0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

5 Aufrufe10 SeitenNov 18, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

5 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Lattice Steel Towers and Steel Poles
- Sample Railing Calculation to Euro Code
- BH-36.pdf
- Group reduction factors for analysis of laterally loaded pile groups
- Hollow Bar Micropiles for Settlement Control in Soft Soils - Case History Presentation
- Pile Foundation
- Etude Non Lineaire Des Plaques Minces
- Terr EconEng.rev0.2012
- Initial Load Test Pile-calc(450 Mm)Rev0
- Output File-400 Thk
- An Advanced Software for the Geotechnical Design of Foundations
- Analysis of Axial Pile Load Test(s) on Large Bored Grouted and Instrumented Piles
- 58
- 2395ch07
- swa
- CE-LAWS-SCRIPT.docx
- 1-s2.0-S1877705816330740-main
- dotr
- Pile Crop
- Foundation Selection Process

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

settling embankments, pile driving operations, excavation operations, tunneling

operations, moving slopes, or landslides. Accurate estimation of the soil movement is

key to successful estimation of the lateral pile response caused by the soil movement.

This paper first briefly describes a theoretical procedure and elastic design charts for

analyzing the pile response to lateral soil movements, and then, through a study of

published centrifuge model tests and case histories, develops simple guidelines for

approximating actual soil movements for theoretical analysis. It is shown tha t in many

cases the actual soil movement can be simplified to either a linear or uniform profile,

and can be readily applied to the design charts for estimating the maximum pile

response with reasonable accuracy. The analysis methods and guidelines described in

this paper are simple and efficient to use in practice, especially for undertaking

preliminary feasibility studies.

INTRODUCTION

In Hong Kong geotechnical engineers are often required to either assess the lateral

response of existing piles caused by adjacent settling approach embankments (where piles are

supporting bridge abutments), pile driving operations, excavation operations, tunneling

operations, moving slopes or landslides, or to design piles to stabilize unstable slopes or

potential landslides. In all these cases, the piles are subject to lateral soil movements which

induce bending moments and deflections in the piles and may lead to their structural distress

or failure.

The problem of piles subject to lateral soil movements has become a subject of

considerable research work. However, great uncertainties still remain in relation to the

theoretical solutions for estimating the pile response (including deflection and bending

moment) and the consequent pile integrity, the most notable being the accurate estimation of

the magnitude and distribution of the soil movements and the limiting lateral soil pressure

which the moving soil applies to the pile. While the estimation of the limiting soil pressure

has received reasonably wide discussion in the literature (see for example Poulos & Davis,

1980; Chen & Poulos, 1994, 1997), discussion on the estimation of the soil movement is

relatively scarce .

It is the main purpose of this paper to first describe briefly a theoretical procedure and

some design charts based on elasticity theory for analyzing the lateral pile response, and then,

through a study of published centrifuge model tests and case histories, to develop simple

guidelines for approximating soil movements for making theoretical estimation of the lateral

pile response. The analysis methods and guidelines described in this paper are simple and

efficient to use in practice, especially for undertaking preliminary feasibility studies.

1

Senior Geotechnical E ngineer, Atkins China Ltd, 15/F Miramar Tower, 132 Nathan Road,

Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.

2

Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Int. Ltd, 142 Wicks Road, North Ryde 2113, and

Professor, The University of Sydney, Australia.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Detailed accounts of examples of piles subject to soil movements can be found in the

literature, such as Poulos & Davis (1980), Poulos (1988) and Chen (1994). Some typical

examples are briefly described below.

Finno et al (1991) described a case where a 17.7m deep tieback excavation was made

through primarily granular soils within an existing frame structure, which was supported by

groups of step-tapered piles about 21 m long. Although the excavation was provided with

temporary support by a tieback sheet-pile wall, the main column pile caps had moved about

6.4cm laterally toward the excavation by the time the sheet-pile extraction was about to

begin.

Lee et al. (1994) described a case involving the construction of a tunnel for the Angel

Underground Station in London. The tunnel was driven between pile foundations supporting

a seven-story building with a two-story basement, the tunnel axis line being about 5.7m from

the nearest piles. Measured data showed that some of the piles had moved laterally toward the

tunnel by about 10mm when the tunneling operation was complete.

Kalteziotis et al (1993) documented a case where more than 30 piles arranged in two

rows were used successfully to stabilize an unstable slope.

Poulos (1995) described a case where large diameter bored piles were designed to

increase slope stability in Australia.

Chen & Thomas (1999) described the design of bored pile walls to stabilize two fill

slopes in Hong Kong.

Escario et al (1989) reported a case where three 50m long masonry piers were used to

support a viaduct adjacent to unstable steep slopes. The sliding slopes had caused the piers to

deflect horizontally and damage the viaduct.

Hagerty & Peck (1971) reported a case of substantial pile deflections caused by adjacent

pile driving. Some step-taper piles were driven behind a bulkhead into a soft clay deposit.

The already driven piles were caused by subsequent driving to displace laterally and were

tilted towards the bulkhead. The average measured lateral movement of the pile nearest to the

bulkhead was estimated to be about 58cm.

Hull & McDonald (1992) reported a case where some pier piles were damaged by the

lateral soil movements resulting from an adjacent embankment construction.

The problem of a vertical pile subject to lateral soil movements is schematically shown

in Fig. 1, where d is pile diameter, L is pile le ngth, and zs is thickness of unstable soil layer.

zs

L

Broadly speaking, the analysis methods of the lateral pile response may be classified

into the following three categories:

1) displacement -based methods, as described by Poulos (1973) in which a free-field soil

movement profile is imposed on a pile in a simplified boundary element analysis to

estimate the pile response.

2) pressure -based methods, in which a soil pressure profile is imposed on the pile in the

pile analysis, such as that used by De Beer and Wallays (1972).

3) finite element method, such as that described by Rowe & Poulos (1979).

Of these methods, it appears that the displacement-based boundary element analysis can

be applied virtually to any type of problems provided that the free-field soil movement can be

estimated. In the analysis, the pile is modeled as a simple elastic beam, and the soil as an

elastic continuum. The lateral displacement of each element of the pile can be related to the

pile bending stiffness and the horizontal pile-soil interaction stresses. The lateral

displacement of the corresponding soil elements is related to the soil modulus or stiffness, the

pile-soil interaction stresses, and the free-field lateral soil movements. A limiting lateral pile-

soil stress can be specified so that local failure of the soil can be allowed for, thus allowing a

nonlinear response to be obtained. Based on this analysis, Hull (1987) developed a boundary

element program named PALLAS for analyzing the lateral pile response.

Using such an analysis method, a series of simple design charts have been developed for

estimating maximum pile bending moments and deflections associated with slope

stabilization, excavation and tunneling operations, as described by Poulos (1995), Poulos &

Chen (1996a, 1996b), Chen & Poulos (1996), and Chen et al (1999, 2000).

Fig. 2 Elastic solutions for unrestrained free-head pile in Gibson soil (Linear Soil Movement Profile)

(after Chen & Poulos, 1997)

Elastic design charts to accommodate a more general situation have also been presented

by Poulos (1989) and Chen & Poulos (1997, 1999). These elastic design charts cater for two

basic soil movement profiles, namely, uniform and linear profiles, although in principle they

can be extended to cover other profiles. Some of the design charts are reproduced in Fig. 2.

The input parameters required for use of the elastic design charts include pile diameter

(d), pile length (L), pile bending rigidity (EpI p), soil Young’s modulus (E s, either uniform

with depth or = Nhz for Gibson soil, where Nh is a constant), magnitude of soil movement at

ground surface (so ), the limiting soil pressure, and thickness of unstable soil layer (zs).

Estimation of the soil movements will be discussed in the next section.

As the lateral soil movement profile cannot always be obtained before hand for

theoretical predictions in practice, an assumed simplified profile may need to be used.

Although the actual soil movement profiles vary from case to case, a study of published case

histories has indicated that in some cases they can be simplified to either a uniform or linear

profile, as demonstrated below.

Example 1: Recently, Leung et al (2000) have presented results from centrifuge model

tests on a single pile adjacent to unstrutted deep excavations in dense sand. The model pile

was fabricated from a hollow square aluminum tube and instrumented with 10 pairs of strain

gauges protected by a thin layer of epoxy. The model pile simulated a prototype concrete

bored pile of 0.63m in diameter, 220MN.m2 in flexural rigidity, and 12.5m in total embedded

length. The retaining wall supporting the excavation was made of an aluminum alloy plate,

equivalent to a KSP-IIA sheet pile wall having a bending stiffness EI of 24000 MN.m2/m and

an embedment depth of 8m. The Young’s modulus of the sand, Es , was estimated to increase

linearly with depth, z, and may be expressed approximately as Es = Nhz = 6z MPa.

Several tests were carried out in which the pile was located at different distances from

the retaining wall. The free -field soil movements, pile bending moments and deflections were

measured for different depths of excavation. The measured free-field soil movements at

different distances from the wall and corresponding to an excavation depth of 4.5m are

shown in Fig. 3(a). It can be observed that these lateral soil movements decrease almost

linearly with depth.

In order to use the above-mentioned elastic design charts to back-calculate the pile

response, the soil movement profiles shown in Fig. 3(a) were simplified to linear profiles as

shown in Fig. 3(b). The procedure of estimating the maximum pile bending moment and

deflection is illustrated for Test PC1 in which the pile was located at 1m from the wall.

At the location of 1m from the wall, the soil movement at ground surface, so , is about

35mm and the thickness of the unstable soil layer, zs, is about 8m, as shown in Fig. 3(b). For

L/d = 12.5/0.63 = 19.8; zs/L = 8/12.5 = 0.64; KR = EpIp/NhL5 = 220 x 103 /6 x 10 3 x 12.55) =

1.2 x 104; and from Fig. 2, m1 = 0.36; and so the maximum pile bending moment Mmax = 0.35

x 6 x103 x 0.632 x 8 x 0.037 = 260 kN.m compared to 220 kN.m (measured). Also m2 = 0.9;

and so the maximum pile deflection ρ o = 0.9 x 0.35 = 32mm compared to 28mm (measured).

Following the same procedure, the maximum pile bending moments and deflections for

other tests can also be similarly estimated. The estimated results are shown in Fig. 4, together

with those measured. It can be seen that the elastic design charts using the simplified soil

movements generally give an upper bound but fairly good estimation of the pile response.

Lateral soil movement (mm)

300

10 20 30 40

pile-1

0 (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) estimated by design charts

250

measured

Test PC2

measured

2.5

200

Test PC1

pile-2

150

Test PC3

(a)

5

Test PC4

Test PC5

measured 100

7.5

50

(1) 1m from wall

(2) 2m from wall

0

10

(4) 4m from wall 0 2 4 6 8 10

Distance from retaining wall (m)

(5) 5m from wall

12.5

40

Depth below ground surface (m)

0 estimated by design charts

Test PC2

30 measured

2.5

Test PC1

Test PC3

20

5

Test PC4

Test PC5

(b)

10

7.5

simplified

0

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

12.5

Fig. 3 Lateral soil movement profiles Fig. 4 Estimated and measured maximum pile bending

of Example 1 moments and deflections of Example 1

Example 2: De Beer and Wallays (1972) reported a field test in Belgium that aimed to

study the influence of embankment construction on adjacent pile foundations. Measured

results were presented for a steel pipe pile and a reinforced concrete pile. The steel pipe pile

was 28m in length, 0.9m in diameter, and 1.5cm in wall thickness, while the reinforced

concrete pile was 23.2m in length and 0.6m in diameter. The pile heads were restrained from

lateral displacement. The soil deposit consisted mainly of sand, with a Young’s modulus Es

of about 30MPa and the limiting soil pressure of about 2pp (where pp is the Rankine passive

pressure) (see Chen & Poulos, 1997). The measured free-field lateral soil movements are

shown in Fig. 5(a) to generally decrease with depth.

Chen & Poulos (1997) have shown that a full analysis via the computer program

PALLAS can give estimations of pile bending moments and deflections very close to those

measured, using the measured soil movement profile shown in Fig. 5(a).

In this paper, the above soil movement profile was simplified to a linear profile in two

cases. As shown in Fig. 5(b), one case has a s o value of 20mm, while the other has a so value

of 40mm, both cases having a zero value occurring at a depth of about 18m. The pile bending

moment and deflection profiles estimated using PALLAS are shown in Fig. 6, together with

those measured, and a fairly good agreement between the estimated and the measured values

can be observed. As can be seen, the measured profiles are encompassed by those estimated

corresponding to the two so values. Clearly , a so value of between 20mm and 40mm should

give reasonably good estimations.

The elastic design charts were not applied to these two piles because the pile heads were

restrained from lateral translation rather than free, and design charts for this case have not yet

been developed.

Bending moment (kN.m) Bending moment (kN.m)

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200

soil movement (mm)

0 0

0 20 40 60

5

5

10

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

10

depth (m)

15

15

20

sSoo ==20mm

20mm sSoo ==20mm

20mm

20

25 sSo

o ==40mm

40mm sSo

o ==40mm

40mm

measured measured

30 25

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 0

5

5

depth (m)

10

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

10

15

15

20

So

so ==20mm

20mm So

so ==20mm

20mm

so ==40mm 20 so ==40mm

So 40mm

25 So 40mm

measured measured

30 25

(b) simplified

Fig. 5 Lateral soil movement (a) steel pipe pile (b) concrete pile

of Example 2 Fig. 6 Pile bending moments and deflections of Example 2

Example 3: Esu and D’Elia (1974) described a field test in which an instrumented

reinforced concrete pile was installed into a sliding slope. The slope consisted mainly of clay,

with its upper 7.3m thick layer undergoing lateral movement. The test pile was 30m long,

0.79m in diameter, and the bending stiffness was 360MN.m2. The soil Young’s modulus was

about 0.53z MPa (where z is depth), while the limiting soil pressure was about 120kPa and

320kPa for the moving soil layer and the stable soil layer, respectively. The soil movements

were not measured.

Assuming a soil movement of 110mm distributed uniformly with depth, the pile bending

moment and deflection estimated by PALLAS were found to agree very well with those

measured, as shown by Chen & Poulos (1997). The maximum pile bending moment and

deflection estimated by the elastic design charts were also found to agree fairly well with,

although larger than, those measured, with the maximum bending moment Mmax being

1.1MN.m as compared to the measured value of 0.9 MN.m. The maximum deflection was

0.15m, as compared to the measured value of 0.147m.

Example 4: Carrubba et al. (1989) reported a field test in which a reinforced concrete

pile was used to stabilize a sliding slope. The sliding surface was measured to be at about

9.5m deep below the ground surface. The instrumented test pile was 22m in length and 1.2m

in diameter. The soil Young’s modulus was about 15MPa uniform with depth, while the

limiting soil pressure was about 90kPa and 170kPa for the moving soil layer and the stable

soil layer, respectively.

Assuming a soil movement of 95mm distributed uniformly with depth, the pile bending

moment profile estimated by PALLAS w as found to agree very well with that measured, as

shown by Chen & Poulos (1997). The maximum pile bending moment estimated by the

elastic design charts was also found to agree fairly well with, although larger than, that

measured, with a value of 2.6MN.m as compared to the measured value of 2.3 MN.m.

Measured pile deflection data were not available for comparison.

Example 5: Kalteziontis et al. (1993) reported a case where two rows of piles were

installed to stabilize a moving slope. The soil conditions consisted mainly of lacustrine

deposits of over one hundred meters thick, overlying bedrock of Triassic marl. Among the

piles were three steel pipe piles instrumented with strain gauges, but measured results were

presented only for one of them. All the piles had a length of 12m and the steel piles had an

external diameter of 1.03m, a wall thickness of 18mm and a flexural stiffness of 1540MN.m 2.

The measured soil pressure was 0.9 and 3.2 MPa for the moving soil layer and the stable soil

layer, respectively, while the corresponding soil Young’s modulus values were taken to be 15

and 70MPa.

The measured soil movements at the uphill and downhill are shown in Figs. 7(a) & (b)

respectively. It can be seen that the soil movements at the uphill are rather uniform with

depth, while those at the downhill decrease nearly linearly with depth. Note that the piles

were installed at the downhill and were therefore subject to the soil movements shown in Fig.

7(b). Also note that the soil movements shown in Fig. 7(b) were measured after the piles were

in place and should therefore be smaller than the free-field soil movements occurring just

before the piles were installed. Chen (1994) indicates that the maximum free-field soil

movement at the surface was about 3.5mm.

-0.2 0.2

0

3

Depth (m)

12

(a) uphill (b) downhill

Assuming a linear soil movement profile, the pile bending moment and deflection

profiles estimated by PALLAS were found to agree very well with those measured, as shown

by Chen & Poulos (1997). The maximum pile bending moment and deflection estimated by

the elastic design charts were also found to agree fairly well with, although larger than, those

measured, with the maximum bending moment Mmax being 0.16MN.m as compared to the

measured value of 0.15 MN.m, and the maximum deflection being 3.2mm as compared to the

measured value of 2.7mm.

Note that, had the piles been installed at the uphill location where soil movements were

larger than at the downhill, a uniform soil movement profile would have been more suitable

for use in theoretical prediction, as can be seen in Fig. 7(a).

Discussion

From the study of the above examples, the following preliminary guidelines may be

developed for the determination of soil movements in making theoretical predictions in the

absence of measured data or more accurate estimation by other methods:

1) For unstrutted excavations or relatively small slope movements, a linear soil movement

profile, with a maximum value at the ground surface and zero at a certain depth below

the surface, may be adopted. The maximum value may be estimated from measured

ground surface settlements or via appropriate empirical approximations.

2) For landslides involving relatively large soil movements, a uniform soil movement

profile may be adopted.

The above study also shows that either the boundary element program PALLAS or the

elastic design charts can give reasonably good estimations of the lateral pile response.

CONCLUSIONS

A study of published centrifuge model tests and case histories has shown that in some

cases the actual soil movement can be simplified to either a linear or uniform profile, and can

be readily applied, with the elastic design charts, to estimate the maximum pile response with

reasonable accuracy. The analysis methods and guidelines described in this paper are simple

and efficient to use in practice, especially for undertaking preliminary feasibility studies.

REFERENCES

Carrubba, P., Maugeri, M., and Motta, E. (1989). Esperienze in vera grandezza sul

comportamento di pali per la stabilizaaione di un pendio. Proc. XVII Convegno

Nazionde di Geotechica, Assn. Geotec. Italiana, Vol.81-90.

Chen L.T., and Poulos, H.G. (1994). A method of pile-soil interaction analysis for piles

subjected to lateral soil movement. Proc. of 8th International Conference on Computer

Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, pp. 2311-2316, USA.

Chen, L.T. (1994). The effect of lateral soil movements on pile foundations. PhD Thesis, The

University of Sydney, Australia.

Chen, L.T., and Poulos, H.G., (1996). Some aspects of pile response near an excavation.

Proc. of 7th Australia and New Zealand Conference in Geomechanics, pp.604-609.

Chen, L.T. and Poulos, H.G. (1997). Piles subjected to lateral soil movements. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 9, pp 802-811.

Chen, L.T. and Poulos, H.G. (1999). Design charts for analysis of piles subjected to lateral

soil movements. Proceedings of 8th Australia and New Zealand Conference in

Geomechanics, pp.367 – 373, Edited by Vitharana and Colman, Hobart, Australia.

Chen, L.T., Poulos, H.G. and Logana than, N. (1999). Pile responses caused by tunnelling.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 3,

pp.207 – 215.

Chen, L.T. and Thomas, B.R. (1999). Design of bored piles for fill slope stabilisation in

Hong Kong. Proce edings of 8th Australia and New Zealand Conference in

Geomechanics, pp. 69-74, Edited by Vitharana and Colman, Hobart, Australia.

Chen, L.T., Poulos, H.G. and Loganathan, N. (2000). Approximate design charts for piles

adjacent to tunneling operations, GeoEng2000 - An International Conference on

Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, November 2000.

De Beer, E.E., and Wallays, M. (1972). Forces induced in piles by unsymmetrical surcharges

on the soil around the piles. Proc. 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, Vol.1, 325-332.

Escario, V. & Uriel, A. (1989). Lateral forces induced on a pier of the “canalejas viaduct” by

a slope stabilizing fill.

Esu, F., and D’Elia, B. (1974). Interazione terreno-struttura in un palo solleciato dauna frana

colata. Rivsita Italiana di Geotechica, 111, 27-38.

Finno, R.J., Lawence, S.A. Allawh, N.F. and Harahap, I.S. (1991). Analysis of performance

of pile groups adjacent to deep excavation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

ASCE, Vol.117, No. 6, pp.934-955.

Hagerty, D.J., and Peck, P.B. (1971). Heave and lateral movements due to pile driving.

Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol.11, 1513-1532.

Hull, T.S. (1987). The behaviour of laterally loaded piles. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.

Hull, T.S. & McDonald, P. (1992). Lateral soil movement loading in bridge foundation piles.

Proc. 6th ANZ Conf. Geomech., Christchurch, pp. 146-150.

Kalteziotis, N., Zervogiannis, F.R., Seve, G., and Berche, J.C. (1993). Experimental study of

landslide stabilization by large diameter piles. Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils-

soft Rocks, ISBN90 5410 3442, Anagnostopoulos et al., eds., A.A. Balkema,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1115-1124.

Lee, R.G., Turner, A.J., and Whitworth, L.J. (1994). Deformations caused by tunneling

beneath a piled structure. Proc. XIII International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, University Press, London, 873-878.

Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. and Shen, R.F. (2000). Behaviour of pile subject to excavation-

induced soil movement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,

Vol.126, pp.947-954.

Poulos, H.G. (1973). Analysis of piles in soil undergoing lateral movement, Journal of Soil

Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 99, pp. 391-406.

Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. (1980).Pile foundation analysis and design, John Wiley and Sons

Inc., New York.

Poulos, H.G. (1988). Marine Geotechnics, Unwin Hyman, London.

Poulos, H.G. (1989). Pile behaviour-theory and application. Geotechnique, London, England,

39(3), 365-415.

Poulos, H.G. (1995). Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability. Can. geot. Jnl.,

32:5, 808-818.

Poulos, H.G., and Chen, L.T. (1996a). Pile response due to excavation– induced lateral soil

movement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, no.2, pp. 94-99.

Poulos, H.G., and Chen, L.T. (1996b). Pile response due to unsupported excavation –

induced lateral soil movement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 33, pp. 670-677.

Rowe, R.K.& Poulos, H.G. (1979). A method for predicting the effect of piles on slope

behaviour, Proc. 3rd International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,

Aachen, pp. 1073-1085.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr T.S. Hull, who developed the

PALLAAS program. The first author would also like to thank Ir William Wong of Housing

Department, Hong Kong SAR, for his stimulating discussions, encouragement and support in

the preparation of this paper.

- Lattice Steel Towers and Steel PolesHochgeladen vonyudha_hermawan_kinoy
- Sample Railing Calculation to Euro CodeHochgeladen vonEric Ng S L
- BH-36.pdfHochgeladen voncivixx
- Group reduction factors for analysis of laterally loaded pile groupsHochgeladen vonmsafa63
- Hollow Bar Micropiles for Settlement Control in Soft Soils - Case History PresentationHochgeladen vonJonathan Bennett PE DGE
- Pile FoundationHochgeladen vonAna Cristina Asperin
- Etude Non Lineaire Des Plaques MincesHochgeladen vonHugues Prescott
- Terr EconEng.rev0.2012Hochgeladen vonAdiputra Satria
- Initial Load Test Pile-calc(450 Mm)Rev0Hochgeladen vonsathish
- Output File-400 ThkHochgeladen vonSelvasatha
- An Advanced Software for the Geotechnical Design of FoundationsHochgeladen vonHiren Desai
- Analysis of Axial Pile Load Test(s) on Large Bored Grouted and Instrumented PilesHochgeladen vonTony Chan
- 58Hochgeladen vonトミラマ
- 2395ch07Hochgeladen vonSheikh Mizanur Rahman
- swaHochgeladen vonjkligvk. jukj
- CE-LAWS-SCRIPT.docxHochgeladen vonEdhelyn Lim
- 1-s2.0-S1877705816330740-mainHochgeladen vonSaleh Hassan
- dotrHochgeladen vonMylene Alma Mallare Lara
- Pile CropHochgeladen vonbatman
- Foundation Selection ProcessHochgeladen vonGabriel Alexis Malagon Carvajal
- Deep FoundationHochgeladen vondwarika2006
- Chapter 3 Deep FoundationHochgeladen vonWeyWeyEnne
- Classification of Pile FoundationHochgeladen vonSacademicus
- 6Hochgeladen vondicky
- Frost PenetrationHochgeladen voncrnewsom
- Elastic Pipe BendsHochgeladen vonUmar Kida
- In situ Test SPTHochgeladen vonAnonymous fE2l3Dzl
- ASC2012 RajeshHochgeladen vonRajesh Kumar
- Compliance ReportHochgeladen vonMantripragada Raju
- 1030650-draft-scopeHochgeladen vonMohamedGhanem

- meyerhof Method - Pile Capacity.xlsHochgeladen vonTee Bun Pin
- (ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119_4(793)Hochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- (ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000580Hochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- Cumming, JamesHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- [2083831X - Studia Geotechnica Et Mechanica] Modelling and Assessment of a Single Pile Subjected to Lateral LoadHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- ASTM Standards.pdfHochgeladen vonTarun Sahu
- Interactionbetweenlaterallyloadedpileandsurroundingsoil.pdfHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- 19. DUCTILITY ESTIMATION OF FIXED-HEAD LATERALLY LOADED PILEHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- 1-s2.0-S1110016812000427-mainHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- 11 g Perhitungan m Ind1213Hochgeladen vonarypurnomo
- 2017_LZY_SaticMonopileSand (1).pdfHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- Prediction of the Horizontal Load-displacement CurHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- DETERMINATIONOFPOISSONSRATIOBYMEANSOFRESONANTCOLUMNTESTSHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- Numerical Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering 1Hochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- 60bb8470b82b7bc824c41a8ead588f6fbd67.pdfHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- 145627072 Pile Foundation DesignHochgeladen vonscist
- Broms Method-xls-lateral Pile Capacity in Cohesive SoilHochgeladen vonMUHAMMAD ALI
- Hussain2019 Article MicropileGroupBehaviourSubjectHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- 17Hochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- 24Hochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- ركز فيه كويس15Hochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- lateral loaded pileHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- Analysis of Laterally Loaded Long OrHochgeladen vonsofronije2005
- tfhHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- erHochgeladen vonAhmed Ramadan
- TRM Versus FRP in Flexural Strengthening of RC Bea 2017 Construction and BuiHochgeladen vonniko

- Experiment WL 110.03Hochgeladen vonaida
- Ficha Tecnica de Phelps DodgeHochgeladen vonEnrique Julca
- Air Compressor NotesHochgeladen vonIrfan Shaikh
- Combined Thrust & Journal Bearing Assembly Reduces Cost & Risk for Large Pump Users _ Pumps & SystemsHochgeladen vonJAGADEESH
- TE_2004Hochgeladen vonrahulsaini855
- Chapter 14Hochgeladen vonovidiu_bln
- 10 Impact and Shear Ignition by Nonshock MechanismsHochgeladen vonkingmajor
- SSP 315_European on-Board Diagnosis for Diesel Engines COstin SAVAHochgeladen vonTeee Teee
- Understanding the Inspection Process of Drilling TubularsHochgeladen vonLuke Oliveira
- Kohler 20RES SpecsHochgeladen vonginger1951
- 2008-2010 Scion XD Electrical Wiring DiagramsHochgeladen vonjorgelnaranjo
- Ch. 5 Circular Motion PPTHochgeladen vonTreeicicles
- SYSTEMSMOUNTINGGUIDELINESFORSEPARABLERECIPROCATINGCOMPRESSORSINPIPELINESERVICE.pdfHochgeladen vonCarlos Gil
- Closed Loop Control CFBCHochgeladen vonJawahar Bhattacharya
- Honda Trouble CodesHochgeladen vonGraci Torres
- SSP-384 2nd Edition Lycoming Engine ToolsHochgeladen vonKamal Jit Dhiman
- Thermax BoilerHochgeladen vonhara-kiri
- VIBROCOMPACTADORCT262 703B800 +Hochgeladen vonMilton Hernandez Pérez
- Aeroelastic FlutterHochgeladen vonThiam Chun Ong
- Basics of Foundry LadlesHochgeladen vonArpan Das
- Unit 2(3agemp)Hochgeladen vonVinay MP
- FINAL SEMINAR PPT.pdfHochgeladen vonAhemad
- manual avance automaticoHochgeladen vonpesyr
- SF6 Outdoor CB Brochure 72.5 - 245kVHochgeladen vontatacps
- Cummins 12Hochgeladen vonhary fadly
- victolicHochgeladen vonMohammed Saj Subair
- Chapter7 - Single Phase MotorHochgeladen vonMohd Jamal Mohd Moktar
- Fisika Dasar - MInggu 10 - PanasHochgeladen vonAniee K. Nareswari
- Water Service Station RepHochgeladen vonganesh
- Ns3100 50m Supplemental Instructions for Fta3100 Series Variable Speed ControllersHochgeladen vonTrung Thành Võ

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.