See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304406229

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING : Site Investigation Report

Research · June 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2937.3049

CITATIONS READS

0 4,316

1 author:

Topu Amar
University of Bologna
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Urban Water Systems Project View project

Design of Breakwater View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Topu Amar on 25 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ALMA MATER STUDIORUM • UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

International Master Course Civil Engineering

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Project # 1: Site Investigation Report

Student: Amar Topu

Student number: 0000710129

Academic Year 2014/201

 1. Introduction

A geotechnical site investigation was carried out in the city of Parma, Italy with the aim of providing
of geotechnical data for the design and construction of sixteen metal silos. This project seeks to
analyze all the site data including in-situ and laboratory test. A geotechnical model of the site was
then obtained from the campaign test data.

The project is divided into two parts; the first part involves report of analysis of ground investigation
and mechanical properties. The second part includes the design of foundation; shallow and deep
foundation.

2. Site description

Site descriptions of the area under investigation are shown in figure 1 to 3. The location of
boreholes and CPT verticals are shown in figure 3.

Figure 1: General layout

Figure 2: Plan and elevation view

Figure 3: Planimetry and location of in situ investigations

3. Stratigraphy

Figure 5: soil stratigraphy with CPTS

Figure 6: soil stratigraphy from borehole

4. Methods and Test results

To provide a geotechnical model of the site the following site investigations were carried
out. Independent observations from different test were then used in identifying and
characterize the deposits of soil in the ground and produce a ground model for geotechnical
analyses.

 3 Core rotary boreholes (S1, S2, S3)

 4 Piezocone penetrations tests (CPTU1, CPTU2, CPTU3, CPTU4)
 2 Seismic piezocone penetration tests (SCPTU1, SCPTU2)
 8 Standard penetration tests (1 SPT in the borehole S1, 3 SPT in the borehole S2, 4
SPT in the borehole S3)

4.1 In – situ test analysis

Due to the many limitations associated with laboratory tests data in obtaining strength and
stiffness parameters of soil, in-situ test are developed to overcome these limitations. For
the purpose of this project two types of in-situ testing techniques were considered to
provide rapid assessment of key parameters that can be conducted during ground
investigations. The techniques employed are; Standard penetration tests (SPT) and cone
penetration (CPT) test

4.1.1 Cone piezocone penetration tests (CPTU) and SCPTU

Cone piezocone penetrations test is one of the versatile tools available for soil exploration.
These tests are mainly used in identifying and profiling the different strata within the
ground, it can be used to reliably estimate soil strength, stiffness and consolidation
parameters. CPTU are commonly used to assess undrained conditions.

Seismic piezocone penetration tests allow for descrete seismic sound to be made inorder to
determine shear wave velocity and strain shear modulus (Go).
Figure 7: Soil behaviour type classification using the Ic method

The OCR, Cu and qt plots of each penetration tests were performed from ground
investigation data obtained. A comparison of the CPT test is shown in the below figures

Where, the OCR and CU were computed using the following formula;

𝑞𝑡 − 𝜎𝑣0
𝑂𝐶𝑅 = 0.33 × ( ′ )
𝜎𝑣0

𝑞𝑐 − 𝜎𝑣0
𝑐𝑢 =
𝑁𝑘

Whereby Nk is the correction factor; for normally consolidated soil, Nk = 15 recommended.

Lab test most often need to be calibrated with a correction factor in order to refine the data
to ensure reliability in the results.
 Overconsolidation ratio, OCR
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0

10 Cpt1
Cpt2
15
Depth (m)

Cpt3

20 Cpt4
Scpt1
25
Scpt2

30

35

40

Figure 8: OCR versus depth from CPTU test

Cu VALUES
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.00

-5.00
CTP1
-10.00
CPT2
-15.00 CPT3
DEPTH [M]

CPT4
-20.00
SCPT1

-25.00 SCPT2

-30.00

-35.00

-40.00

Figure 9: Cu versus depth from CPTU test

 Cone resistance, qt [Mpa]
-40

-35

-30

CPTU1
-25
CPTU2
Depth (m)

CPTU3
-20
CPTU4

SCPTU 1
-15 SCPTU 2

-10

-5
-0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
0

Figure 10: qt versus depth from CPTU test

The OCR values reduces with depth, thus the deeper you go the higher is the vertical stress
resulting in a decreasing trend in OCR values.

From the data obtained one can conclude that during cone penetration test, excess pore
water around the cone increases this in return influence pore water pressure. Lower pore
water pressure is observed in coarse grained material due to high permeability, while high
pore water pressure depicts fine grained material.

A plot of cone resistance against depth clearly show low qt value in fine grained soil (i.e clay)
in comparison to coarse grained sand or gravel.

The CPT test results illustrate that different soil types exhibit different sleeve friction
resistance (fs) and qt; gravel have low fs and high qc while clay have high fs and low qt.

5. Standard penetration tests (SPT)

SPT is a rapid and cost effective in-situ testing techniques used in the investigation of the
coarse-grained soils. This method uses a drop hammer to determine the number of blows
required for the sampler penetration.
Due to the variation in rod hammer system used, amount of energy transferred to the
standard sampler is varied. Therefore blow counts (N) are corrected to a standardized
(reference) free fall hammer energy ratio of 60% (N60). Blow counts also depend on the size
of the borehole.

Penetration resistance increase with stress level, therefore corrected N SPT values were
normalized using a depth correction factor (CN). Angle of shear resistance was evaluated
using Schmertmann and Bolton the latter show slightly high value compared to
Schmertmann method.

ER Emeas
N60 = NSPT. 60 ; Where ER (%) = Etheo

Thus, (N1)60 = CN.N60

According to Schemertmann NSPT values are related to the friction angle, vertical stress and
relative density, such that NSPT = f (σv’ , ϕ’) and NSPT = f (σv’ , DR)

Different friction angle values were evaluated by Schmertmann method using the below
equations and figure:
 Figure 11: ϕ’ versus DR graph

Table 1: Evaluation of friction angle (ϕ’) according to Schmertmann method

Bore Depth Average

σ'vo CN N60 NSPT (N1)60 DR ɸ'1 ɸ'2 ɸ'3 ɸ'4
Holes [m] ɸ'

S1 36 0.329 1.498 77.76 72 116.45 139.31 47.50 47.52 48.43 49.15 48.15

35 0.320 1.498 108.00 100 161.74 164.19 50.99 50.38 50.92 51.13 50.86

S2 54.5 0.495 1.496 108.00 100 161.60 164.11 50.98 50.37 50.91 51.13 50.85

35 0.320 1.498 66.96 62 100.28 129.28 46.10 46.37 47.43 48.34 47.06

38 0.347 1.497 88.56 82 132.61 148.67 48.81 48.60 49.37 49.89 49.17

51.5 0.468 1.496 92.88 86 138.99 152.20 49.31 49.00 49.72 50.18 49.55

S3 56 0.509 1.496 108.00 100 161.59 164.11 50.98 50.37 50.91 51.13 50.85

Avg 0.398 1.497 92.88 86 139.04 151.70 49.24 48.94 49.67 50.14 49.50

The CN , (N1)60 , depth correction factor and DR are calculated according to the Skempton
method.
 3
CN = σ′v
; For coarse grained sands
2+(100)

0.5
(N1)60
DR = ( )
60

The Skempton method was necessary to obtain the above parameters used both in
Schmertmann and Bolton

Table 2: Evaluation of friction angle (ϕ’) according to Bolton method

Bore
Depth [m] K0 σ'ho p' ɸ'1-ɸ'cv ɸ'
Holes

S1 36 0.305 100.457 529.915 12.578 50.58

35 0.305 97.709 515.419 15.496 53.50

S2 54.5 0.305 151.144 797.288 13.340 51.34

35 0.305 97.709 515.419 11.563 49.56

38 0.305 105.954 558.907 13.386 51.39

51.5 0.305 142.900 753.800 12.410 50.41

S3 56 0.305 155.419 819.838 13.202 51.20

Bolton suggested the best used equation to estimate peak friction angle from relative
density. Where,
5.1 Determination of the Young’s modulus (Eu)

In fine-grained soils the corresponding over consolidated ratio (OCR) and undrained shear
strength (Cu) at defined strata were used to evaluate the Young’s modulus (Eu). The below
Figure used the interpolation of OCR value to obtain the ratio of the secant shear modulus
at 25% (Eu25) of applied pressure (qf) and Cu at corresponding plasticity index (IP). Where,

Where v’ = 0.25 selected!

 Figure 12: Relation between undrained Y. modulus & Undrained strength versus OCR

Table 3: Young’s modulus for the corresponding layers

Layer (m) IP Cu OCR Eu/Cu Eu(Kpa) Eu(Mpa) E'(Mpa)

0-8 41 46 4 300 13800 13.80 11.50

8-21 30 65 2.5 575 37375 37.38 31.15

22-34 26 72 1.4 620 44640 44.64 37.20

Organic 76 56 1.4 200 11200 11.20 9.33

Average 26.75
6 Laboratory test

Laboratory tests are necessary to determine relevant soil parameters, boreholes or trial pits
is used to collect soil samples for data analysis. Two kinds of samples were collected; 13
undisturbed samples and 1 disturbed sample and subjected to laboratory tests. Two open
standpipes were installed in the boreholes S1 (with perforated tube between 33 and 36 m
b.g.l.) and S3 (with perforated tube between 6 and 12 m b.g.l.).

Undisturbed samples are mainly required for shear strength and consolidation test and
disturbed samples are used in soil classification and visual compact test. In this project two
test were conducted, namely Triaxial and oedometer test.

6.1 Triaxial test

Triaxial test is widely used for measuring soil behavior in shear and is suitable for all types of
soil. The main advantage it has over direct shear test is that, its drainage condition can be
controlled. Three undisturbed samples were collected and triaxial lab test was performed on
each of these individual samples where by friction angle (φ’) and cohesion (c’) of the soil are
computed.

A general Failure envelope curve for obtaining strength parameters; friction angle (φ’) and
cohesion (c’) using the stress invariant (q - p’) is shown in figure xxx below

Where;
Sample: S1 B

600 p versus q (maximum)

y = 0.9395x + 43.621
500

q400
300
p versus q (maximum)
200 Linear (p versus q (maximum))

100

0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
p'

Figure 13: Sample S1_B failure envelope

Table 4: Sample_1 summary results

Sample 2_C

p versus q (maximum)
450
400 y = 0.6316x + 128.42
350
300
q 250 p versus q (maximum)
200
Linear (p versus q (maximum))
150
100
50
0
0.00 100.00 200.00 p' 300.00 400.00 500.00

Figure 14: Sample S2_C failure envelope

Table 5: Sample 2 summary results

Sample σ'a Kpa σ'r Kpa

S2_C q (max) p' (max) φ' (deg) c'

Specimen 1 221.09 152.70 300.09 100

16.60 60.62
Specimen 2 295.34 255.45 452.34 200

Specimen 3 422.76 468.92 750.76 400

Sample 3
 p versus q (maximum)
400

350
y = 0.7558x + 55.12

300

250

q 200
p versus q (maximum)
150 Linear (p versus q (maximum))

100

50

0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
p'

Figure 15: Sample S3 failure envelope

Table 6: Sample 3 summary table

σ'a Kpa σ'r Kpa

Sample S3_C q (max) p' (max) φ' (deg) c'

Specimen 1 145.97 125.66 222.97 100

19.61 25.98
Specimen 2 207.14 194.05 332.14 200

Specimen 3 373.12 422.37 671.12 400

 SCPTU-1 0.1%
Layer z (m) Go IP G/G0 G MPa V' E' Mpa E' (avg) Mpa
0.5 37 0.62 22.94 0.25 57.35
1.5 39.3 0.62 24.366 0.25 60.915
2.5 42.6 0.62 26.412 0.25 66.03
3.5 38.3 0.62 23.746 0.25 59.365
Clay 4.5 73.9 41 0.62 45.818 0.25 114.545 76.70778
5.5 48.2 0.62 29.884 0.25 74.71
6.5 51.4 0.62 31.868 0.25 79.67
7.5 59.5 0.62 36.89 0.25 92.225
8.5 55.2 0.62 34.224 0.25 85.56
9.5 60.9 0.55 33.495 0.25 83.7375
10.5 85.9 0.55 47.245 0.25 118.1125
11.5 72.1 0.55 39.655 0.25 99.1375
12.5 49.8 0.55 27.39 0.25 68.475
13.5 61.3 0.55 33.715 0.25 84.2875
14.5 44.2 0.55 24.31 0.25 60.775
Clay 29.5 71.96979
15.5 35.6 0.55 19.58 0.25 48.95
16.5 35 0.55 19.25 0.25 48.125
17.5 52.7 0.55 28.985 0.25 72.4625
18.5 55.8 0.55 30.69 0.25 76.725
19.5 43.9 0.55 24.145 0.25 60.3625
20.5 30.9 0.55 16.995 0.25 42.4875
21.5 47.9 0.78 37.362 0.25 93.405
Organic 76 116.1225
22.5 71.2 0.78 55.536 0.25 138.84
23.5 95.4 0.53 50.562 0.25 126.405
24.5 51.8 0.53 27.454 0.25 68.635
25.5 78 0.53 41.34 0.25 103.35
26.5 118 0.53 62.54 0.25 156.35
Clay 26.33 113.0225
27.5 105 0.53 55.65 0.25 139.125
28.5 71.9 0.53 38.107 0.25 95.2675
29.5 60.3 0.53 31.959 0.25 79.8975
30.5 102 0.53 54.06 0.25 135.15
 SCPTU-2 0.1%
Layer z (m) Go IP G/G0 G MPa V' E' Mpa E' (avg) Mpa
0.5 43.1 0.62 26.722 0.25 66.805
1.5 49.8 0.62 30.876 0.25 77.19
2.5 38.2 0.62 23.684 0.25 59.21
3.5 56.2 0.62 34.844 0.25 87.11
Clay 4.5 53.8 41 0.62 33.356 0.25 83.39 80.88
5.5 65.8 0.62 40.796 0.25 101.99
6.5 61 0.62 37.82 0.25 94.55
7.5 51.3 0.62 31.806 0.25 79.515
8.5 50.4 0.62 31.248 0.25 78.12
9.5 58 0.55 31.9 0.25 79.75
10.5 82.6 0.55 45.43 0.25 113.575
11.5 95.9 0.55 52.745 0.25 131.8625
12.5 62.4 0.55 34.32 0.25 85.8
13.5 58.5 0.55 32.175 0.25 80.4375
14.5 65.5 0.55 36.025 0.25 90.0625
Clay 29.5 81.98
15.5 53.8 0.55 29.59 0.25 73.975
16.5 43.4 0.55 23.87 0.25 59.675
17.5 59.9 0.55 32.945 0.25 82.3625
18.5 49.6 0.55 27.28 0.25 68.2
19.5 37.9 0.55 20.845 0.25 52.1125
20.5 48 0.55 26.4 0.25 66
21.5 44.4 0.78 34.632 0.25 86.58
Organic 76 111.44
22.5 69.9 0.78 54.522 0.25 136.305
23.5 77 0.53 40.81 0.25 102.025
24.5 216 0.53 114.48 0.25 286.2
25.5 29.1 0.53 15.423 0.25 38.5575
26.5 96.2 0.53 50.986 0.25 127.465
27.5 80.4 0.53 42.612 0.25 106.53
Clay 28.5 117 26.33 0.53 62.01 0.25 155.025 123.87
29.5 53 0.53 28.09 0.25 70.225
30.5 79.2 0.53 41.976 0.25 104.94
31.5 64.6 0.53 34.238 0.25 85.595
32.5 82.1 0.53 43.513 0.25 108.7825
33.5 85.3 0.53 45.209 0.25 113.0225
Table 7: A comparison of shear (G) and Young’s modulus (E) of laboratory samples

Cell
pressure Depth G
Sample [kpa] (z) q/2 [Mpa] εa v [Mpa] E [Mpa]
16.5 -
S1 - B 200 17 0.12975 0.00858 0.5 5.04 15.12
42 -
S2 - C 400 42.5 0.21138 0.00357 0.5 19.74 24.67
24.5 -
S3 - C 200 25 0.10357 0.003915 0.5 8.82 13.23

The shear and Young’s modulus are computed using the following equations; where v is the
Poisson ratio (0.5)
𝑞
G= + 3 𝑥 ∗ ℰa
2

𝐸 = 2𝐺 𝑥 (1 + 𝑣)

Table 8: Comparison of Young's Modulus (E) from CPT and Triaxial test

DEPTH(m) CPT Tri-axial

0-8 11.5
8-21 31.1458333 15.25
22-34 37.2 13.25
34-44 24.67
Organic 9.33333333
Given the stress - strain curve from the borehole data, a failure envelope curve (p’ – q) for
each sample at three different cell pressure of 100, 200 and 400 kpa were obtained from
which we analyze the key parameters of the Triaxial test. Strength parameters (ɸ’ and c’)
and stiffness parameters (G and E) were obtained.

6.2 Oedometer test

This test is used to determine the characteristics of soil during one-dimensional

consolidation and swelling. All parameters related to soil compressibility and settlements
are obtained from the oedometer analysis.

The compression index Cc and the expansion index Cs were obtained from the void ratio (e) –
effective axial stress curve. The coefficient of primary (Cv) and secondary consolidation (Cα)
were obtained from the log time method (Casagrande), see figures below.

Figure 16: Typical void ratio – effective stress relationship

 Figure 17: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande)

Figure 18: 0.196 constant from average degree of consolidation

Where,

𝑒0 −𝑒1 0.196×𝑑2
𝐶𝑐 /𝐶𝑠 = 𝜎′
𝑐𝑣 = , where d is half the average thickness of the
log( 1⁄ ′ ) 𝑡50
𝜎2

specimen.
 1
1-D elastic modulus (constrain modulus); 𝐸′𝑜𝑒𝑑 =
𝑚𝑣

1 𝑒0 −𝑒1
Coefficient of volume of compressibility; 𝑚𝑣 = × ( ′ ′)
1+𝑒0 σ1 −σ0

6.2.1 Samples and Results

Sample S1_D

Sample S1 D
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
e

0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]

Figure 19: e log curve for sample S1_D

 Sample S1 D
19
h [mm]
18.9

H0 18.8

18.7

18.6
H 50
18.5

18.4

18.3

18.2

18.1

18
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
t50
t [s]

Figure 20: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S1D

Sample S2_A

Figure 21: e log curve for sample S2_A

 18.4 Sample S2 A

18.2

18
h [mm]

17.8

17.6

17.4

17.2
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

t[s]

Figure 22: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S2 A

Sample S2_B

Sample S2 B
0.95

0.85

0.75

0.65
e

0.55

0.45

0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]

Figure 23: e log curve for sample S2_B

 18.9 Sample S2 B
18.8

18.7

18.6

18.5

18.4

18.3

18.2
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

Figure 24: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S2 B

Sample S2_E

Sample S2 E
0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55
e

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]

Figure 25: e log curve for sample S2_E

 19.3
Sample S2 E
19.25

19.2

19.15

19.1
h [mm]

19.05

19

18.95

18.9

18.85
1 10 100 Time [s] 1000 10000 100000

Figure 26: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S2 E

Sample S3_D

Sample S3 D
0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5
e

0.45

0.4

0.35
10 100 1000 10000
P [kPa]

Figure 27: e log curve for sample S3_D

 Settlement _ Time graph
18.6

18.5

18.4
h [mm]

18.3

18.2

18.1

18
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
t[s]

Figure 28: Settlement versus time – log time method (casagrande) for S3_ D

Table 9: Comparisons of parameters obtained from Oedometer test

Comment Comment mV
Sample Cc Cs Cs/Cc Cv cα cα/cc 2 k Eoed
(Cs/Cc) (cα/cc) [m /MN]

S1 D 0.312 0.043 0.138 Ok, within range 6.913E-08 0.010 0.033 Ok, within range 0.178 1.229E-07 5.625

S2 A 0.704 0.083 0.118 Ok, within range 3.591E-08 0.027 0.038 Ok, within range 0.504 1.809E-07 1.985

S2 B 0.322 0.027 0.082 Ok, within range 5.810E-07 0.010 0.030 Ok, within range 0.199 1.154E-06 5.035

S2 E 0.223 0.030 0.134 Ok, within range 9.576E-08 0.008 0.035 Ok, within range 0.134 1.285E-07 7.453

S3 D 0.246 0.027 0.108 Ok, within range 1.800E-07 0.007 0.029 Ok, within range 0.132 2.382E-07 7.555
Table 10: Comparisons of parameters with corresponding stratum test

Stratum Cc Cs Cv cα

Clay 0 - 8 - - - -

Clay 8 - 21 - - - -

Organic Clay 21 - 22 0.704 0.083 3.591E-08 0.02676

Clay 22 - 34 0.322 0.027 5.810E-07 0.00971

Gravel 34 - 38 - - - -

Clay 38 - 44 0.312 0.043 6.913E-08 0.01030

Gravel 44 - 58 - - - -

Clay > 58 0.223 0.030 9.576E-08 0.00772

7 Physical and mechanical properties table

Table 11: Summary of physical properties of the analysed data

ɣs mv Eoed
Lcum(% Scum(% G ɣ (KN/m^ [m2/M [MN/m
Sample Z(m) A0 Acum(%) L(%) ) S(%) ) G(%) cum(%) wP(%) wL(%) W(%) IP(%) IC (KN/m^3) 3) e0 N] 2] Cα k Cc Cs Cv

S1-1 5.4 0 28.46 28.46 71.31 99.77 0.23 100 28.9 18.95

S1-A 6.25 0 98.64 98.64 1.36 100 0 100 29 70 36.9 41 0.80732 17.95

S1-B 16.75 0 99.11 99.11 0.89 100 0 100 29 74 33.9 45 0.89111 18.44

S1-C 31.75 0 99.19 99.19 0.81 100 0 100 30 68 36.2 38 0.83684 18.02

S1-D 42.25 0 75.58 24.25 99.83 0.17 100 0 100 25 56 29.5 31 0.85484 18.96 25.51 0.753 0.178 5.625 0.103 1.23E-07 0.312 0.043 6.91E-08

S2-A 20.25 0 64.06 33.9 97.96 2.04 100 0 100 67 143 80.5 76 0.82237 15.2 23.48 1.890 0.504 1.985 0.027 1.81E-07 0.704 0.083 3.59E-08

S2-B 30.75 0 70.65 27.4 98.05 1.95 100 0 100 28 49 32.5 21 0.78571 18.34 25.54 0.830 0.199 5.035 0.0097 1.15E-07 0.322 0.027 5.81E-07

S2-C 42.25 0 70.44 29.18 99.62 0.38 100 0 100 25 70 28.5 45 0.92222 18.68

S2-D 60.25 0 70.73 29.02 99.75 0.25 100 0 100 27 69 25.7 42 1.03095 19.71

S2-E 69.25 0 83.16 16.82 99.98 0.02 100 0 100 31 77 27.3 46 1.08043 19.09 25.34 0.692 0.134 7.453 0.0077 1.28E-07 0.223 0.03 9.58E-08

S3-A 2.3 0 98.31 98.31 1 99.31 0.69 100 31.9 1.63

S3-B 12.25 0 99.11 99.11 0.89 100 0 100 29 43 32.6 14 0.74286 18.45

S3-C 24.75 0 73.3 26.66 99.96 0.04 100 0 100 30 50 32.4 20 0.88 18.72
S3-D 43.75 0 42.53 53.83 96.36 3.62 99.98 0.02 100 24 51 25.1 27 0.95926 19.54 25.52 0.641 0.132 7.55 0.0072 2.38E-07 0.246 0.027 1.80E-07

WL (%) − W(%)
Ic =
IP (%)

W(%) ɣs
eo = 𝑥
100 ɣ𝑤

eo
Gs = x 100
W
View publication stats