Comparative Analysis of Single Pile with Embedded Beam Row and Volume Pile Modeling under Seismic Load

Queen Arista Rosmania Putri Sumarsono; As’ad Munawir; Harimurti

doi:10.2478/sgem-2022-0027

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Comparative Analysis of Single Pile with Embedded Beam Row and Volume Pile Modeling under Seismic Load

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica

Volume 45 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

By: Queen Arista Rosmania Putri Sumarsono, As’ad Munawir and Harimurti

Open Access

|Jan 2023

Figures & Tables

The p–y curve based on the Winkler's model.

Table 1

N₆₀ and V_s values derived from SPT data.

Parameters	Methods	Unit	Values
Soil classification			MH	MH	SC–SM	SC–SM	CL
Depth		m	0.00–5.50	5.50–8.50	8.50–11.50	11.50–14.50	14.50–17.50
${\bar{N}}_{60}$			12	11	14	28	34
V_s	Maheswari et al. [13]	m/s	176.67	172.18	194.68	233.75	243.14
V_s	Hasancebi and Ulusuay in Hammam and Eliwa [12]		204.80	200.34	208.53	249.35	269.12
Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis [14]		237.39	230.90	209.41	269.15	334.70
Parameters	Methods	Unit	Values
Soil classification			MH	SM	SM	MH	CL–ML
Depth		m	17.50–20.00	20.00–23.50	23.50–26.50	26.50–29.50	29.50–30.00
${\bar{N}}_{60}$			44	68	55	54	55
V_s	Maheswari et al. [13]	m/s	263.66	296.06	279.39	279.36	241.78
V_s	Hasancebi and Ulusuay in Hammam and Eliwa [12]		288.43	314.14	296.83	303.06	305.09
Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis [14]		365.18	372.23	343.76	388.62	456.36

[i] Note: MH = Elastic silt ; SC–SM = Silty, clayey sand ; CL = Lean clay ; SM = Silty sand; CL–ML = Sandy silty clay ;

Table 2

Modulus of elasticity.

Parameters	Symbol	Unit	Values
Soil classification			MH	MH	SC–SM	SC–SM	CL
Depth		m	0.00–5.50	5.50–8.50	8.50–11.50	11.50–14.50	14.50–17.50
Shear modulus	G_max1	kN/m²	31,512.89	30,168.81	54,463.84	58,647.40	62,843.00
Shear modulus	G_max2	kN/m²	42,346.40	40,843.44	62,487.42	66,734.39	76,989.80
G_max3	kN/m²	56,897.20	54,258.68	63,015.42	77,752.24	119,082.54
Modulus of elasticity	E_s1	kN/m²	80,257.83	76,107.67	141,750.84	157,208.03	172,158.08
Modulus of elasticity	E_s2	kN/m²	107,848.87	103,036.85	162,633.48	178,885.72	210,913.15
E_s3	kN/m²	144,907.24	136,879.86	164,007.69	208,419.75	326,226.01
Parameters	Symbol	Unit	Values
Soil classification			MH	SM	SM	MH	CL–ML
Depth		m	17.50–20.00	20.00–23.50	23.50–26.50	26.50–29.50	29.50–30.00
Shear modulus	G_max1	kN/m²	71,347.32	137,818.78	132,539.58	81,007.64	66,740.49
Shear modulus	G_max2	kN/m²	85,382.60	155,159.96	149,607.27	95,333.66	106,266.07
G_max3	kN/m²	136,865.04	217,852.44	200,658.77	156,762.39	237,768.36
Modulus of elasticity	E_s1	kN/m²	199,772.48	385,892.57	371,110.81	226,821.40	186,873.38
Modulus of elasticity	E_s2	kN/m²	239,071.29	434,447.88	418,900.34	266,934.24	297,544.98
E_s3	kN/m²	383,222.10	609,986.82	561,844.55	438,934.70	665,751.40

Pile modeling: (a) 2D finite element (b) 3D finite element.

(a) Failure mechanism of 2D single pile. (b) failure mechanism of 3D single pile. (c) vector direction of 2D single pile. (d) vector direction of 3D single pile.

Lateral load capacity versus deflection: (a) combination lateral loads effect, (b) pile stiffness effect, (c) soil stiffness effect.

Table 3

The difference in lateral resistance with the FEM 3D.

	Lateral resistance (kN)		Difference in lateral resistance with FEM 3D (%)
	FEM 2D	FEM 3D	Difference in lateral resistance with FEM 3D (%)
Combination lateral loads effect
P_S1	115.808	304.663	61.988
P_S2	118.323	414.567	71.459
P_S3	210.442	524.270	59.860
Pile stiffness effect
E_p1	210.442	524.270	59.860
E_p2	187.449	525.274	64.314
E_p3	175.958	526.043	66.551
Soil stiffness effect
E_s1	210.442	524.270	59.860
E_s2	219.603	522.476	57.969
E_s3	227.736	520.390	56.237

Table 4

The difference in deflection with the FEM 3D.

	Deflection (mm)		The difference in deflection with FEM 3D (%)
	FEM 2D	FEM 3D	The difference in deflection with FEM 3D (%)
Combination lateral loads effect
P_S1	8.646	2.417	72.044
P_S2	31.044	3.532	88.622
P_S3	70.132	4.972	92.911
Pile stiffness effect
E_p1	70.132	4.972	92.911
E_p2	50.969	4.808	90.567
E_p3	46.492	4.692	89.909
Soil stiffness effect
E_s1	70.132	4.972	92.911
E_s2	56.430	3.939	93.020
E_s3	55.688	3.140	94.362

Table 5

The difference in deflection with the FEM 3D.

	Lateral resistance (kN)	The difference in deflection with FEM 3D (%)	The difference in deflection with FEM 2D (%)
FEM 3D	10,410.00	-	81.220
FEM 2D	1,955.00	81.220	-
FDM – API (2011)	7,025.381	32.513	72.172
Klinkvort (2012)	3,931.621	62.232	50.275
Liang et al. (2018) [10]	4,441.177	57.337	55.980
Hyunsung and Sangseom (2018) [11]	1,306.272	87.452	33.183

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0027 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X (formerly 0137-124X) | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 28 - 40

Submitted on: Apr 28, 2022

Accepted on: Oct 23, 2022

Published on: Jan 25, 2023

Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

finite element method,

Related subjects:

Physics,

Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2023 Queen Arista Rosmania Putri Sumarsono, As’ad Munawir, Harimurti, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 45 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Comparative Analysis of Single Pile with Embedded Beam Row and Volume Pile Modeling under Seismic Load

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Figure 3

Figure 4

Table 2

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Table 3

Table 4

Figure 8

Figure 9

Table 5

Paradigm

My account