38 vues

Transféré par Hemant Yadav

plane failure

- Design Guidelines - Rock Riprap
- 471-482_Stefanussen
- 41
- coeficientes sismicos
- STABILITY.pdf
- Introduction to RocPlane
- 2010 Modeling DeepXcav Training 1
- Temporary Stability of Steep Noncemented and Lightly Cemented Soil Slopes
- Effect Of High Confining Pressure On The Behaviour Of Fibre Reinforced Sand
- ohiou1205248711.pdf
- 16525005
- OpenSeesPL_UserManual
- Soil Engineering
- Large Scale Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining_A Review
- Datos Geofisicos
- Chapter 13
- Tension Crack
- FHWA Drilled Shafts; Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods APP-C
- H23P01 - Topic 3.1 - Materials (Unbound Materials)
- ImprovedEvaluationofEquivalentTop DownLoad DisplacementCurvefromaBottom UpPileLoadTest

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 69

Plane Failure

Prof. K. G. Sharma

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

Plane Failure

A plane failure is a comparatively rare sight in rock slopes because it is

only occasionally that all the geometric conditions required to produce such

a failure occur in an actual slope.

Wedge type failure is common.

Understanding of Plane Failure (2D Case) facilitates understanding Wedge

Failure which is a 3D Case.

Case

3/13/2015

1. The plane on which sliding occurs must strike parallel or

nearly parallel (within approximately 20) to the slope

face

2. The sliding plane must daylight in the slope face, which

means that the dip

p of the failure p

plane must be less than

p < f or f > p

3. The dip of the sliding plane must be greater than the

angle of friction of this plane, that is, p >

Thus f > p >

4. The upper end of the sliding surface either intersects the

upper slope, or terminates in a tension crack.

5. Release surfaces that provide negligible resistance to

sliding must be present in the rock mass to define the

lateral boundaries of the slide.

4

3/13/2015

1. Both sliding surface and tension crack strike parallel to

the slope.

2. The tension crack is vertical and is filled with water to a

depth zw.

3. Water enters the sliding surface along the base of the

tension crack and seeps along the sliding surface,

escaping at atmospheric pressure where the sliding

surface daylights in the slope face.

4. The forces W (the weight of the sliding block), U (uplift

force due to water pressure on the sliding surface) and V

(force due to water pressure in the tension crack) all act

through the centroid of the sliding mass.

6

3/13/2015

W

V

U

moments that would tend to cause rotation of the

block, and hence failure is by sliding only.

While this assumption may not be strictly true for

actual slopes, the errors introduced by ignoring

moments are small enough to neglect.

However, in steep slopes with steeply dipping

discontinuities, the possibility of toppling failure

should be kept in mind.

7

5. The shear strength of the sliding surface is defined by

cohesion c and friction angle that are related by the

equation = c + tan .

In the case of a rough surface or a rock mass having a

curvilinear shear strength

g

envelope,

p , the apparent

pp

cohesion and apparent friction angle are defined by a

tangent that takes into account the normal stress

acting on the sliding surface.

The normal stress can be determined from

((

2

1 (z / H ) cot p cot f

=

H

2(1 z / H )

3/13/2015

Sliding Plane

6. In analyzing two-dimensional slope problems, it is usual

to consider a slice of unit thickness taken at right angles

to the slope face.

This means that on a vertical section through the

slope,

p , the area of the sliding

g surface can be

represented by the length of the surface, and the

volume of the sliding block is represented by the

cross-section area of the block.

10

3/13/2015

Geometry of the Slope: The Cross-section of Slope

Two Cases:

a. Slope with a tension crack in its upper surface

b Slope

b.

Sl

with

ith a tension

t i crackk in

i its

it face

f

Transition from one case to another case occurs when tension

crack coincides with slope crest, i.e., when

z

= (1 cot f tan p )

H

3/13/2015

Earthquake loads

Joint properties

Seasonal pore

pressure variations

Cohesion deterioration in

regions of high stresses

14

3/13/2015

Forces acting on the Slope are resolved Parallel and Normal

to the Sliding Plane.

The vector sum of Shear Forces S acting down the plane is

th Driving

the

Dri ing Force

The sum of Normal Forces acting on the plane is N. The

product of the total normal forces, N and the tangent

of the friction angle , plus the cohesive force is

termed the Resisting force

Factor of Safety FS is defined as

FS =

=

Driving Force

S

friction of sliding plane.

V sin p

V

p

V cos p

W sin p

W cos p

16

3/13/2015

For the Slope with Weight W, and Water Forces U and V,

FS =

W sin p + V cos p

A = (H + b tan s z ) cos ec p

1

U = w z w (H + b tan s z ) cos ec p

2

1

V = w z w2

2

the slope crest, s is dip of upper slope, zw is depth of water in

tension crack, and w is unit weight of water.

Weight of Sliding Block, W

i) For tension crack in upper slope surface

1

W = r (1 cott f tan

t p ) bH + H 2 cott f + b 2 (tan

t s tan

t p )

2

2

1

z

2

W = r H 1 cot p (cot p tan f 1)

2

H

3/13/2015

Slope with following Data:

Height H = 100 ft

Slope face angle f = 60

Upper surface horizontal: s = 0

Sliding plane dip p = 30

Tension crack 29 ft behind the Crest of the slope

Tension crack depth z = 50 ft

Unit weight of rock r = 160 lb/ft3

Unit weight of water w = 62.5 lb/ft3

Cohesion of plane c = 1000 lb/ft2

Friction angle = 30

We have to evaluate the influence of water depth zw on FS.

We take zw/z = 1.0, 0.5 and 0 and compute the factor of safety FS.

zw/z

FS

1.0

0.77

0.5

1.10

0

1.34

10

3/13/2015

Steps

a. Obtain the lengths H, X, D, A, z and zw as shown in the

figure.

b Calculate

b.

C l l the

h forces

f

W,

W U,

U V andd cA.

A

c. Select a suitable scale and construct the Force Diagram.

d. Draw vertical line to represent the Weight W.

e. At right angles to the line for W, draw a line to represent V.

f. Measure the angle p with vertical and draw a line to

represent U.

g Project the line representing U by dashed line and from

g.

upper point of line for W, construct a line perpendicular to

the projection of U line.

Slope Geometry and Equations for W, U and W

11

3/13/2015

Force Diagram

Steps

h. From the upper end of U line, draw a line at an angle and

Length f represents the Friction force which resists sliding

along the failure plane.

i. The cohesion resisting force cA can be drawn along the f

line.

j. The length of the line marked S is total Driving force.

k. Factor of safety FS is given by the ratio of lengths (f + cA)

to S.

12

3/13/2015

tension crack and along the sliding surface that influences the

stability of the slope.

2 This

2.

Thi is

i equivalent

i l

to assuming

i that

h the

h rest off the

h rock

k mass is

i

impermeable, an assumption that is certainly not always

justified.

3. Under some conditions, it may be possible to construct a flow

net from which the ground water pressure distribution can be

determined from the intersection of the equipotential lines

25 sliding surface.

with the

Dry Slope Condition

Simplest Case in which the slope is assumed to be drained. This

means there is no water pressure in tension crack or along the sliding

surface:

f

U = V = 00.

There may be moisture in the slope but as long as no pressure is

generated, it will not influence the stability of slope.

Then factor of safety will be

FS =

cA

+ cott p tan

t

W sin p

13

3/13/2015

Water in Tension Crack Only

A heavy rain storm after a long dry spell can result in the rapid buildup of water pressure in the tension crack, unless effective drainage has

been provided.

provided V 0.

0

The uplift pressure U can be reduced to zero or nearly zero if the

remainder of rock mass is relatively impermeable, or the sliding

surface contains a low impermeable clay filling. U = 0.

FS =

W sin

i p + V cos p

Water in Tension Crack and on Sliding Surface

When ground water discharge at the face occurs. Water Pressure is

assumed to decrease linearly from base of tension Crack to zero at

th face.

the

f

This

Thi water

t pressure distribution

di t ib ti is

i probably

b bl muchh simpler

i l

than that which occurs in an actual slope and which is unknown.

This assumed water pressure is as reasonable as any other which

could be assumed.

FS =

W sin p + V cos p

the base of tension crack so

water pressures act both in the

tension crack and on the

sliding plane.

14

3/13/2015

Saturated Slope with Heavy Recharge

If the rock mass is heavily fractured (relatively permeable), a

ground flow pattern similar to porous system could occur. It has

b

been

ffound

d th

thatt the

th factor

f t off safety

f t off a permeable

bl slope,

l

saturated

t t d

by heavy rain and subjected to surface recharge by continued rain,

can be approximated by the equation

FS =

W sin p + V cos p

is water-filled, i.e., zw = z.

Uniform Pressure on Sliding Plane

Occurs when ground water discharge at the

face may be blocked by freezing. Water

Pressure can build in sliding plane and the

Rectangular distribution is assumed with

Uplift force U given by

U = Ap

where p = w zw

S h extreme

Such

t

water

t pressure

Conditions may occur from

time to time and should be

considered in the design.

15

3/13/2015

Triangular Pressure on Sliding Plane

Occurs when water table is below

the base of tension crack.

Uplift force U is given by

U=

1 zw

hw w

2 sin p

Slope with following Data:

Height H = 100 ft

Slope face angle f = 60

Sliding plane dip p = 30

Unit weight of rock r = 160 lb/ft3

Unit weight of water w = 62.5 lb/ft3

Cohesion of plane c = 1000 lb/ft2

Friction angle = 30

The tension crack depth z and Water depth in crack zw are

varied and FS is calculated for each case and plotted in

the figure.

When the slope is dry or nearly dry (zw=0), FS reaches a

Minimum value corresponding to z=0.42H for the data

considered.

16

3/13/2015

Once the water level zw > z/4, the FS does not reach a minimum

until the tension crack is water-filled (zw = z) and the minimum

FS is when the water-filled tension crack is coincident with the

crest (b =0)

0).

The field observations suggest that the tension cracks usually

occur behind the crest of the slope and they occur as a result of

movement in a dry or nearly dry slope.

If this tension crack becomes water-filled due to subsequent rain,

the influence of the water ppressure will be as discussed earlier.

The depth and location of tension crack are independent of

ground water conditions.

Effect of z and zw on FS

17

3/13/2015

Usually tension crack position is known from visible trace on the

upper surface or on the face of the slope.

Many times, tension crack position may be unknown due to

presence of overburden. Therefore, it becomes necessary to

consider the most probable position of a tension crack.

When the slope is dry or nearly dry (zw/z=0), then factor of safety

is

cA

FS =

+ cot p tan

W sin p

The critical tension crack depth zc is found by minimizing FS with

respect to z/H.

/ Then

h zc and

d position

i i bc are given

i

by

b

zc

= 1 cot f tan p

H

bc

= cot f cot p cot f

H

18

3/13/2015

If the tension crack occurs during heavy rain or if it is located on a

pre-existing geological feature such as vertical joint, the above two

equations do not apply for depth and location of tension crack.

In these circumstances, when the tension crack position and depth

are unknown, the only reasonable procedure is to assume that the

tension crack is coincident with the slope crest and that it is waterfilled.

The tension crack is caused by shear movements in the slope (Model

studies by Barton). Thus when a tension crack becomes visible in the

surface of slope, it must be assumed that shear failure has initiated

within the rock mass.

This is only the start of a very complex progressive failure process.

The presence of tension crack should be taken as an indication of

potential instability- requires detailed investigation.

19

3/13/2015

When a persistent discontinuity such as a bedding plane exists

in a slope and the inclination of this discontinuity is such that it

satisfies the conditions for pplane failure,, stabilityy of the slope

p will

be controlled by this feature.

Where no such feature exists and a sliding surface, if it were to

occur, would follow minor geological features and, in some

places, pass through intact material, how can the inclination of

such a failure path be determined?

In weak/soft rock slopes or a soil slope with a face angle

f<45, failure surface would have a Circular shape.

In steep rock slopes, the slide surface is approximately planar

and the inclination of such a plane can be found by partial

differentiation of equation for FS with respect to p and putting

equal to zero.

zero For dry slopes,

slopes this gives a critical failure plane

inclination pc as

pc =

1

( f + )

2

sslide

de pplanee inclination

c

o too be reduced

educed by ass much

uc ass 10%.

0%. But

u in

view of the uncertainties associated with the inclination of this

slide surface, above equation for dry slope can be used to

obtain an estimate of the critical slide plane inclination in steep

slopes that do not contain through-going discontinuities.

20

3/13/2015

We assumed linear relationship between shear strength and

effective normal stress- Mohr-Coulomb Strength Criterion.

= c + tan

Most rock surfaces exhibit a non-linear relationship between

shear strength and effective normal stress. This is because of

rough surfaces.

The friction angle will decrease with increasing normal stress

as the asperities on the surface are ground off.

For a dry slope (U=V=0), the normal stress acting on the

slidingg surface is ggiven byy

=

W cos p

A

If the sliding plane contains no cohesive infilling and using

Bartons Strength criterion, Factor of Safety FS for dry slope

(U=V=0) is given by

FS =

=

=

=

A

W sin p

W sin p

tan ( + JRC log10 ( JCS / ))

tan p

tan ( + i )

tan p

21

3/13/2015

Consider a slope with dimensions

H = 30m, z = 15m,

p = 30 and f = 60, in which the properties

of the clean rough joint forming the sliding surface

are = 25, JRC = 15 and JCS = 5000 kPa and

Unit weight of rock r = 26 kN/m3.

Normal stress = 281 kPa

Shear stress = 269 kPa

+ i = 44

FS = 1.66

However, the maximum stress is acting below the crest of the

slope where depth = 20 m. The calculated maximum stress is

max = 20 x 26 x cos(30) = 450 kPa

Shear stress = 387 kPa, +i=41, FS = 1.49

Therefore, FS decreases as the normal stress increases.

For a slope with tension crack and water, normal stress is

given by

=

W cos p U V sin p

A

FS =

A

W sin p + V cos p

22

3/13/2015

Reinforcement of a Slope

When it has been established that a slope is potentially unstable, it

becomes necessary to consider whether it is possible to stabilize

the slope by drainage or external loads (reinforcement).

R i f

Reinforcement

t may be

b an effective

ff ti method

th d off improving

i

i the

th

factor of safety.

Methods of reinforcement

Tensioned anchors

Fully grouted, untensioned dowels

Construction of a toe buttress.

Factors influencing the selection of an appropriate system are

Site geology

Required capacity of the reinforcement force

Drilling equipment availability and access

Time required for construction.

Reinforcement of a Slope

With rock anchors, it is necessary to decide if they should be

anchored at the distal end and tensioned, or fully grouted and

untensioned.

Untensioned dowels are less costly to install, but they will provide

less reinforcement than tensioned anchors of the same dimensions,

dimensions

and their capacity cannot be tested.

One technical factor influencing the selection is that if a slope has

relaxed and loss of interlock has occurred on the sliding plane, then

it is advisable to install tensioned anchors to apply normal and

shear forces on the sliding plane.

If the reinforcement can be installed before the excavation takes

place, then fully grouted dowels are effective in reinforcing the

slope by preventing relaxation on potential sliding surfaces.

Untensioned dowels can also be used where the rock is randomly

jointed and there is a need to reinforce the overall slope.

23

3/13/2015

A tensioned anchor installation involves drilling a hole extending

below the sliding plane, installing a rock bolt or strand cable that

is bonded into the stable portion of the slope, and then tensioning

th anchor

the

h against

i t the

th face.

f

The tension in the anchor T modifies the normal and shear forces

acting on the sliding plane, and the factor of safety of the

anchored slope is given by

FS =

W sin p + V cos p T cos( T + p )

the horizontal.

24

3/13/2015

The normal component of the anchor tension, T sin(p + T), has

the effect of increasing the shear resistance to sliding.

Also, the shear component of the anchor tension, T cos(p + T),

acting

ti up the

th sliding

lidi plane

l

is

i subtracted

bt t d from

f

the

th driving

d i i forces,

f

so the combined effect of the anchor force is to improve the factor

of safety (if (p + T) < 90).

The factor of safety of a slope reinforced with tensioned rock

anchors varies with the inclination of the bolt. The most efficient

angle (T(opt)) for a tensioned rock bolt is when

= ( T ( opt ) + p ) or T ( opt ) = ( p )

tensioned bolt is flatter than the normal to the sliding plane.

In practice, cement grouted anchors are installed at about 1015

below the horizontal to facilitate grouting, while resin grouted

anchors may be installed in up-holes.

It should be noted that bolts installed at an angle steeper than the

normal to the sliding plane (i.e. (p + T) > 90) can be

detrimental to stability because the shear component of the

tension, acting down the plane, increases the magnitude of the

displacing force.

25

3/13/2015

Fully grouted, untensioned dowels comprise steel bars installed in

holes drilled across the potential sliding plane, which are then

encapsulated in cement or resin grout. The steel acts as a rigid

shear ppin across anyy pplane of weakness in the rock.

Shear displacement on the joint causes deformation of the bolt

that takes place in three stages as follows:

Elastic Stage, Yield Stage, and Plastic Stage

Spang and Egger (1990):

The shear resistance Rb (kN) of a dowelled joint is given by

i 2 ( + i ) ci0.14 (0.85 + 0.45 tan )

The unit of t(s) (tensile strength of steel bar) is kN and that of ci

is kPa.

Strain in fully grouted steel dowel due to shear movement along joint

26

3/13/2015

The corresponding displacement s of a dowelled joint is given by

S = (15.2 55.2 ci0.14 + 56.2 ci0.28 ) 1 tan (70 / c )0.125 (cos )0.5

dowels have been installed across the sliding plane, the factor of

safety is modified as follows to account for the increased shear

resistance to sliding:

FS =

cA + N tan + Rb

S

Larger scale support can be provided by placing a waste rock

buttress at the toe of the slope. The support provided by such a

buttress depends on the buttress weight, and the shear resistance

ggenerated alongg the base of the buttress that is a function of the

weight of the rock, and the roughness and inclination of the base.

This method can only be used, of course, if there is sufficient

space at the toe to accommodate the required volume of rock.

It is also important that the waste rock be free draining so that

water pressures do not build up behind the buttress.

27

3/13/2015

The factor of safety of a plane failure of dry slope with

horizontal seismic coefficient kH is

FS =

W (sin p + k H cos p )

coefficient kT is

kT = k H2 + kV2

acting at an angle k = tan-1(kV/kH) above the horizontal, and

factor of safety is given by

FS =

W (sin p + kT cos( p + k ))

28

3/13/2015

BlockSlidingonClayLayers

In mining a horizontal bedded coal deposit, sliding of blocks of

materials on clay seams occurs during high rainfall.

The clay seams have a high montmorillonite content and are

slickensided

li k id d by

b previous

i

shear

h displacements.

di l

t Therefore,

Th f

shear

h

strength parameters of c=0 and =10 are considered

appropriate.

Geometry of the Block with Horizontal Clay Seam

H is the height of the block

f is the angle of the face of the block

B is the distance of a vertical crack behind the crest of slope

zw is the depth of water in tension crack

W is the weight of the block

V is the horizontal force due to water in tension crack

U is the uplift force due to water pressure at base

F=

(W U ) tan

V

where

1

W = r BH + r H 2 cot f

2

1

U = w z w (B + H cot f )

2

1

V = w z w2

2

F=

((2 B / H + cot )

f

/ r .z w / H .b / H (1 + cot f ))tan

w / r .( z w / H )2

29

3/13/2015

Sensitivity of FS to zw

Sensitivity of water depth

in tension crack is evident.

Thus drainage should do a

great deal to improve the

stability of the block.

block

Horizontal holes through

the base of the block.

Not the quantity of the

water but the water pressure

in the tension crack is

important.

p

Increase in weight W improves

the stability. Increase in B/H

Ratio or increase in f

increases FS.

PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization

A 12m high rock slope has been excavated at a face angle of 60.

The rock contains persistent bedding planes that dip at an angle of

35 into the excavation. The 4.35 m deep tension crack is 4 m

behind the crest,, and is filled with water to a height

g of 3 m above

the sliding surface. Strength parameters of sliding surface are

cohesion c = 25 kPa and friction angle = 37. r = 26 kN/m3 and

w = 9.81 kN/m3.

Weight of Block W = 1241 kN/m

Area of the sliding plane A = 13.34 m2/m

(i) Water forces acting on the Block with zw = 3 m:

U = 196.31 kN/m & V = 44.15 kN/m

FS =

W sin p + V cos p

= 1.25

30

3/13/2015

PlaneFailureGeometry

PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization

(ii) With zw = z = 4.35 m

U = 284.57 kN/m & V = 44.15 kN/m

FS = 1.07 (Slope close to failure)

(iii) If the slope is drained (zw = 0),

FS = 1.54

31

3/13/2015

PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization

(iv) If slope is drained and cohesion reduced from 25 kPa to

zero by blast vibrations, then the factor of safety is

FS = 1.08

Th loss

The

l

off cohesion

h i reduces

d

FS ffrom 11.54

54 tto 11.08,

08 which

hi h

illustrates the sensitivity of slope to cohesion on sliding

plane.

(v) The critical tension crack depth is

zc

= 1 cot f tan p = 0.36

H

PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization

Slope Reinforcement with Rock Bolts

(i) With c = U = V = 0 and T = 400 kN/m at a dip angle of

T = 55

FS =

(W cos

+ T sin ( T + p )) tan

= 1 .5

W sin p T cos( T + p )

(ii) If the bolts are installed at flatter angle T = 20,

FS = 2.1

This shows the significant improvement that can be achieved by

installing bolts at an angle flatter than the normal to the sliding

surface.

The optimum angle is when

Topt = ( p) = 2 and FS = 2.41.

p

32

3/13/2015

PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization

Slope Reinforcement with Rock Bolts

(iii) The rock bolt pattern should be laid out so that the distribution

off bolts

b lt on th

the slope

l

iis as even as possible.

ibl If four

f

bolts

b lt are

installed in each vertical row, the horizontal spacing S of the

vertical rows is calculated as follows:

S=

TB n kN 240 4

= 2 .4 m

=

T kN/m

400

Provide bolts at a spacing of 2.5 m.

EXAMPLE-1

Stability of porphyry slopes in a Spanish open pit mine

The Atalaya pit was 260 m deep and porphyry slopes, inclined at an

overall angle of 45 as shown in figure appeared to be stable . The

proposedd mine

i plan

l called

ll d for

f deepening

d

i the

h pit

i to in

i excess off

300 m . The problem was to decide whether the slope would remain

stable at the proposed mining depth of 300 m.

In order to establish the theoretical relationship between slope

height and slope angle , the following assumptions are made:

1. No dominant failure plane. It was assumed that failure would be

on a composite planar surface inclined at p = 0.5 ( f + )

2. From the shear strength data a friction angle = 35 was chosen.

33

3/13/2015

EXAMPLE-1

3. The porphyry slopes were assumed to be fully drained and it was

assumed that the tension would occur in all slopes. The depth of

tension crack can be found out using

z

= (1 cot f tan p )

H

safety can be can be calculated from the formula:

FS =

cA + W cos p tan

W sin p

z/H

85

60

0.610 1.28c(F0.404)

80

57.5

70

52.5

0.311 2.25c(F0.537)

60

47.5

0.206 3.30c(F0.641)

50

42.5

0.123 5.54c(F0.764)

40

37.5

0.044 152c(F0.913)

TypicalSectionintheAtalaya OpenPitatRioTinto

34

3/13/2015

The problem is now to find the cohesion value which gives the best

fit for a limiting curve (F=1) passing through the slope height /

slope angle points for unstable slopes. The two points at f=61 and

66 and H=40m and 35m are ignored as these are individual bench

failures.

A number of trial calculations showed that best fit for the F=1 curve

to the seven failure points shown in Figure is given by cohesive

strength c = 14 tonnes/m2.

The shear strength relationship defined by c=14 tonnes/m2 and

=35 is plotted in the figure, which also shows peak and residual

strength values determined by shear testing at Imperial College. The

calculation of parameters c=14 tonnes/m2 and =35 by back

analysis fall between the peak and residual shear strength values

determined in laboratory.

SlopeHeightvs

SlopeAnglefor

PorphyrySlopes

35

3/13/2015

ShearStrengthRelationshipofPorphyry

different factor of safety which have been plotted in the figure.

By counting the number of points falling between factor of safety

increments, it is possible to construct the histogram reproduced in

g

This histogram

g

confirms that the seven unstable slopes

p

the figure.

are clustered around a factor of safety FS= 1 while the stable slopes

show a peak between 1.3 and 1.4.

It is important to note that this analysis deals with the stability of

overall pit slope and not with possible failure of individual benches.

Small bench failures are not particularly important in large pits

provided that they do not influence the haul roads.

36

3/13/2015

Histogram

EXAMPLE-2

Investigation of the stability of a limestone quarry face

A hillside limestone quarry in the Mendip Hills in England.

Failure occurred in 1968 after a week or more of steady soaking

rain saturated the area, followed by an exceptionally heavy

downpour which flooded the upper quarry floor filling an existing

tension crack in the slope crest.

The failure is basically two-dimensional, the sliding surface being a

bedding plane striking parallel to slope crest and dipping into the

excavation at 20. A vertical crack existed 41 feet behind the slope

crest at the time of failure. Geometry shown in the figure.

In order to provide the shear strength data for the analysis of slope

stability of the existing slope in 1970, it was decided to analyse the

1968 failure by means of Graphical method.

Linear shear strength relationship was assumed.

37

3/13/2015

EXAMPLE-2

Investigation of the stability of a limestone quarry face

Assuming rock density = 0.08 tons/ft3 and a water density = 0.031

tons/ft3 :

Weight of sliding mass, W = 0.5 (XH Dz) = 404.8 tons/ft

Horizontal water force,

force V = 0.5

0 5 w zw2 = 65

65.5

5 tons/ ft

Uplift of water force, U = 0.5 w zw A = 110.8 tons/ft

From the force diagram, the shear strength can be determined and

this is plotted in figure.

From an examination of 1968 failure surface, it was concluded that

the friction angle was probably 205. This range of friction angle

and corresponding cohesion are used for further analysis.

The range of shear strength mobilized in 1968 failure are used to

check the stability of 210 ft high slopes for the new plant

installation.

Geometryof1968Failure

38

3/13/2015

EstimationofShearStrengthMobilizedin1968Failure

EXAMPLE-2

Investigation of the stability of a limestone quarry face

The geometry of 210 ft high slope and the typical force diagrams

for dry and saturated slopes are shown in figures assuming a slope

face angle f = 50 and a friction angle = 25.

Factor of safety for dry and saturated slopes with different slope

face angles is shown in the figure. Full lines are for a friction angle

=20 while the dashed lines are for 5 variation.

It is evident that 58 slopes are unstable under heavy rainfall

conditions which caused 1968 failure. Drainage of the slope,

particularly the control of surface water entering tension crack is

very beneficial. It cannot be fully assured.

Therefore the slopes should be benched back to an overall slope of

45 with drainage measures.

39

3/13/2015

GeometryofOverallSlope

ForceDiagramforDesignofOverallQuarrySlopes

40

3/13/2015

FactorofSafetyforDry&SaturatedSlopeswith

DifferentFaceAngles

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

A 60 m high cut had an overall face angle of 50, made up of

three, 20 m high benches with face angles of 70.

Due to a small slide in a nearby slope, concern has been

expressedd that

th t a major

j slide

lid off the

th cutt slope

l

could

ld occur

resulting in serious damage to an important civil engineering

structure at the foot of the cut.

An assessment was required of the short- and the long-term

stability of the cut, and recommendations for appropriate

remedial measures, if necessary.

No previous geological and geotechnical investigation done

done.

The site in an area of high rainfall intensity and low seismicity.

A horizontal seismic coefficient, H of 0.08g has been

suggested.

41

3/13/2015

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

The cut is in slightly weathered granite containing several sets

of steeply dipping joints, and sheet jointing that dipped at 35

and formed the natural slopes in the area.

J i t Orientation

Joint

O i t ti Data

D t obtained

bt i d based

b d on surface

f

mapping,

i

Reasonable because of the extensive rock exposure in the cut

face and natural slopes.

Feature

Overallslopeface

Dip()

DipDirection()

50

200

Individual benches

Individualbenches

70

200

Sheetjoint

35

190

JointsetJ1

80

233

JointsetJ2

80

040

JointsetJ3

70

325

42

3/13/2015

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

The stereoplot of the joint data is prepared including a friction

circle of 35.

Although the three joint sets provided a number of steep release

surfaces,

f

which

hi h would

ld allow

ll bl

blocks

k to

t separate

t from

f

the

th rockk

mass, none of their lines of intersection fall within the zone

designated as potentially unstable in the stereoplot.

The great circle representing the sheet joints passes through the

zone of potential instability. The dip direction of the sheet joints

is close to that of the cut face, so the most likely failure mode

was a plane slide on the sheet joints in the direction indicated on

the stereoplot.

Both the overall cut and the individual benches were potentially

unstable, and it was necessary to carry out further analysis of

both.

Stereonet PlotofGeologicalDatafortheSlope

43

3/13/2015

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

Rock Shear Strength

No information was available on the shear strength of the sheet

joints forming the potential sliding surface.

The strength values used in design were estimated from

previous experience of the stability of slopes in granite.

Heavily kaolinized granites exhibit friction values in the range

of 3545 because of the angular nature of the mineral grains.

The cohesion of these surfaces was likely to be variable

depending on the degree of weathering of the surface and the

persistence of the joints; a cohesion range of 50200 kPa was

selected.

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

Ground Water Conditions

No boreholes in the slope, the subsurface ground water

conditions were unknown.

Th site

The

it was in

i an area that

th t experienced

i

d periods

i d off intense

i t

rainfall, it was expected that significant transient ground water

pressures would develop in the slope following these events.

44

3/13/2015

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

Stability Analysis

Because of the presence of three steeply dipping joint sets, there

was a strong possibility of a tension crack forming on these

di

discontinuities

ti iti behind

b hi d the

th crestt off the

th cut.

t

One possible failure mode was that illustrated as Model I.

This theoretical model assumed that a tension crack occurred in

the dry state in the most critical position, and that this crack

filled to depth zw with water during a period of exceptionally

heavy rain.

A simultaneous earthquake subjected the slope to ground

motion that was simulated with a horizontal seismic coefficient

kH of 0.08.

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

Stability Analysis Model I

The factor of safety of this slope for pseudo-static horizontal

earthquake loading is given by

FS =

W (sin p + k H cos p ) + V cos p

A = (H z )cos ec p

((

1

2

W = r H 2 1 ( z / H ) cot p cot f

2

1

U = w zw A

2

1

V = w z w2

2

45

3/13/2015

ModelIforPlaneSlopeFailure

ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure

Stability Analysis Model II

To allow for the possible presence of substantial sub-surface

water, an alternative theoretical model (Model II) was

proposed, with the pseudo-static earthquake loading. FS is given

by

cA + (W (cos p k H sin p ) U ) tan

FS =

W (sin p + k H cos p )

A = H cos ec p

1

W = r H 2 (cot p cot f )

2

1

U = w H w2 cos ec p

4

46

3/13/2015

ModelIIforPlaneSlopeFailure

of the slopes were calculated by substituting these values.

Parameter

Value

Cut height, Hc

60 m

50

70

Bench height, Hb

20 m

35

15.4 m

Rock density, r

25.5 kN/m3

Water density, w

9.81 kN/m3

Seismic coefficient, kH

0.08

47

3/13/2015

FactorofSafety

Overall Slope Model I

FS =

14995 + 4.02 z w2

FS =

17229

FS =

2327 + 4.02 z w2

FS =

3469

FactorofSafety

One of the most useful studies of the factor of safety equations

was to find the shear strength which would have to be mobilized

for failure (i.e. FS = 1.0).

Th

These

analyses

l

examined

i d the

th overall

ll cutt andd the

th individual

i di id l

benches for a range of water pressures.

Results are plotted and the numbered curves represent the

following conditions:

Curve 1 Overall Cut, Model I, dry, zw = 0.

Curve 2 Overall Cut, Model I, saturated, zw = z = 14m.

Curve 3 Overall Cut,

Cut Model II,

II dry,

dry Hw = 0.

0

Curve 4 Overall Cut, Model II, saturated, Hw = 60m.

Curve 5 Individual bench, Model I, dry, zw = 0.

Curve 6 Individual bench, Model II, saturated, zw = z = 9.9m.

Curve 7 Individual bench, Model II, dry, Hw = 0.

Curve 8 Individual bench, Model II, saturated, Hw = H = 20m.

48

3/13/2015

ShearStrengthMobilizedforFailureofSlope

FactorofSafety

The shear strength values found for different cases happen to

fall reasonably close together.

The elliptical shaded area surrounds the range of shear strengths

considered

id d reasonable

bl for

f partially

ti ll weathered

th d granite.

it

It is observed that when the cut is fully saturated and subject to

earthquake loading (Curves 2, 4 and 6), the likely available

shear strength along the sliding surfaces would be exceeded by

the driving forces acting on the sliding surface, and failure

would be possible.

Considering the rate of weathering of granite in tropical

environments over the operational life of the slope, with a

consequent reduction in available cohesive strength, these

results indicated that the cut was unsafe and that the steps

should be taken to increase its stability.

49

3/13/2015

RemedialMeasures

Four basic methods for improving the stability of the cut were

considered:

(a) Reduction of cut height;

(b) Reduction

R d ti off cutt face

f

angle;

l

(c) Drainage; and

(d) Reinforcement with tensioned anchors.

In order to compare the effectiveness of these different methods,

it was assumed that the sheet joint surface had a cohesive

strength of 100 kPa and a friction angle of 35.

The increase in factor of safety for a reduction in slope height,

slope angle and water level was found by altering one of the

variables at a time in the equations for Factor of Safety.

RemedialMeasures

The influence of reinforcing the cut was obtained by modifying

the equations for FS to include a bolting force.

Model I

FS =

W (sin p + k H cos p ) + V cos p T cos( T + p )

Model II

FS =

cA

A + (W (cos p k H sin

i p ) U + T sin

i ( T + p )) tan

t

W (sin p + k H cos p ) T sin ( T + p )

and T is the plunge, or inclination of this force below the

horizontal.

50

3/13/2015

SlopeStabilizationwithTensionedRockAnchors

RemedialMeasures

Curves for FS are plotted for different methods that were

considered for increasing the stability of the overall cut.

In each case, the change is expressed as a percentage of the total

range of each variable: H = 60 m, f = 50, zw/z = 1, Hw = 60 m.

The variation of the reinforcing force is expressed as a

percentage of the weight of the wedge of rock being supported.

In calculating the effect of the reinforcement, it was assumed

that the anchors are installed horizontally, that is T = 0.

51

3/13/2015

RemedialMeasures

The influence of the anchor inclination T on the reinforcing

load required to produce a factor of safety of 1.5 is plotted. This

shows that the required bolting force can be approximately

halved by installing the bolts horizontally (T = 0, or T + p =

35), rather than normal to the plane (T = 55, or T + Tp=

90). As discussed in Section 6.4.1, the generally optimum

angle for tensioned rock anchors is given by equation (6.23). In

practice, cement grouted anchors are installed at about 1015

below the horizontal to facilitate grouting.

Alternative methods of

increasing stability of overall

slope

52

3/13/2015

StabilizationOptions

Reduce height: Reduction in cut height is not an effective

solution (Curves 1 and 2). To achieve the required factor of safety

of 1.5, the slope height would have to be reduced by 50%. If this

solution were to be adopted, it would be more practical to

excavate the entire slope since most of the volume of rock to be

excavated is contained in the upper half of the slope.

Reduce face angle: Reducing the face angle would be very

effective stabilization measure as shown by line 3. The required

factor of safety of 1.5 is achieved for a reduction of less than 25%

off the

h slope

l

angle

l (37.5

(37 5).

) This

Thi finding

fi di is

i generally

ll true andd a

reduction in the face angle (i.e. flatter slope) is often an effective

remedial measure. However, a practical consideration is the

difficulty of excavating a sliver cut because of the limited

access for equipment on the narrow, lower part of the cut.

StabilizationOptions

Curve 4 (reduction of face angle for slope without tension crack)

is an anomaly and shows that calculations can sometimes produce

unrealistic results. The reduction in factor of safety shown by this

curve is a result of the reduction in the weight of the sliding block

as the face angle is reduced. Since the water pressure on the

sliding surface remains constant, the effective stress acting on the

sliding surface decreases and hence the frictional component of

the resisting force decreases. When a very thin sliver of rock

remains, the water pressure will float it off the slope. The

problem with this analysis lies in the assumption that the block is

completely

l l impermeable

i

bl andd that

h the

h water remains

i trappedd

beneath the sliding surface. In fact, the block would break up

long before it floated and hence the water pressure acting on the

sliding surface would be dissipated.

53

3/13/2015

StabilizationOptions

Drainage: Curves 5 and 6 show that drainage would not be an

effective stabilization option for both slope models. But factor of

safety of 1.5 is not achieved. Drainage is usually one of the most

cost-effective remedial measures. The reasons for the poor

performance of drainage in this case are due to the combination

of the slope geometry and the shear strength of the failure

surface.

Anchoring: Curves 7 and 8 show that reinforcing the cut by

means of tensioned anchors with a force equal to 5000 kN per

meter of slope length would achieve a factor of safety of 1.5,

assuming

i the

h anchors

h are installed

i

ll d just

j below

b l the

h horizontal.

h i

l

In other words, reinforcement of a 100 m length of slope would

require the installation of 500 anchors, each with a capacity of

1MN.

SuitableDrainageMeasures

54

3/13/2015

LongTermRemedialMeasures

The two most attractive options for long-term remediation were

reinforcement using tensioned cables or bar anchors, or

reduction of the slope face angle.

Reinforcement was rejected because of the high cost, and the

uncertainty of long-term corrosion resistance of the steel anchors.

The option finally selected was to reduce the face angle to 35 by

excavating the entire block down to the sheet joints forming the

sliding surface. This effectively removed the problem.

Al h

Although

h the

h roadd was closed

l d twice

i during

d i this

hi period,

i d no

major problems occurred and the slope was finally excavated

back to the sliding plane.

InfluenceofUnderCuttingtheToeofaSlope

The toe of a slope under-cut either intentionally by mining or by

natural agencies such as weathering or in case of sea cliffs by

the action of waves.

The influence of such undercutting on stability of a slope is very

important.

Geometry of under-cut slope shown in the figure.

Previous failure left the face inclined at f and vertical tension

crack depth z1.

Due to under-cut of M inclined at an angle 0, a new failure

occurs on a pplane inclined at p with a new tension crack depth

p

of z2.

55

3/13/2015

GeometryofUnderCutSlope

InfluenceofUnderCuttingtheToeofaSlope

The factor of safety of this slope is given by

FS =

W sin p + V cos p

with

[(

1

W = r H 22 z 22 cot p H 12 z12 cot f + (H 1 + H 2 )M

2

Note that, for 0 > 0,

M = (H 2 H 1 )cot 0

56

3/13/2015

InfluenceofUnderCuttingtheToeofaSlope

The critical tension crack depth for a dry under-cut slope is

given by

z2 =

c cos

r cos p sin ( p )

1

H 2 z2

p = + Arc tan 2 2

(H1 z1 )cot f (H1 + H 2 )M

2

2

ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting

Chalk cliff failure at Joss Bay on the Isle of Thanet in England.

Failure induced by undercutting action of the sea.

Hutchinson analysed the cliff failure.

Figure

g

shows the cross-section of the failure.

Chalk is reasonably uniform. Bedding is horizontal and two

major joint sets are almost vertical. The cliff face is parallel to

one of these joint sets.

No water in the wells near the coast and no seepage from the

face.

Therefore, fully drained chalk mass. U=V=0 is taken in the

analysis.

Laboratory tests:

Unit weight, r = 1.9 tonnes/m3,

Friction angle, = 42 (Peak), 30 (Residual)

Cohesion, c = 13.3 tonnes/m2 (Peak), 0 (Residual)

57

3/13/2015

CrossSectionofChalkCliffFailureatJossBay

ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting

The failure can be classed as a fall and not a slide (in which shear

strength is reduced to residual value by shear movement).

Thus peak strength of chalk is relevant for the analysis.

We estimate the shear strength

g mobilized in the actual failure and

compare it with laboratory results.

Input Data:

H - Slope height (H1 = H2)

15.4 m

z1 - Original tension crack depth

6.8 m

z2 - New tension crack depth

7.8 m

M - Depth of undercut

0.5 m

0 - Inclination of undercut

0

f - Slope face angle

80

p - Failure plane angle

67

58

3/13/2015

ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting

The effective friction angle of chalk mass can be determined by

rearranging equation for p in Slide No. 113 as

= 2 p Arc tan

H 22 z 22

H 12 z12 cot f (H 1 + H 2 )M

value of 42. The roughness of joint plays a major role.

Cohesion mobilized at failure can be estimated by rearranging

equation for z2 in Slide No. 113 as

c=

r z 2 cos p sin ( p )

cos

tonnes/m2. This value is considerably lower than the laboratory

value of 13.3 tonnes/m2 for intact chalk.

ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting

Hutchinson included data on the shear strength mobilized in

chalk cliff failure at other locations. Data shown in the figure

along with the curve from Ladanyi & Archambaults equation,

which is a ggood fit to the data.

The line defined by =2.64 + tan 49.9 is a tangent to this

curve. Thus the c and determined from back analysis are

reasonable.

Due to next undercutting of toe, the analysis for the failure can be

made.

The input data will be:

H - Slope height (H1 = H2)

15.4 m

z1 - Original tension crack depth

7.8 m

c - Cohesive strength of chalk

2.65 tonnes/m2

- Friction angle of chalk mass

49.9

f - Slope face angle

67

59

3/13/2015

ShearStrengthRelationship forChalkCliffFailures

Hutchinson

ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting

The unknowns in the analysis are:

z2 - New tension crack depth

p - Failure plane angle

M - Depth

p of undercut

There are 3 Unknowns & only 2 Equations. Following steps are

followed:

a. The depth of the tension crack z2 is calculated for a range of

possible failure plane angle p.

Variation of z2 with p is plotted in the figure. Since z2 must lie

between z1 and H, from the figure, p must lie between 67 and

56.

b. Rearranging Equation gives

(H

M =

z12 cot f

2H

H 2 z 22

2 H tan (2 p )

60

3/13/2015

TensionCrackDepthatFailure

ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting

Values of M are obtained for the range of p and z2 and plotted

in the figure.

It is evident from the figure that the next cliff failure will occur

for M of 0.9 m and p of 60 and the new tension crack depth

p

will be z2 = 10.2 m.

The new failure geometry is shown in the figure.

Stabilization Measures

1. Slope should remain completely drained. Surface water

drainage and drain holes in slope face.

2. Undercutting should be prevented by the provision of a

concrete wall along the toe of the cliff.

3. If toe protection not possible, then reinforcement used to

stabilize the cliff face. Fully grouted rock bolts or cables

lightly tensioned to ensure that all contact were closed.

61

3/13/2015

DepthofUnderCutforFailure

PredictedGeometryofNextCliffFailure

duetoUndercutting

62

3/13/2015

SuggestedReinforcement ofCliffFaceusing

5mx5mPatternof5mLong20 tonne Bolts

p = c + n tan

Hoek, 2000

63

3/13/2015

r = n tan b

Hoek, 2000

Patton (1966)

Hoek, 2000

64

3/13/2015

Patton (1966)

= n tan (b + i )

Hoek, 2000

Shear Strength of

Discontinuities

JCS

= n tanb + JRC log10

JCS = Joint Wall Compressive Strength

65

3/13/2015

Hoek, 2000:

after Barton and

Choubey, (1977)

66

3/13/2015

JCS

Ln

JRCn = JRC0

L0

L

JCS n = JCS0 n

L0

0.02 JRC0

0.03 JRC0

Where:

JRC0, JCS0 and L0 refer to 100 mm lab scale

specimens

JRCn, JCSn and Ln refer to insitu block sizes

Hoek, 2000

67

3/13/2015

i = arctan

t

JRC 2

JCS

JCS

+ b

+ b + 1

tan JRC log10

n

n

n

180 ln 10

ci = n tan i

PLANAR FAILURE

FOS=

Resisting force

Driving force

f

N tan

FOS=

JCS

JRC log

+ r

n

68

3/13/2015

PLANAR FAILURE

N = (W + qB) {(1 kv) cos p - kh sin p} - U 1 sin p - U 2 + T cos

A = ( H - z ) cos ec p

B = ( H z ) cot p H cot f

1

W = ( H 2 cot p - z 2 cot p - H 2 cot f )

2

1

U 1 = wzw2

2

1

U 2 = wzw( H z ) cos ec p

2

69

- Design Guidelines - Rock RiprapTransféré paremsingca
- 471-482_StefanussenTransféré parbufalote
- 41Transféré parSRINIVAS D
- coeficientes sismicosTransféré parFrancisco Bonifaz
- STABILITY.pdfTransféré parsai Kumar
- Introduction to RocPlaneTransféré parJose Luis Huaman Ramos
- 2010 Modeling DeepXcav Training 1Transféré parNicoleta-Silvia Hulpuș
- Temporary Stability of Steep Noncemented and Lightly Cemented Soil SlopesTransféré pardafo407
- Effect Of High Confining Pressure On The Behaviour Of Fibre Reinforced SandTransféré parDariusz Wanatowski
- ohiou1205248711.pdfTransféré pargouvash
- 16525005Transféré parSateesh
- OpenSeesPL_UserManualTransféré parGizeth Aguilar
- Soil EngineeringTransféré parRonald Yucra
- Large Scale Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining_A ReviewTransféré pararief_7
- Datos GeofisicosTransféré parHabidGarciaRdz
- Chapter 13Transféré parKistanna GK
- Tension CrackTransféré parEduardo Milo Bustamante T
- FHWA Drilled Shafts; Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods APP-CTransféré parmalangpeer
- H23P01 - Topic 3.1 - Materials (Unbound Materials)Transféré parFatmah El Wardagy
- ImprovedEvaluationofEquivalentTop DownLoad DisplacementCurvefromaBottom UpPileLoadTestTransféré parMike
- Soil Characterization for Shallow Landslides ModelTransféré parAgus S Muntohar
- slopePaper161.pdfTransféré parronan2000
- Slope Paper 145Transféré parRonan Cayo
- Comparison Between Plaxis and DeepXcav - 2012 EditionTransféré parJoko Sudirmanns S
- Soil Mech Ques1 NwTransféré parsenthilkumarm50
- Comparison With Stability ChartTransféré parArie Budhi
- Seismic ZonationTransféré parLatesh Moten
- 1Transféré parHarun Kologlu
- Fahmi 2008-Lateral Spreding in Basal Reinforced Embankments Supported by Pile-like ElementsTransféré parMiguel Regalado
- Influence of Geological ConditionTransféré parADAM

- Isro Question PaperTransféré pararpitmehta85051
- Syllabus of JE NWDA.pdfTransféré parHemant Yadav
- Upsc Civil Lecturer Paper 2019Transféré parHemant Yadav
- Cvl 713 Minor II 2016-1Transféré parHemant Yadav
- civil-2018Transféré parNitin Suresh
- civil-2018Transféré parNitin Suresh
- NON TECH AP AEE -official key (Civil ki Goli ).pdfTransféré parHemant Yadav
- 7-T-maamTransféré parHemant Yadav
- PavilionTransféré parHemant Yadav
- RRB Useful InformationTransféré parHemant Yadav
- wbpscTransféré parHemant Yadav
- TS3_Hemant Vinayak Conclave on Sendai FrameworkTransféré parHemant Yadav
- BHANU NW CVTransféré parHemant Yadav
- Estimating and Costing.1-10Transféré parsukritidan1990
- GATE--2019-Civil-Engineering-Afternoon-Session-Detailed-Solutions.pdfTransféré parKshitiz Rawat
- Chap.4Transféré parVikas Pathak
- Three Pt Problem IntroTransféré parHemant Yadav
- Water supply engineering by B.C.Punmia, Ashok Jain, Arun Jain.pdfTransféré parHemant Yadav
- AFTER GATE GUIDE 2015.pdfTransféré parHemant Yadav
- CE-S5-2016-PTransféré parAjay Goel
- Amorphous FibersTransféré parHemant Yadav
- Current Affairs June 2015Transféré pararthicse
- GLY4400 Lab5 True & Apparent Dips Handout (1)Transféré parHemant Yadav
- Hardnes TestingTransféré parMilan Malesevic
- Igneous Rocks(F) - CopyTransféré parHemant Yadav
- Viscoelasticity . RheologicalTransféré parsalty
- Civil Eng-Final 1st-A 1Transféré parHemant Yadav
- IM-1488281634Transféré parKshitiz Rawat
- Power ShovelTransféré parHemant Yadav

- Consistency of Standard Cement PasteTransféré parLakshay Singhal
- Air-Entraining Admixtures - PCATransféré parmt
- Arrhythmia_magnetic Nanoparticle DenervationTransféré paronynho
- F13_CE470Ch 2 - Tension MembersTransféré parzainabcom
- d102720x012Transféré parsahil5478
- terminos(fitoestabilizacion,fitoextracion)Transféré parDamian Gonzalez
- Wang 2013Transféré parCristian Perez
- 0403Richter.pdfTransféré parAbdul Sabir
- Ecm PresentationTransféré parGeeta Kharche
- UV 06Transféré parNoushad P Hamsa
- Low Energy EmulsificationTransféré parSu Hore
- exam b VBATransféré parJonsJJJ
- Sika Fume DSTransféré parAlok Mishra
- Treatment of Petrochemical Industry Wastewater : A reviewTransféré parRimeli Roychoudhury
- Synthetic Detergent 500 TPD ProductionTransféré parSubbaReddy Puli
- 160120119099_2161901.pptTransféré parFux
- HCl Corrosion Under ControlTransféré parNXVN
- Reply DAC QuestionsTransféré parVeerareddy Vippala
- AllApplicationGuidelines2015.pdfTransféré parpaul macharia
- 11600 - Laboratory Equipment and Supplies - MSTTransféré parwafikmh4
- ERI SIM Workbook V1.3.pdfTransféré parvinay1999
- Rehabilitation of Long Span BridgesTransféré parAnonymous IwqK1Nl
- Essentials of the Living World 5th Edition George Johnson Solutions ManualTransféré para779655316
- LAB NITROGEN Determination 2012Transféré parMega Ningrum
- Centrifugal PumpTransféré parGilang Aditya
- Millenium MerlinTransféré parGermain Rider Figueroa
- Gravitational WavesTransféré parGreg O'Brien
- Book Chapter 03Transféré parJoe
- Single Displacement LabTransféré parballldon
- Leaf Spring2Transféré parYogi Bhimani