An Attempt to Analytically Determine Course of the Continuous Q-S Curve in Case of Changed Pile Length or Diameter

Meyer, Zygmunt; Stachecki, Kamil

An Attempt to Analytically Determine Course of the Continuous Q-S Curve in Case of Changed Pile Length or Diameter

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment

Volume 16 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

By:

Zygmunt Meyer and Kamil Stachecki

Open Access

|Jul 2023

Figures & Tables

Optimal values of M-K parameters for a pile 31–10L [1]

Complete description of load-settlement relation of a pile 31–10L using the M-K method

Comparison between load-settlement relation in case of decreased length and diameter

Change of safety factor in cased of decreased length and diameter

Calculated and measured settlement for a pile 31 10L [1]

Ni [kN]	s_i,test [mm]	s_i,calc,opt [mm]
1600	1.2	1.575
2600	1.9	3.081
3200	2.4	4.308
3800	3.2	5.904
4100	4.1	6.892
4500	5.9	8.479
4750	7.1	9.668
4900	8.8	10.474
5100	9.4	11.673
5200	10	12.335
5800	14.6	17.492
6200	20	22.637
6500	24.9	28.011
6650	30	31.419
6800	35.2	35.482
6950	40	40.396
7100	45.2	46.435
7200	50	51.279
7300	60	56.964
7400	70	63.715
7500	80	71.837
7600	90	81.763

Parameters of analyzed piles

Pile	H [m]	D [m]	HD {\boldsymbol {{H \over D}}}	N_gr2 [kN]	κ₂ [−]	C₂ [mm/kN]
36N-10L	27.5	1	27.5	6590	0.61	0.00062
31-10L	27.5	2	13.75	8700	1.4	0.00077
38-10P	31.5	1.5	21	12500	0.65	0.00087
38-12P	33.5	1.5	22.33	11850	0.1	0.00064
38-12L	33.5	1.5	22.33	12200	0.5	0.00037

Calculated and measured values of maximum pile-bearing capacity

Pile	D	H/D	N_gr2,test [kN]	N_gr2,calc [kN]	Ngr2,calcNgr2,test {\boldsymbol {{{{N_{gr2,calc}}} \over {{N_{gr2,test}}}}}}
36N-10L	1	27.5	6490	7127	1.09
31-10L	2	13.75	7700	8434	1.09
38-10P	1.5	21	11900	9984	0.84
21N-10L	2	13.75	8260	8434	1.02
25N-10L	1	27.5	6350	7126	1.12
38-12P	1.5	22.33	11780	11124	0.94
38-12L	1.5	22.33	12150	11124	0.92

Comparison between values of safety factor in case of decreased length and diameter

s_rec [mm]	SF
s_rec [mm]	Before conversion	After conversion
1	7.89	4.84
1.2	6.77	4.23
1.4	5.97	3.79
1.6	5.37	3.47
1.8	4.90	3.21
2	4.53	3.01
2.2	4.22	2.84
2.4	3.97	2.70
2.6	3.75	2.58
2.8	3.57	2.48
3	3.41	2.39
3.2	3.26	2.31
3.4	3.14	2.24
3.6	3.03	2.18
3.8	2.93	2.13
4	2.84	2.08
4.2	2.76	2.03
4.4	2.69	1.99
4.6	2.62	1.95
4.8	2.56	1.92
5	2.50	1.89
5.2	2.45	1.86
5.4	2.40	1.83
5.6	2.35	1.80
5.8	2.31	1.78
6	2.27	1.76
6.2	2.23	1.74
6.4	2.20	1.72
6.6	2.17	1.70
6.8	2.14	1.68
7	2.11	1.67
7.2	2.08	1.65
7.4	2.05	1.64
7.6	2.03	1.62
7.8	2.00	1.61
8	1.98	1.60
8.2	1.96	1.58
8.4	1.94	1.57
8.6	1.92	1.56
8.8	1.90	1.55
9	1.89	1.54

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acee-2023-0021 | Journal eISSN: 2720-6947 | Journal ISSN: 1899-0142

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 119 - 126

Submitted on: Jan 15, 2023

Accepted on: Mar 28, 2023

Published on: Jul 20, 2023

Published by: Silesian University of Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 times per year

Keywords:

Pile static load,

Static Load Test Curve,

M-K Method,

Pile settlement

Related subjects:

Architecture and design,

Architecture,

Architects, buildings

© 2023 Zygmunt Meyer, Kamil Stachecki, published by Silesian University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 16 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)Next article

An Attempt to Analytically Determine Course of the Continuous Q-S Curve in Case of Changed Pile Length or Diameter

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Calculated and measured settlement for a pile 31 10L [1]

Parameters of analyzed piles

Calculated and measured values of maximum pile-bearing capacity

Comparison between values of safety factor in case of decreased length and diameter

Paradigm

My account