0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

3 visualizzazioni10 pagineJun 29, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

3 visualizzazioni

© All Rights Reserved

- The Woman Who Smashed Codes: A True Story of Love, Spies, and the Unlikely Heroine who Outwitted America's Enemies
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook, Red Letter Edition
- Steve Jobs
- Cryptonomicon
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- Make Your Mind Up: My Guide to Finding Your Own Style, Life, and Motavation!
- Console Wars: Sega, Nintendo, and the Battle that Defined a Generation
- The Golden Notebook: A Novel
- Alibaba: The House That Jack Ma Built
- Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution
- Autonomous: A Novel
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money

Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

H.F. Schweiger

Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,

Computational Geotechnics Group, Graz University of Technology, Austria

excavation problem in Berlin sand has been specified by the working AK 1.6 of the German

Society for Geotechnics and a simple tunnel excavation was used by working group A of Cost

Action C7. The results of these exercises clearly emphasize the need for establishing

recommendations and guidelines for numerical analysis in practice.

RÉSUMÉ.

1. Introduction

The significant progress made in the understanding of the behaviour of geomaterials would not

have been possible without the use of numerical methods. In particular, developments in

constitutive modelling are closely related to advances made in the field of numerical analysis and

therefore finite element (and other) methods have had a significant impact on geotechnical

research since the 1970s. Advances in computer hardware and, more importantly, in geotechnical

software over the past ten years have resulted in a widespread application also in practical

geotechnical engineering. These developments enable the geotechnical engineer to perform very

advanced numerical analyses at low cost and with relatively little computational effort.

Commercial codes, fully integrated into the PC-environment, have become so user-friendly that

little training is required for operating the programme. They offer sophisticated types of analysis,

such as fully coupled consolidation analysis with elasto-plastic material models. However, for

performing such complex calculations and obtaining sensible results a strong background in

numerical methods, mechanics and, last but not least, theoretical soil mechanics is essential.

The potential problems arising from the situation that geotechnical engineers, not sufficiently

trained for that purpose, perform complex numerical analyses and may produce unreliable results

have been recognized within the profession and some national and international committees have

begun to address this problem, amongst them the working group AK 1.6 "Numerical Methods in

Geotechnics" of the German Society for Geotechnics (DGGT) and working group A "Numerical

Methods" of the COST Action C7 (Co-Operation in Science and Technology of the European

Union). One of the main goals of AK 1.6 of the DGGT is to provide recommendations for

numerical analyses in geotechnical engineering. In addition benchmark examples are specified

and the results obtained by various users employing different software are compared.

Relatively little attention has been paid in the literature on validation and reliability of numerical

models in general and on specific software in particular, although some attempts have been

made (e.g. Schweiger 1998, Schweiger 2000). More recently the problem has also been

addressed by Potts and Zdravkovic (2001) and Carter et al. (2000).

In this paper solutions for two benchmark problems, namely a deep excavation in Berlin sand,

specified by the AK 1.6 of the DGGT, and a simple tunnel excavation, specified by the working

group A of the COST Action C7, will be discussed.

2. Undrained analysis of a shield tunnel excavation

This example has been specified by the Working Group A of COST Action C7 and has been

deliberately chosen very simple (e.g. constant undrained shear strength instead of increasing with

depth). Undrained conditions are considered and 3 analyses should be performed in terms of total

stresses in plane strain conditions:

Analysis B: elastic-perfectly plastic, no lining, Ko = 1.0

Analysis C: elastic-perfectly plastic, segmental lining, Ko = 1.0, given ground loss

The tunnel diameter is given as 10 m and the overburden (measured from crown to surface) is

assumed to be 15 m. At a depth of 45 m below surface bedrock can be assumed (see Figure 1).

The material parameters for all analysis are given in Table 1.

Analysis γ G ν σv = σh (Ko=1.0) cu Elining νlining γlining

kN/m3 kPa - kPa kPa kPa - kN/m3

A 20.0 12 000 0.495 - 400 - - - -

B 20.0 12 000 0.495 (z 130 - - -

C 20.0 12 000 0.495 (z 60 2.1 x 107 0.18 24.0

Analyses A and B: full excavation

Analysis C: full excavation with assumed ground loss of 2%

0.0 m surface

A z

15 m

tunnel diameter = 10 m B

D

thickness of lining = 0.3 m

C

-45.0 m bedrock

2.2 Results

Some selected results are presented in the following. 12 solutions (termed ST1 to ST12

respectively) have been submitted. Table 2 summarizes calculated displacements at various

locations which are indicated in Figure 1. It follows that there is a 20% difference of maximum

settlement of point A, which is by no means acceptable for an elastic solution. As will be seen

later this is entirely due to the different assumptions for the lateral boundary condition.

A B C Dvert. Dhoriz.

ST1 -50 -115 62 -24 -80

ST2 -48 -110 64 -21 -79

ST3 -53 -116 62 -25 -79

ST4 -46 -111 67 -20 -82

ST5 -56 -118 60 -27 -79

ST6 -51 -115 62 -26 -81

ST7 -48 -114 63 -24 -83

ST8 -48 -114 63 -24 -83

ST9 -45 -111 62 -22 -82

ST10 -44 -110 68 -19 -83

ST11 -50 -115 62 -24 -80

ST12 -47 -114 63 -24 -83

Figures 2 and 3 show settlements and horizontal displacements at the surface for the plastic

solution with constant undrained shear strength (Analysis B). In Figure 2 a similar scatter as in

Analysis A is observed with the exception of ST4, ST9 and ST10 which show an even larger

deviation from the "mean" of all analyses submitted. ST5 restrained vertical displacements at the

lateral boundary and thus the settlement is zero here. ST9 used a Von-Mises and not a Tresca

failure criterion which accounts for the difference. The strong influence of employing a Von-Mises

criterion as follows from Figure 2 has been verified by separate studies. It is emphasized

therefore that a careful choice of the failure criterion is essential in a non-linear analysis even for

a simple problem as considered here. The significant variation in predicted horizontal

displacements, mainly governed by the placement of the lateral boundary condition, is evident

from Figure 3. Taking the settlement at the surface above the tunnel axis (point A) the minimum

and maximum value calculated is 76 mm and 159 mm respectively. Thus differences are - as

expected - significantly larger than in the elastic case and again not acceptable.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

-20

-40

vertical displacements [mm]

-60

-80

ST1

ST3

-100 ST4

ST5

-120 ST6

ST7

ST8

-140 ST9

ST10

ST11

-160 ST12

-180

distance from tunnel axis [m]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30 ST1

ST3

-35 ST4

ST5

-40 ST6

ST7

ST8

-45

ST9

ST10

-50

ST11

ST12

-55

-60

Figure 4 plots surface settlements for the elastic-perfectly plastic analysis with a specified volume

loss of 2% and the even wide scatter in results is indeed not very encouraging. The significant

effect of the vertically and horizontally restrained boundary condition used in ST5 is apparent.

However in the other solutions no obvious cause for the differences could be found except that

the lateral boundary has been placed at different distances from the symmetry axes and that the

specified volume loss is modelled in different ways. The range of calculated values for the surface

settlement above the tunnel axis is between 1 and 25 mm and for the crown settlement between

17 and 45 mm respectively. The normal forces in the lining and the contact pressure between soil

and lining do not differ that much (variation is within 15 and 20% respectively), with the exception

of ST9 who calculated significantly lower values.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5

-5

vertical displacements [mm]

-10

-15

ST1

ST2

-20 ST3

ST4

-25 ST5

ST6

ST8

-30 ST9

ST10

ST11

-35 ST12

-40

After comparing all results submitted, a second round of calculations has been performed. All

authors were asked to redo their analysis with the lateral boundary placed at a distance of 100 m

from the tunnel axis with horizontal displacements restrained. By doing so all solutions for

analyses A and B were within acceptable limits, for analysis C however, still significant

differences in results were obtained, although the range of scatter was reduced (Figure 5). These

differences are most likely due to the way different software handles the specified volume loss.

Again this is a strong case for developing guidelines and reference examples how to model this

(and other) excavation problems.

distance from tunnel axis [m]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

-5

vertical displacements [mm]

-10

ST1

-15 ST3

ST5

ST7

ST8

-20

ST9

ST10

-25

3. Deep excavation

The general layout of the problem follows from Figure 6 and the following additional specifications

have been given:

- plane strain

- influence of diaphragm wall construction is neglected, i.e. initial stresses are calculated

without the wall, then wall is "wished-in-place"

- diaphragm wall modelling: beam elements or continuum elements

(Eb= 30.0e6 kPa, ν = 0.15, d = 0.8 m)

- interface elements between wall and soil

- horizontal hydraulic cut off at -30.00 m is not considered as structural support, the same

mechanical properties as for the surrounding soil are assumed

- hydrostatic water pressures correspond to water levels inside and outside excavation

(groundwater lowering is performed in one step before excavation starts)

- anchors are modelled as rods, the grouted body as membrane element which guarantee a

continuous load transfer to the soil

- given anchor forces in Figure 1 are design loads

stage 0: initial stress state (given by σ'v = γz, σ'h = Koγz, Ko = 0.43)

stage 1: activation of diaphragm wall and groundwater lowering to -17.90 m

stage 2: excavation step 1 (to level -4.80 m)

stage 3: activation of anchor 1 at level -4.30 m and prestressing

stage 4: excavation step 2 (to level -9.30 m)

stage 5: activation of anchor 2 at level -8.80 m and prestressing

stage 6: excavation step 3 (to level -14.35 m)

stage 7: activation of anchor 3 at level -13.85 m and prestressing

stage 8: excavation step 4 (to level -16.80 m)

30 m 2 - 3 x width of excavation

x 0.00m

excavation step 1 = - 4.80m

27°

z

excavation step 2 = - 9.30m 19.

27° 8m 8.0

m

27° 3m

8.0

m

excavation step 4 = -16.80m

23.

-17.90m 8m

8.0

m

-32.00m = base of diaphragm wall

0.8m

γ'=γ'sand Specification for anchors:

2 - 3 x width of excavation

2. row: 945KN

3. row: 980KN

2. row: 1.35m

3. row: 1.35m

cross section area: 15 cm2

Young's modulus E = 2.1 e8 kN/m2

sand

Some reference values for stiffness and strength parameters from the literature, frequently used

in the design of excavations in Berlin sand, were given (z = depth below surface):

Es ≈ 20 000 √z kPa for 0 < z < 20 m

Es ≈ 60 000 √z kPa for z > 20 m

ϕ = 35° (medium dense)

γ = 19 kN/m3

γ' = 10 kN/m3

Ko = 1 – sin ϕ

In addition to these values from literature, results from oedometer tests (on loose and dense

samples) and triaxial tests (confining pressures σ3 = 100, 200 and 300 kPa) have been provided.

It was not possible to include a significantly large number of test results and thus the question

arose whether the stiffness values obtained from the oedometer test have been representative. If,

for example, the constitutive model requires a tangential oedometric stiffness at a reference

pressure of 100 kPa as an input parameter, a value of only Es ≈ 12 000 kPa was found based on

these experiments. If a secant modulus for a pressure range beyond 200 kPa is determined a

value of about 40 000 kPa is obtained. This was considered as too low by many authors and

indeed other test results from Berlin sand in the literature indicate higher values. For example

from Ohde (1951) values of about 35 000 to 45 000 kPa could be estimated as reference loading

modulus of a medium dense sand at a reference pressure of 100 kPa.

E = 30 000 x 103 kPa

ν = 0.15

γ = 24 kN/m3

3.3. Comments on solutions submitted

A wide variety of programmes and constitutive models has been employed to solve this problem.

Simple elastic-perfectly plastic material models such as the Mohr-Coulomb or Drucker-Prager

failure criterion (B1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B12 and B16), still widely used in practice have been

chosen by a number of authors. Several entries utilized the computer code PLAXIS (Brinkgreve &

Vermeer 1998) with the so-called Hardening Soil model. One submission used a similar plasticity

model with a simplified small strain stiffness formulation for the elastic range (B14). Three entries

employed a hypoplastic formulation (B3, B3a and B13), B3 without and B3a and B13 with

considering intergranular strains (Niemunis & Herle 1997).

Only marginal differences exist in the assumptions of strength parameters (everybody trusted

the experiments in this respect), the angle of internal friction ϕ was taken as 36° or 37° and a

small cohesion was assumed to increase numerical stability by some authors. A significant

variation was observed however in the assumption of the dilatancy angle ψ, ranging from 0° to

15°.

For reasons mentioned earlier only a limited number of analysts used the provided laboratory

test results to calibrate their material model. Most of the analysts used data from the literature

from Berlin sand or their own experience to arrive at input parameters for their analysis assuming

an increase with depth either by introducing some sort of power law or by defining different layers

with different (constant) Young's moduli. However the choice of the reference moduli for primary

loading and unloading/reloading varied significantly. Additional variation was introduced through

different formulations for interface elements (zero thickness, finite thickness), element types

(linear, quadratic), domains analysed (the width of meshes varied from 80 to 160 m, the depth

from 50 to 160 m), modelling of the prestressed anchors, implementation details of constitutive

models and the solution procedure with respective convergence criteria. The latter aspect is

commonly ignored in practice but it can be easily shown that it may have a significant influence

not only for stress levels near failure but also for working load conditions (Potts and Zdravkovic,

1999).

Because some of the analyses made extremely unrealistic assumptions for the material

parameters (B2, B3, B7, B9 and B17), they have been excluded for the comparison presented in

the following.

Figure 7a depicts lateral displacements of the diaphragm wall due to lowering of the

groundwater level inside the excavation pit to -17.90 m below surface. No clear trend e.g. with

respect to the constitutive model could be identified, B6 is an elastic-perfectly plastic model but so

is B16, both on the opposite sides of the range of results. Observing this variety of results already

in the first construction stage, it is of course not surprising that the scatter increases with further

calculation steps which will be shown later. It should be emphasized at this stage that not only the

assumption of the constitutive model and the parameters have a significant influence on the result

of this construction stage but also the way the groundwater lowering is simulated in the numerical

analysis. Programme specific implementation details, the commercial user of a particular software

may not be aware of, will contribute to the differences shown in Figure 7a. Because of these

possible differences in modelling the groundwater lowering depending on the software used, it

was investigated whether a more clear picture would evolve if a construction stage without the

influence of the groundwater lowering is considered. For that purpose the wall deflection for

excavation step 1 (to -4.80 m below surface) was plotted setting displacements to zero before this

construction stage. The result follows from Figure 7b and the significant scatter already at this

stage is obvious. Although most of the differences can be attributed to the stiffness parameters

chosen as input, a few additional conclusions can be drawn. The largest horizontal displacement

is obtained from the hypoplastic analysis, which was not the case in the previous construction

stage (groundwater lowering). This indicates the strong response of these models on the stress

paths, which are obviously quite different for these two construction steps. This effect of different

stress paths is also observed in the other models but by far not to the same extent. The elastic-

plastic models with stress dependent stiffness (B2a, B8, B10 and B14) tend to give smaller

displacements compared to the elastic-perfectly plastic models. Exceptions are B5 and B16,

which show a distinctly different deflection curve although the Young's modulus chosen is similar

to other entries. Most probably is due to the fact that they did not use an interface element for

modelling the soil/wall interaction.

-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 0

0

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

10

12

12

depth below surface [m]

14

14

16

16

18

18

20

20 B1

B1 B2a

B2a B4 22

B4 22

B5

B5 B6

B6 24

24 B8

B8 B9

B9 B10 26

B10 26 B11

B11 B12

B12 B13 28

28

B13 B14

B14 B16 30

B16 30

32

32

-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

horizontal displacement [mm]

horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 7. Wall deflection a) after groundwater lowering, b) for first excavation step

Limited in situ measurements are available for this project and although some simplifications

compared to the actual construction have been introduced for this benchmark exercise in order to

facilitate the calculations, the order of magnitude of displacements can be assumed to be known.

Figure 8 shows the measured wall deflection for the final construction stage together with

calculated values. It should be mentioned that measurements have been taken by inclinometer

readings, fixed at the base of the wall, but unfortunately no geodetic survey of the wall head is

available. It is very likely that the wall base moves horizontally and a parallel shift of the

measurement is thought to reflect the in situ behaviour more closely, and therefore the

measurement readings have been shifted by 10 mm in Figure 8. This is confirmed by other

measurements under similar conditions. The calculated maximum horizontal wall displacement

for all results considered varies between approximately 10 to 65 mm (exception B6). The shape

of the deflection curves is also quite different. Some results indicate the maximum displacement

slightly above the final excavation level, others show the maximum value at the top of the wall.

measurement

(corrected)

-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10

0

10

12

14

16

18

B1

B2a

B4 20

B5

B6

22

B8

B9

B10 24

B11

B12

26

B13

B14

B15 28

B16

measurement

30

(corrected)

32

-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

20

vertical displacement of surface [mm]

10

-10

B1

B2a

-20 B4

B5

B6

-30 B8

B9

B10

-40 B11

B12

B13

-50 B14

B15

B16

When comparing the results of the calculations with the measurements it has to be pointed out

that the simplification introduced in modelling the groundwater lowering (one step lowering

instead of step-wise lowering according to the excavation progress) leads to higher horizontal

displacements. Further studies revealed that the difference in calculated horizontal displacements

due to the difference in modelling the groundwater lowering is strongly dependent on the

constitutive law employed and ranges in the order of 5 to 15 mm. This may be one of the reasons

why B15, which is an elastic-plastic analysis with stepwise groundwater lowering, is close to the

measurement, but it also means that all solutions predicting less than 30 mm of horizontal

displacement are far off reality.

Figure 9 depicts the calculated surface settlements. Settlements of 45 mm (B11) have to be

compared with a heave of about 15 mm (B4). Considering the fact that calculation of surface

settlements is one of the main goals of such an analysis these results are not very encouraging.

4. Conclusion

Results from a geotechnical benchmark exercise have been presented. A typical problem of a

deep excavation in Berlin sand, formulated by the working group 1.6 of the German Society for

Geotechnics, has been solved by a number of geotechnical engineers from universities and

consulting companies utilizing different finite element codes and constitutive models. The

comparison of the solutions submitted showed a wide scatter in results and only the most

extreme solutions on the far end of the range could be explained with respect to assumptions of

input parameters made in the analysis. Some of the results showed obvious errors such as

incorrect prestress forces of anchors but most analyses made reasonable assumptions for

parameters, discretisation and other modelling details.

This benchmark exercise demonstrates the strong need for guidelines and recommendations

how to model typical geotechnical problems in practice. Pitfalls and unrealistic modelling

assumptions, the commercial user may not be aware of, have to be pointed out and procedures

have to be developed to identify these.

5. References

Brinkgreve R.B.J., Vermeer P.A. (1998), PLAXIS: Finite element code for soil and rock analyses, version 7.

Balkema.

Carter, J.P, Desai, C.S., Potts, D.M., Schweiger, H.F. & S.W. Sloan 2000. Computing and Computer

Modelling in Geotechnical Engineering. Proc. GeoEng2000, Melbourne, Technomic Publishing,

Lancaster. (Vol. 1: invited papers), 1157-1252.

Niemunis, A. & I. Herle 1997. Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range. Mechanics

of cohesive-frictional materials, 2, 279-299.

Ohde, J. 1951. Grundbaumechanik (in German), Huette, BD. III, 27. Auflage.

Potts, D.M & L. Zdravkovic (1999). Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering – Theory. Thomas

Telford

Potts, D.M & L. Zdravkovic (2001). Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering – Application.

Thomas Telford

Schweiger, H. F. 1998. Results from two geotechnical benchmark problems. Proc. 4th European Conf.

Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Cividini, A. (ed.), Springer, 645-654.

Schweiger, H. F. 2000. Ergebnisse des Berechnungsbeispieles Nr. 3 "3-fach verankerte Baugrube".

Tagungsband Workshop "Verformungsprognose für tiefe Baugruben", Stuttgart, 7-67. (in German)

REFERENCE:

Results from numerical benchmark exercises in geotechnics

Proc. 5th European Conf. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Presses Ponts et

chaussees, Paris, 2002, 305-314

- good bookCaricato daManish Ga
- c20-0Caricato daVinay Gupta
- NumericalsCaricato dakalos stratiotes
- Preloading Temp PropsCaricato daparamarthasom1974
- Ch 8 ConceptsCaricato daNeoXana01
- Aurcet SyllabusCaricato darajendra kumar devarapalli
- Banerjee-Mahadevuni2017_Article_Pull-OutBehaviourOfSquareAncho.pdfCaricato daArun M George
- tut-3Caricato daFaridAziz
- Active and Passive PressureCaricato daSebastian
- Science Odd Sem 2019 Routine RevisedCaricato daDivya Sinha
- Reology Del YogurthCaricato daMayraAvila
- Cylindrical Magnets and Ideal Solenoids.pdfCaricato dajames<XIII
- Strength of Materials 2 Marks All 5 UnitsCaricato dadhiyaneswaran
- SyllabI-BTech-CS-2012 (2)Caricato daganpatiea
- sptCaricato daTaqiuddin Mohammed
- Undrained Stability of a Square Tunnel in a Soil Whose Strength Increases Linearly With DepthCaricato daHumberto Jorge
- Hanouts SimplexCaricato daVineet Harit
- 68 Palmstrom&Singh on Deformation ModulusCaricato daClovis Gonzatti
- sdc1Caricato daapi-3704409
- 1-s2.0-S135964541400425X-mainCaricato daAmin Zaoui
- GROUP 2 ceo (1).pptxCaricato daMonica Rible
- A Mathematical Approach to Consider Solid Compressibility in the Compression of Pharmaceutical PowdersCaricato dagunawan
- Sample 1st Midterm 4Caricato daDr. Madhukar Vable
- Definition of Normal Stress and StrainCaricato daAinur Sya Irah
- Geotechnical ConsiderationsCaricato daanon_622910368
- 12Caricato daThanh Nguyen
- CatalogueCaricato daSABEASN
- Error Estimation and Control for ODEsCaricato daCamilo Pedreros Solarte
- Linear programming_ Simplex method exampleCaricato daMinhaj Ahmed
- CFA PILES CAPACITYCaricato daRodrigo Rivera

- Beam TorsionCaricato daKTMO
- Working Load (14!03!09)Caricato daKTMO
- Uplift CheckCaricato daKTMO
- Steel BeamCaricato daKTMO
- BorePileBH1Caricato daKTMO
- PileCom_v01(07012004)Caricato daKTMO
- Lip C Purlin (KNL)Caricato daKTMO
- Etabs Load Combination (for High Rise)Caricato daKTMO
- Deflection Limit for Steel BeamsCaricato daKTMO
- Columns Load TableCaricato daKTMO
- LoadingCaricato daKTMO
- MainSteel and link.xlsCaricato daKTMO
- Subgrade Modulus Calculation From SPT Value(1)Caricato daKTMO
- Pile CapCaricato daKTMO
- MainSteel and LinkCaricato daKTMO
- Circular Column Mom AddCaricato daKTMO
- Cheng Tai Fatt 13 Feb 2004Caricato daKTMO
- 11.11.18 Proposed r.c Revised Alt 6Caricato daKTMO
- 11.11.18 Proposed r.c-revised1Caricato daKTMO
- 11.11.18 Proposed r.c-revisedCaricato daKTMO
- 11.11.18 Proposed R.CCaricato daKTMO
- Memo StyleCaricato daKTMO
- 1Caricato daKTMO
- 2a6d172602f426aefa9e0e5d6b91e09b26f6Caricato daKTMO
- 180906 CAGA Consultants Pte Ltd Company ProfileCaricato daKTMO
- Housing ConceptsCaricato daFarheen Bano
- 4_10Caricato daKTMO
- 4_10Caricato daNanescu Liliana
- 2. Seq Lts Bca Hh Prs21 ElaCaricato daKTMO

- QS Manual WebCaricato daHenrynho25
- Typical MRP ProblemCaricato daashwin joseph
- ES074STUD.PDFCaricato dakrishna sharma
- Transcend-MP3 User ManualCaricato daAshok Kumar
- README.txtCaricato daDaniel Belvedere
- Lsi Sas3080x rCaricato dahoperr
- Collapsing Life EventsCaricato daallextrastodo
- 1C - P L C - MelsecCaricato daMystic Aamir
- Pi Wifi RadioCaricato dapoppyface
- OS LAB MANUAL_0.pdfCaricato daVani Balamurali
- Tait Specifications TB7100 v2Caricato dasahibzada_fazalakber
- Brochure Pds4214Caricato daKimi Kimy
- NBN+MTM+Technology+Overview_CelemetrixCaricato daRajsekhar
- AEMC 3731Caricato daCris Villarreal
- 9100 Compact BTS EVO InstallationCaricato daHitesh Sharma
- 224 datasheet.pdfCaricato daTom Mark
- Tuercas AxilokCaricato daalxsscabal
- VIGOR2920.pdfCaricato daBinu Kalarickan
- DVD WAR 5Caricato dagiloralabora
- Simulator for ArduinoCaricato daFatah Abdoel
- cy27c512Caricato dawolvekane
- BLDC Motor Drive With Zeta Converter Based NPC InverterCaricato daInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Digital CameraCaricato daprabhat
- PIC12F509-Introduction to PIC ProgrammingCaricato dasafet
- Technical Information Passat ENGCaricato daGeorge Stan
- New Text DocumentCaricato daTamanna Bhasin
- Mobile DetectorCaricato davikky8520
- Kyocera Mita_Taskalfa_Copystar Error Codes.pdfCaricato daLuis Romero Martinez
- Anti ForensicsCaricato daalbanianwizard
- Lab- MPLS TE With L2tpv3 v1Caricato daGustavo David Guillen

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.