4 vues

Transféré par Tony Chan

- 30125
- Soil Slope Factor of Safety Analysis
- TC2-5 - Slope Stability Guideline
- EPS Protection for Building Stability Report.pdf
- ENG464 Semester 2 2016 UnitOverview
- Conferinta C60_Articol Geobrugg -DN1C engl (1).doc
- Visual Slope Users Manual V6
- Richard and Elms (1979)
- 11 Rock Mass Properties
- 2 DEM UDEC Course Examples
- Tank Model to Predict GW-1
- Unreinf Slope Ceramah Basic
- Mine Planning and Design
- Jimenez 2007 Rmre Wedge System
- Acharyya & Dey
- Fib 34 - Model Code for Service Life Design
- Chapter 4 Product and Service Design
- Worked Example, uiplift to EC
- Bass system implement. maint.docx
- Design of Roadside Channels

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

B. K. Low

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

E-mail: bklow@alum.mit.edu

ABSTRACT: Several topics of concern have emerged in recent literature on probabilistic slope stability analysis, including the relative

merits of probabilistic finite element methods, probabilistic limit equilibrium methods, Monte Carlo simulations, and first-order reliability

method. Practitioners contemplating extending their long tradition of deterministic analysis into probabilistic analysis may be perplexed and

even discouraged by the different views of the researchers of different probabilistic approaches. It is the purpose of this paper to contribute

some personal insights and guidance on slope reliability analysis, and to provide a more balanced perspective of the different probabilistic

slope stability approaches. Specifically, the following topics will be addressed, mainly in the context of soil and rock slopes: (i) Avoiding

potential pitfalls in using Monte Carlo simulations, (ii) FORM reliability-based design, (iii) Probabilistic slope stability analysis accounting

for spatial variation of soil properties, and (iv) System reliability analysis based on FORM and comparison with MC simulations.

misleading Pf of 8.18%a8.22% versus the correct result of 5.92%.

Different deterministic and probabilistic approaches (e.g. FEM,

The wrong results of Monte Carlo for g2(x) of case B is due to

LEM, Monte Carlo simulations, FORM, etc.) are valuable and can

the coefficient of variation of Q being 25/50=0.5, which means that

contribute in their complementary roles. Like all

about 2.275% of the 500,000 random sets in each simulation fall in

scientific/engineering methods/models, each approach has strengths

the negative range of the lower tail (at greater than two standard

and limitations, and no one method is perfect for all problems. The

deviations from the mean value of Q). These negative random

insights and guidance in this paper are based on personal

numbers of Q do not distort g1(x) of Eq. (1a), which remains

experience, and given with the sole objective of enhancing

positive. However, negative random numbers of Q render Eq. (1b)

understanding and avoiding potential pitfalls.

negative, since the Qu in the numerator is virtually always positive

during MC simulations, being five standard deviations away from

2. MONTE CARLO: VALUABLE, IF USED PROPERLY

the negative range. The result is: the correct 5.92% failure rate + a

Monte Carlo simulation can be used to estimate the probabilities of phantom 2.275% = erroneous 8.20%. It helps to understand that a

failure of a system, or to provide comparative analysis to reliability small positive load close to zero will yield large positive value of

methods. Care and understanding are however needed to avoid Eq. (1b), signifying safety; negative loads (which can happen in MC

potential pitfalls, two of which are explained below. simulations) should logically be even safer.

2.1 Distortions caused by negative values of random numbers

Figure 1 shows a spring of rupture strength Qu suspending a vertical

load of magnitude Q, both in units of force. The mean values and

standard deviations of Qu and Q are shown for two cases, A and B, Qu

respectively, in which the uncertainty of the applied load Q is bigger

in Case B than in Case A (hence larger standard deviations of Q in

case B). The two random variables are assumed to be independent

for illustration. One can use the first-order reliability method

(FORM), which includes the Hasofer-Lind index as a special case, Q

to obtain the reliability index E. The classical FORM requires

mathematical techniques for rotated and transformed space. Figure 1 Case A Mean St.Dev. xi* ni

uses the Low & Tang (2007) procedure of spreadsheet-automated Normal Qu 100 20 60 -2.0000

constrained optimization approach that obtains the same design 50 10 60 1.0000

Normal Q

point and reliability index as the classical FORM, but more

intuitively and directly and on the ubiquitous spreadsheet platform. g(x) E ) ( E ) Pf(MC)

The performance function (or limit state function) for the 1.27% 1.24%~1.29%

g1(x) = Qu - Q = 0.00 2.2361

problem in Fig. 1 can be expressed in two ways which are

physically equivalent when g(x) = 0: g2(x) = Qu/Q 1 = 0.00 2.2361 1.27% 1.24%~1.29%

Each Pf(MC) range based on 3 u 500,000 Latin Hypercube samplings

g1 x Qu Q ; g 2 x Qu Q 1 (1a); (1b)

Using FORM, one obtains identical value of reliability index E Case B Mean St.Dev. xi* ni

(2.236 for Case A and 1.562 for Case B) regardless of whether Eq. Normal Qu 100 20 80.4878 -0.9756

(1a) or Eq. (1b) is used. The corresponding probabilities of failure Normal Q 50 25 80.4878 1.2195

are 1.27% for Case A and 5.92% for Case B, respectively. Using

Monte Carlo simulations with Latin Hypercube sampling (each g(x) E ) ( E ) Pf(MC)

500,000 trials), the probabilities of failure (Pf) based on performance 5.92% 5.90%~5.94%

g1(x) = Qu - Q = 0.00 1.5617

functions (1a) and (1b) are identical (in the range 1.24%a1.29%)

g2(x) = Qu/Q 1 = 0.00 1.5617 5.92% 8.18%~8.22%

and consistent with that based on FORMs )(E) only for Case A.

For case B, Monte Carlo simulations produce results Each Pf(MC) range based on 3 u 500,000 Latin Hypercube samplings

(5.90%a5.94%) consistent with FORMs result of 5.92% only if the Figure 1. Monte Carlo simulations produce misleading results

performance function of Eq. (1a) is used. When the performance for Case B when performance function g2(x) of Eq. (1b) is used.

Wed-SS6-02

231

The 17th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference

Taipei, Taiwan, May 10~13, 2010

easily by (i) expressing the performance functions in the form of Eq. b Tension crack

domain, e.g., lognormal, truncated normal, or the bounded 4- DW

parameter general beta distribution. Of course, when the coefficient Z

W V Zw

of variation of the denominator in Eq. (1b) is small such that

negative random numbers are virtually impossible during MC H T U

simulations (as in Case A), performance functions in the form of Eq. Assumedw

Assumed

distribution

(1b) will yield results as reliable as Eq. (1a). Case B in Figure 1 water

should not be construed as discouraging the use of normal \f T pressure

distribution, merely that one needs to check the effect on the \p Failure surface distribution

performance function if Monte Carlo simulation generates negative

numbers. Unlike Monte Carlo simulations, the design point values Para1 Para2 Para3 Para4

of FORM (under the xi* columns in cases A and B) can be observed

easily to check their legitimacy. There is nothing illegitimate about

Normal I 35 5

the design point values of 60 (for case A) and 80.488 (for case B). Normal c 10 2

2.2 Distortions caused by physically incompatible random Normal z 14 3

numbers in Monte Caro simulations Trimmed_Exp zw/z 0.5 0 1

The admissible physical relationship between some random Trimmed_Exp D 0.08 0 0.16

variables must not be violated if correct results are to be obtained.

Consider the case of a two-dimensional rock slope shown in Fig. 2. Figure 2. Random numbers generated during Monte Carlo simu-

A correct treatment of the two random variables z and zw is lations need to obey the physical requirement that the water

described first in the next paragraph, followed by incorrect treatment depth zw in the tension crack cannot be greater than the depth z

in the paragraph after. of the tension crack.

The tension crack is of depth z, and filled with water to the probability of failure from MC simulation could be underestimated.

depth zw. From physical considerations, the minimum value for zw/z

is 0, when the tension crack is dry. The maximum value is 1, when 3. ADVANTAGES AND SUBTLETIES IN RELIABILITY-

the tension crack is completely filled with water. In the FORM BASED DESIGN

reliability analysis and Monte Carlo simulations of Low (2007),

both z and zw will change from their mean values, but both must be The merits of reliability-based design are illustrated for the simple

restricted to the domain 0 d zw/z d 1.0. Normal distribution was case of the spring-suspended load of Fig. 1. The need to distinguish

assumed for z, and truncated exponential (trimmed_exp) probability negative from positive reliability index in reliability-based design is

distribution was assumed for zw/z. For the case without then discussed in the context of the rock slope of Fig. 2.

reinforcement (T = 0), the computed reliability index E was 1.556, 3.1 Context-specific load and resistance factors in reliability-

corresponding to a failure probability of about 6.0%, obtained from based design

Pf = )(E). This compares reasonably well with the failure rates of

6.8%, 6.2%, 6.5%, 6.5%, 6.6%, 6.4% from six Monte Carlo The computed values of the reliability index E for the loaded spring

simulations (each with a sample size of 5000 based on Latin in Fig. 1 are 2.236 and 1.562 when the values of the coefficient of

Hypercube sampling using the commercial software @RISK, variation, V/P, of the applied load Q are 0.2 and 0.5, respectively.

http://www.palisade.com). The difference between the reliability- These E values correspond to failure probabilities of 1.27% and

index-inferred probability of failure of 6% and the average of 6.5% 5.92%. The mean-value point (PQu, PQ) is the most likely event and

from Monte Carlo simulations is due to the approximate nature of in the safe domain, but the spring can still rupture when Qu

the equivalent normal transformation in FORM when nonnormals decreases and Q increases to a common value (60 kN for Case A,

are involved, and possible nonlinearity in the limit state function and 80.488 kN for Case B). The chances of Qu and Q attaining

g(x) = [Fs(I, c, z, zw/z, D) 1], which render the equation Pf = values such that Q > Qu (thereby leading to spring rupture) are

)(E) approximate. (The equation is exact when the random 1.27% for Case A and 5.92% for Case B. Case B is less safe because

variables are normally distributed and the limit state surface is of its higher uncertainty in the applied load Q.

planar, as in the cases of Fig. 1.) One can seek the required mean rupture strength Qu (with V =

Instead of modelling z and zw/z as two random variables (with 0.2P as in Fig. 1) to achieve a target reliability index of 2.5, say. The

the mean value of the latter equal to 0.5), one could conceivably results are shown in Fig. 3.

treat z and zw as two random variables, with the mean value of z

equal to 14 m, and that of zw equal to 7 m. However, doing so leads Case A Mean St.Dev. xi* ni xi*/P

to paradoxical values of probability of failure from Monte Carlo Normal Qu 110.8 22.16 60.286 -2.2795 0.544

simulations which are several times greater than the average of 6.5% Normal Q 50 10 60.286 1.0286 1.206

(also from Monte Carlo simulations) mentioned in the preceding

paragraph when z and zw/z were modelled. Examination of the g(x) E ) ( E )

random numbers of z and zw generated in MC simulations (when z 0.00 2.501 0.62%

and zw were modelled separately) revealed that there were many

failure cases (performance function g(x) < 0) involving generated zw

Case B Mean St.Dev. xi* ni xi*/P

values greater than z values, which are physically inadmissible, but

happened in the random numbers generated during MC simulations. Normal Qu 146.2 29.24 90.6252 -1.9006 0.620

One can think of two other random variables whose physical Normal Q 50 25 90.6252 1.6250 1.813

dependency on each other should not be violated in Monte Carlo

simulations if correct results are to be obtained: the friction angle Ic g(x) E ) ( E )

of retained backfill and the interface friction angle G between the 0.00 2.501 0.62%

retained fill and the retaining wall. Physical considerations require G

d Ic. If G values greater than Ic values are generated in MC Figure 3. The resistance and load factors xi*/P are corollaries of

simulations together with positive performance function values, the reliability-based design and reflect uncertainties & sensitivities.

Wed-SS6-02

232

The 17th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference

Taipei, Taiwan, May 10~13, 2010

In a reliability-based design (such as the case in Figure 3) one does (ii) If the performance function g(x) is negative at the mean-value

not prescribe the ratios x*/mean, but leave it to the expanding point (as in Case II), assign a negative sign to the computed E.

dispersion ellipsoid (Fig. 4) to seek the most probable failure point Perform FORM reliability analysis with increasing T until E =

(i.e. the design point) on the limit state surface, a process which Etarget. In this case E will move from negative value to zero and

automatically reflects the uncertainties, sensitivities and correlations then to Etarget.

of the parameters in a way that code-specified partial factors cannot.

The reliability-based design of the embedment depth of an anchored

Besides, one can associate a probability of failure for each target

sheet pile wall in Low (2005) provides another example of the need

reliability index value. The abilities to (i) seek the most-probable

design point without presuming any code-specified load and to distinguish negative E from positive E values.

resistance factors (or partial factors) and (ii) automatically reflect

sensitivities from case to case are merits of the reliability-based 4. SLOPE RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ACCOUNTING FOR

design approach. SPATIAL VARIATION

3.2 Positive reliability index only if the mean-value point is in The geological processes of soil formation impart spatial auto-

the safe domain correlation to most soil properties. Two methods used by the writer

in his reliability analysis accounting for 1-D spatial variability are:

In reliability analysis and reliability-based design one needs to (i) the method of interpolated autocorrelations, and (ii) the method

distinguish negative from positive reliability index. The computed E of autocorrelated slices. These are described below. It is natural and

index can be regarded as positive only if the performance function straightforward to extend both methods to 2-D spatial variability in

value is positive at the mean value point. Although the discussions limit equilibrium analysis. The method of interpolated auto-

in the next paragraph assume normally distributed random variables, correlations can also be applied to 2-D finite element method.

they are equally valid for the equivalent normals of nonnormal

random variables in FORM. 4.1 Method of interpolated autocorrelations

The five random variables of the rock slope in Fig. 2 include the This method was used in Low and Tang (1997), where the vertical

shear strength parameters c and I of the discontinuity plane which is spatial variation of the cu of the soft clay beneath an embankment

inclined at \p. In the 2-dimensional schematic illustration of Fig. 4, was modeled by six autocorrelated cu random variables, and used to

the limit state surface (LSS) is defined by performance function g(x) interpolate for the cu at 20 points along the slip surface. Low (2001)

= 0. The safe domain is where g(x) > 0, and the unsafe domain investigated the effect of discretized one dimensional random

where g(x) < 0. The mean-value point of Case I is in the safe process on the computed reliability index, and found that the

domain and at the centre of a one-standard-deviation dispersion computed E index was practically the same regardless of the number

ellipse, or ellipsoid in higher dimensions. As the dispersion ellipsoid of discrete points used to represent the one-dimensional cu random

expands, the probability density on its surface diminishes. The first field, provided the spacing between the discrete cu points is smaller

point of contact with the LSS is the most-probable failure point, also than the autocorrelation distance. This is consistent with the

called the design point. The reliability index E of Case I is therefore suggestion of Vanmarcke (1980) that no reduction on standard

positive and represents the distance (in units of directional standard deviation is required when the spacing is less than the scale of

deviations) from the safe mean-value point to the unsafe boundary fluctuation (which is two times the autocorrelation distance if

(the LSS) in the space of the random variables. The corresponding autocorrelation is modeled by the exponential model).

probability of failure )(E) is less than 0.5. If the mean-value point

sits right on the LSS, the probability of failure is 0.5 because E = 0 4.2 Method of autocorrelated slices

when the E-ellipsoid reduces to a point on the LSS. In contrast, Case This method was used in Low et al. (2007)s limit equilibrium

IIs mean-value point is already in the unsafe domain, and the analysis. The horizontal variation of both cu and unit weight J of a

computed E must be given a negative sign because it is the distance clay slope were modelled. Since there were 24 spatially autocorre-

from the unsafe mean-value point to the safe boundary (the LSS). lated slices, the size of the correlation matrix was 48u48. The design

Case IIs probability of failure is greater than 0.5. point obtained represents the most probable combination of the 24

The reinforcing force T required to achieve a target reliability values of cu and the 24 values of J which would cause failure. An

index E (e.g. 2.5) for the slope of Fig. 2 can be obtained as follows: interesting finding is that most of the design point values of J are

(i) If the performance function g(x) is positive at the mean-value above their mean values, as expected for loading parameters, but,

point (as in Case I), E is positive. Perform FORM reliability somewhat paradoxically, there are some design-point values of J

analysis with increasing T until E = Etarget. near the toe which are below their mean values. The implication is

that the slope is less safe when the unit weights near the toes are

lower. This implication has been verified by deterministic runs using

Limit state higher J values near the toe, with resulting higher factors of safety.

surface E = R/r It would be difficult for design code committee to recommend

partial factors such that the design values of J are above the mean

Unsafe Safe domain

along some portions of the slip surface and below their mean along

domain

E-ellipse other portions. In contrast, the design point is located automatically

Ic in FORM analysis, and reflects sensitivity and the underlying

statistical assumptions from case to case in a way specified partial

I 1-sigma ellipse

II factors cannot.

z

z

r

R 20

10

Elevation (m)

0.6 m

Design point 0

70 90 110 130 150 170 190

-20

cc

Figure 4. Increasing the magnitude of reinforcing force T will Figure 5. Modelling spatial variability using the method of auto-

increase the E value of Case II from negative to zero to target E. correlated slices.

Wed-SS6-02

233

The 17th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference

Taipei, Taiwan, May 10~13, 2010

5. FORM AND BIMODAL BOUNDS FOR SYSTEM FAILURE The above example has two failure modes which are local

PROBABILITY OF A SOIL SLOPE minimums and almost equally likely to occur. Provided one

accounts for multiple failure modes, the computed system failure

Established equations for bimodal bounds of probability of system probabilities are practically identical whether one uses FORM or

failure are described in Ang & Tang (1984), Melchers (1999) and Monte Carlo simulations. This writer always finds comparative

Haldar & Mahadevan (1999), for example. Low et al. (2009) studies by various approaches (e.g. Monte Carlo simulations,

presented a practical computational approach for automatic and importance sampling, FORM with system bounds) beneficial and

efficient implementation of the Kounias-Ditlevsen bimodal bounds interesting, and think that the various approaches can play

for systems with multiple failure modes, in which occurrence of one complementary (not antagonistic or exclusive) roles.

or more failure modes constitutes system failure. For example, a

semi-gravity retaining wall could fail by sliding, overturning, or

bearing capacity failure. For a slope with two different soil layers, 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

failure can occur due to a slip surface entirely in the upper soil layer All methods of engineering and scientific analysis have strengths

only or one passing through both the upper and lower soil layers, for and weaknesses, but all can contribute by playing complementary

example. The Kounias-Ditlevsen bimodal bounds estimate the roles. This paper presents the authors experience of some potential

probability of system failure based on knowledge of single-mode pitfalls in Monte Carlo simulations (a very valuable method

failure probabilities and correlations among the failure modes. nonetheless, and used by the author frequently for verifications and

The slope in two clayey soil layers of Fig. 6 was analyzed by comparative studies), and some merits and subtleties of FORM

Ching et al. (2009) using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) and reliability analysis and reliability-based design. Two methods of

importance sampling (IS) methods. The upper clay layer is 18 m accounting for spatial autocorrelations used by the author are also

thick, with undrained shear strength cu1; the lower clay layer is 10 m described, namely the method of interpolated autocorrelations and

thick, with undrained shear strength cu2. The undrained shear the method of autocorrelated slices. The paper ends with a

strengths are lognormally distributed and independent. A hard layer favourable comparison of FORM (plus Kounias-Ditlevsen bounds)

exists below the second clay layer. Since the shear strengths are with a reported case of Monte Carlo simulations for a slope with two

characterized by cu1 and cu2, with Iu = 0, Bishops simplified method clay layers.

and the ordinary method of slices yield the same results, and either

can be used. 7. REFERENCES

In this case where the upper clay layer is weaker than the lower

clay layer, deterministic analysis will indicate two local minimums Ang, H. S. & Tang, W. H. (1984). Probability concepts in engineer-

of the factor of safety, corresponding to two critical slip circles, one ing planning and design, vol. 2-Decision, risk, and reliability.

entirely in the upper clay layer and the other passing through both New York: John Wiley.

layers. Likewise, one can locate two reliability-based critical slip Ching, J. Y., Phoon, K. K. & Hu, Y. G. (2009). Efficient evaluation

circles. As shown in Low et al. (2009), the FORM reliability indices of reliability for slopes with circular slip surfaces using

for the two modes are 2.795 and 2.893, respectively, and the importance sampling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE

Kounias-Ditlevsen bimodal bounds on system failure probability are 135, No. 6, 768-777.

0.432% d Pf,sys d 0.441%. (A separate 8-mode analysis, in which the Haldar, A. & Mahadevan, S. (1999). Probability, reliability and

six additional modes are not local minimums, yielded the same statistical methods in engineering design. New York: John

bounds of system failure probability for the two-layered soil slope.) Wiley.

For comparison, Ching et al. (2009) reported a failure Low, B. K. and Tang, W. H. (1997). "Reliability analysis of rein-

probability of range 0.37%0.506% (from Monte Carlo mean Pf,sys forced embankments on soft ground." Canadian Geotechnical

of 0.44% and c.o.v. of 15.04%). Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5, 672-685.

Low, B. K. (2001). Probabilistic slope analysis involving genera-

lized slip surface in stochastic soil medium. Proceedings of the

Distribution Mean Std. Dev. 14th SEAGC, 825-830, A.A. Balkema: Hong Kong.

c u1 Lognormal 120kPa 36kPa Low, B. K. (2005). Reliability-based design applied to retaining

c u2 Lognormal 160kPa 48kPa walls. Geotechnique, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.63-75.

Low, B. K. (2007). Reliability analysis of rock slopes involving

30

(32, 24) correlated nonnormals. International Journal of Rock

Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Elsevier Ltd., Vol. 44, Issue 6,

922-935.

20

Low, B. K. and Tang, W. H. (2007). Efficient spreadsheet algo-

Clay layer 1 18 m

rithm for first-order reliability method. Journal of Engineering

Toe 10

Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 12, 1378-1387.

Clay layer 2 10 m Low, B. K., Lacasse, S. and Nadim, F. (2007). Slope reliability

0

analysis accounting for spatial variation. Georisk: Assessment

and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and

-10

Geohazards, Taylor & Francis, London, Vol. 1, No. 4, 177-189.

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Low B. K, Zhang J. and Tang W. H. (2009). Practical system

reliability analysis with geotechnical illustrations. (Under

Ching et al. (2009) Low et al. (2009) review)

Monte Carlo simulation First-order reliability method Melchers, R. E. (1999). Structural reliability analysis and pre-

(MCS) and importance (FORM) and Kounias- diction, 2nd ed., New York: John Wiley.

sampling (IS) methods: Ditlevsen bimodal bounds:

Shinoda, M. (2007). Quasi-Monte Carlo Simulation with Low-

Discrepancy Sequence for Reinforced Soil Slopes. J. Geotech.

0.37% d PF, sys d 0.506% 0.432% d P F, sys d 0.441% Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 133 No. 4, 393-404.

Average = 0.44% Vanmarcke, E. H. (1980). Probabilistic stability analysis of earth

slopes. Engineering Geology, Vol. 16, 29-50.

Figure 6. The system failure probability obtained from FORM

and Kounias-Ditlevsen bounds agrees with MC simulations.

Wed-SS6-02

234

- 30125Transféré parboyzes
- Soil Slope Factor of Safety AnalysisTransféré parewanz89
- TC2-5 - Slope Stability GuidelineTransféré parErland Prasetya
- EPS Protection for Building Stability Report.pdfTransféré parPrakash Singh Rawal
- ENG464 Semester 2 2016 UnitOverviewTransféré parchicks123
- Conferinta C60_Articol Geobrugg -DN1C engl (1).docTransféré parDvmLem
- Visual Slope Users Manual V6Transféré parrssaini77
- Richard and Elms (1979)Transféré pardongk2014
- 11 Rock Mass PropertiesTransféré parArie Budhi
- 2 DEM UDEC Course ExamplesTransféré parShishir_Kadam_2138
- Tank Model to Predict GW-1Transféré parwanda lestari
- Unreinf Slope Ceramah BasicTransféré partang
- Mine Planning and DesignTransféré parUdhaya Kumar
- Jimenez 2007 Rmre Wedge SystemTransféré parjuan Perez
- Acharyya & DeyTransféré parbudhnabam
- Fib 34 - Model Code for Service Life DesignTransféré pardimitrios25
- Chapter 4 Product and Service DesignTransféré parjessica
- Worked Example, uiplift to ECTransféré parZaky Messenger
- Bass system implement. maint.docxTransféré parArif Khan
- Design of Roadside ChannelsTransféré parBesim Gülcü
- Transformer-fleet-management-with-e-terraassetcare-epslanguage=en-GBTransféré parManoj
- CE F313 Foundation Engineering Handout_ 2015_16 (1)Transféré parAbhijeet Roy
- GuzzettiTransféré pargiegienz
- 6.1 Rock Stabilisation MethodsTransféré parxdhrts54 y
- Resume Engr Owais ManzoorTransféré parMalik Owais
- IPC2012-90045Transféré parMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Finite Element Application.pdfTransféré parMuhammad Auchar
- Reliability Assessment of Stress Concentration Performance State for a Preforated Composite Plate Under TractionTransféré parBaran Yeter
- Slopes of Embankments and Earth DamsTransféré parRajesh Khadka
- Shear Strength Anisotropy on Stratified SoilsTransféré parAnonymous GnfGTw

- BehrensTransféré parTony Chan
- Airblast Instrumentation in Surface MiningTransféré parTony Chan
- ChenTransféré parTony Chan
- Analysis of Axial Pile Load Test(s) on Large Bored Grouted and Instrumented PilesTransféré parTony Chan
- 164_ICSMGE_OSAKA_2005_Vol2_2103_2106Transféré parbtcong93
- Capitol Visitor Center Diaphragm WallTransféré parTony Chan
- AscheTransféré parTony Chan
- 038 1975 ASCE Loading Test InterpretationsTransféré parDipesh Chandra Barua
- Kosnik Et Al. - Case Studies in Integrated Autonomous Remote MonitoringTransféré parTony Chan
- Arent Spec Terms Supposed to Be PlainTransféré parTony Chan
- Delayed BlastingTransféré parTony Chan
- 035 Reducing negative skin friction with bitumen slip layers.pdfTransféré parTony Chan
- Reliability of Embankments on Soft Ground Using Constrained Optimization.Transféré parTony Chan
- Catalogue of Disorders in Underground StructuresTransféré parTony Chan
- Guide to CPTTransféré parls_bohrer
- Blast Induced Micrometer Response of Cracks in Concrete Block StructuresTransféré parTony Chan
- Comparison of Environmental and Blast Response in Blanford, InTransféré parTony Chan
- 2006 Potential Effects of Surface Mine Blasts Upon Bat HibernaculumTransféré parTony Chan
- 2008-2009 Report Test House in Franklin, WITransféré parTony Chan
- A Gas Pressure-based Drift Round Blast Design MethodologyTransféré parPurnama Muhlis Kaimun
- Dowding Et Al-2007-Multi-Hop Wireless Crack Measurement for Control of Construction VibrationsTransféré parTony Chan
- Autonomous Crack Displacement Monitoring of a Residence Near a QuarryTransféré parTony Chan
- Roof BooltingTransféré parsukhoi200900
- Response of Concrete Block Structure to Quarry Induced Ground Motion and WeatherTransféré parTony Chan
- Blasting Complaints Old Problem, New ApproachTransféré parTony Chan
- blast vibration measurement at far distance and design influence on ground vibrations.pdfTransféré parTony Chan
- Blasting Application for GPSTransféré parTony Chan
- Comparative Field Qualification of ACM and ACSM Systems at Sycamore, ILTransféré parTony Chan
- Blasting SafetyTransféré parregikod

- 0-5179-1.pdfTransféré parNguyễn Nhân
- Structural Geology Lab ManualTransféré parAna Abad
- Labov-1969Transféré parAndréa Burgos De Azevedo Mangabeira
- Making Sure Data Are Valid and ReliableTransféré parwested-magnet-schools
- mcom project topicsTransféré parPradnya Wadia
- Abd11Transféré parYan Naung Ko
- Kennedy 2010 Disturbance Trends FTransféré pardemeritt
- Elements of Logical Reasoning NflTransféré parSilenthand
- Lec#01 economics nfcietTransféré parapi-19788618
- A STUDY ON AWARENESS ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE LEARNERS BASED ON CERTAIN PRESAGE VARIABLESTransféré parAnonymous CwJeBCAXp
- Penner, L.A. (2002)Transféré parnoormiey
- POKA YOKE.docTransféré parKishlai
- 9ABS304 Probability and StatisitcsTransféré parsivabharathamurthy
- Blog - Focus Group Research Methodology - Upfront ConsultingTransféré parMichael Valves
- EURACHEM Uso de La Incertidumbre EjemplosTransféré parRafael Granobles Tobar
- FJMS by Scopus.pdfTransféré parSubi
- LandscapesTransféré parAndra Geangu
- Stat Question Set #7 AnsTransféré parSam H. Saleh
- ICZM-MED - Phase a Technical Report - SummaryTransféré parnikif
- Jurnal MataTransféré parokky_rahmat
- 10.1.1.24.5959euler.pdfTransféré parmousypusa
- Research WorkshopTransféré parnaseem ashraf
- 9221 CTransféré parlin1323
- projectTransféré paremil joseph
- Spss Data Mining TipsTransféré par3pax
- Validation of the Karolinska Sleepiness Sacale Against Performace and EEG VariableTransféré parDjavi Sanch
- Soft Skills of Leaders and School Improvement in High Performing SchoolsTransféré par程莉婷
- End Winding Vibration SolutionsTransféré parmersium
- Mine Surveying-Gyro-TheodoliteTransféré parPrasun
- Baby ThesisTransféré parJM Alicbusan