Linear vs. Non-linear - Revision history

Mpollei@gfnet.com at 20:51, 11 July 2023

2023-07-11T20:51:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 11 July 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:
	==Best Practices Resources==		==Best Practices Resources==
	{{Document Icon}} [[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200) \| Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200), USACE~~, 1995~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200) \| Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200), USACE]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE~~, 1994~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR~~, 1987~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256) \| Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256), USACE~~, 1981~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256) \| Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256), USACE]]

	==Trainings==		==Trainings==

Grichards at 23:42, 14 December 2022

2022-12-14T23:42:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 14 December 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\|}		\|}
	<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->		<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->
	"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate [[Rotational Stability\|rotational stability]] using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>		"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate [[Rotational Stability\|rotational stability]] using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure mechanism may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>

	==Best Practices Resources==		==Best Practices Resources==

Grichards at 18:11, 14 December 2022

2022-12-14T18:11:30Z

Rmanwaring at 23:56, 29 November 2022

2022-11-29T23:56:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:56, 29 November 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:

	<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->		<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->
	"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate [[Rotational Stability\|rotational stability]] using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a sliding stability failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>		"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate [[Rotational Stability\|rotational stability]] using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>

	==[[Best Practices Resources]]==		==[[Best Practices Resources]]==
Line 21:		Line 21:
	{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE, 1994]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE, 1994]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR, 1987]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR, 1987]]
			{{Document Icon}} [[Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 11102-256) \| Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 11102-256), USACE, 1981]]

	==[[Trainings]]==		==[[Trainings]]==

Rmanwaring at 23:55, 29 November 2022

2022-11-29T23:55:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 29 November 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:

	<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->		<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->
	"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate sliding stability of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate rotational stability using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a sliding stability failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>		"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate [[Rotational Stability\|rotational stability]] using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a sliding stability failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>

	==[[Best Practices Resources]]==		==[[Best Practices Resources]]==
	{{Document Icon}} [[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]
			{{Document Icon}} [[Evaluation and Comparison of Stability Analysis and Uplift Criteria for Concrete Gravity Dams by Three Federal Agencies (ERDC/ITL TR-00-1) \| Evaluation and Comparison of Stability Analysis and Uplift Criteria for Concrete Gravity Dams by Three Federal Agencies (ERDC/ITL TR-00-1), USACE, 2000]]
			{{Document Icon}} [[Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200) \| Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200), USACE, 1995]]
			{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE, 1994]]
			{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR, 1987]]

	==[[Trainings]]==		==[[Trainings]]==

Rmanwaring: Created page with " NOTOC Category: Global Stability of a Dam {| align="right" style="width:10%;" cellpadding="7" | link=https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/ |- |style="text-align:center; font-size:90%;"| Learn more..."

2022-11-29T23:51:25Z

Created page with " __NOTOC__  Category: Global Stability of a Dam {| align="right" style="width:10%;" cellpadding="7" | 350px|x350px|link=https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/ |- |style="text-align:center; font-size:90%;"| Learn more..."

New page

__NOTOC__



[[Category: Global Stability of a Dam]]

{| align="right" style="width:10%;" cellpadding="7"
| [[Image:GravityDamUplift1.png|350px|x350px|link=https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/]]
|-
|style="text-align:center; font-size:90%;"| Learn more [[about]] the need to consider uplift pressure when designing a gravity structure at [https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/ DamFailures.org]
|}


"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate sliding stability of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate rotational stability using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a sliding stability failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) | Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>

==[[Best Practices Resources]]==
{{Document Icon}} [[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) | Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]

==[[Trainings]]==
{{Video Icon}} [[On-Demand Webinar: Stability Evaluations of Concrete Dams]]
{{Video Icon}} [[On-Demand Webinar: Analysis of Concrete Arch Dams]]


{{Citations}}


{{revhistinf}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 11 July 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:
	==Best Practices Resources==		==Best Practices Resources==
	{{Document Icon}} [[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200) \| Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200), USACE~~, 1995~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200) \| Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200), USACE]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE~~, 1994~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR~~, 1987~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256) \| Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256), USACE~~, 1981~~]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256) \| Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256), USACE]]

	==Trainings==		==Trainings==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 14 December 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- Delete any sections that are not necessary to your topic. Add pictures/sections as needed -->		<!-- Delete any sections that are not necessary to your topic. Add pictures/sections as needed -->
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__

	~~<!-- Add Category to drive breadcrumb menus -->~~

	[[Category: Global Stability of a Dam]]		[[Category: Global Stability of a Dam]]

	{\| align="right" style="width:10%;" cellpadding="7"		{\| align="right" style="width:10%;" cellpadding="7"
	\| [[Image:GravityDamUplift1.png\|350px\|x350px\|link=https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/]]		\| [[Image:GravityDamUplift1.png\|350px\|x350px\|link=https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/]]
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="text-align:center; font-size:90%;"\| Learn more [[about]] the need to consider uplift pressure when designing a gravity structure at [https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/ DamFailures.org]		\|style="text-align:center; font-size:90%;"\| Learn more about the need to consider uplift pressure when designing a gravity structure at [https://damfailures.org/lessons-learned/concrete-gravity-dams-should-be-evaluated-to-accommodate-full-uplift/ DamFailures.org]
	\|}		\|}

	<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->		<!-- Introductory paragraph or topic page summary -->
	"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate [[Rotational Stability\|rotational stability]] using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>		"Both new and existing structures are constantly being examined to determine if they meet [[stability]] criteria. The traditional procedure is to evaluate [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] of these structures using the limit equilibrium method of analysis and to evaluate [[Rotational Stability\|rotational stability]] using rigid body assumptions and bearing pressure distributions that vary linearly across the base. Soil and uplift loads on the structure are often based on simplifying assumptions. In the limit equilibrium method, only the stress at failure is considered, usually as represented by the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion. The simplified loads and the Mohr-Coulomb limit-state criterion are then used to obtain a single overall factor of safety against a [[Sliding Stability\|sliding stability]] failure. This traditional approach is appropriate for many structures where it is difficult to predict just how a particular failure [[mechanism]] may develop. However, for existing structures where more is known about service state conditions and uplift pressures, it is possible to more precisely predict what stress changes must occur to develop a failure condition. The margin of safety can be more accurately determined when the path to failure, from initial stress conditions to limit state conditions, is known. This path to failure can be investigated using linear elastic and nonlinear finite-element numerical solutions and facture mechanics concepts. Because the deformation of the structure and its foundation is considered in finite element analyses, and because the path to failure can be more realistically characterized through facture mechanics, a more accurate assessment of safety can often be made using advanced analytical methods."<ref name="EM 1110-2-2100">[[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE, 2005]]</ref>

	==[[Best Practices Resources]]==		==Best Practices Resources==
	{{Document Icon}} [[Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE~~, 2005]]~~		{{Document Icon}} [[Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100) \| Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures (EM 1110-2-2100), USACE]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Evaluation and Comparison of Stability Analysis and Uplift Criteria for Concrete Gravity Dams by Three Federal Agencies (ERDC/ITL TR-00-1) \| Evaluation and Comparison of Stability Analysis and Uplift Criteria for Concrete Gravity Dams by Three Federal Agencies (ERDC/ITL TR-00-1), USACE, 2000]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200) \| Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200), USACE, 1995]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200) \| Gravity Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200), USACE, 1995]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE, 1994]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201) \| Arch Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2201), USACE, 1994]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR, 1987]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Design of Small Dams \| Design of Small Dams, USBR, 1987]]
	{{Document Icon}} [[Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL ~~11102~~-256) \| Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL ~~11102~~-256), USACE, 1981]]		{{Document Icon}} [[Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256) \| Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures (ETL 1110-2-256), USACE, 1981]]

	==[[Trainings]]==		==Trainings==
	{{Video Icon}} [[On-Demand Webinar: Stability Evaluations of Concrete Dams]]		{{Video Icon}} [[On-Demand Webinar: Stability Evaluations of Concrete Dams]]
	{{Video Icon}} [[On-Demand Webinar: Analysis of Concrete Arch Dams]]		{{Video Icon}} [[On-Demand Webinar: Analysis of Concrete Arch Dams]]