulos & Davis,

1980)

(b) strip on springs (Poulos, 1991)

WESTEND 1

(c) plate on springs (Poulos, 1994)

The 90 m 3 100 m office building Westend 1 was con-

(d ) combined finite-element and boundary-element method

structed between 1990 and 1993. The 208 m high tower and

(Ta & Small, 1996)

the 60 m high low-rise section of the building complex are

(e) combined finite-element and boundary-element method

founded on two separated rafts. The piled raft of the tower

(Sinha, 1996)

consists of a 47 m 3 62 m large raft with a thickness of 3

( f ) combined finite-element and boundary-element method

465 m and 40 bored piles with a length of 30 m and a

(Franke et al., 1994)

diameter of 13 m. The bottom of the raft lies 145 m below

(g) flexibility matrix method (Randolph, 1983)

ground level (Fig. 1(a)).

(h) load transfer approach for individual piles combined

The groundwater level is situated 7 m below ground level

with elastic interaction between piles and raft (Clancy

in the quaternary layers. The top surface of the tertiary

& Randolph, 1993)

Frankfurt clay, which has a thickness of at least 63 m in the

vicinity of Westend 1, lies 85 m below ground level. The results calculated with the first six analysis methods are

The layout of the measurement devices, which consist of given by Poulos et al. (1997). Therefore the subsoil condi-

six instrumented piles, 13 contact pressure cells, five pore tions and soil parameters described above may not necessa-

pressure cells, one multi-point borehole extensometer and rily comply with the assumptions made for those analyses.

two combined inclinometers/multi-point borehole extens- For the analysis with the flexibility matrix method, an

ometers, is shown in Fig. 1(b). overall stiffness of the pile group in isolation of k p

The finite-element mesh for Westend 1 models the tower 6912 MN=m and overall stiffness of the raft in isolation of

foundation. The low-rise section of the building complex is k r 6274 MN=m has been applied based on the distribution

not considered in the analysis (Fig. 1(c) and (d)). In the core of the Youngs modulus with depth (equation (3)). The

area of the tower (approximately 1580 m2 ) the raft consists overall stiffness of the pile group has been derived after

of 47 m thick elements, whereas the raft elements at the Randolph & Wroth (1978) by replacing the pile group with

edge have a thickness of 385 m. The bottom of the Frank- an equivalent pier. The overall stiffness of the raft has been

furt clay is assumed to be 68 m below the foundation level, estimated with the approach described by Mayne & Poulos

which lies 145 m below ground level. The Frankfurt clay is (1999).

followed by a 32 m thick layer of Frankfurt limestone in the For the analysis method described by Clancy & Randolph

finite-element mesh. According to the investigations of (1993) the program HyPR has been applied. In the HyPR

Franke & Lutz (1994), the Youngs modulus of the piles is analysis the soil depth is assumed to be 68 m, and the whole

assumed to be Epile 22 000 MPa in the finite-element area of the raft is modelled with 47 m thick finite elements.

analysis. The Youngs modulus of the soil has been calculated with

Table 3 outlines the step-by-step analysis of the construc- equation (3) for Frankfurt clay as the mean value over a

tion process in the finite-element analysis. The maximum depth of 68 m below foundation level. The ultimate shaft

load of Peff 895 MN (above the raft) is successively and base resistance of a single pile with the same length and

applied in the core area of the raft. The weight of the raft diameter as the piles of the piled raft has been estimated

minus the uplift amounts to 619 MN, and is applied over from the drained shear parameters for Frankfurt clay given

the whole area of the raft before the stiffness of the raft is in Table 2. However, it should be noted that the ultimate

included in the model. resistance of a pile under a piled raft is not necessarily the

To study the influence of the modelling of the pilesoil same as the ultimate resistance of a single pile (Reul, 2000).

interface an additional finite-element analysis has been car- The parameters of the soil, the raft and the piles used in the

ried out with reduced shaft friction. The reduction of the HyPR analysis are summarised in Table 4. The HyPR analy-

shaft friction was achieved by setting the cohesion of the sis has been carried out in two separate runs. A linear

element analyses

Step Applied load, Mean vertical effective stress

Peff : MN at foundation level, v9 : kPa

1. In situ stress state 1920

2. Excavation to a depth of 7 m below 660

ground level

3. Installation of the piles 660

4. Excavation to a depth of 145 m below 0

ground level

5. Application of weight of raft minus 619 219

uplift due to pore pressures as uniform

load on subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)

6. Installation of raft 619 219

7. Loading of raft 9569 3380

306 REUL AND RANDOLPH

200

Analysis method

1 Poulos & Davis (1980)

2 Poulos (1991)

Centre settlement, s: mm

150 3 Poulos (1994)

4 Ta & Small (1996)

5 Sinha (1996)

100 6 Franke et al. (1994)

7 Randolph (1983)

8 Clancy & Randolph (1993)

50 FEA Finite-element analysis

FEA* Finite-element analysis:

reduced shaft friction

M Measurement

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FEA FEA* Ma)

Analyses results with methods

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 given by

20

Poulos et al. (1997)

Maximum pile load, Pp,max: MN

15

Measurements:

a)

Lutz et al. (1996)

b)

Franke & Lutz (1994)

10

0

2 3 4 5 6 8 FEA FEA* Mb)

20

Minimum pile load, Pp,min: MN

15

10

0

2 3 4 5 6 8 FEA FEA* Mb)

1.0

0.8

Piled raft coefficient, pr

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FEA FEA* Mb)

Table 4. Westend 1: parameters of the soil, the raft and the piles used in the HyPR

analysis

Parameter Soil Raft Piles

Youngs modulus, E: MPa 901 34 000 22 000

Poissons ratio, 015 02

Ultimate shaft resistance of piles, Rs1 : MN 110

Ultimate base resistance of piles, Rb1 : MN 44

PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 307

analysis with a very small stiffness of the raft and a load of measured values and therefore overestimate the piled raft

619 MN gives the response of the foundation due to the coefficient. The calculated maximum pile loads are generally

weight of the raft. A second, non-linear analysis with the close to the measured value. The finite-element analysis

real stiffness of the raft and a load of 895 MN gives the shows the largest deviation and overestimates the maximum

response of the foundation due to the weight of the super- pile load by 18%. The minimum pile load calculated with

structure. As in the finite-element analysis, the load is the methods of Poulos (1991) and Ta & Small (1996) is

applied in the core area of the raft. The values shown in 75% larger than the measured value. The modified finite-

Fig. 2 are achieved by superposition of the results of the element analysis with the reduced shaft friction shows a

two analyses. better agreement with the measurement than the original

The measured centre settlement amounts to 120 mm, 25 finite-element analysis for the centre settlement, the maxi-

years after completion of the shell of the building (Lutz et mum pile load and the piled raft coefficient. Compared with

al., 1996), whereas the settlement obtained from the finite- the original finite-element analysis the centre settlements are

element analysis is 109 mm. The centre settlement calculated increased by 6% and the piled raft coefficient decreases by

with the method by Sinha (1996) is significantly larger than 9%.

the results achieved with all the other analysis methods. The Overall, methods that yield the closest match to the meas-

measured minimum and maximum pile loads of 92 MN and ured settlements tend to overestimate the proportion of load

149 MN respectively are taken from Franke & Lutz (1994). carried by the piles, while (with the exception of Franke et

Under the assumption that the average load of the six al., 1994) close agreement with the measured pile loads

instrumented piles is equal to the average load of the whole leads to overestimation of settlement. The computed settle-

pile group, the piled raft coefficient can be derived from the ment coefficients from the finite-element analyses with full

measured pile loads to give pr 0:5, whereas the finite- shaft friction were s 0:59 and s 0:51. Thus the ratio

element analysis yields a piled raft coefficient of pr 0:66. of differential settlement to the maximum (or indeed the

Most of the analysis methods give pile loads larger than the average) settlement has decreased slightly by the addition of

Piles: Lp 26.9 m

Piles: Lp 34.9 m

A A

Instrumented piles

TP3

Multi-point borehole

extensometers

finite elements

TP1 TP2

120 m

58.8 m

(b)

Piled raft

74.8 m

clay

kfurt

Fran

one 55.2 m

mest

0m kfurt li

Fran

Quarternary

14 m

48.9 m

Fig. 3. Messeturm: cross-section of the building, ground plan of the raft, and finite-element mesh. (a) Cross section AA; (b)

ground plan of the raft; (c) finite-element mesh of the piled raft; (d) finite-element mesh of the system

308 REUL AND RANDOLPH

piles. Optimal placement of piles to minimise differential and quaternary sand and gravel up to a depth of 10 m below

settlements will be explored further in the final case history ground level, which is followed by the Frankfurt clay up to

considered here. a depth of at least 70 m below ground level.

Figure 3(c) and (d) shows the finite-element mesh of the

system, where one-eighth of the complete three-dimensional

MESSETURM problem has been modelled considering the three symmetry

The piled raft of the 256 m high Messeturm comprises 64 planes. The thickness of the raft decreases in three steps

bored piles and a square raft with an edge length of 588 m. from the core area (tr 6 m) to the edge of the raft

The length of the piles (Dp 1:3 m) varies from 269 m (tr 3:8 m). The interface between the Frankfurt clay and

(outer ring) through 309 m (middle ring) to 349 m (inner the Frankfurt limestone has been assumed to be 748 m

ring). The foundation level of the 36 m thick raft lies 11 below the bottom of the raft. The Youngs modulus of the

14 m below ground level (Fig. 3(a)). The construction of the piles of Epile 25 000 MPa has been derived from the in

building started in 1988 and was finished in 1991. The situ measurements (Reul, 2000). As the pile loads are

behaviour of the foundation was monitored from the con- calculated from strain measurements, the pile loads pre-

struction period until more than 7 years after the building sented in this paper are smaller than the values previously

was finished by means of geodetic and geotechnical meas- published (Sommer et al., 1990, 1991; Sommer & Hoff-

urements with 12 instrumented piles, 13 contact pressure mann, 1991a, b; Sommer, 1993), where a Youngs modulus

cells, one pore pressure cell and three multi-point borehole of the pile concrete alone of Econcrete 30 000 MPa is

extensometers. The positions of the measurement devices are assumed (Sommer & Hoffmann, 1991a).

plotted in the ground plan of the raft (Fig. 3(b)). The groundwater level is situated 455 m below ground

In the vicinity of the Messeturm the subsoil consists of fill level. For the construction of a subway tunnel with a station

96 20

92 16

Groundwater level, hGW : m

Groundwater

level

Pile load, Pp : MN

88 12

Inner ring

84 8 Middle ring

Outer ring

GE1/GE2 end of 1./2. groundwater drawdown

F building finished

0 0

1.1.89 1.1.91 1.1.93 1.1.95 1.1.97 1.1.99

Date

Fig. 4. Messeturm: variation of groundwater level and pile load with time

analyses

Step Applied load, Mean vertical effective

Peff : MN stress at foundation

level, v9 : kPa

1. In situ stress state 1774

2. Excavation to a depth of 75 m below 424

ground level

3. Installation of the piles 424

4. Excavation to a depth of 14 m below 0

ground level

5. Application of weight of raft minus uplift 1249 361

due to pore pressures as uniform load on

subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)

6. Installation of raft 1249 361

7. Loading of raft 15686 4537

8. Groundwater drawdown 18599 5379

9. Groundwater rise 15686 4537

PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 309

47 m east of the Messeturm, groundwater had to be drawn to 174 mm, whereas the last documented measurement (De-

down more than 12 m at the tunnel (Sommer et al., 1991). cember 1998) gives a value of 144 mm. For the piled raft

As a result, the groundwater level in the vicinity of the coefficient the finite-element analysis yields pr 0:63

Messeturm decreased by about 10 m, which led to changes (groundwater drawdown) and pr 0:60 (natural ground-

of the uplift on the raft of 287 MN. During the construction water level) respectively. Based on the assumption that the

process of the subway tunnel and the station the groundwater average pile load can be derived from the twelve instrumen-

lowering was suspended for 2 years and continued in 1994 ted piles, the piled raft coefficient at the time of the last

until the end of 1996. Fig. 4 shows the variation of the documented measurement, where the groundwater is situated

groundwater level and the average measured pile loads for almost at its natural level, is pr 0:43.

the inner, middle and outer pile ring with time. The changes The corresponding settlement coefficients from the finite-

of the groundwater level, and the resulting uplift on the raft, element analysis are s 0:63 and s 0:77, implying that

caused alterations of the pile loads of up to 3 MN. A the ratio of differential settlement to maximum settlement

groundwater drawdown is accompanied by an increase of the has actually increased as a result of the addition of piles.

pile loads, and a groundwater rise by a decrease of the pile This raises questions as to the optimal positioning of the

loads, respectively. pile support.

Table 5 summarises the step-by-step analysis of the con- A comparison of the measured and calculated settlement

struction process in the finite-element analysis. The maxi- profiles at the three extensometers is plotted in Fig. 5. The

mum load amounts to Peff 1860 MN for the simulation of settlements at various depths have been normalised with the

the groundwater drawdown and to Peff 1569 MN for the settlements of extensometer head TP3 at the centre of the

simulation of the situation after the groundwater has reached raft. For the extensometers TP1 and TP3 reasonable agree-

its natural level. The weight of the raft minus the uplift ment between measured and calculated settlement profiles is

amounts to 125 MN and is applied over the whole area of achieved, whereas the finite-element analysis overestimates

the raft before the stiffness of the raft is included in the the settlements at extensometer head TP2.

model. The weight of the superstructure is applied by means Figure 6 shows the average pile load distribution and the

of single loads at the column position of the structure. average shaft friction distribution along the pile shaft for the

The calculated settlement at the centre of the raft amounts middle pile ring (Lp 30:9 m) for two different load levels.

s3 settlement at extensometer head TP3

20 40 60 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 100

0 0 0

20 20 20

sz/s3: %

40 40 40

60 60 60

Measurement (26.07.1991)

Finite-element analysis

80 80 80

z: m z: m z: m

Fig. 5. Messeturm: settlement profile. Measurements after Sommer & Hoffmann (1991b)

and finite-element analysis

0 5 10 15 20 0 100 0 100 200

0

Q pile load

5 qs shaft friction

5

z depth below pile head

10 10

Measurement (12.11.1988)

qs: kPa

Q: MN

15 Measurement (17.12.1998)

15

FEA (after installation of the raft)

25 25

30 30

z: m z: m

Fig. 6. Messeturm: pile load and shaft friction distribution along the pile shaft. Measurement and finite-element analysis

310 REUL AND RANDOLPH

The measured and calculated pile loads and shaft frictions TORHAUS DER MESSE

are related to the stage after the final excavation. The meas- Constructed between 1983 and 1986, the 130 m high

urements as well as the finite-element analysis show negative Torhaus was the first building in Germany with a foundation

shaft friction at the upper third of the pile shaft owing to the designed as a piled raft. A total number of 84 bored piles

installation of the raft. For both investigated load levels good with a length of 20 m and diameter of 09 m are located

agreement is achieved between measurements and finite- under two 17:5 m 3 24:5 m large rafts. The distance be-

element analysis. tween the two rafts is 10 m. As the building has no under-

130 m

Pile 2 Pile 3

Instrumented piles

100 m

Contact pressure cells

Pile 1 Pile 4

Multi-point borehole TP3

extensometers TP1

Pile 6 Pile 5

Section of the raft

modelled with

finite elements TP2

Symmetry axis

17.5 m

3 m

Quarternary layers

Frankfurt clay

23 m

24.5 m

(a) (b)

84.25 m

Piled raft

ers

ry lay

terna

Quar

110 m

clay

kfurt

Fran

90 m

74 m

(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Torhaus: (a) profile view of the building; (b) ground plan of raft; (c) finite-element mesh of system; (d) finite-

element mesh of piled raft

PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 311

ground storeys, the bottom of the 25 m thick raft lies just weight of one raft amounts to 268 MN and is applied over

3 m below ground level (Fig. 7(a)). The subsoil comprises the whole area of the raft before the stiffness of the raft is

quaternary sand and gravel up to 25 m below the bottom of included in the model.

the rafts, followed by the Frankfurt clay. The Frankfurt From the last documented settlement measurement in

limestone is outside the influence of the foundation. The 1988 (Sommer, 1991) an average centre settlement for the

groundwater level lies below the rafts. The geotechnical two rafts of 124 mm can be estimated, whereas the finite-

measurements comprised results from six instrumented piles, element analysis gives a value of 96 mm. The computed

eleven contact pressure cells and three multi-point borehole settlement coefficients for the piled raft are s 0:51 and

extensometers. The position of the measurement devices is s 0:50, giving a similar ratio of differential to maximum

shown in Fig. 7(b). settlement as for the raft alone.

The finite-element mesh of the system constitutes one A comparison of the measured and calculated settlement

quarter of the complete three-dimensional problem consider- profile at the extensometers TP1 and TP3 is plotted in Fig.

ing the two symmetry planes (Fig. 7(c) and (d)). The finite- 8, where the settlements at various depths have been normal-

element mesh has a depth of 110 m, of which the first 25 m ised with the settlements of extensometer head TP1 at the

represents the quaternary layers while the remaining part is centre of the raft. Both the measurements and the finite-

Frankfurt clay. As no detailed information was available, element analysis show a significant block deformation of the

the Youngs modulus of the piles has been calculated pile group and the surrounding soil, due respectively to the

as the mean of the values for the Messeturm and Westend 1 large number of piles and the relatively small pile spacing.

(Table 2). This assumption is supported by the calculated settlement

The step-by-step analysis of the construction process in profile of an equivalent unpiled raft, which shows a strong

the finite-element analysis is summarised in Table 6. The decrease in the settlements with increasing depth.

maximum load of Peff 200 MN for each raft (Sommer, Figure 9 shows a comparison of the measured and calcu-

1991) minus the weight of the raft is successively applied by lated pile loads. The loads increase from a centre pile (pile

means of a uniform load over the whole raft area. The 1), to the edge piles (pile 2, pile 4, pile 6) and finally to the

analyses

Step Applied load, Mean vertical effective

Peff : MN stress at foundation

level, v9 : kPa

1. In situ stress state 450

2. Excavation to depth of 3 m below ground 0

level

3. Installation of piles 0

4. Application of weight of raft as uniform 268 625

load on subsoil (zero stiffness of raft)

5. Installation of raft 268 625

6. Loading of raft 200 4665

TP1 TP3

20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100

0 0

20 20

TP1 TP3 40 40

sz/s1: %

sz/s1: %

80 80

s1 settlement at extensometer head TP1

100 100

z: m z: m

Fig. 8. Torhaus: settlement profile. Measurements after Sommer (1991) and finite-element analysis

312 REUL AND RANDOLPH

Cross-section I

7

I Pile 6 Pile 1 Pile 2 I 4

1

II Pile 5 Pile 4 Pile 3 II

0

Pile 6 Pile 1 Pile 2

Cross-section II

7

Finite-element analysis 5

Pile load, Pp: MN

0

Pile 5 Pile 4 Pile 3

Fig. 9. Torhaus: pile load. Measurements after Sommer (1991) and finite-element analysis

corner piles (pile 3, pile 5), which is typical for a piled raft (Lp 23:1 m), and for pile configuration B the total pile

under working load conditions. The variation of the loads length amounts to nLp 1100 m (Lp 27:5 m).

with the pile position is due to the varying mobilisation of Moreover, for pile configuration A (Lp 23:1 m) the

shaft friction. Because of the block deformation of the pile coefficient for the differential settlement yields only

group discussed above, there are only small differential s 0:16 compared with s 0:50 for the real pile con-

displacements between the piles at the centre of the raft and figuration (Fig. 10(b)). Pile configuration B causes hogging

the surrounding soil. Hence the pile shaft loads of the centre of the raft (s , 0) for all investigated pile lengths. These

piles are substantially smaller than the pile shaft loads of the results are in good agreement with the centrifuge model test

edge or corner piles, whereas the pile base loads are similar and numerical studies presented by Horikoshi & Randolph

(Reul, 2000). From the last documented pile measurement in (1998), where the differential settlements of a uniformly

February 1986 (Sommer, 1991), a piled raft coefficient of loaded raft have been minimised by the installation of piles

pr 0:67 can be derived, whereas the finite-element analy- under the central area of the raft.

sis yields pr 0:76. For the investigated pile configurations, the piled raft

Figure 10 shows the coefficients for maximum and differ- coefficient increases with increasing total pile length from

ential settlement, s and s, and the piled raft coefficient, pr 0:52 (pile configuration B, Lp 20 m) to pr 0:76

pr , depending on the total pile length, nLp , for the real pile for the real pile configuration (Fig. 10(c)). Comparison

configuration and two modified pile configurations. For the with the coefficient for the maximum settlement in Fig.

modified pile configurations A and B, the number of piles 10(a) shows that the same maximum settlement can be

has been reduced to n 60 and n 40 respectively. The achieved with a varying contribution of the piles in the

pile length has been varied between Lp 20 m and load transfer.

Lp 27:5 m. As the raft is loaded uniformly, the necessity

to install piles, if column loadings are present as discussed

by Poulos (2001), is not addressed by the modified pile SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

configurations. The settlements, coefficients of maximum settlements and

For the real pile configuration with a total pile length of piled raft coefficients achieved from the finite-element ana-

1680 m a coefficient for the maximum settlement of lyses for the Messeturm, Westend 1 and the Torhaus are

s 0:51 is achieved. The same value can be attained with summarised in Table 7 and compared with the measurements.

a significantly smaller total pile length for a modified pile For the settlements a reasonable agreement between finite-

configuration with longer piles (Fig. 10(a)). For pile config- element analyses and measurements is obtained. The finite-

uration A the total pile length amounts to nLp 1389 m element analyses show that, owing to the installation of the

PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 313

Number of piles: n 60

0.8 Pile length: Lp 20.027.5 m

Pile diameter: Dp 0.9 m

0.6

s

0.4

0.2

0.0

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

n.Lp: m

(a)

0.6

Modified pile configuration B:

Number of piles: n 40

Pile length: Lp 20.027.5 m

0.4

Pile diameter: Dp 0.9 m

0.2

s

0.0

2.0

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

n.Lp: m

(b)

1.0

Real pile configuration

Pile configuration A

0.8

Pile configuration B

0.6

pr

for the maximum settlement

0.4

s settlement reduction coefficient

for the differential settlement

pr piled raft coefficient

0.2 n.Lp total pile length

0.0

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

n.Lp: m

(c)

Fig. 10. Torhaus: coefficient for maximum and differential settlement and piled raft coefficient depending on the total

pile length

Table 7. Piled rafts in Frankfurt clay: measurements (M) and finite-element analyses (FEA)

Building scentre : mm s: mm s s pr pr

PR R PR R

Messeturm 144 174 278 46 30 39 063 077 043 060

Torhaus 124 96 189 m.n.a. 7 14 051 050 067 076

Westend 1 120 109 184 m.n.a. 87 141 059 051 050 066

m.n.a., measurements not available; PR, piled raft; R, unpiled raft.

314 REUL AND RANDOLPH

piles, the maximum settlements of the foundation can be Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. & Moormann, C. (1998). Design and

reduced to 5163% of those of the equivalent unpiled raft. safety concept for piled raft foundations. Proceedings of the

The calculated piled raft coefficients are larger than the conference on deep foundations on bored and auger piles,

values derived from the measurements. However, as only Ghent, pp. 439448. Rotterdam: Balkema.

15% of the piles of the studied case histories are instrumen- Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. & Moormann, C. (2000). Piled raft

foundation projects in Germany. In Design Applications of Raft

ted, it might be questionable if all aspects of the pile group Foundations, pp. 323391. London: Thomas Telford.

behaviour can be monitored with the in situ measurements. Lutz, B., Wittmann, P., El Mossallamy, Y. & Katzenbach, R.

Additionally, further investigations of the contact behaviour (1996). Die Anwendung von Pfahl-Plattengrundungen: Entwurf-

between stiff clay and large-diameter, bored, cast-in-place spraxis, Dimensionierung und Erfahrungen mit Grundungen in

piles might yield an optimised interface model for the finite uberkonsolidierten Tonen auf der Grundlage von Messungen.

element analysis. Vortrage der Baugrundtagung 1996 in Berlin, pp. 153164.

For the example of the Torhaus the same maximum Essen: DGGT.

settlement has been achieved with a modified pile configura- Mayne, P. W. & Poulos, H. G. (1999). Approximate displacement

tion and a significantly reduced total pile length, and the influence factors for elastic shallow foundations. J. Geotech.

Geoenviron. Engng 125, No. 6, 453460.

differential settlements are substantially smaller. This aspect

Moormann, C. (2000). Private communication from PhD thesis,

is of special importance when focusing on the optimised Darmstadt University of Technology.

design of piled rafts. ONeill, M. W., Caputo, V., De Cock, F., Hartikainen, J. &

Mets, M. (1996). Case histories of pile supported rafts. Report

for ISSMFE TC18, University of Houston, Texas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Poulos, H. G. (1991). Analysis of piled strip foundations. Proceed-

Part of the work of the first author was supported by a ings of the conference on computer methods and advances in

fellowship within the Gemeinsame Hochschulsonder- geomechanics. pp. 183191, Rotterdam: Balkema.

programm III von Bund und Landern by the German Aca- Poulos, H. G. (1994). An approximate numerical analysis of

demic Exchange Service (DAAD). The measurements at the pileraft interaction. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 18,

7392.

Messeturm (19971998) were carried out while the first Poulos, H. G. (2001). Piled-raft foundation: design and applications.

author was employed as research assistant at the Institute Geotechnique 51, No. 2, 95113.

of Geotechnics at Darmstadt University of Technology, Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and

Germany. design. New York: Wileys.

Poulos, H. G., Small, J. C., Ta, L. D., Sinha, J. & Chen, L. (1997).

Comparison of some methods for analysis of piled rafts. Proc.

REFERENCES 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg 2, 1119

ABAQUS (1998). ABAQUS Theory Manual: Version 58. Pawtucket, 1124.

RI: Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen. Randolph, M. F. (1983). Design of piled raft foundations. Proceed-

Arslan, U., Quick, H., Moormann, C. & Reul, O. (1999). Geo- ings of the international symposium on recent developments in

technische in-situ Messungen an Hochausgrundungen und laboratory and field tests and analysis of geotechnical problems,

baubegleitende Qualitatssicherungsmanahmen. Hochhauser Bangkok, pp. 525537.

Darmstadter Statik-Seminar 1999, Bericht Nr. 16. Darmstadt Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and piled

University of Technology, Institut fur Statik. rafts. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, New Delhi

Atkinson, J. H. (2000). Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design. 5, 6182.

Geotechnique 50, No. 5, 487508. Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). Analysis of deformation of

Barth, U. & Reul, O. (1997). CongressCenter Messe Frankfurt vertically loaded piles. J. Geotech. Engng 104, No. GT12 6,

Kombinierte Pfahl-Plattengrundung zur Beherrschung der groen 14651488.

Lastexzentrizitaten. Mitteilungen des Institutes und der Versuch- Reul, O. (2000). In-situ measurements and numerical studies on the

sanstalt fur Geotechnik der TH Darmstadt 37, 117129. bearing behaviour of piled rafts. PhD thesis, Darmstadt Univer-

Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B. & De Mello, V. F. B (1977). Behaviour sity of Technology, Germany (in German).

of foundations and structures. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Reul, O. & Randolph, M. F. (2002). Study of the influence of finite

Found. Engng, Tokyo 2, 495546. element mesh refinement on the calculated bearing behaviour of

Butler, F. G. (1975). Heavily over-consolidated clays: review paper. a piled raft. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. Numer. Models Geomech.,

Proceedings of a conference on settlements of structures, Cam- Rome, pp. 259264.

bridge, pp. 531578. Ripper, P. & El Mossallamy, Y. (1999). Entwicklungen der Hoch-

Clancy, P. & Randolph, M. F. (1993). An approximate analysis hausgrundungen in Frankfurt. HochhauserDarmstadter Statik-

procedure for piled raft foundations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth- Seminar 1999, Bericht Nr. 16. Damstadt University of Technol-

ods Geomech. 17, 849869. ogy, Institut fur Statik.

Franke, E. & Lutz, B. (1994). Pfahl-Platten-Grundungs-Messungen. Rollberg, D. & Gilbert, K. F. (1993). Burohochhaus Theodor-Heuss-

Report for the German Research Council (DFG) No. Fr60-1/11. Allee 112, Frankfurt am Main, 19. Bericht. Grundbauinstitut

Franke, E., Lutz, B. & El-Mossallamy, Y. (1994). Measurements Prof. Sommer und Partner GmbH (unpublished).

and numerical modelling of high rise building foundations on Sinha, J. (1996). Piled raft foundations subjected to swelling and

Frankfurt Clay. Proceedings of a conference on vertical and shrinking soils. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.

horizontal deformations of foundations and embankments. ASCE Sommer, H. (1986). Kombinierte Pfahl- Plattengrundungen von

Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Vol. 2, pp. 1325 Hochhausern im Ton. Vortrage der Baugrundtagung 1986 in

1336. Nurnberg, pp. 391405. Essen: DGEG.

Horikoshi, K. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). A contribution to the Sommer, H. (1991). Entwicklung der Hochhausgrundungen in

optimum design of piled rafts. Geotechnique 48, No. 2, Frankfurt/Main. Festkolloquium 20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut Prof.

301317. Dr.-Ing. H. Sommer und Partner, pp. 4762, Germany.

Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. & Gutwald, J. (1994). A numerical study Sommer, H. (1993). Development of locked stresses and negative

on pile foundation on the 300 m high Commerzbank Tower in shaft resistance at the piled raft foundation: Messeturm

Frankfurt am Main. Proc. 3rd Eur. Conf. Numer. Methods Frankfurt/Main. Proceedings of the conference on deep foun-

Geomech, Manchester, 271277. dations on bored and auger piles, pp. 347349. Rotterdam:

Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., Gutwald, J., Holzhauser, J. & Quick, H. Balkema.

(1997). Soilstructure interaction of the 300 m high Commerz- Sommer, H. & Hoffmann, H. (1991a). Loadsettlement beha-

bank tower in Frankfurt am Main: measurements and numerical viour of the fairtower (Messeturm) in Frankfurt/Main. Proc.

studies. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Ham- 4th Int. Conf. Ground Movements and Structures, Wales,

burg 2, 10811084. 612627.

PILED RAFTS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAY 315

Sommer, H. & Hoffmann, H. (1991b). Last-Verformungsverhalten der Baugrundtagung 1990 in Karlsruhe, pp. 371380. Essen:

der Grundung des Messeturmes Frankfurt/Main. Festkolloquium DGGT.

20 Jahre Grundbauinstitut Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. Sommer und Part- Sommer, H., Tamaro, G. & DeBeneditis, C. (1991). Messe Turm,

ner, pp. 6371. foundations for the tallest building in Europe. Proc. 4th Int.

Sommer, H., Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1984). Zum Tragverhalten Conf. Piling and Deep Foundations, 139145.

von Pfahlen im steifplastischen Tertiarton. Vortrage der Bau- Ta, L. D. & Small, J. C. (1996). Analysis of piled raft systems

grundtagung 1982 in Dusseldorf, pp. 501531. Essen: DGEG. in layered soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 20,

Sommer, H., Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1985). Piled raft foundation 5772.

of a tall building in Frankfurt clay. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Wittmann, P. & Ripper, P. (1990). Unterschiedliche Konzepte fur

Mech. Found. Engng, San Francisco 4, 22532257. die Grundung und Baugrube von zwei Hochhausern in der

Sommer, H., Katzenbach, R. & DeBeneditis, C. (1990). Last- Frankfurter Innenstadt. Vortrage der Baugrundtagung 1990 in

Verformungsverhalten des Messeturmes Frankfurt/Main. Vortrage Karlsruhe, pp. 381397. Essen: DGEG.

- The Hardening-soil ModelUploaded byGEOMAHESH
- Constitutive Model for Partially Saturated Soils. ALONSOUploaded byDiego Orlando Garzón V
- 1301_ENME442_lab7.pdfUploaded byGz2239
- DM7.2Uploaded bybastosdaniela
- YieldUploaded byRavi Khandelwal
- Site SupervisionUploaded byHamza Nadeem
- Ground Anchors 2010Uploaded bycerbu_bass_cdc
- AASHTO GeoTechnical Design of PileUploaded byTee Bun Pin
- Savio Et Al. (2015)Uploaded byprasun halder
- ASTM A 615Uploaded byRavi Teja Polisetti
- Simple Stresses and StrainsUploaded byfotick
- parryUploaded byapi-3733260
- FEMA451-Chapter04Uploaded byLaura Hernandez
- Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Profile Evolution in Cylindrical Roller BearingsUploaded bymans2014
- JPCS Exp 2Uploaded byArvn Christian Santicruz Flores
- EN 10168_2004_Steel products - Inspection documents.pdfUploaded byBogdan
- Vertical Cyclic Pile Load Test_lec18Uploaded bySumit Ghose
- gkjfsdUploaded byGillz Provoost
- af4_Uploaded byTAWFIQ RAHMAN
- Yield theories (1).docUploaded bykrishnamraju
- Yield TheoriesUploaded bykrishnamraju
- David FerrandUploaded byMacrem Macrem
- A Numerical Approach for Limit Analysis of Orthotropic Composite LaminatesUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- imdgUploaded byT areki
- 1-s2.0-S0734743X17300829-mainUploaded byMuhammadNasir
- Expt 07 Effect of Cold Rolling Tensile PropertyUploaded byDharmendra Kumar
- Tabel Lateral Displacement Sheetpile 9 August 2017Uploaded byHerly SisWoyo
- 15601 Calumet WRP FUploaded byEman Agius
- Types FootingsUploaded byivan bolaños
- New Guidance on Fire and Explosion EngineeringUploaded byaugur8866124

- 1301309522eberhardt_-_l8-stressanalysis.pdfUploaded byjmhs31
- Techspec P 6 7 DAM 9 EnUploaded bysudice
- Using PI to Exchange PGP Encrypted Files in a B2B ScenarioUploaded byssyed13
- California Geology Magazine August 1991Uploaded bybornite
- Tetrahedron 59 (2003) 1301–1307.pdfUploaded byLibros Facultad
- Flink Batch BasicsUploaded byOzioma Ihekwoaba
- Advanced Ic Engine - Unit 1 NOTESUploaded byaerochandru.87
- Hw11 DCUploaded byAnonymous YucXDSspcN
- Draft DA09 Section 8 Applied PsychrometricsUploaded byze
- Colibrys Joins SBG Systems to announce The Ekinox Series, A New Range of Inertial Systems Which brings Mems to The Tactical GradeUploaded bystar_sri06
- Exam Solution AE1130 7 November 2013Uploaded byJames K. Kirahuka
- p150eUploaded bydidimom
- Resistive SFCLUploaded byvarathanpower
- 13.14.pdfUploaded byFrancis Lisbeth Rosero Cuasmayán
- 1 MixersUploaded byMilupa7
- 3 Dimension&BasisUploaded byalienxx
- machine by bhimraUploaded byAnonymous m8oCtJB
- Pro ControlUploaded byntpckaniha
- drain_design_(proag).pdfUploaded byAppavoo Deelen
- The Latin NounUploaded byJose Luis Huizar
- ETI the One Stop Service Center OverviewUploaded byreliantaustralia
- 3.1 non-uniform flow.pdfUploaded bydzikryds
- CT BRAIN AnatomyUploaded bydrsalilsidhque
- Core Description ProceduresUploaded byShamia Essam
- Carbon SteelUploaded byhayder1920
- Referat CNC EnglezaUploaded byArtur Don
- Chapter 1Uploaded byMeiying Kwok
- Batdangthuc_DDTHUploaded byTuyếnĐặng
- Ti e Protegol 32-55 h Nov 07Uploaded byA Mahmood
- SSMMX01F-ML5Uploaded byTuPro Fessional