1 views

Uploaded by Raja Rajan

© All Rights Reserved

- Behavior of Composite Steel-Concrete Girders in Fire Condition
- 40581787 Advance Soil Mechanics
- Elastic Plastic Materials
- PLAXIS3DF_material.pdf
- Bolt Tightness Turbine
- Çelik Çaprazlarla Bina Güçlendirmesi
- SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION.pptx
- Abaqus Tutorial 01
- Design Calc s Manual
- Temperature Effects in ACI 307, ACI 349, And ACI 359
- Elasticity Viscosity Theory E
- A 403367
- Stress-strain Material Laws
- World Nuclear Association_2017 - Non-Linear Analysis Design Rules_Part 1 Code Comparison
- PHD Thesis on Chalk by Lake1975
- SM1001_0913.pdf
- 10.1023@A@1017550008584.pdf
- Connections
- The Effects of Heat Treatment on the Microstructure and Cyclic Behavior of A7N01-T4 Aluminum Alloy
- pdf-5

You are on page 1of 10

1 Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai;

e-mail: 25.george@gmail.com

2 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,

Mumbai; e-mail: dasaka@civil.iitb.ac.in

ABSTRACT

The use of contiguous pile walls for deep excavation supporting system has become common in

geotechnical engineering practice around the world. The implementation of contiguous piles (piles with a

gap between them) for deep excavation support is most suitable for cohesive soil, where ground water table

is located below the base of excavation. The Soil Arching plays an important role in stabilizing the soil in

between the adjacent piles. The Mohr-Coulomb model is routinely used in the numerical analysis of deep

excavations, due to its simplicity. Use of an advanced soil model may be prudent to capture realistic soil

response during the excavation process. The Hardening Soil model is an effective and better model to

simulate the real soil behavior in terms of stress dependency, non-linearity and inelasticity. The present

study highlights salient advantages of Hardening Soil model over Mohr-Coulomb model in the numerical

modelling of deep excavation supporting system using discrete piles with a gap between them.

INTRODUCTION

The demand of deep excavations in the case of basements of high-rise buildings, tunnel stations,

underground parking and other underground structures is progressively increasing over the years. Sheet pile

walls and concrete diaphragm walls are popular forms for deep excavation supports in soft soil.

Furthermore, soldier pile and lagging walls, reinforced concrete (cast-in-situ or prefabricated) retaining

walls and jet-grout walls (or deep soil mixing) with anchors or struts are also being used as deep excavation

support system. Various factors affecting the selection of deep excavation support system are size of

excavation, ground water level, settlement of adjacent ground, soil properties and displacement criterion.

Recent advancement in area of deep excavations is the replacement of traditional deep excavation support

systems with contiguous piles (Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon 2017; Gaba et. al. 2003). This application

of contiguous pile walls for deep excavation support is most suitable for cohesive soil where ground water

table is below the excavation level. The wall consists of discrete column piles with a gap between them and

these piles are typically installed into the ground before the excavation.

The phenomenon of soil arching contributes to the stability of soil mass between the adjacent piles in

contiguous pile wall system. Application of piles for deep excavation support resembles the active trapdoor

mechanism, but in the horizontal direction. Many researchers (Evans 1983; Costa et al. 2009; Smith 2012;

Iglesia et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2017) had carried out experimental studies on soil arching mechanism to

understand the transfer of stress from yielding portion of geo-material to the stationary portion using

conventional trapdoors. The deformation characteristics at the soil gap between the laterally loaded piles

used in slope stabilization and deep excavation support were studied in the past few decades (Ito and Matsui

1975; Vermeer et al. 2001; Haema and Tanseng 2010; Richards et al. 2016; Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon

2017). The aim of the present study is to further understand the behaviour of anchored contiguous pile wall

used for deep excavation support, by employing numerical modelling using PLAXIS 3D. Two constitutive

models, viz. Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil models have been used in the present study. The study

also aims to highlight salient advantages of Hardening Soil model over Mohr-Coulomb model in numerical

modelling of the particular problem.

The Mohr-Coulomb is a linear elastic-perfectly plastic model, which can be used as first approximation of

soil behavior. The soil behavior will be elastic and obeys Hook’s law for isotropic linear elasticity for the

stress states within yield surface. Hence, the real soil behaviour of stress dependency on the elastic stiffness

cannot be depicted using Mohr-Coulomb model.

Figure 1 shows the stress-strain behavior of real soil and the patterns, which can be observed using Mohr-

Coulomb and Hardening Soil models.

σ σ σ

ε ε ε

model model

Figure 1. Stress-strain behaviour of real soil, MC soil and HS soil

Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion comprises of six yield functions (Equations 1-6), which are derived in the

form of principal stresses and the model parameters cohesion, C and friction angle, Φ (Smith and Griffiths

1982).

251

The criteria, fi = 0 for all yield functions together represents a hexagonal cone on principal stress space as

shown in Figure 2a.

Hardening Soil model is an advanced soil model to simulate the behaviour of different types of soil, both

stiff soils and soft soils (Schanz 1998, Brinkgreve et al. 2004). Nonlinear, inelastic and stress dependent

behaviour of soil can be captured using Hardening soil model. The variation of elastic stiffness with the

stress is taken into account in the Hardening Soil model, whereas the elastic stiffness is considered as

constant value in Mohr-Coulomb model. The yield surfaces are not fixed on principal stress space, but can

expand as the soil undergoes plastic straining. The Hardening Soil model supersedes the Mohr-Coulomb

model: firstly by using the theory of plasticity rather than theory of elasticity; secondly by including soil

dilatancy; and thirdly by introducing a yield cap. Some basic characteristics of the Hardening Soil model

and its input parameters for the numerical modelling are shown in Table 1.

Basic characteristics Input parameters

Stress dependent stiffness according to a power law m

Plastic straining due to primary deviatoric loading E

Plastic straining due to primary compression E

Elastic unloading / reloading E ,

Failure according to Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion C, Φ, ψ

The hyperbolic relationship (Figure 3) between the vertical strain, ε1, and the deviatoric stress, q, in primary

triaxial loading is the basic idea for the formulation of Hardening Soil model. The yield curves obtained

from a standard triaxial test can be described by:

−ε = ⁄

for q < q (7)

qa is asymptotic value of shear strength and Ei is the initial stiffness which is related to E50 by:

E = (8)

̕

E =E (9)

E is a reference stiffness modulus corresponding to a reference confining pressure, pref. The ultimate

deviatoric stress, qf and the quantity qa in Equation 7 are defined as:

q = (11)

For unloading and the reloading stress paths, another stress dependent stiffness modulus is used:

̕

E =E (12)

Eur is the reference Young’s modulus for unloading and reloading, corresponding to reference pressure, pref.

In many practical cases, it is appropriate to set E equal to 3E .

252

The Hardening Soil model has two yielding surfaces as shown in Figure 4. The first one deals with the

yielding due to shear stress and the second one handles the expansion of the cap due to changes in mean

effective stress, p΄. The 3-dimensional yield surface is shown in Figure 2b.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Yield surface in principal stress space:

(a) Mohr-Coulomb model (After Smith and Griffiths 1982)

(b) Hardening Soil model (After Brinkgreve et al. 2004)

Figure 3. Hyperbolic stress-strain behaviour in primary loading for a standard drained triaxial test (After

Duncan and Chung 1970)

Figure 4. Illustration of double yield surfaces of HS model (After Brinkgreve et al. 2004)

253

NUMERICAL MODELLING

The number of case studies available on the application of contiguous pile wall for deep excavation support

reported is very limited. However, its successful implementation as deep excavation support system is

frequently done in Santiago, Chile (Saez and Ledezma 2011; Prado et al. 2012). Deep excavation of 26

meters depth supported by contiguous piles of 0.8 m diameter and 0.5 m clear gap between them is

numerically modelled in the present study using Plaxis 3D. The soil profiles are modeled using both Mohr-

Coulomb and Hardening Soil model and the results are compared. The contiguous piles are modelled as

linearly elastic non-porous material. Piles are supported by three layers of anchors at depths 6 m, 13 m and

20 m. These supporting anchors are modelled using embedded pile element for the grouted part and node-

to-node anchor element for un-grouted part. A fines content of 3%, with a plastic index between 5 and 20

and coarse grains of up to 30 cm of nominal size (Rodriguez-Roa 2000) characterize the Santiago gravel.

A 1.5–3.0 m thick deposit of low-plasticity clay of medium to high consistency overlies this gravel deposit.

From the ground surface down to a depth of 5–7 m, the gravel contains low-plasticity silty fines, with a

cohesion of about 20 kPa, and an angle of internal friction of 45º. The upper gravel layer is known as the

second deposit of the Mapocho River. Below this stratum, there is a denser gravelly deposit with a very

similar particle-size distribution. Many authors (Kort et al. 1979; Ortigosa et al. 1982; Rodríguez-Roa 2000;

De la Hoz 2007) studied the mechanical properties of this material. The ground water table observed at the

site is at a depth of around 22 m. Soil layers and piles are modelled by 10-node tetrahedral elements and

12-node interface elements to model pile-soil interface. 302921 elements and 425303 nodes were generated

to model the site of dimensions 30 m x 14 m x 40 m (length x width x depth) and is shown in Figure 5a.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Numerical modeling:

(a) Finite element meshing;

(b) 13 phases of 26 m deep excavation (soil layers are hidden to show the contiguous pile wall and supporting

anchors).

254

Excavation process is replicated numerically by a thirteen-phase process:

Phase 1 – Installation of piles.

Phase 2 – Excavating up to 3 m depth.

Phase 3 – Excavating up to 6 m depth.

Phase 4 – Installation of first layer of anchors at 6 m depth.

Phase 5 – Excavating up to 9 m depth.

Phase 6 – Excavating up to 12 m depth.

Phase 7 – Excavating up to 15 m depth.

Phase 8 – Installation of second layer of anchors at 13 m depth.

Phase 9 – Excavating up to 18 m depth.

Phase 10 – Excavating up to 21 m depth.

Phase 11 – Installation of third layer of anchors at 20 m depth.

Phase 12 – Excavating up to 24 m depth.

Phase 13 – Excavating up to 26 m depth.

Soil elements (Points P1, P2 and P3) at the midway between the piles at different depths (5 m, 10 m and 20

m), which are adjacent to the exposed face of excavation are taken into consideration (Figure 6). The

variation of lateral stresses in the direction of flow of soil (σxx) and the variation of Young’s modulus (E)

with the phases of excavation are illustrated in Figure 7.

In the Mohr-Coulomb model, soil remains elastic until the stress state of the soil reaches yield surface.

Upon reaching the yield surface, it switches to plastic state. However, the real soil behaviour is elastic-

plastic (i.e. nonlinear) even before approaching the yield surface. The Hardening Soil model captures this

nonlinear behaviour by varying the Young’s modulus during primary loading. Figure 7 depicts the variation

in stiffness in Hardening Soil model whereas the stiffness is constant in the Mohr-Coulomb model.

255

35 1.80E+05

1.60E+05

30

1.40E+05

Stress in x-direction, σxx (kN/m2)

25 1.20E+05

20 1.00E+05

8.00E+04

15 6.00E+04

10 4.00E+04

2.00E+04

5

0.00E+00

0 0 5 10 15

0 5 10 15 Phase of Excavation

Phase of Excavation

(a)

100 2.50E+05

Stress in x-direction, σxx (kN/m2)

80 2.00E+05

60

1.50E+05

40

1.00E+05

20

0 5.00E+04

0 5 10 15

0.00E+00

Phase of Excavation

0 5 10 15

Phase of Excavation

(b)

200.00 2.50E+05

Young's Modulus, E (kN/m2)

Stress in x-direction, σxx (kN/m2)

150.00 2.00E+05

1.50E+05

100.00

1.00E+05

50.00

5.00E+04

0.00

0.00E+00

0 5 10 15

0 5 10 15

Phase of Excavation

Phase of Excavation

(c)

Figure 7. Variation of lateral stress (σxx) and Young’s modulus (E) at the soil gap between the piles

with the phases of excavation: (a) at 5 meter depth; (b) at 10 m depth; and (c) at 20 m depth.

256

Modelling of Stress-dependent stiffness in HS model

The nonlinearity in stress-strain behaviour in the Hardening Soil model in turn depicts the stress dependency

of Young’s modulus. As the stage wise excavation is progressed, the lateral stresses on the soil elements at

the gaps between the adjacent piles get relieved from top to bottom, up to the depth of excavation. This

reduction in the lateral stresses in the direction of soil flow, with the stages of excavation is illustrated in

Figure 7. The stress dependency of the soil stiffness in the Hardening Soil model can be evidenced in the

graph, whereas the Young’s modulus remains constant when Mohr-Coulomb model is adopted.

An elastic Mohr-Coulomb soil sample may produce improper response for certain stress paths. From Figure

8b, it can be noted that the strain in the direction of deformation of soil at 10 m depth increases from

excavation stage 2 to 4 and then drastically decreases to a negative value in excavation stage 5. This

behaviour is not observed in numerical model with the Hardening Soil model and in the field as well. Also,

more heaving is observed at the excavation side when the Mohr-Coulomb model is used.

0.0004 0.001

0.00035

Strain in x-direction, εxx

0.0003 0.0005

0.00025

0.0002 0

0.00015 0 5 10 15

0.0001 -0.0005

0.00005

-0.001

0

-0.00005 0 5 10 15

Phase of Excavation

-0.0015

Phase of Excavation

(a) (b)

0.0012

Strain in x-direction, εxx

0.001

0.0008 Mohr- Coulomb model

0.0006

0.0004 Hardening Soil model

0.0002

0

-0.0002 0 5 10 15

Phase of Excavation

(c)

Figure 8. Variation of lateral strain (εxx) at the soil gap between the piles with the phases of excavation:

(a) at 5 meter depth; (b) at 10 m depth; and (c) at 20 m depth.

257

Mohr-Coulomb model - Effect of Poisson’s ratio

The uncertainty in the value of Poisson’s ratio may not affect the results to a larger extent in numerical

model with Hardening Soil model. As the Hardening Soil model is nonlinear elastic-plastic model, the

plastic strain component is not affected by the Poission’s ratio. Poisson’s ratio affects only the elastic strain

component. By varying the Poisson’s ratio from 0.2 to 0.4, the lateral deflection of contiguous pile wall is

doubled.

In numerical modelling, the deformations are obtained from the ratio of stress to soil stiffness. The soil

stiffness may increase or decrease with the nature of stress path. This variation in stiffness which happens

in reality will not be taken into consideration for computing the deformations of soil when Mohr-Coulomb

model is used. The Hardening Soil model accounts for this variation in stiffness and hence give more

accurate values of deformations.

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuous piles are frequently being used for deep excavation support, mainly for cohesive soils with

water level deep below the ground surface. Numerical modelling is carried out in the present work

replicating contiguous pile wall system used in Santiago, Chile. The Mohr-Coulomb and the Hardening

Soil models are used to model the soil layers and a comparative study is presented. The Mohr Coulomb

model assumes soil to be elastic perfectly plastic and is commonly used to model soil behaviour. The

Hardening Soil model is a second order nonlinear, elastic-plastic model which nearly predicts the real soil

behaviour. As stress-dependency of stiffness is taken into account in the Hardening Soil model, it

overcomes many of the shortcomings of Mohr-Coulomb model.

REFERENCES

construction- a numerical study.” Proceedings NUMOG IX. pp: 631-637.

2. Costa, Y. D., Zornberg, J. G., Bueno, B. S. and Costa, C. L. (2009). “Failure mechanisms in sand

over a deep active trapdoor.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1741

(53).

3. De La Hoz, K. (2007). Estimación de los parámetros de resistencia al corte en suelos granulares

gruesos. Tesis de Magister en Ciencias de la Ingeniería, Universidad de Chile (in Spanish).

4. Duncan, J. M., and Chang, C. Y. (1970). “Non linear analysis of stress and strainin soil.” ASCE

Journal of Soil Mechanis and Foundation. 96, pp: 113-118.

5. Evans, C. H. (1983). “An examination of arching in granular soils.” M.Sc. Thesis.

6. Gaba, A. R., Simpson, B., Powrie, W., and Beadman, D. R. (2003). “Embedded retaining walls z

guidance for economic design.” London: CIRIA.

7. Haema, W. and Tanseng, P. (2010). “Influence of pile spacing on soil resistance of contiguous

bored pile wall.” The 21th National Convention on Civil Engineering, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand.

8. Iglesia, G. R., Eienstein, H. H. and Whitman, R. V. (2013). “Investigation of soil arching with

centrifuge tests.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(2).

9. Ito, T., and Matsui, T. (1975). “Methods to estimate lateral force acting on stabilizing piles.” Soils

258

and Foundations, 15 (4), 43-59.

10. Keawsawasvong, S. and Ukritchon, B. (2017). Undrained limiting pressure behind soil gaps in

contiguous pile walls. Computers and Geotechnics 83: 152–158.

11. Kort, I., Musante, H., and Fahrenkrog, C. (1979) “In situ mechanical properties measurements of

gravelly soil used in an interaction and foundation model for the Santiago Metro.” Proceedings of

the 6th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Perú, 217-224.

12. Nethero, M. F. (1982). “Slide control by drilled pier walls. In Application of walls to landslide

control problems.” Edited by Reeeves, R. B., American Society of Civil Engineers, pp: 61-76.

13. Ortigosa, P., Musante, H. and Kort, I. (1982) “Propiedades mecánicas de la grava de Santiago.” 1°

Congreso Chileno deIngeniería Geotécnica, Santiago: 442-54, 1982 (in spanish).

14. Pardo, G., Saez, E. and Ledezma, C. (2012) “Seismic response of a pile supported excavation on

Santiago gravel” 15 WCEE, Lisboa

15. Poulous, H. G (1995). “Design of Reinforcing piles to Increase Slope Stability.” Canadian

Geotechnical Journal. 32: 808-818.

16. Richards, D. J., Wiggan, C. A. and Powrie, W. (2016). “Seepage and pore pressures around

contiguous pile retaining walls.” Geotechnique 66, No. 7 : 523-532.

17. Rodríguez-Roa, F. (2000). “Observed and calculated load-settlement relationship in a sandy

gravel.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 333-342.

18. Rollins, K. M., and Rollins, R. L. (1992). “Landslide stabilisation using drilled shaft walls.” Edited

by Geddes, J. D. Ground movements and structures. vol 4,pp: 755-770.

19. Saez, E. and Ledezma, C. (2011) “Dynamic presures on pile-supported excavations in Santiago

Gravel” 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile.

20. Sharafi, H. and Sojoudi, Y. (2016). “Experimental and Numerical Study of Pile-Stabilized Slopes

Under Surface Load Conditions” International Journal of Civil Engineering.

21. Smith, C. C. (2012). “Limit loads for a shallow anchor/trapdoor embedded in a nonassociative

Couilomb soil.” International Journal of Soil Mechanics, 62(7):563-571.

22. Smith, I. M. and Griffiths, D. V. (1982) “Programming the Finite Element Method.” Wiley and

Sons, Chisester,U. K, second edition.

23. Sommer, H. (1977). “Creeping slope in a stiff clay.” Proceedings Special Session No. 10, 9th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo. pp: 113-118.

24. Vermeer, P. A., Punlor, A. and Ruse, N. (2001). Arching effects behind a soldier pile wall.

Computers and Geotechnics 28: 379-396.

25. Wang, L., Leshchinsky, B., Evans, T. M. and Xie, Y. (2017). “Active and passive arching stress in

C’-Φ’ soils: A sensitivity study using computational limit analysis.” Computers and

Geotechniques, 84: 47-57.

259

- Behavior of Composite Steel-Concrete Girders in Fire ConditionUploaded byMaher Elabd
- 40581787 Advance Soil MechanicsUploaded byMichael Assefa
- Elastic Plastic MaterialsUploaded byRejita Pillai
- PLAXIS3DF_material.pdfUploaded bylee
- Bolt Tightness TurbineUploaded byAbdulyunus Amir
- Çelik Çaprazlarla Bina GüçlendirmesiUploaded byBeratErtekin
- SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION.pptxUploaded byafsajghfd1
- Abaqus Tutorial 01Uploaded byapi-3869476
- Design Calc s ManualUploaded byGustav
- Temperature Effects in ACI 307, ACI 349, And ACI 359Uploaded bymrswcecivil
- Elasticity Viscosity Theory EUploaded byvuppalasampath
- A 403367Uploaded byNguyen Chau Lan
- Stress-strain Material LawsUploaded byamardones
- World Nuclear Association_2017 - Non-Linear Analysis Design Rules_Part 1 Code ComparisonUploaded bymicver_00
- PHD Thesis on Chalk by Lake1975Uploaded bygaurave999
- SM1001_0913.pdfUploaded byHitesh Sadani
- 10.1023@A@1017550008584.pdfUploaded byAparna Kadam
- ConnectionsUploaded byberto2008
- The Effects of Heat Treatment on the Microstructure and Cyclic Behavior of A7N01-T4 Aluminum AlloyUploaded byDung Xuan
- pdf-5Uploaded byJames Bund
- Finite Element Analysis of Steel Beam to Column Connections Subjected to Blast LoadsUploaded byUzair Maqbool Khan
- 1-s2.0-S0143974X16300062-mainUploaded byLeonardo Mora
- M&MUploaded byMad Catey
- chap2Uploaded byPradeepLokhande
- 4(1)Uploaded byvnkat
- 9781107400252_frontmatterUploaded byapple.scotch.fool3550
- Chapter 10 - US - final solutions.pdfUploaded byCristhianCoveñasCoveñas
- ReportUploaded bySyafiq Shaffiai
- j Seg 141329597000Uploaded byJacky_LEOLEO
- Brittle Damage and Interlaminar Decohesion in Orthogonal MicromachiningUploaded byjust me

- SP038 G&P Pile Test SpecUploaded byLeed EN
- Soilmec SR 60Uploaded byRaja Rajan
- Long Intl Construction Contract Notice LettersUploaded byMohammad Syeduzzaman
- 04-10BishnoiUploaded byRaja Rajan
- SpringUploaded bypontiacce
- Brunel Flyer v2 MumbaiUploaded byRaja Rajan
- 04-12GuptaUploaded byRaja Rajan
- 04-05KranthikumarUploaded byRaja Rajan
- 04-11YohannanUploaded byRaja Rajan
- 04-06AlexanderUploaded byRaja Rajan
- Steel Pipe Piles 1999Uploaded byvothephuong
- Appc Soil Properties 718Uploaded bypinkuru
- Technical NoteFunction of a WasherUploaded byRaja Rajan
- Function-of-a-Washer-in-a-Bolted-Joint.pdfUploaded byAshok Kumar
- 04-04VigneshUploaded byRaja Rajan
- 04-03GerressenUploaded byRaja Rajan
- 04-02Idiculla.PDFUploaded byRaja Rajan
- HSDT Test SpecificationUploaded byRaja Rajan
- 1st Bulletin 1Uploaded byRaja Rajan
- 11020Uploaded byRaja Rajan
- DesignOfUnderReemedPiles-ICI Bulletin-1994.pdfUploaded byRaja Rajan
- Photo Album (1)Uploaded byRaja Rajan
- Vision India 2020Uploaded byRaja Rajan
- Discussion on Topic Structural AuditingUploaded byRaja Rajan
- Brunel Word Flyer v2 MumbaiUploaded byRaja Rajan
- Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Worked examplesUploaded byPanagiotis Xanthos
- Construction on Soft SoilUploaded byDyah Chandra Kartika Sesunan

- Vibration AnalysisUploaded bySangolla Narahari
- Classical Dynamics for a System of ParticlesUploaded bysollun3
- Shell Momentum BalancesUploaded byMXR-3
- Center of Gravity Lab ReportUploaded byHarlynn Joy Salmeo
- Exp2 - Impact of a JetUploaded byMuhammad Izzat Azim
- analise fadigaUploaded byoliveiralauro
- 1.SOM Objective by S K MondalUploaded byAnshul Tiwari
- Coupling Potential UnbalanceUploaded byJarot Prakoso
- CHONG Alecs KT - Phd ThesisUploaded byaktc
- Effect of pole embrace on the cogging torque and unbalanced magnetic forces of BLDC motors .pdfUploaded bySorn Darong
- Radial Viscous Flow between Two Parallel Annular PlatesUploaded byKyi Htin Paw
- 2nd Law Analysis for a Control VolumeUploaded bySergey Shkapov
- On the Dynamic Properties of a Conveyor Belt and Its DriveUploaded bySanjiv Kumar Singh
- Chart for Factor B of CSUploaded bynguyenvanphu1977
- Friction Between Belt and PulleyUploaded byDan Wolf
- question on dimension 11.docxUploaded byMantu Das
- HW 2 SolnsUploaded byGeorge Livingston Graham
- Automatic Control of Aircraft & Missile - Blake LockUploaded byewiontko
- Horizontal Shear StressUploaded byGan Chin Phang
- Thermodynamic Property Predictions With the Trebble-Bishnoi EOSUploaded byGeorge Missak
- 53244919 Flexural Comparison of the ACI 318 08 and AASHTO LRFD StructuralUploaded byZhili Quan
- Totul Despre LanturiUploaded bytamasradu
- Flust-extended End Plate ConnectionUploaded byamachmouchi
- Physics Study Guide WikibooksUploaded bysmeena
- Mech 6441 PresoUploaded byliton
- tpl12987Uploaded byArslan Arshad
- Lorentz ForceUploaded bysreekarw
- ESOL.pdfUploaded byicemage1991
- Chapter_7_05.pdfUploaded byShoshAlmazroeui
- Section Modulus & Stress Calculation of Rail SectionUploaded byfiemsabyasachi