2 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Hesbon Moriasi

Conference paper

Conference paper

© All Rights Reserved

- Flat Slab Design to Bs8110
- Fema484 Conduit Through e Dam
- STANDARDS/MANUALS/ GUIDELINES FOR SMALL HYDRO DEVELOPMENT
- laporan praktikum mekanika tanah direct shear test UI
- TAP Marrickville Geotechnical-Investigation Apr 2013
- AFEM.Ch06 (1) (1)
- Landslide Notes
- Coupling Shell Elements With Solid Elements
- NIT_6
- Paper GTL 2012 Deep Excavation Failures, Can They Be Prevented
- Lab 7 - Triaxial _uu
- What Does the Track Parameter Mean in Staad
- REFERENCES.pdf
- Mcgm(Civil)2016
- Ce2251 Soil Mechanics Qb
- 631-1841-1-PB
- DS13-1
- parmiability and seepage.pptx
- 1)siteinvestigation
- Khosla’s Seepage Theory.pptx

Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Scholars' Mine

International Conference on Case Histories in (2004) - Fifth International Conference on Case

Geotechnical Engineering Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

of Xiluodu Hydraulic Power Station

Ga Zhang

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Jian-Min Zhang

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation

Zhang, Ga and Zhang, Jian-Min, "A FEM Seepage Analysis for Upstream Cofferdam of Xiluodu Hydraulic Power Station" (2004).

International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 10.

http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/5icchge/session02/10

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International

Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright

Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact

scholarsmine@mst.edu.

A FEM SEEPAGE ANALYSIS FOR UPSTREAM COFFERDAM OF XILUODU

HYDRAULIC POWER STATION

ZHANG Ga ZHANG Jian-Min

Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering,

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT

The upstream cofferdam of Xiluodu hydraulic power station project, with height of 72 meters, is designed as the main body of the project.

It is characterized by its high retaining water head, short construction period and complex geological conditions. Presented in this paper

is a three-dimensional FEM analysis used to investigate the seepage behavior of the upstream cofferdam for two different design schemes.

In the analysis, the cracks in cut-off wall which may be caused in construction are also properly considered. Based on 3D seepage model

of saturated-unsaturated flow for non-uniform soils, a fixed-mesh FEM is used in the seepage analysis of the upstream cofferdam. As the

results of the analysis, the distribution of water head and discharge of seepage are obtained and compared. The seepage stability of the

cofferdam is analyzed to be safe enough based on the new concept called critical gradient zone.

body of the cofferdam is constructed with rockfills and gravels

Xiluodu hydropower station, which is located at the Jinshajiang with good hydraulic conductivity. The soilaggregate sloping

River in southwestern China, is another great hydraulic project core or geomembrane sloping wall is suggested as body of

after Three-Gorge Project. An upstream cofferdam with height seepage-proof structure. The cofferdam’s foundation is

of 72 meters has been designed as the main body of the project. composed of an overlying stratum and bedrock. The overlying

It is characterized by its high retaining water head, short stratum is mainly made of sands and gravels, probably forming

construction period and complex geological conditions. The a good path for seepage. A concrete cut-off wall is therefore

cofferdam itself has a complicated structure with very quite built in the stratum, which is same for the two schemes. The

difference among the permeability of the materials of different bedrock is divided into weak permeable layer and very weak

fill zones. After preliminary analysis, two primary design permeable layer according to their permeability. The geological

schemes of seepage-proof structure, including a soilaggregate profiles of the cofferdam are shown in Fig. 2. It could be seen

sloping core wall and a geomembrane sloping wall, were that the distribution of material zones of the foundation is of

suggested and then required to be further evaluated which one three-dimensions, and as a result, 3D FEM seepage analysis is

better in the seepage control. Fig. 1 shows the simplified used in this paper.

maximum cross section of the cofferdams with two different

transition

rockfill cut-off

Overlying stratum

330

weak permeable bedrock

very weak permeable bedrock

Y (m)

434.1

geomembrane transition

cut-off Rockfill

Overlying stratum

330

weak permeable bedrock

very weak permeable bedrock

Fig.1 Maximum cross section of the cofferdams with two different seepage-proof structures for seepage analysis

400

cut-off

350 weak

permeable

bedrock

300

very weak permeable bedrock

Y (m)

250

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Three main seepage problems are paid attention to in the design NUMERICAL MODEL

and comparison of the two seepage-proof styles of the

cofferdam: 1) the seepage discharge is small enough to accepted; Permeability of fill materials

2) the seepage stability is ensured; and 3) the seepage discharge

and stability is accepted even if under the abnormal condition The structures of two seepage-proof styles are shown in Fig. 1

such as a small crack in the cut-off due to the construction or where the system of coordinate is taken for convenience of the

other reasons. As a result, a three-dimension seepage analysis is analysis. The x-axis is the direction of the longitudinal axis of

used to investigate the seepage behavior of the cofferdam. Two the cofferdam; the y-axis, the direction of flow; the z-axis, the

operating conditions for the cofferdam are considered in the direction along the elevation. The corresponding coefficients of

analysis: 1) normal conditions where no cracks occur in the permeability and legends of material zones are listed in Table 1.

seepage-proof structure; 2) abnormal conditions where some

cracks occur in the seepage-proof structure. The possible Table 1. Legends and corresponding coefficients of

highest upstream water level is considered in the two cases. permeability of main material zones

There are two main challenges in the seepage analysis: one is Material zone Legend Permeability

the remarkable difference among permeability of the fill (Meterial coefficient

materials, which has great effects on the stability of iteration Number) cm/s

computation of the free surface; the other is the simulation of

Very weak permeable bedrock 1 5×10-5

the cracks, which is too thin (about 10 cm). The dimensions of

FEM mesh therefore range from very small (to simulate the Weakly permeable bedrock 2 5×10-4

cracks) to large (to simulate the cofferdam body). Presented in Overlying stratum 3 0.1

this paper is a brief introduction of three-dimensional FEM Concrete cut-off 4 5×10-7

analysis of the seepage behavior of the Xiluodu upstream soilaggregate 5 2×10-5

cofferdam for the two different design schemes.

Geomembrane 6 10-11

Transition zone 7 0.03

Rockfill 8 0.1

Principle and boundary conditions According to the specific design flood probability and

construction requirements, upstream and downstream water

Steady seepage flow in saturated and unsaturated soils may be levels of 434.1m and 330m are taken in the seepage analysis.

described by the following three-dimensional differential

equation: Geomembrane is too thin (no more than 1mm) to form the FEM

mesh suitably. In addition, the holes in the geomembrane,

∂ ⎛ ∂H ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂H ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂H ⎞ which may be induced during construction, also need to be

⎜kx ⎟ + ⎜ky ⎟ + ⎜kz ⎟=0 (1)

∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎜⎝ ∂y ⎟⎠ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠ considered. An equivalent element is adopted as a treatment of

simplification, i.e., the thickness of each element of the

in which H is the water head; kx, ky, kz are respectively the geomembrane is magnified and the coefficient of permeability

coefficient of permeability in the three directions of x, y and is equivalently enlarged. In the analysis, the thickness of the

z-axis, which can be written as element is set to 1m and the coefficient of permeability is

k i = (k 0 )i k r i = x, y , z (2) accordingly taken 10-7 cm/s.

where (k0)i is the coefficient of permeability in the three Special attention in the analysis of the abnormal conditions is

directions for saturated soil, and its magnitude mainly depends paid to the following four types of cracks that may occur in the

on the characteristics of soil; kr is the relative coefficient of seepage-proof structure: (1) A horizontal crack 30m long and

permeability, which is a function of pore pressure and water 10cm wide along the joint between the concrete cut-off wall and

content of soil. soilaggregate (or geomembrane) wall; (2) A horizontal crack

30m long and 10cm wide along the joint between the concrete

The boundary conditions used in the analysis are given as cut-off wall and bedrock; (3) Two different vertical slots 20cm

follows. and 40cm wide in the concrete cut-off wall along the depth of

1) A constant water head H is taken or the whole overlying stratum (about 340m-360m level); (4) For

the cofferdam with a geomembrane sloping wall, a slot 30m

H = H0 (3) long and 10cm wide is considered in the geomembrane. To

2) At the impermeable boundary, evaluate conservatively, the cracks are all considered to appear

in the maximum cross section.

∂H ∂n = 0 (4)

The cracks are simulated by a series of thin elements. The mesh

3) At the steady free surface, near the crack is densified and added with a proper transition.

H ( x , y , z ) = z ( x, y ) (5) The 3D seepage behavior caused by cracks and bedrock can be

both properly considered at the same time.

where n is the direction normal to the boundary.

Fig.3 shows an overview of 3D FEM mesh for seepage analysis,

In the seepage analysis, two conditions must be satisfied which has a total of more than 8000 nodes and elements.

simultaneously on the free surface boundary: one is that no flow

crosses the boundary; the other is that the pressure is

atmospheric (Eq. 5). In this paper, a technique is adopted to

obtain the free surface. In the free surface, impermeable X

boundary condition is discarded. The region of unsaturated soil Flow

is covered in the solution and the free surface is the surface that direction

the pore pressure is zero, which can be determined with

interpolation (Jiang CB & Du LH, 1999). A fixed-mesh seepage

FEM thus is derived, by which the calculation is simplified and

consequently the seepage behavior of the cofferdam could be

examined in more detail.

Numerical Modeling

the dam body and overlying stratum are cut off by a

soilaggregate sloping core wall (or a geomembrane sloping wall)

and concrete cut-off wall. The weak permeable bedrock

becomes the main routes of seepage. Therefore, the bedrock

should be well simulated in the seepage analysis. The mesh

covers a certain area of very weak permeable bedrock in the Fig.3 An overview of FEM mesh

foundation so that the boundary could be considered

impermeable.

RESULTS OF NORMAL CONDITIONS Z/m

Z (m)

400

The discharge of seepage and distribution of water head (H) are

obtained for the two different design schemes. The maximum

discharge of seepage is 0.29m3/s for the soilaggregate sloping 430 420 390 380 370

core wall, less than 0.46m3/s for the geomembrane sloping wall. 300 410 400 360 350 340

It is preliminary concluded that the two seepage-proof XY(m)

(m)

structures are both acceptable because the seepage discharge of -200 -100 0 100 200

X/m

the two are not large. The curtain wall is not necessarily built in

the bed rock as a suggestion. a) Maximum cross section

Figs. 4 and 5 show the distribution of the water head in the Z (m)

Z/m

maximum cross section and along the maximum longitudinal

direction for two design schemes with different seepage-proof 400

structures. The seepage takes place mainly in the weak 400 410

permeable bedrock. As shown in Figs 4b and 5b, the flow in the 390 390 400

middle part is supplied through the bedrock near two shoulders

300

of the dam, so that the free surface is curved in the maximum

longitudinal section. The geomembrane sloping wall is much X (m)

thinner than soilaggregate sloping core wall, the by-pass -200 -100 0 100 200

Y/m

seepage of the sloping wall through the bedrock becomes much

prominent than that of the sloping core wall. That is an b) Maximum longitudinal section

important reason why the discharge of seepage and position of

the free surface for the cofferdam with a soilaggregate sloping Fig. 5. Distribution of water head and position of free surface for

core wall are lower than those for the cofferdam with a cofferdam with a geomembrane sloping wall

geomembrane sloping wall.

Z/m

Z (m) RESULTS OF ABNORMAL CONDITIONS

Free surface

400

Hydraulic head

Flow field analysis

300

430 420 400 390 380 370 360 350 340

410 It is found that the discharge of seepage rises significantly when

X (m)

Y(m) the cracks take place in the seepage-proof structures. As an

-200 -100 0 100 200

example, the effect of the vertical slot 20cm wide in the cut-off

wall is here discussed in detail. For the cofferdam with a

a) Maximum cross section

soilaggregate sloping core wall, the discharge of seepage

increases up to 0.52m3/s from 0.29m3/s of the normal condition.

Z(m)

Z (m)

Z/m For the cofferdam with a geomembrane sloping wall, the

Hydraulic head Free surface discharge of seepage increases up to 0.69m3/s from 0.46m3/s.

400

The flow field in the cofferdam is also affected considerably by

410 the cracks, especially near the cracks. As an example, Figs 6

410

400 390 390 400 and 7 show the whole flow field and distribution of local water

300 head near the crack for the cofferdam with a soilaggregate

sloping core wall. It can be seen that the crack takes place in the

X (m)

overall part of the cut-off wall in the overlying stratum (340m to

-200 -100 0 100 200

Y/ 360m level). Comparing with the normal condition, the free

surface raises and the contours of the water head become dense

b) Maximum longitudinal section near the crack. However, the flow field tends to become

consistent with that of normal condition in the space at a little

Fig. 4. Distribution of water head and position of free surface for

cofferdam with a soilaggregate sloping core wall

distance away from the crack. It indicates that the crack has a

much great influence on the flow field near the crack, but its

effect is limited in a not big local space.

Z/m

Z(m)

Z(m)

380

380

400

38 7

430 420 400 380 370 360 350 340 370

370

300 410 390

/ 360

360

390

Fig. 6. Distribution of water head and position of free surface in

maximum cross section for cofferdam with a soilaggregate sloping 350

39

350

core wall and a vertical slot with 20cm wide in cut-off wall

2

Z(m)

39

380

4

380 340

340

39

5

382

-50

-50 -40

-40 -30

-30 -20

-20 -10

-10 Y(m)

c) Local cross section at a horizontal distance of 20m away from

370

370 the crack

3 83

in Fig. 6 with the rectangular window

360

360

3 84

38

350

5

350

As seen from the Figs 6 and 7, big gradients of seepage are

386

38

7

38

340

340 project.

8

-50

-50 -40

-40 -30

-30 -20

-20 -10

-10

Y(m)

a) A locally enlarged zone of maximum cross section for normal Two basic factors are determined from the seepage stability

conditions analysis: 1) actual gradient of seepage and its distribution in the

seepage field; 2) allowable gradients of seepage, depending on

Z(m) the fill materials and bedrocks. For this project, the seepage

380

380

stability of seepage-proof structure and bedrock do not need to

be considered. The allowable seepage gradient of the overlying

stratum and gravel is taken 0.2 conservatively. The cofferdam is

388

370

370 regarded in state of seepage stability if there is not a very big

space in the overlying stratum where the actual gradient of

seepage is more than the allowable gradient of seepage. The

3 90

360

360 average gradient in a certain space near the crack is usually

applied in practical engineering. The average gradient, however,

392

39 5

397

350

3D condition. A new concept called critical gradient zone,

350

400

cofferdam. The critical gradient zone indicates a closed zone

403

40 6

340

340 gradient of 0.2, the downstream side of the cutoff wall and the

-50

-50 -40

-40 -30

-30 -20

-20 -10

-10 Y(m) bedrock surface. It is shown with the shaded region in Fig. 8.

b) Local cross section through the center of a vertical crack The actual gradient of seepage in the zone is more than the

allowable gradient of seepage. The size and shape of the critical

gradient zone show a risk level of the dam again the seepage

failure.

the cofferdam with a soilaggregate sloping core wall and a

vertical slot with 20cm wide in the cut-off wall. Similar

phenomenon can also be seen in the cases with the other

different cracks. The critical gradient zone almost vanishes in

the space 20m away from the crack and is limited in the Z(m)

380

overlying stratum only. Based on the present results and other

engineering experience, the whole seepage stability of the Cut-off

防渗墙

Xiluodu cofferdam is adjusted to be assured.

370

CONCLUSIONS

upstream cofferdam of the Xiluodu hydraulic power station.

The method is confirmed effective and feasible by good

regularity of the results. The abnormal conditions considering

cracks that may occur in the cut-off wall are involved in the

350

analysis. To evaluate the seepage stability of the cofferdam, a

new concept called critical gradient zone is introduced. The Y(m)

following conclusions can be obtained based on the results of -140 -130 -120 -110

analysis.

a) Local cross section through the center of crack

1) The fixed-mesh FEM used in the present analysis is valid for Z(m)

380

the complicated structure with great difference in the

permeability of materials of different zone.

Cut-off

防渗墙

2) For the normal conditions, two seepage-proof structures,

including a soilaggregate sloping core wall and a geomembrane 370

sloping wall, are both effective. The soilaggregate sloping core

wall is relatively better.

360

increases significantly when a crack takes place in the cut-off

wall for both design schemes with the two different

seepage-proof structures. The crack of the cut-off has a great

influence on the flow field near the crack, but its effect is

limited in a not big local space. The critical gradient zone may 350

appear in the overlying stratum behind the cut-off wall, but it Y(m)

vanishes 20m away from the crack. -140 -130 -120 -110

b) Local cross section at a distance of 10m away from the crack

REFERENCE Z(m)

380

seepage through spatially random soil”, J Geotech Engng Vol. Cut-off

防渗墙

153, pp. 153-160

370

Jiang C B and Du L H. [1999]. “Finite element model of 3D

seepage flow for non-uniform medium”, J Tsinghua Univ (Sci

& Tech), Vol. 39, No. 11, pp. 21-24

360

Lee K K and Leap D I. [1997]. “Simulation of a free surface

using bound-aryfitted coordinate system method”, J Hydrology,

Vol. 196, pp. 297-309

based on the unified unsaturated soil theory”, Mechanics Y(m)

Research Communication, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 107-112 -140 -130 -120 -110

c) Local cross section at a distance of 20m away from the crack

shown with the rectanger window) for cofferdam with a soilaggregate

sloping core and a vertical slot 20cm wide in cut-off wall

- Flat Slab Design to Bs8110Diunggah olehRajanRanjan
- Fema484 Conduit Through e DamDiunggah olehrgscribd61
- STANDARDS/MANUALS/ GUIDELINES FOR SMALL HYDRO DEVELOPMENTDiunggah olehUmer Farooq
- laporan praktikum mekanika tanah direct shear test UIDiunggah olehsipilPI12
- TAP Marrickville Geotechnical-Investigation Apr 2013Diunggah olehArnel Dodong
- AFEM.Ch06 (1) (1)Diunggah olehHamed Memarian
- Landslide NotesDiunggah olehYalın Umur Dogan
- Coupling Shell Elements With Solid ElementsDiunggah olehYuanqing Wang
- NIT_6Diunggah olehJames Anderson
- Paper GTL 2012 Deep Excavation Failures, Can They Be PreventedDiunggah olehRivai Vai S
- Lab 7 - Triaxial _uuDiunggah olehdixn__
- What Does the Track Parameter Mean in StaadDiunggah olehshafiullah
- REFERENCES.pdfDiunggah olehRAIZZ
- Mcgm(Civil)2016Diunggah olehpatsan007
- Ce2251 Soil Mechanics QbDiunggah olehmanisaibaba
- 631-1841-1-PBDiunggah olehMike
- DS13-1Diunggah olehelisban
- parmiability and seepage.pptxDiunggah olehFardous Rababah
- 1)siteinvestigationDiunggah olehbrianmanson78
- Khosla’s Seepage Theory.pptxDiunggah olehHemant Parmar
- CVG 3106 Chp1 ReviewDiunggah olehOusama Kadri
- Civill Notes (Www.citystudentsgroup.com)Diunggah olehBhargav K
- Sand Dams in UkambaniDiunggah olehBenson Mwathi Mungai
- DelDiunggah olehSanjay Kumar Sah
- 1-s2.0-S1674775517303311-main.pdfDiunggah olehFranklin Quispe Moya
- Hydro Reviewer MidtermDiunggah olehPaj Magpayo
- 6_ 0830Diunggah olehFioz Ariyandi
- Important Questions SoilDiunggah olehSURESHKUMAR P
- FINITE ELEMENT ANAYSIS (FEA).pptxDiunggah olehSILAMBARASAN
- jcie-01Diunggah olehAlireza Shojaeyan

- 05_01_Limit_equilibrium_slope_stabilityDiunggah olehDani Darma Putra
- Tender Notice South RiftDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- CR-9-NOTICE-OF-CESSATION-OF-OFFICE-OF-DIRECTORS.docxDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Annual Return FormDiunggah olehMwagaVumbi
- BS GraphDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Bleeding Test for Fresh GroutsDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Fugro FlyerDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Nkana WSP (Zambia)Diunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Leave Request for StaffDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- UNIT 5Diunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- TBM Brochure en Web-279731Diunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Numerical Analyses of the Performance of the Drtij__ica Earth DamDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Three Dimensional Dynamic Analysis of Alborz Dam With Asphalt AndDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Averted Piping Failure_Earth Dam on Permeable FoundationDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Treatment or Unconformity Zone and Curtain Grouting in FoundationDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Tall Building Foundation Design – the 151 StoryDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- The Consolidation Behavior of the Clay-Core in a Rock Fill DamDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Treatment for a Full Weathering Rock Dam FoundationDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Field Testing of Crushed Ignimbrite for Seismic Retrofit of MatahDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Case Histories of Earthen Dam FailuresDiunggah olehnerina colcol
- Bloomfield Road Stormwater Storage Tanks Grouting Works BlackpooDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Amirkabir Natm Tunnel - A Case Study of Design Challenges in a MeDiunggah olehAhmad Junaidi
- Grafton Bridge Geotechnical November2003Diunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- ce5338Diunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- ProfileDCT_Mar15_web.pdfDiunggah olehshazan
- 14456.pdfDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- FACE.pdfDiunggah olehHesbon Moriasi
- Ahmed Al 2000Diunggah olehGustavo Taquichiri
- Ahmed 2002Diunggah olehHesbon Moriasi

- Ch 2 Short QuestionsDiunggah olehNotesfreeBook
- Nielsen Three Screen Report Q12010Diunggah olehSB5
- SL-314 (8-2001)Diunggah olehmarcus
- GE Multilin L90 V7.31 Line PTT User Manual ENU.pdfDiunggah olehAniela
- Operation strategy KPSDiunggah olehKARTIKEYA MISRA
- temsa-7343Diunggah olehPramodh N K
- 1830 AH RulesDiunggah olehtobymao
- Ch5 VectorsDiunggah olehMonch D. Arief
- Stock Market one.pdfDiunggah olehbala
- research_proposal_Prasant_Kumar_MisraDiunggah olehKing Ken Molefane
- W2K8_Virtualization_PPTDiunggah olehapi-27448143
- US Federal Trade Commission: franchise93-01Diunggah olehftc
- Runner’s World - December 2015 USA.pdfDiunggah olehJoana Soares
- Ph Dependant Solubility StudyDiunggah olehAmit Khunt
- EPM 11.1.2.4 Workspace Integration With OBIEEDiunggah olehAsad Rao
- Lecture02 - Resistance.pptDiunggah olehKarl Belasa
- Ven List 2015 Jamaica 2015Diunggah olehAulia Kp
- Cracking (Chemistry) - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaDiunggah olehGaluh Ajeng
- factors and multiples. class VIDiunggah olehRichaBhardwajBhatia
- Tesla Market AnalysisDiunggah olehkthuang1
- Mapping the New CommonsDiunggah olehLeif Brecke
- Download Topology RoutingDiunggah olehEgidea Ramadhani
- 2012 - 14 Pathways to Low Carbon Shipping.pdfDiunggah olehteriax
- Rule to Show Cause PacketDiunggah olehChicagoCitizens EmpowermentGroup
- 2005 Physico-chemical and Morphological Properties of Coal Fly Ash From VarnaDiunggah olehFirman
- Ate StatDiunggah olehArion Razvan
- Medical glossary.docDiunggah olehhima67
- 02chapter4-6Diunggah olehGalina Ilieva
- AMD64 ArchitectureDiunggah olehKonstantyn_Lipich
- 5 Manual Control Remoto RG56N - RG56VDiunggah olehEnki Vilü