Finite element modelling of stability problems

© All Rights Reserved

5 views

Finite element modelling of stability problems

© All Rights Reserved

- Rock Slope Stability and Distributed Joint Systems
- Chapter 8 Combined Loading
- Pg Nonsemester
- final_thesis_edited[1].pdf
- A more general model for the ananlysis of rock slope stability.pdf
- Crash Course 2015
- Civ202 Structure Analysis i
- 13365_1
- Chapter 5 - Slope Stability
- lab view
- 1967_Consideration of Fractures in the Calculations of Rock Slope Stabilities
- حساب الاحمال
- 5 RADIALE.txt
- Pump Nozzle Loads
- Abstract
- Resistência Ao Cisalhamento Dos Solos
- Slope Stability v1.00 Oct2010
- materi mektan aslab
- Steelgrid Technical Paper Rock Soil Slope Protection
- Analysis of 3D Structural Root Architecture Data of Trees Grown on Slopes

You are on page 1of 55

STABILITY PROBLEMS

Section 8-1

Introduction to Stability Analysis

Section 8-2

Introduction to Stability Analysis

T

Traditionally,

diti ll stability

t bilit analysis

l i are carried

i d outt using

i limit

li it

equilibrium analysis.

A popular

l limit

li it equilibrium

ilib i software

ft tool

t l is

i Slope/W.

Sl /W

Section 8-3

Stability Analysis: Common Features

COMMON FEATURES OF SLOPE STABILITY

ANALYSIS METHODS

• Safety Factor: F = s/sm where s = shear strength and sm =

mobilized shear resistance.

F = 1: failure, F > 1: safety

• Sh

Shape and

d llocation

ti off failure

f il is

i nott known

k a priori

i i but

b t

assumed (trial and error to find minimum F)

a sliding mass)

• Two-dimensional analysis

Section 8-4

Stability Analysis: Common Features

• Conventional slope stability analyses investigate the

equilibrium of a mass of soil bounded below by an assumed

potential slip surface and above by the surface of the slope.

are compared to those tending to resist instability.

section and plane strain conditions for analysis.

surface until the most critical surface (lowest factor of safety)

is found. Section 8-5

Stability Analysis: Common Features

• If the shear resistance of the soil along the slip surface

exceeds that necessary to provide equilibrium, the mass is

stable.

• If the shear resistance is insufficient, the mass is unstable.

• The stability or instability of the mass depends on its weight,

the external forces acting on it (such as surcharges or

accelerations caused by dynamic loads), the shear strengths

and porewater pressures along the slip surface

surface, and the

strength of any internal reinforcement crossing potential slip

surfaces.

• Conventional analysis procedures characterize the stability of

a slope by calculating a factor of safety.

• The factor of safety F is defined with respect to the shear

strength of the soil as the ratio of the available shear strength

(s) to the shear stress required for equilibrium ()

().

Section 8-6

Stability Analysis: Safety Factor Definition

F

Equilibriu m shear stress

the factor of safety is expressed as:

c ' u tan

t ''

F

where

c’ and ’ = Mohr Coulomb cohesion and friction angle,

expressed in terms of effective stresses

= total normal stress on the failure plane

u=p

pore water pressure

p

- u = ’ = the effective normal stress on the failure plane.

Section 8-7

Stability Analysis: Method of Slices

• Wh

When applied

li d to

t a generall slip

li surface,

f the

th method

th d off

slices is typically used and the equation is modified to

F

c ' W cos u cos tan '

2

W ssin

Slice for total stress analysis Slice for effective stress analysis

N’ = W’ cos

N = W cos W’ = W – ub

N’ = (W – ub) cos

Section 8-8

Stability Analysis: Trial Slip Circles

E

Example

l off Trial

T i l Slip

Sli Circles

Ci l

Section 8-9

Stability Analysis: Trial Slip Circles

E

Example

l off Trial

T i l Slip

Sli Circles

Ci l

Section 8-10

Stability Analysis: Trial Slip Circles

E

Example

l off Trial

T i l Slip

Sli Circles

Ci l

Section 8-11

Stability Analysis: Trial Wedges

E

Example

l off Trial

T i l Wedges

W d

Section 8-12

Stability Analysis: Trial Wedges

E

Example

l off Trial

T i l Wedges

W d

Section 8-13

Stability Analysis: Trial Wedges

E

Example

l off Trial

T i l Wedges

W d

Section 8-14

Stability Analysis : The Finite Element Approach

Section 8-15

Stability Analysis : The Finite Element Approach

In the earlier version of Plaxis

Plaxis, this approach of performing

stability analysis using finite element analysis was termed the ‘phi-

c reduction’ method.

In the 2012 version of Plaxis, this approach is called the ‘Safety’

calculation.

This method is based on the reduction of the strength parameters

of soil, namely the friction angle and the cohesion c.

Instead of the usual incrementation of loads, strength parameters

will be decremented.

The technique was first proposed by Zienkiewicz et al. (1975).

The procedure was made more robust in Plaxis by the addition of

the arc-length technique.

Since we are interested in collapse loads rather than precise

deformations, the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model is adopted.

IIn the

th ‘Safety’

‘S f t ’ analysis

l i phase,

h the

th strength

t th parameters

t t ’ and

tan d c’’

of the soil are successively reduced until failure of the structure

occurs. Section 8-16

Stability Analysis : The Finite Element Approach

Calculations flow

1. Start with the phase of interest (e.g. after excavation,

after embankment construction) with the system in

equilibrium.

ilib i At thi

this stage,

t M

Msff = 1

1.

2. Repeat the analysis with a slightly increased value of

Msf, say 1.05.

3. When Msf > 1, the strength parameters used in the

analysis will be reduced as follows:

tan 'input c 'input

tan 'reduced c 'reduced

Msf Msf

4. ’reduced and c

c’reduced converge,

converge

then the analysis is repeated (Step 2) with a higher

value of Msf, say 1.1.

5. Steps 2 to 4 are repeated, with progressively larger

values of Msf.

6 As Msf increases,

6. increases the strength parameters become

progressively smaller, leading to a weaker soil and

Section 8-17

larger displacements.

Stability Analysis : The Finite Element Approach

Calculations flow (continued)

7. Hence, as Msf increases, the calculations will require

increasingly more iterations in order to converge.

8. The increase in the number of iterations required for

convergence means that the system is becoming more

unstable, which also means it is approaching failure.

9. As the system approaches failure, the rate of increase

of Msf in Step 2 will also slow down.

10. Recall that Msf represents the factor by which the soil

strength parameters is reduced to allow the soil system

to approach failure.

tan 'input c 'input

tan 'reduced c 'reduced

Msf M f

Msf

or

tan 'input c 'input

Msf Msf

tan 'reduced c 'reduced

Section 8-18

Stability Analysis : The Finite Element Approach

there will finally come a stage when the iterations do not

converge,

g , or convergeg so slowlyy that the Msf increase at a

very slow or almost negligible rate.

12 At this point

12. point, the soil system is deemed to have ‘collapsed

collapsed,

and the value of Msf gives the value of the Factor of Safety.

Msf Factor of Safety

tan 'reduced (collapse) c 'reduced (collapse)

Section 8-19

Stability Analysis : Example 1

Homogeneous Slope without Foundation Layer

' 20 o

2:1 Slope c’ = 10 kPa

H = 10 m

20

Section 8-20

Stability Analysis : Example 1

Homogeneous Slope without Foundation Layer

Section 8-21

Stability Analysis : Example 1

Calculation of Slope Stability (Manual)

1. For = 20, = 26.57:

Since > , the slope is unstable if there is no cohesion c.

c

c=NH=0

0.017

017 x 20 x 10 = 3

3.4 kN/m2

4 kN/

This is the value of cohesion c (in addition to ) that is required

in order to achieve a factor of safety of 1 (unity) for this slope

(since > ).

Hence, factor of safety with respect to cohesion = 10/3.4 = 2.94

However, this is not the factor of safety used in slope stability,

which is

shear strength c tan

FS

disturbing shear

FS FS FS FS

Section 8-22

Stability Analysis : Example 1

Calculation of Slope Stability (Manual)

2. Try FS = 1.5

tan tan 20 0.364

0.243 FS 1.5 13.64

FS 1.5 1.5

Refer to chart, for FS=1.5 = 13.6 and = 26.6, the stability

number N = c/H = 0.048

Hence, FS for c = 10/9.6 = 1.04

Since FS for FS for c, the FS is not correct.

3. Try FS = 1.3

tan tan 20 0.364

0.28 FS 1.3 15.6

FS 1.3 1 .3

Refer to chart, for FS=1.3 = 15.6 and = 26.6, the stability

b N = c//H = 0

number 0.036

036

mobilized c = cm = N H = 0.036 x 20 x 10 = 7.2 kN/m2

Section 8-23

Stability Analysis : Example 1

Calculation of Slope Stability (Manual)

4. Try FS = 1.35

tan tan 20 0.364

0.27 FS 1.35 15.1

FS 1.35 1.35

number N = c/H = 0.038

mobilized c = cm = N H = 0.038 x 20 x 10 = 7.6 kN/m2

Hence, FS for c = 10/7.6 = 1.32

Since FS for FS for c, the factor of safety of the slope

is 1.35.

Section 8-24

Stability Analysis : Example 1

c ' f c ' / FS

tan ' f tan ' / FS

mass reached limit equilibrium; with

large continuous displacements of a

point on slope crest

25

Section 8-25

Stability Analysis : Example 1

Section 8-26

Stability Analysis : Example 1

Visualization of Failure Mechanism

Section 8-27

Stability Analysis : Example 2

Homogeneous Slope with Foundation Layer (D = 1.5)

1 5)

2:1 Slope

p

H = 10 m

DH = 15 m

NO GWT

' 20 o

c' 10 kN/m 2

Section 8-28

Stability Analysis : Example 2

Homogeneous Slope with Foundation Layer (D = 1.5)

1 5)

FS = 1.343

Section 8-29

Stability Analysis : Example 3

Undrained Slope with a Thin Weak Layer

2H Case 3a cu2=50 kPa

2H

Case 3b cu2 =30 kPa

Case 3c cu2=10 kPa

H

cu1 2H

H cu2

u 0 o

Section 8-30

Stability Analysis : Example 3

Section 8-31

Stability Analysis : Example 3

Case 3c cu2=10 kPa

cu2/cu1 = 0.6

FS=1.35

cu2/cu1 = 0.2

FS 0.47

FS=0.47

Section 8-32

Stability Analysis : Example 3

Case 3a cu2=50

cu2 50 kPa FS=1.45

Case 3c cu2=10 kPa

cu2/cu1 = 0.6

FS=1.35

cu2/cu1 = 0.2

FS=0.47

Section 8-33

Stability Analysis : Example 3

Case 3a cu2=50 kPa cu2/cu1 = 1.0

cu2/cu1 = 0.6

FS=1.35

cu2/cu1 = 0.2

FS=0.47

Section 8-34

Stability Analysis : Example 3

Undrained Slope with a Thin Weak Layer

(FS after Griffiths and Lane (1999))

cu2/cu1 = 1.0

FS=1 45

FS=1.45

Section 8-35

Stability Analysis : Example 4

Undrained Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer (D=2.0)

(D=2 0)

2:1 Slope

cu1=50 kPa

cu2/cu1 = 0.6, 1.5, 2.0

Section 8-36

Stability Analysis : Example 4

Shear Strains

cu2/cu1 = 0.6

FS=0.97

cu2/cu1 = 1.5

FS=2.02

cu2/cu1 = 2.0

FS 2 08

FS=2.08

Section 8-37

Stability Analysis : Example 4

Undrained Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer

(FS after Griffiths and Lane (1999))

cu2/cu1 = 2.0

FS=2.08

cu2/cu1

/ = 1.5

FS=2.02

cu2/cu1 = 0.6

FS=0.97

Section 8-38

Stability Analysis : FEM vs LEM

Advantages of FEM vs LEM for Slope Stability

of slip surface.

• FEM do not use concept of slices, no

assumptions about slice side forces. Global

equilibrium preserved until failure is reached.

soil model and stiffness is used.

• FEM model is able to track progressive failure as

slope is excavated or build up.

39

Section 8-39

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

The figures below show the results of SLOPE/W calculations of

FS for a underwater cut slope

p in the undrained and drained

condition, by Bishop's Simplified method.

The drained parameters are c'=2 kPa, '=240, =16 kN/m3

The equivalent undrained parameters are obtained from:

At top of clay; c u 2 cos 24 0 1.83kPa

K 0 1 sin ' 1 - sin 24 0 0.59

,v

,

m 1 K 0 ' h 1 0.59

0 59 4.77

4 77 h kPa

2 2

,m sin ' 4.77h sin 24 0 1.94h kPa

Section 8-40

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Cut Slope

p in Clay

y (Drained)

( )

1.403

26

24

22

Water Level

20

18

Elevation (m)

16

14 Description: Clay Water

12 Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb

10 g 16

Unit Weight:

8 Cohesion: 2 1:2 Cut

6 Phi: 24

4

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Distance (m)

Section 8-41

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Cut Slope in Clay (UnDrained)

2.085

26

24

22

Water Level

20

18

Elevation (m)

16

14

Water

12

Description: Clay

10

Soil Model: S=f(datum) 1:2 Cut

8

E

Unit Weight: 16

6 C - Datum: 1.83

4 Rate of Increase: 1.94

2 Datum (elevation): 20

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Distance (m)

Section 8-42

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

PLAXIS Analysis Cases

Drained Analysis with c’=2 kPa and ’=24o

Undrained Analysis

Method A ((analysis

y in terms of effective stresses):

)

type of material behaviour: undrained

effective strength parameters c´, ´, ´

ff ti stiffness

effective iff E50´ ´´

parameters E50´,

Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

type of material behaviour: undrained

undrained strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0

parameters E50´,, ´

effective stiffness p

Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

type of material behaviour: drained

t t l strength

total t th parameters

t c = cu, = 0,

0 =0

undrained stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495

Section 8-43

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

D i d CUT,

Drained CUT Pl

Plaxis

i c/phi

/ hi FS=1.35

FS 1 35 cff LE=1.40

LE 1 40

Drained

D i dA Analysis

l i with

ith

Effective strength parameters c´=2 kPa, ´=24, ´=0

Effective stiffness parameters E50´=15000 kPa, ´=0.2

Section 8-44

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Method A - UnDrained CUT plus Full Consolidation

Plaxis c/phi FS=1.37 cf LEM=1.40

Method A (undrained)

Effective strength

g p parameters c´=2 kPa,, ´=24o, ´=0o

Effective stiffness parameters E50´=15000 kPa, ´=0.2

Section 8-45

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Method A - UnDrained CUT,

CUT

Plaxis c/phi (Ignore UnDrained) FS=2.75 cf LE=2.09

Effective strength parameters c´=2 kPa, ´=24o, ´=0o

Effective stiffness parameters E50´=15000 kPa, ´=0.2

Section 8-46

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Method A - UnDrained CUT,

CUT

Plaxis c/phi (UnDrained) FS=2.27 cf LE=2.09

Effective strength parameters c´=2 kPa, ´=24o, ´=0o

Effective stiffness parameters E50´=15000 kPa, ´=0.2

Section 8-47

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Method B - UnDrained CUT,

CUT

Plaxis c/phi (Ignore UnDrained) FS=2.13 cf LE=2.09

Undrained strength parameters c = 1.83 kPa, ∆c=1.94 kPa,

=0,

=0 =0

Effective stiffness parameters E50´=15000 kPa, ´=0.2

Section 8-48

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Method B - UnDrained CUT,

CUT

Plaxis c/phi (UnDrained) FS=2.14 cf LE=2.09

Undrained strength parameters c=1.83 kPa, ∆c=1.94 kPa,

=0,

=0 =0

Effective stiffness parameters E50´=15000 kPa, ´=0.2

Section 8-49

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

MC-UNDRAINED

Sum-Msf

Sum Msf

3

METHOD A (IGNORE UNDR)

METHOD A (UNDR)

1.5

1

0 3e3 6e3 9e3 1.2e4

|U| [m]

Section 8-50

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

Analysis Condition PLAXIS SLOPE/W

Drained 1.35 1.40

A+Consolidation 1.37 1.40

A (Ignore

(I UNDR) 2 75

2.75 2 09

2.09

A (UnDrained) 2.27 2.09

B (Ignore UNDR) 2.13 2.09

B (UnDrained) 2 14

2.14 2 09

2.09

Section 8-51

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

c/phi - Ignore c/phi -

Undrained, Undrained,

FOS = 2.75 FOS = 2 2.27

27

Exc PP Exc PP

unchanged, changed, but

but FS not FS nearly OK

OK

Section 8-52

Stability Analysis : Underwater Cut Slope

c/phi

/ hi - Ignore

I c/phi -

Undrained, Undrained,

FOS = 2.13 FOS = 2.14

Exc PP Exc PP

unchanged, changed, but

but FS is OK FS is OK

Section 8-53

Stability Analysis : Concluding Remarks

Conclusions

• FEM analysis for Slope Stability is better

than LEM as the failure mechanism is

determined automatically as part of the

stress equilibrium process.

consolidation effects on slope stability.

Section 8-54

Stability Analysis : Concluding Remarks

wall is incorrect and unsafe

• It does not allow for wall

failure by plastic hinge, so

the soil yielded behind the

wall will be much larger

than actual case

• With plastic wall, plastic

hinge will

ill form and soil

yielded zone is smaller

than elastic case

• c-phi

hi FOS will

ill then

h depend

d d

on the plastic moment Mp

assigned to the wall. The

weaker

k wallll will

ill lead

l d to

t

lower FOS

Section 8-55

- Rock Slope Stability and Distributed Joint SystemsUploaded byr
- Chapter 8 Combined LoadingUploaded bySumaya Mahmood
- Pg NonsemesterUploaded byOppili yappan
- final_thesis_edited[1].pdfUploaded bySunil Vaishnav
- A more general model for the ananlysis of rock slope stability.pdfUploaded byLuis Alonso SA
- Crash Course 2015Uploaded byUtkarsh Yadav
- Civ202 Structure Analysis iUploaded byPrabhakar Kumar Barnwal
- 13365_1Uploaded byShishir_Kadam_2138
- lab viewUploaded byal imran
- Chapter 5 - Slope StabilityUploaded bysyah123
- 1967_Consideration of Fractures in the Calculations of Rock Slope StabilitiesUploaded byRed Orange
- حساب الاحمالUploaded byAshrafHassanm
- 5 RADIALE.txtUploaded byggg
- Pump Nozzle LoadsUploaded byAnonymous Iev5ggSR
- AbstractUploaded byVineel Kumar Bapatla
- Resistência Ao Cisalhamento Dos SolosUploaded byThamyres Medeiros
- Slope Stability v1.00 Oct2010Uploaded byBenigni Butrezi Ngwizinema
- materi mektan aslabUploaded byMaurit Francius Simanjuntak
- Steelgrid Technical Paper Rock Soil Slope ProtectionUploaded byGema Fajri
- Analysis of 3D Structural Root Architecture Data of Trees Grown on SlopesUploaded byTony Ke Wang
- 2.6 Installation Guide Slope Protection 1604 ElectronicUploaded byatherton625
- Flujo de escombrosUploaded byCesar Gutierrez Ninahuaman
- tambahan1.pdfUploaded byDwi Aryanti Ningrum
- UNITEN ICCBT 08 Probabilistic Approach of Rock Slope Stability Analysis UsingUploaded bybufalote
- example_5.6Uploaded byMirna Kristiyanto
- Manual 07 en Sheeting-checkUploaded bymatei_bgn529
- Charlie Lake.pdfUploaded byAnonymous cPlDZyD
- hoek brown criterionUploaded byrichkyutama
- Gege PaperUploaded byAli
- SLOPE DESIGN.docxUploaded byKeiko Uriol Reyes

- ..COP_Final-Surface Water Drainage..Uploaded byoj_orde
- Sing SS2 Pt 3 1987Uploaded bymoe3ka
- Sing SS2 Pt 2 1999Uploaded bymoe3ka
- Sing SS2 Pt 1 1999Uploaded bymoe3ka
- Arup Scheme Design Guide 2006Uploaded byBoris Escubio
- Guide Foundation SupervisionUploaded bymkpasha55mp
- ေဒါက္တာ မင္းတင္မြန္ - အဖိုးတန္ဆံုး ဘ၀ပညာ တကၠသိုလ္ အဘိဓမၼာUploaded byKokoaye Ayekoko
- Roles of Contractors and QECPsUploaded bymoe3ka
- D 420 – 98 STANDARD GUIDE to site characterisaton-2003.pdfUploaded byРадо Мицев
- Building Control (Accredited Checkers and Accredit.pdfUploaded bymoe3ka
- PUB Circular - ECMO SchemeUploaded bymoe3ka
- C Thanabal - ConSteel Seminar - 6Aug14 (1).pdfUploaded byThiru Kumanan
- BS-6349-6.pdfUploaded bymoe3ka
- 06. Design of Piles Under Lateral LoadsUploaded bymoe3ka
- Building Control (Temporary Buildings) RegulationsUploaded bymoe3ka
- Copy of Jetty_designUploaded bymoe3ka
- Bridge Formula Weights- FHWA Freight Management and OperationsUploaded bymoe3ka
- Design for SafetyUploaded bymoe3ka
- Bridge Design Eurocodes Worked ExamplesUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- GE Oct 2010 Effect of Support Fluids on Pile Performance a Field Trial in East London Lam Troughton Suckling JefferisUploaded bymoe3ka
- Cdm Worked ExampleUploaded bydist2235
- Circular Revised Cctv RequirementUploaded bymoe3ka
- ECM Legislation (Contractors)Uploaded bymoe3ka
- Approved DocUploaded byJONHCENA13
- [ENG]Eurocode 3 Part 3Uploaded byMit Xinhxinh
- [Kaniraj, Shenbaga R. Kaniraj] Design Aids in Soil(BookFi.org)Uploaded byliselio
- DESIGN_OF_STRUCTURAL_CONNECTIONS_TO _EUROCODE_3Uploaded byMunteanu Alina

- CHIL-GARD®_installation manual.pdfUploaded byEnrique Castro
- Tabel Identifikasi BijihUploaded byDebbie Novalina
- Sikacryl SUploaded bythe pilot
- Thermal_Management_of_SMT_LED.pdfUploaded byhsined
- Degrigny, C. Standards and Education. 2010Uploaded byTrinidad Pasíes Arqueología-Conservación
- FISPQ SO3Uploaded byRamonCamelo
- Highly Accelerated Testing of Capacitors for Medical ApplicationsUploaded byPravin Sasatte
- Shear StrengthUploaded byshruthicivil
- landfill notesUploaded byapi-235750525
- ODHGIES SXEDIASHS SYSTHMATON CO2.pdfUploaded byalejodany
- Analysis of Silver AlloyUploaded bySafwan Kazmi
- Fineness Test on CementUploaded byTvsp Sekhar
- New Text DocumentUploaded byrmgsalem
- Lecture 22 thinfilm deposition-sputteringr 9.pdfUploaded byu11ee079
- Pittie Kourtyard Kharadi,Pune_DPR 15.07.2017 - CopyUploaded byshailesh goral
- 15 Yrs of Limit State Design - Pt 2_20110328174605Uploaded byadsoi asdjio
- Analysis of Carbon-Jute Hybrid Reinforced Polyester Composite under Flexural LoadingUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Synthesis and Characterisation of SnO2 NanostructuresUploaded byRezki Ashidiqi
- Painting System - Specifying Paint Matr'lUploaded byAlmario Sagun
- Single Step and Mask-Free 3D Wax Printing of Microfluidic Paper-Based Analytical Devices for Glucose and Nitrite AssaysUploaded byabdul hannan
- persentasi tugas akhirUploaded byZulistia
- CAUSES OF FAILURES IN CERAMIC VENEERS RESTORATIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- Ceramic Vocabulary ListUploaded byVioh Nguyen
- Chapter 9Uploaded byCatlinhbk08
- Atmospheric Pollution - History-2Uploaded byDamyan Ivanov
- ekmekci2013Uploaded bySunnu Wahyu Setiawan
- 358 Securi MeshUploaded byblackk7
- 6 Failure of Austenitic Stainless PipingUploaded byravi_chandran_a3600
- Settlement of Foundations on Sand and Gravel - DiscussionUploaded by류태하
- SAFIR 2004 ManualUploaded byUğur Dündar

## Much more than documents.

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

Cancel anytime.