0 Up votes0 Down votes

1 views8 pagesDescribes the method of cofferdam excavation by FEA

Feb 13, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Describes the method of cofferdam excavation by FEA

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

Describes the method of cofferdam excavation by FEA

© All Rights Reserved

- Pressuremeter Test
- EN AW-6060-T6_(CES)
- Shi 2008 Engineering-Structures
- Design and Detailing of High Strength Concrete Columns
- ARCPRESS AJ Handbook of Building Structure - Part 4 - Foundations and Retaining Structures 5 of 12
- Fuctions of Geotextiles
- aci
- Pressure Meter
- 107-s34
- 01 - Shear Strength of Soils
- Comparison of Theoretical & ANSYS FEA
- BAI Free Spanning Pipeline
- Geotextiles 1.pdf
- SM1001_0913.pdf
- ISRM-4CONGRESS-1979-024_Dilatant Effects of Rock Joints
- Lecture 29 2
- Otc 19495
- Mat Chapter5.doc
- Respresenting Settlement for Soft Ground Tunneling
- 5_31855_278 New

You are on page 1of 8

Dimitrios C. Konstantakos, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, New York, NY, USA

methods that involve direct computations of active or apparent earth pressures.

However in contrast to finite element methods, traditional analyses can not

account for full soil-structure interaction. Because of their complexity, numerical

analyses are performed almost exclusively by computers. Recent theoretical

and computer advancements have made the use of the finite element method

much more user-friendly and affordable. General information about the basics of

the finite element method in geotechnical engineering and for cofferdam

excavations is presented. While knowledge of all the intricate theoretical and

computational details is not needed, the designer should at a minimum be aware

of the most important aspects of soil models. Most importantly, the designer

must have sufficient experience to be able to judge the relative “correctness” of

vast numerical results produced by today’s software programs. Hence, the

human factor is an irreplaceable component of finite element computations.

Cofferdams are enclosed temporary excavations cofferdam excavations.

that retain soil and water outside of a construction

site. Marine cofferdams typically provide temporary While in the majority of cofferdams it is not

excavation support for construction of bridge piers or necessary to conduct finite element analyses, it

other structures that have to be founded a would be beneficial to perform analyses in projects

considerable depth below water. In the majority of that require or involve any of the following:

cases, marine cofferdams comprise a system of a. Accurate determination of lateral

joining steel sheet piles braced by steel members. and vertical soil and wall

displacements.

Cofferdam excavations have been in use for a long b. Construction adjacent to sensitive

time. In most projects, cofferdams have been structures.

designed with conventional analysis methods, where c. Basal stability in soft clays.

the soil pressure distribution is based on limit d. Accurate groundwater modeling.

equilibrium theory (active – passive) or on empirical e. Unbalanced soil loading conditions.

pressure distributions (Peck 1969 and others). The f. Complicated soil profile and site

major disadvantage of “classical” approaches is that conditions.

the relation between soil pressures, wall g. Consideration of construction

displacements, and construction staging can not be staging effects.

captured. Here lies the “beauty” of finite element h. Full accountability of construction

methods. Literally, the finite element method is a staging.

divide and conquer approach to solving engineering i. Consolidation effects.

problems. This is achieved by descretizing the soil j. Considerable excavation depth (40

continuum and structural elements in basic elements ft or more)

where a known mathematical framework can be k. Three dimensional effects.

applied to assure force equilibrium and displacement

consistency. While performing such calculations and It would be impossible and impractical to cover every

setting the proper finite element mathematical aspect of geotechnical finite element modeling in

framework with hand calculations is possible, the this publication. Hence, the author aims to provide

task would be so daunting that an engineer could the reader with a basic understanding and a general

well spend his entire career solving one problem! approach of how finite element theory can be used

Hence, finite element problems have been to analyze cofferdam excavations.

traditionally solved with the aid of a computer.

Recent advancements in computer technology and Finite Element Basics

geotechnical modeling have made the use of finite The finite element method is a general systematic

computational procedure for approximately solving

problems in physics and engineering. The term finite

element method was coined in the late 1950s to

define the method for computer- based structural

analyses.

method involves dividing the soil and structures into

discrete elements that are easier to analyze. Then,

material properties and behavior are described by a Figure 2: Typical Matrix Equilibrium Set Up.

set of predefined models. Equilibrium and energy

numerical approximations are then used to simplify

the analysis and satisfy all necessary conditions for Soil Behavior & Stiffness Modeling

equilibrium. Thus by the nature of the method, it is One of the major challenges in geotechnical

unavoidable that all FE analyses will contain a engineering and soil structure interaction is the “true”

certain degree of numerical error. modeling of soil behavior. In this continuing effort,

many researchers have proposed various soil

models (Ref: ). Soil models basically comprise

mathematical frameworks that relate parameters

such as elasticity, stress, displacement, time, failure

criteria, and stress history. Most idealized soil

behavior can be described by a response included in

Figure 3. Most soil models used in finite element

analyses generally fall under or combine some of the

following categories:

Figure 1: Rectangular and triangular finite linearly with stress).

elements II. Linearly elastic-perfectly plastic (strain

increases linearly with stress until yielding

The most used types of discretized elements are occurs. Beyond yielding, stress remains the

rectangular and triangular elements as shown in same at increasing strain levels i.e. plastic

Figure 1. The governing equilibrium equations are behavior). These models offer a simple

always performed in matrix operations as idealization of soil behavior; however, they

demonstrated in Figure 2. However, for more may not capture correctly displacements near

complicated element types the matrix equations can yielding.

become extremely complicated and time consuming. III. Non linear models with strain hardening or

While matrix operations are daunting to most strain softening behavior. Almost all soil

engineers (including the author), the beauty of models used in practice can not capture strain

recent software developments is that the end user softening behavior.

never has to deal with the intricate details of each IV. Time dependent features for consolidation and

step by step matrix operation. Thus, research creep. Secondary displacements associated

centers and major finite element software with long term soil creep may have to be

organizations have effectively taken the considered when modeling soft clays. Soil

computational burden off the shoulders of practicing creep and consolidation are typically not

engineers. However, at a minimum, a user should significant issues in temporary works such as

be aware of the general manner in which the finite cofferdam excavations that are constructed

element method is applied by the software program within a short time span.

he or she decides to use because in this day and V. Different loading and unloading behavior.

age, it is almost unimaginable for anybody to Overconsolidated soils are typically stiffer

attempt solving a finite element problem by hand when loaded or unloaded to smaller stress

computations. levels than the maximum soil stress state

experienced in the past. In this region, soils

are slightly stiffer in the unloading mode than

in the loading mode (Figure 3). All soil models

known to the author that include unloading

behavior, model both loading and unloading

response as linear (in the unloaded region).

This behavior is a good approximation when

the load is not cycled between two stress

levels a significant number of times.

Unfortunately, no rational framework has been Clay strength is also influenced by the direction of

developed to properly model plastic soil loading (or loading mode). Naturally, clays Figure

straining from load cycling. greater undrained strength in compression than in

tension. When basal movements are involved, clays

may be compressed, sheared, and stretched as

shown in Figure 5. Unfortunately, this strength

anisotropy may not be properly captured by a single

set of parameters for most soil models. If anisotropy

plays a significant role, then one may have to

specify different soil strengths for the same soil layer

that describe the different loading mode strengths.

Unified advanced soil models such as the MIT-E3

soil model can account for soil anisotropy

(Kavvadas, 1989)

Behavior (Whittle, 2005)

Soil Strength

An equally important aspect of capturing soil

behavior is defining proper failure and yielding

criteria. Natural soils Figure considerably more

complicated yielding behavior than engineering

materials such as steel. Traditionally, soil strength

Figure 5: Models of soil behavior in an

has been described by a cohesive strength and an

excavation with basal movements.

internal frictional angle (Mohr, 1772). Depending on

the soil type, soil strength is strongly on the rate of

Typical Advanced Soil Models

loading (or unloading). For purely frictional soils

Capturing the “true” soil behavior is a significant

(sands) the rate of loadings has almost no effect

challenge. While simple linear-elastic-perfectly

(with the exception of intense earthquakes).

plastic models can produce reasonable first order

results, a more realistic response can be obtained

On the other hand, clays display different strength

by simulating soil as a non-linear material. In this

for short and long term loadings. The short term

respect, two of the most commonly advanced soil

loading strength behavior is also routinely referred to

models used in practice are:

as “undrained” strength behavior, and has been

a) Hyperbolic Soil Model by Duncan &

described by Skempton (1951) and others (Figure

Chang (1970), (called DC

4). Because of its low porosity and internal crystal

model).

electrical ionization forces, a clay soil does not allow

b) Hardening Soil Model by Vermeer

pore water to easily escape (i.e. drain) when it

(1978), Schanz (1998),

experiences a “fast” load change. As a result and

(called HS model).

because water is practically incompressible, excess

internal pore pressures develop that resist applied

Both models use a reference confining pressure to

load changes. Hence, initially there is little change in

define soil stiffness, however, whereas the DC

effective stress while the total stress level has

model uses the atmospheric pressure as a reference

changed.

(100 kPa, 2.04 ksf), in the HS model the reference

confining pressure is a variable. The models are also

similar in that they use hyperbolic shear stress-strain

formulations (Figure 6). One of the differences

between the two models, is that the DC model is

defined by the initial stiffness Ei while the HS model

uses the secant modulus E50 (at 50% of the ultimate

stress level). The two stiffness parameters can

easily be correlated to each other. A further similarity

Figure 4: Pore Pressure Parameters between the two soil models is they both simulate

(Skempton, 1951) unloading and reloading with a linearly elastic

stiffness response (Eur). In cofferdam excavations, Figure 7: Cap Surface

the unloading/reloading modulus is a very important

parameter since soils are unloaded laterally and While the HC and DC models are

vertically. In this respect, the linear modeling of the considered advanced soil models,

unloading/reloading behavior predicts slightly greater they both share similar

unloading and reloading strains. shortcomings. Most significantly,

strain softening behavior at very

large strains is not captured by any

of the two models. Another

limitation is that the cyclic loading

plastic strains (repeated

unloading/reloading between two

similar stress conditions) can not

be captured.

Selecting appropriate engineering properties of soil

Figure 6: Hyperbolic Stress materials for finite element analyses can be as

Strain Modeling challenging as performing finite element

computations by hand. As designers, we are

While both models use a hyperbolic loading confronted with a number of parameters that have to

response, the HS model can capture volume be selected. Adding to complexity, soil properties are

changes associated with dilation during shearing variable even in laboratory tests and a number of

that the DC soil model can not account for. This is factors can influence test results one way or the

achieved by hardening of the yield surface in other. As a result, considerable judgment is required

association with a flow rule that relates volumetric in selecting appropriate stiffness, strength, and

strains to shear strain together with the ultimate engineering soil parameters.

dilation angle. The theoretical background is based

on the critical state mechanics concept of the While there is no single best way to estimate soil

constant volume frictional angle that predicts shear parameters, a combination of in-situ and laboratory

resistance at large strains. Strain hardening can also tests generally provides data to estimate most

occur during compression loading as shown in desired parameters. Table 1 provides a list in-situ

Figure 7. The cap surface essentially defines a set of and laboratory soil tests that can be used to estimate

stress path combinations beyond which a soil would specific engineering soil parameters. From a quick

experience a loading response (for HS & DC models view of Table 1 one realizes that there is no single

this would be a hyperbolic behavior). If the stress test that can cover all soil properties. However, one

path retracts within the cap then the behavior will be should use caution with the standard penetration test

controlled by the unload/reload response of the soil (SPT). Engineering properties estimated with SPT

model (in HS & DC this is a linear elastic response). tests are highly speculative and should not be relied

Beyond the current maximum state of stress upon.

experienced by a soil, when compression is

increased and the stress path remains within the Table 1: Matrix relating model

Mohr-coulomb failure line, the cap expands typically parameters to soil investigation

as shown in Figure 7. For both the HS and DC (CUR 195, 2000)

models this cap surface is described by the equation

of an ellipse.

Figure 8: Estimation of secant

modulus of elasticity for sands

from cone penetration tests

(Brinkergreve, 2002)

Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) offer a more viable As discussed before, cohesive soil Figure time-

way to obtain engineering parameters, especially dependent response. For undrained loading, the

when results are calibrated against laboratory tests. modulus can be described by either the undrained

CPT can be especially useful in sands that are Young’s modulus Eu or the shear modulus G. The

difficult to sample and test in their natural state shear modulus actually describes the soil “skeleton”

without disturbance. For sands, stiffness parameters response, so it is independent of drainage

for sands can be estimated from published charts as conditions, all other factors being equal (Kulhawy &

shown in Figure 8. It is the author’s opinion that a Mayne, 1990). Duncan and Buchignani (1976) have

good balance of cone penetration tests and compiled a very useful chart for estimating the ratio

laboratory triaxial shear tests is the best way to of undrained secant modulus to undrained shear

estimate soil properties. The author is aware of sites strength of overconsolidated clays (Figure 9).

were more than 200 borings with SPT tests have

been completed over the last 60 years with no In cofferdams soil is primarily unloaded as the

proper soil tests have ever been conducted! When excavation progresses. Thus when hyperbolic soil

there are no available soil test data then parameters models are used, the predicted behavior is

can be estimated from available published controlled by the linear reload-unload modulus of

information. In this case, performing sensitivity elasticity (Eur). As a first order estimate Eur can be

analyses with varying strengths and stiffness taken as three to four times the secant modulus of

scenarios is probably a very good idea. elasticity E50 for sands, and as three to five times E50

for normally consolidated clays. Over-consolidated

clays typically have greater ratios of Eur/E50. Eur

should be estimated directly from test data when

possible.

IV. 2D vs. 3D: Although the main focus of this

paper is on two dimensional analyses, three

dimensional effects can be considerable in

cofferdam excavations of limited width. While

in engineering practice three dimensional

effects are typically ignored, one may be able

to obtain more economical designs if such

effects are included. However, despite the

increase in computational power 3D analyses

can still be very time consuming.

V. Engineering judgment: Ironically, one of the

most important aspects of finite element

analyses is the human factor. Once an

analysis has been performed, results must be

Figure 9: Generalized Undrained criticized with considerable judgment by a

Modulus Ratio versus OCR and qualified engineer with experience in actual

PI excavation behavior. Performing sensitivity

(Duncan & Buchignani, 1976) analyses also yields valuable insight. It is

always useful to compare finite element

Finite element modeling strategy results against conventional design methods.

Formulating an appropriate modeling strategy is In this respect, performing a conventional

essential in generating a finite element model that design bounds the problem and gives

“reasonably” captures the behavior of a cofferdam indications of expected finite element results.

excavation. In this respect the GIGO principle

applies to all finite element simulations (good input = Case Study analyzed with Finite Elements

good output). A good modeling strategy should A useful case study is presented in this section. The

include some of the following steps: cofferdam studied was constructed within the

I. Finite element model layout: Drawing a model reservoir pool of the Martin Manatee dam in

simplifies the thinking process and sometimes Manatee, Florida. The dam is 50 ft high earth filled

may reveal mechanisms of failure or other dam with a concrete face. A new intake structure

considerations that have to be taken into was to be constructed 5 ft from the tail of the dam.

account. In general, models should extend at This involved the construction of a 58 ft long by 39 ft

least two to three times the excavation depth wide cofferdam with the subgrade nearly 40 ft below

(or wall depth) beyond the excavation. When maximum water pool elevation (Figure 10). Ground

basal instability is an issue, the model depth movements caused by excavation and fill placement

should extend to a stiff boundary (such as had to be minimized in order to avoid breaching the

bedrock) and include all clay layers that dam and causing failure. Support of excavation was

contribute to basal movements. provided by three levels of stacked internal bracing

II. Soil parameters: Appropriate selection of soil that were slid into their design elevations.

strength and stiffness parameters from Excavation was performed in the wet and

laboratory or in-situ tests as described in the dewatering took place only after the base slab had

previous section. When soil tests are absent been poured and gained sufficient strength.

then parameters can be estimated from

published literature as first order estimates.

III. Construction staging: Finite element Soils at the site consist of cemented sands and a

models of cofferdam excavations should softer clay layer at 20 ft below subgrade. Available

accurately model construction staging by soil information did not include any laboratory

including all stages and construction activities strength tests on the soft clay layer. Hence, soil

affecting results. Typically, all multi-prop stiffness parameters had to be estimated using cone

excavations should include a cantilever stage penetration data performed on a nearby site using

and then subsequent installation of bracing published information (Figure 8).

and further excavation until final subgrade is

reached. When excavations in clay are Initial models indicated lateral soil movements in

modeled, it may be more appropriate to excess of 1.0 inch towards the excavation. Predicted

consider construction times between stages in settlements were even greater due to rip rap being

the analysis. In some cases it may be prudent placed on top of the existing dam behind the

to include ground modifying effects such as jet sheeting. While it was recognized that the problem

grout installation and soil loses where was inherently three dimensional, the owner was

appropriate. very risk averse. As a result, full three dimensional

effects were not incorporated into the finite element

analyses. The finite element model showed that

replacing the rip rap with a light fill would

significantly minimize predicted wall and soil

movements (LF in Figure 11).

monitored with a number of settlement monitoring

points and inclinometers. Practically no soil

movements were registered. Predicted lateral sheet

pile movements after the base slab had been poured

and the cofferdam dewatered were in the order to

0.5 inches. This discrepancy in predictions and Figure 10: Cofferdam during construction

measurements can be attributed mainly to three

factors: a) three dimensional soil behavior was

ignored, b) Sand cementation was ignored, and c)

the soft clay layer in all likelihood is not continuous

and is interbedded with sand and silt. Figure 12

shows typical soil predicted movement patterns after

the excavation has been dewatered. Estimated

lateral displacements were in the order of 0.5

inches.

Figure 12: Sample predicted soil displacements with 2D finite element analysis.

While significant progress and achievements have Geotechnical Constructions”, Part 3, Centre for Civil

been made in the field of geotechnical finite element Engineering Research and Codes, April 2000, CUR,

mechanics, further advancements are necessary. Gouda, The Netherlands

On the practical side, as computational power

increases it is expected that three dimensional Duncan, J.M. and Chang, C. –Y., “Nonlinear

software programs will be come increasingly popular Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils”, Journal of the

and more affordable. On the theory, further research Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,

is required to formulate models that capture soil Vol. 96, No. SM5, Sept. 1970, pp. 1629-1653

softening, and cycling unload-reload behavior. The

continuation of benchmarking efforts is essential to Duncan, J.M. and Buchignani, A. L., “An

the acceptance and modification of finite element Engineering Manual for Settlement Studies”,

methods in geotechnical engineering. Department of Civil Engineering, University of

California, Berkley, June 1976, 94p.

Not all aspects of finite element modeling have been

covered in this article. Numerous publications Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P. W., “Manual on

discuss practical and theoretical aspects in much Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design”,

greater detail. The author encourages the interested Cornell University, 1990, Geotechnical Engineering

reader to further investigate as many relating Group, EL-6800, Research Project 1493-6

publications as possible. One should keep in mind

that there is no single answer to geotechnical Skempton, A.W., "The Bearing Capacity of Clays",

problems and especially finite element analyses. It is 1951, Proc. Building Research Congress, vol. 1, pp.

almost certain that two different analysts will in all 180-189.

likelihood produce two different results for the same

problem. Hence, human judgment is by far the most Vermeer, P.A., “A Double Hardening Model for

important aspect of finite element analyses of Sand”, 1978, Géotechnique 28, No.4, 413 - 433

cofferdam excavations.

Whittle, A. J., “Computational Geotechnics; New

References York ,January 2005”, 2005, Plaxis Course Material,

New York, NY.

Brinkergreve, R.B.J., Vermeer. P.A., “PLAXIS –

Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses”,

1998, Users Manual – Version 7 for Windows 95/NT.

A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

2002, Plaxis B.V., The Netherlands

- Pressuremeter TestUploaded bySudeep Sharma
- EN AW-6060-T6_(CES)Uploaded byChris
- Shi 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Design and Detailing of High Strength Concrete ColumnsUploaded byjiminy07
- ARCPRESS AJ Handbook of Building Structure - Part 4 - Foundations and Retaining Structures 5 of 12Uploaded bygimusi
- Fuctions of GeotextilesUploaded bySENTHIL KUMAR
- aciUploaded byemonwre
- Pressure MeterUploaded bywadalarbab
- 107-s34Uploaded byWael Kassem
- 01 - Shear Strength of SoilsUploaded byqaiseriqbal
- Comparison of Theoretical & ANSYS FEAUploaded byrbachalli
- BAI Free Spanning PipelineUploaded byElendu Emmanuel Chigozie
- Geotextiles 1.pdfUploaded byDian_Sipil
- SM1001_0913.pdfUploaded byHitesh Sadani
- ISRM-4CONGRESS-1979-024_Dilatant Effects of Rock JointsUploaded bycastille1956
- Lecture 29 2Uploaded byArun Goyal
- Otc 19495Uploaded byPablo Cesar Trejo
- Mat Chapter5.docUploaded byhemant_durgawale
- Respresenting Settlement for Soft Ground TunnelingUploaded byRenish Regi
- 5_31855_278 NewUploaded byTuroy
- Characterization of Fault ZonesUploaded byTony Chan
- 05feb Lec Fred7Uploaded bySameer Shashwat
- Liquefaction - NPTEL.pdfUploaded byioan_nebunu
- CIV4218 - Assignment #1 - Methods of DesignUploaded byJonathan
- 7 - Bearing CapacityUploaded byTamunosaki Awolayeofori
- Theory and Practice of the Fall Cone TestUploaded bysivabathy
- Msc Lab Report_draft (Kostas)Uploaded byKostas Symeonidis
- Mechanical PropertiesUploaded byAnonymous D1iXkgR
- A State-Dependent Critical State Model for Methane Hydrate-bearing SandUploaded byFomalhaut Aditya
- ISRM-11CONGRESS-2007-155.pdfUploaded byCyrillus Arthur Saputra

- B paper IESLUploaded byJanaka Dinesh
- 2010-02-01 Piteau Report PSI & DSI - Combined Stage 2Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 2010-02-01 Report Confirmation of Remediation (2)Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Solutii Moderne Si Eficiente de Stabilizare a Terenurilor de Fundare _ RevisUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 1.43.3.1 2009 Hartland Landfill Groundwater Surface Water and Leachate Monitoring Program ReportUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Digester sUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 01 14 2016 SWCRR Traffic Analysis Pavement SupportUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Traffic Analysis Pavement SupportUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Append-I Traffic AnalysisUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- SWCRR Functional Planning Review - Noise Report r6Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- nhi16009_v3Uploaded byAmanda Cervantes
- Bridge Design ExampleUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 10 Design Loads on Bridges _ Highway & Rail Bridge _ Miscellaneous Loads - EUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- AW MEM T 10 0004 Infiltration Gallery Seepage 20160808 R01Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 016562-5310-43EB-HE-0002-00_Design Calculation 5-S10_2007-11-21Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- BiosolidsMgmtPlanByStantecBandCUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- BiosolidsMgmtPlanByStantecBandCUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- CIVL354 Notes 4 SeepageUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- seepage-3Uploaded byahmad
- Bltn 015 CulvertsUploaded byHans Hans Sadz
- Culvert Design ManualUploaded byMahmoud Al Nouss
- 735-1662030100-MEM-R0001-00 Site Investigation 2017 03 17 MudbayUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Paper OsorioUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 2017Standard Tender Documents for Unit Price Contracts Vol2Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 2017Standard Tender Documents for Unit Price Contracts Vol1Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Biosolids Management Feasibility StudyUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- Bedrock DepthsUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- 1.13.12-Appendix I - CRD Solid Waste Stream Composition Study 2009-2010 Final ReportUploaded byAdrian Frantescu
- DNV HUP signed V1.1Uploaded byAdrian Frantescu

- Analysis of Piles for Negative Skin FrictionUploaded bySanjay Raj
- 002.Kevin FisherUploaded bymitch980
- 6. IJCE - Failures Modes - Alaa W. HameedUploaded byiaset123
- Shear WallUploaded byZeus Ghosh
- Physics Notes Class 11 Chapter 9 Mechanical Properties of SolidsUploaded byBasharat Hunzai
- Evavluation of the .....Resilent ModulusUploaded byAna Beatriz Postigo Farfan
- Brinkgreve&Kappert&Bonnier2007Uploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Shen Yunlu 200903 MASc ThesisUploaded byBimal Baral
- PileCap_Large_R1.pdfUploaded byTharanga Pradeep
- How to Calculate Flat Plate Thickness of Flat Bottom Storage TankUploaded byInamullah Khan
- Low Node DensityUploaded byanu swami
- MECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF GLASS-BANANA FIBER WITH ALUMINIUM POWDER HYBRID COMPOSITEUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Press Working Operations - Sheet MetalUploaded byDean Dattha
- Crane Beam DesignUploaded byTharanga Pradeep
- Chapter 7 DislocationsUploaded byKiran Babu Satuluri
- SPE-119509-PA-PUploaded byOrtiz Catalina
- Technical DataUploaded byAnonymous Q7ELJ5T
- 10m Slab BridgeUploaded byYosef Kiros
- Girder Design 16.0Uploaded byprabhu
- Chapter-5 Design MethodUploaded byneelagaantan
- teknologi struktur betonUploaded byMauvil Sulinci
- Buckling 04Uploaded bythanzawtun1981
- Soil Compaction & ConsistencyUploaded byShekh Muhsen Uddin Ahmed
- Headed Bolt Anchor Design using ACI 318-14 Chapter 17 and Quick AnchorUploaded byBodhi Rudra
- chapter 3.pdfUploaded byCrystalLeeTing
- Hertz Contact StressesUploaded byVuiKuan
- Lecture 21Uploaded bySatish Kumar
- The Modular Ratio in Reinforced Concrete Design (Manuscript). a.KUploaded bynidduzzi
- Guidelines for Structural USe of Reinforced MasonryUploaded byStructEngResearcher
- Sd Article 52Uploaded byMustafa Moussaoui

## Much more than documents.

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

Cancel anytime.