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

net/publication/332265348

Numerical investigation of gravity retaining wall foundation failure

mechanisms

Conference Paper · April 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 110

2 authors, including:

Arman Kamalzadeh
University of Auckland
7 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering/ Hybrid simulation / Health monitoring View project

Seismic Response of Retaining Walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arman Kamalzadeh on 08 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical investigation of gravity
retaining wall foundation failure
mechanisms
A. Kamalzadeh & M.J. Pender
The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

ABSTRACT
This research investigates the response of the gravity retaining walls subjected to monotonic and
sinusoidal loadings, adopting the OpenSees finite element analysis. Recent research has shown the
capacity of the shallow foundation supporting the wall controls the behaviour of the system, Pender
(2018). Understanding the wall system failure mechanism can help us in seismic resistant design of
gravity wall systems. There has been a controversy in the geotechnical engineering community on
whether the failure mechanism initiates by rotational deformation or horizontal sliding.
The appeal of utilising OpenSees is the capability of its available constitutive models for soil,
particularly the Manzari-Dafalias which can represent the complete spectrum of drained behaviour
of sand from very loose to dense (and also undrained behaviour and pore pressure response).
Cantilever walls with a reinforced concrete stem and base will be investigated to check on the
rotational and sliding foundation failure mechanisms. The earthquake response of the system is
likely to produce permanent deformations of the foundation soil beneath the heel and toe of
concrete base of the wall. The implications of this for wall system performance under subsequent
earthquakes will be investigated. Ricker Wavelet dynamic input motion will be applied to
investigate the above factors.

1 INTRODUCTION
The current design approach can be traced back to 1g shaking table tests observations performed by Okabe
(1924) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929), the so-called M-O approach. With some modifications by Seed
and Whitman (1970) the M-O method has become the main approach for designing earthquake-resistant
retaining structures. The appeal of this method is its simple application. Formula 1 to 3 show how the M-O
lateral thrust is calculated.

Paper 99
2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 1
 cos2 (𝜑 − 𝜃 − 𝛼)
𝐾𝐴𝐸 =
sin(𝜑 + 𝛿) sin(𝜑 − 𝜃 − 𝑖) 2 (1)
cosθ cos2 𝛼 cos(𝛼 + 𝛿 + 𝜃)(1 + √ )
cos(𝛼 + 𝛿 + 𝜃) cos(𝑖 − 𝛼)

𝑘
𝜃 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (1−𝑘
ℎ
) (2)
𝑣

𝑃𝐴𝐸 = 0.5𝐾𝐴𝐸 𝛾𝐻 2 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝐴𝐸ℎ = 𝑃𝐴𝐸 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛿 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝐴𝐸𝑣 = 𝑃𝐴𝐸 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛿 (3)

Where 𝜑 is the backfill friction angle, 𝛼 is the angle between the backfill side of the wall with the vertical, 𝛿
is the interface friction angle, 𝑖 is the backfill surface slope angle, 𝛾 is the unit weight of the backfill and, 𝐻
is the height of the wall. Note that in the absence of a dynamic excitation (𝜃 = 0) therefore, we can calculate
pressures induced by soil self weight.
Although, recent design approaches concludes the equivalent static seismic force distribution along the depth
of the wall is similar to an inverted triangle, using centrifuge test and FE models some researchers currently
found out it is an upright triangle (Mikola et al., 2014, Chin et al., 2016, Wood, 2018). Moreover, another
source of overestimation is the equivalent force magnitude, especially where design PGA (peak ground
acceleration) exceeds (Sitar et al., 2012). The current design method assumes maximum dynamic earth
pressure is simultaneous with the wall peak inertia force causing over-conservative design while centrifuge
test results have shown the occurrence time of these is not coincident (Sitar and Al Atik, 2008). Al Atik and
Sitar (2010) have implemented finite element (FEM) analyses using the OpenSees (McKenna et al., 2013)
platform (developed by The University of Berkley, California) to model their centrifuge tests and full-scale
models. They find the FEM analyses results from OpenSees are in strong agreement with centrifuge test
results and find the current design method is excessively conservative. Also, Chin et al. (2016) used
OpenSees modelling and localised their models using typical New Zealand soil types and seismic zones of
NZS 1170.5 (Standards New Zealand Technical Committee, 2004) for embedded cantilever walls with two
different propping configurations.
In this study, we used OpenSees to model soil-retaining wall problem types. The GiD (Coll et al., 2016)
pre/post-processing software, has been utilised to build the geometry of the model.The soil profile is
assumed to have unlimited lateral extent, and there is a bedrock lying under the model. The wall dimensions
are the same as one of the cases in Pender (2018) paper. The static and dynamic response of the wall is
investigated.

2 BUILDING THE MODEL

2.1 Geometry and boundaries

The 2D soil – gravity cantilever retaining wall is modelled in the OpenSees (McKenna et al., 2013). The soil
profile is assumed unlimited in the horizontal direction hence, only a small portion of it around the retaining
wall is modelled which we call it the interior model. To establish an accurate model, the interior model has a
mesh size of 10cm in the proximity of the retaining wall. However, the mesh becomes larger as we move on
to the sides of the model.
All the soil elements are of a four-noded, quadrilateral, plane-strain type with a single robust integration
point (Gauss point) and, two translational degrees of freedom (DOF) at each node. These elements are called
SSPquad in the OpenSees. The interior model has a length of 80m, depth of 20m and 8m backfill on the left
side, see Figure 1. Assuming the soil profile has large lateral extent, two blocks of soil columns have been

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 2
modelled at both sides of the interior model. The out of plane thickness of these columns are significant,
10,000m, to represent the mass of the assumed infinite soil profile. Periodic boundary condition is simulated
to ensure the vertical shear wave propagation in these soil columns. This means in a single soil column, the
nodes at the same level, are tied together in both directions using the equalDOF command in the OpenSees
as in Figure 2 (McGann and Arduino, 2015). The free-field columns are approximately situated at 40m
distance from the wall to eliminate any influence that this boundary may have on the retaining wall area.
During the static analysis, the base of the model is fixed in both directions while throughout the dynamic
analysis the vertical DOF is fixed.
The gravity cantilever retaining wall is simulated using two-node elastic beam-column elements with two
translational DOFs and a rotational one at each node. This wall is considered to be reinforced concrete with
an elastic modulus of 30 GPa and a density of 2.3 t/m3. The weight of the wall is applied at each node. The
dimensions of the wall are similar to one of the Pender (2018) examples: 8m in height, 5m long foundation,
3m heel length, and all components 0.5m thickness.
The interfaces between the wall and soil nodes have two main characteristics. They can only behave in
compression in their local axial axis, i.e. they should detach in case of tension and, their local lateral
behaviour should be frictional. For this purpose, Flat Slider Bearing elements incorporated with simple
Coulomb friction model has been utilized. The chosen stiffness of the element in the frictional direction is
3900 KPa (Drumm and Desai, 1986) and the axial stiffness is the outcome of trial and error based on the
recommendations of Chin et al. (2016) and Kolay et al. (2013). The interface friction angle is equal to the
underlying soil friction angle (𝛿 ⁄𝜑𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 1.0) under the foundation. In addition, to prevent any impact effect
during the dynamic analysis caused by partial uplift of the foundation or detachment of wall stem, a damping
of five percent is incorporated in the axial behavior of the interfaces. It should be noted that the Rayleigh
damping of the main system, does not have any effect on the interfaces.


 


 


 




  

Figure 1: Retaining wall model geometry

2.2 Soil Material

OpenSees database offers a variety of constitutive models to represent the soil. Our objective is to model dry
cohesionless soil. Therefore, Manzari and Dafalias constitutive model (Dafalias and Manzari, 2004)
employed. Manzari and Dafalias soil model is capable of modelling the cohesionless soil plasticity, cycling
and dilative behaviour. The appeal of using Manzari and Dafalias over other constitutive models is its ability
to show the peak shear strengths (not to confuse with the ultimate/critical shear strength at large strains) of

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 3
dry sands at low confining pressures. Pender and Kamalzadeh (2019) contains the behaviour of the materials
in Table 1 in a drained triaxial condition. This can be interesting as the mean stress in the backfill and the
underlying soils in our problem type would probably be of low values as we don’t have any surcharge on the
backfill.
The soil properties used in this study are derived from Dafalias and Manzari (2004) for Toyoura sand. The
denseness of the soil in the Manzari and Dafalias constitutive model can be defined by the initial void ratio
(eo), the higher eo, the softer the soil. See Table 1 for the main soil properties. As can be seen, the underlying
soil is dense and, the backfill is relatively looser. We select the dilatancy values for the looser material close
to zero to turn off the dilatant behaviour of this type of soil.
Table 1: Main soil Properties
Unit Dense Dilatant Sand Medium Non-Dilatant Sand Bedrock
Depth m 20.0 8.0 ∞
Density (𝜌) t/m3 2.0 1.9 2.4
Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) m/s 148 132 1800
Initial Void Ratio (eo) - 0.6 0.8 -
Initial Shear Modulus (Go) MPa 43.9 32.7 -
Friction Angle (𝜑) degrees 42 33 -
Static Poisson’s Ratio (νst) - 0.30 0.30 -
Dynamic Poisson’s Ratio (νdyn) - 0.05 0.05 -
We investigated two main cases in this study, for both cases the 30m deep soil and the backfill soil materials
are of dense dilatant and medium non-dilatant respectively:
1. A wall with 3m heel as shown in Figure 1.
2. A wall with the same foundation width in Figure 1 (5m) but with no heel, i.e., L-shaped wall.

2.3 Staged construction

To re-enact the real conditions of a cantilever retaining wall construction, we analysed the model in two
stages for the in-situ conditions to take into place:
1. The 30 m deep is subjected to its gravity loads
2. The backfill and the wall is constructed and then the whole model is analysed for the gravity loads
corresponding to that.
The effect of the first stage on further deformations and strains has been ruled out.

2.4 Dynamic excitation and boundaries

A Ricker wavelet, has been used as the acceleration excitation input. Ricker wavelet excitation (Fardis et al.,
2003, Loli et al., 2015), both as a single event and as a series of repeated wavelets, is used, rather than
earthquake time history, as this gives a clearer indication of how the wall system is responding. The
attraction of utilising this particular wavelet is the pulse-like shape of the wave and, the simplicity of
interpreting the model response comparing to an earthquake record. The equation of this artificial wavelet is
given by:

𝟐
𝒇(𝒃, 𝒕) = [𝟔𝒃 − 𝟐𝟒𝒃𝟐 (𝒕 − 𝒕𝒐 )𝟐 + 𝟖𝒃𝟑 (𝒕 − 𝒕𝒐 )𝟒 ]𝒆−𝒃(𝒕−𝒕𝒐 ) (4)

𝑏 = (𝜋𝑓)2 (5)

Where t is time, to is the time at which the Ricker wavelet magnitude is maximum, and f is the frequency.
The magnitude of the input Ricker wavelet is then modified to reach a desired value of acceleration. Using a

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 4
series of site response analyses have been done on a 1D soil column with a depth of 20m in OpenSees, a
proper value for the frequency of the Ricker wavelet has been chosen. See a normalized Ricker wavelet
acceleration time history in Figure 2a.
As for the boundaries during dynamic excitation, all the nodes at the base (slave) are tied to the bottom left
corner node (master) horizontally. To avoid trapping the shear waves in the system, a zero-length dashpot
with a viscous material at the bottom left corner, known as Lysmer-Kuhlemeyer dashpot (1969), is used to
play the role of the elastic half-space beneath the model, see Figure 2b. While one end of the dashpot is fixed
in both directions, the other end is tied horizontally to the master soil node at the bottom left corner.
Employing Joyner and Chen (1975) approach, the viscous material damping coefficient is the product of
mass density and shear wave velocity of the presumed elastic half-space underneath the model. This elastic
half-space is a bedrock with the properties in Table 1.

 
 









Figure 2: (a) Ricker wavelet normalized Acceleration time history, (b) Schematic point of application of the
Ricker wavelet in velocity form

Figure 3: Acceleration site response of the 1D soil column

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Site response

To achieve the maximum acceleration amplification behind the wall caused by the Ricker Wavelet input, we
conducted site response analyses on a 1D soil column. This 1D soil column has the same geometry of the
left-side free-field soil column in Figure 1. The void ratio of the column is 0.6 and 0.8 for the first 30m and
8m on top respectively. The soil material is the same as the second case in section 2.2. The outcome is the
normalised acceleration response spectrum at in Figure 3. Figure 3a is showing the normalised peak ground
acceleration is almost at its highest point in the vicinity of f = 0.625 Hz. Therefore, we selected Ricker
wavelet inputs with this frequency for dynamic analysis in this study.

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 5
3.2 Gravity analysis
The results for the gravity analyses (stage 2 of section 2.3) can be seen in Figure 4 for the 3m heel and L-
shaped wall. The OpenSees outputs are fed to the GiD software to generate contours in Figure 4a and 4b.
Bear in mind that positive and negative volumetric strains show increase and decrease in volume
respectively. Figure 4a indicates volume decrease in the backfill behind the wall. However, Figure 4b
indicates volume the traditionally accepted triangular wedge in the backfill. With lateral displacement of wall
top to be 0.16% and 0.34% of the wall height for 3m heel and L-shaped wall respectively, one would expect
the formation of an active pressure distribution (Clough and Duncan, 1991). Figures 3c and 3d manifest the
lateral pressure distributions against the virtual back of the wall with similar magnitudes for both cases. The
earth pressure distributions for the 3m heel wall are a little larger than the L-shaped wall. The maximum
earth pressure is happening at 1m height of the 3m heel wall whereas, this maximum is at the base of the wall
for the L-shaped case.

 





 
 

 
 
 

 

Figure 4: Cantilever retaining wall gravity results. (a) and, (b) deflected shape and volumetric strain of the
foundation for 3m heel and L-shaped wall respectively, (c) and, (d) lateral earth pressure distribution for 3m
heel and L-shaped wall respectively.

The critical friction angle for this sand gives us a value of 0.32 for the Ka while, the mobilised earth pressure
coefficients corresponding to Figures 3c and 3d are 0.38 and 0.27 respectively. Despite the L-shaped wall,
there is no evidence of distinctive shear failure zone can be observed as suggested by active earth pressure
theory for the 3m heel wall. Looking closer at the rotation of wall foundation in both cases, a counter-
clockwise movement can be seen. This may be another contributing factor in the difference between existing
and conventional active pressure distributions.

3.3 Dynamic Analysis

The walls responses to a single Ricker wavelet excitations is illustrated in Figures 5 to 7. The peak horizontal
accelerations for the 3m heel and L-shaped wall generated behind the wall stem were 0.31g and 0.20g
respectively. Figure 5 indicates the lateral earth pressure distributions against the virtual back of the wall. As
one would expect, the excitation increased the earth pressures and there is little to no difference between the

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 6
distributions at the peak acceleration and peak lateral displacement. While the 3m heel wall illustrates the
residual lateral earth pressure distributions are higher than the static ones, there is no sign of this for the L-
shaped case.

Figure 5: Lateral earth pressure distribution against the virtual back of the wall at different stage of the
analysis for (a) 3m heel, (b) no heel

It should be noted that for Figures 7 and 8, all deformations and strains are due to the weight of the backfill
and the Ricker wavelet excitation effect on the whole model, i.e., the effect of underlying soil is subtracted
from these results (see section 2.3). However, it was noted that with the foundation layer in place, a certain
amount of settlement of the layer occurred when the in situ gravity stresses were generated. Then if the 30 m
deep layer, without the wall and backfill, is subject to Ricker wavelet excitation there will be more
settlement. Under additional Ricker wavelet excitation additional settlement was observed, at least for the
second and third excitations. Consequently, the settlement contours in Figures 6b and 7b include
contributions from the rocking effect of the wall and backfill as well the additional settlement of the
foundation layer from the Ricker wavelet.
As far as horizontal displacement and settlement are concerned Figures 6a and 6b show no special effect
associated with the virtual back of the wall (a vertical line between the heel and the ground surface above).
The same can be said of Figures 6c and 6d. It is apparent that there are concentrations of volumetric strain
(dilatant volume increase) and shear strain in front of the toe of the foundation. Similar to the gravity results,
Figures 7a, 7c and 7d indicate the presence of the conventional triangular wedge behind the wall.

4 CONCLUSIONS
This study has drawn the following conclusion:
 The conventional pseudo-static approach is distinctively different from the backfill response of the 8 m
tall gravity cantilever wall with a 3 m wide heel in this study (Figures 6).
 The earth pressure distribution has an arch-shaped over the height of the wall. It increases linearly for
upper part of the wall but for the lower part, it decreases.
 The residual lateral earth pressure distributions after the Ricker wavelet excitation are greater than the
gravity pressure distributions for the 3m heel wall but not for the L-shaped one.
 A common approach to pseudo-static gravity wall design is to assume the boundary of the wall system is
defined by a vertical interface rising upwards through the heel of the wall (virtual back); the backfill
above the heel projection is assumed to be fixed to the wall. No evidence of the virtual back is seen in
the finite element results for the 3m heel wall, except, perhaps, in the lateral displacement contours
(Figures 6a).

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 7
  




4

 



8

Figure 6: For 3m heel wall at peak lateral earth thrust: contours of (a) horizontal displacement, (b) settlement,
(c) volumetric strain and, (d) shear strain

 





 




Figure 7: for no heel wall at peak lateral earth thrust: contours of (a) horizontal displacement, (b) settlement,
(c) volumetric strain and, (d) shear strain

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work of the second named author was funded by the University of Canterbury Quake Centre (UCQC).
All the analyses have been done through the Mahuika platform of New Zealand e-Science Infrastructure

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 8
(NeSI). The helpful advice of Dr Christopher McGann, Dr Alborz Ghofrani and, Mr Yuri Wong on aspects
of the OpenSees software is greatly appreciated.

6 REFERENCES
Al Atik, L. & Sitar, N. 2010. Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 136 1324-1333.
Chin, C.Y., Kayser, C. & Pender, M. 2016. SEISMIC EARTH FORCES AGAINST EMBEDDED RETAINING
WALLS: INSIGHTS FROM NUMERICAL MODELLING, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Vol 49 200-210.
Clough, G. & Duncan, J. 1991. Earth pressures, Foundation engineering handbook. Springer.
Coll, A., Ribo, R., Pasenau, M., Escolano, E., Perez, J.S., Melendo, A., Monros, A. & Ga, R.J. 2016. GiD v.13 User
Manual [Computer Software].
Dafalias, Y.F. & Manzari, M.T. 2004. Simple Plasticity Sand Model Accounting for Fabric Change Effects, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Vol 130 622-634.
Drumm, E.C. & Desai, C.S. 1986. Determination of parameters for a model for the cyclic behaviour of interfaces,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol 14 1-18.
Fardis, N., Georgarakos, P., Gazetas, G. & Anastasopoulos, I. 2003. Sliding Isolation of Structures: Effect of Horizontal
and Vertical Acceleration, Fib International Symposium on Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, 2003 Athens, 6–
8 May.
Joyner, W.B. & Chen, A.T.F. 1975. Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol 65 1315-1336.
Kolay, C., Prashant, A. & Jain, S.K. 2013. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis and Seismic Coefficient for Abutments and
Retaining Walls, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 29 427-451.
Loli, M., Knappett, J.A., Anastasopoulos, I. & Brown, M.J. 2015. Use of Ricker motions as an alternative to pushover
testing, International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol 15 44-55.
Lysmer, J. & Kuhlemeyer, R.L. 1969. Finite dynamic model for infinite media, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division, Vol 95 859-878.
McGann, C.R. & Arduino, P. 2015. Dynamic 2D Effective Stress Analysis of Slope
(http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Dynamic_2D_Effective_Stress_Analysis_of_Slope). [Accessed 29
August 2017].
Mckenna, F., Mazzoni, S. & Fenves, G. 2013. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) Software
Version 2.5.0 [Computer Software]. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available from
http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Mikola, R.G., Candia, G. & Sitar, N. 2014. Seismic earth pressures on retaining structures and basement walls, Tenth US
national conference on earthquake engineering, frontiers of earthquake engineering. Anchorage, Alaska, 2014.
Mononobe, N. & Matsuo, H. 1929. On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes, World Engineering
Congress, 1929 Tokyo, Japan.
Okabe, S. 1924. General theory on earth pressure and seismic stability of retaining wall and dam. J. of Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol 10 1277-1323.
Pender, M.J. 2018. Foundation design for gravity retaining walls under earthquake, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.17.00233.
Pender, M.J. & Kamalzadeh, A. 2019. Insights from advanced numerical modelling into the pseudo-static design of
gravity retaining walls, 7th ICEGE, Rome, Italy.
Seed, H.B. & Whitman, R.V. 1970. Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads, ASCE Specialty Conference,
Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, 1970 Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York, 103-
147.
Sitar, N. & Al Atik, L. 2008. Dynamic centrifuge study of seismically induced lateral earth pressures on retaining
structures, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV.
Sitar, N., Mikola, R.G. & Candia, G. 2012. Seismically induced lateral earth pressures on retaining structures and

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 9
 basement walls, Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice: Keynote Lectures from GeoCongress 2012.
Standards New Zealand Technical Committee. 2004. Structural design actions (NZS 1170.5: 2004). Wellington, New
Zealand.
Wood, J.H. 2018. Earthquake design of flexible soil-retaining structures, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
- Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.17.00192.

Paper 99 – Numerical Investigation of Gravity Retaining Wall Foundation Failure Mechanisms

2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference 10

View publication stats