Uplift Behaviour of External Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Wrapping on RC Piles in Dry and Submerged Sandy Soil
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Understanding the effect of BFRP and GFRP laminate wrappings on the mechanical characteristics of concrete specimens subjected to compressive, tensile, and flexural loads;
- Determination of the angle of the interfacial friction based on the type of fibre and to understand the most positive orientation to achieve maximum improvement in the uplift resistance of the piles;
- Evaluating the influence of BFRP and GFRP wrappings on the uplift resistance of piles on sand under dry and submerged conditions;
- Comparison of the performances of BFRP- and GFRP-wrapped piles, with the unconfined piles subjected to uplift loads.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Preliminary Study
2.1.1. Material Properties
2.1.2. Casting of Specimens
2.1.3. Compressive Strength Test
2.1.4. Split Tensile Strength Test
2.1.5. Flexural Strength Test
2.2. Test on Piles
2.2.1. Test Tank
2.2.2. Steel Reinforcement
2.2.3. Casting of Piles
2.2.4. FRP Wrapping
2.2.5. Soil Condition
2.2.6. Depth of Fixity
2.2.7. Interface Behaviour between Soil and FRP Laminates
2.2.8. Test for Uplift Load Resistance
2.2.9. Model Simulation
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Mechanical Strength
3.2. Interfacial Friction between Soil and Surface of Piles
3.3. Uplift Resistance
3.4. Comparison of Experimental and Simulation Data
4. Conclusions
- The glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) and basalt fibre-reinforced polymer (BFRP) showed a higher uplift capacity than the unconfined RC pile due to the increase in the angle of the interfacial friction;
- Based on the field experiments, the ultimate uplift capacity was observed as 80.52 kN and 68.64 kN for the piles with the GFRP and BFRP wraps, respectively, which is 35.56% and 15.56% higher than the unconfined pile;
- The increase in the uplift load-carrying capacity was predominantly influenced by the pile surface texture which was dictated by the weaving of the fabric, imparting higher skin frictional resistance on the interface. The BFRP fibre imparted a higher surface roughness compared to the GFRP and, hence, resulted in a higher uplift capacity;
- The ultimate uplift capacity can be enhanced to a greater extent by a fibre orientation perpendicular to the loading direction compared to a parallel orientation. However, for improving the uplift load resistance of the piles, providing protrusions or bulbs at different heights of the piles can be provided to increase the uplift resistance.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Micheal Tomlinson, J.W. Pile Design and Construction Practice, 5th ed.; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2008; ISBN 0203964292. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Chong, J.; Pang, L.; Zhang, C. Lateral capacity of a two-pile group foundation model located near slope in sand. Ocean Eng. 2022, 266, 112847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.; Shao, J.; Li, W.; Wang, Y.; Wang, L.; Liu, H. Study on the Effect of Pile Foundation Reinforcement of Embankment on Slope of Soft Soil. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Li, J.; Yang, X.; Chen, L.; Wu, W.; Wen, M.; Jiang, M.; Guo, C. Lateral Dynamic Response of Offshore Pipe Piles Considering Effect of Superstructure. Energies 2022, 15, 6759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingham, T.J. Analysis of the Million Dollar Bridge for seismic retrofit. Comput. Struct. 2003, 81, 673–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakellariadis, L.; Marin, A.; Anastasopoulos, I. Widening of Existing Motorway Bridges: Pile Group Retrofit versus Nonlinear Pile–Soil Response. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2019, 145, 04019107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visuvasam, J.A.; Chandrasekaran, S.S. Effect of Spacing and Slenderness Ratio of Piles on the Seismic Behavior of Building Frames. Buildings 2022, 12, 2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alyavdin, D.; Belyakov, V.; Levin, A.; Alekseev, A.; Grechishcheva, E.; Kozlova, O.; Makhota, R. Reline Jacket: Efficient Reduction of Frost-Heave Uplift of Piles in Warming Permafrost. Geosciences 2022, 12, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murugan, M.; Muthukkumaran, K.; Natarajan, C. FRP-Strengthened RC Piles. I: Piles under Static Lateral Loads. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, R.; Mullins, G. Application of FRP composites for underwater piles repair. Compos. Part B Eng. 2007, 38, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chellapandian, M.; Prakash, S.S.; Sharma, A. Experimental and finite element studies on the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete elements strengthened with hybrid FRP technique. Compos. Struct. 2018, 208, 466–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chellapandian, M.; Jain, S.; Prakash, S.S.; Sharma, A. Effect of Cyclic Damage on the Performance of RC Square Columns Strengthened Using Hybrid FRP Composites under Axial Compression. Fibers 2019, 7, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, Y.; Abuel-Naga, H.; Shaia, H.A.; Shang, Z. Preliminary Study on the Behaviour of Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Piles in Sandy Soils. Buildings 2022, 12, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faleschini, F.; Gonzalez-Libreros, J.; Zanini, M.A.; Hofer, L.; Sneed, L.; Pellegrino, C. Repair of severely-damaged RC exterior beam-column joints with FRP and FRCM composites. Compos. Struct. 2018, 207, 352–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammed, A.A.; Manalo, A.C.; Ferdous, W.; Zhuge, Y.; Vijay, P.V.; Alkinani, A.Q.; Fam, A. State-of-the-art of prefabricated FRP composite jackets for structural repair. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2020, 23, 1244–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijay, P.V.; Soti, P.R.; GangaRao, H.V.S.; Lampo, R.G.; Clarkson, J.D. Repair and Strengthening of Submerged Steel Piles Using GFRP Composites. J. Bridg. Eng. 2016, 21, 04016038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xian, G.; Guo, R.; Li, C.; Wang, Y. Mechanical performance evolution and life prediction of prestressed CFRP plate exposed to hygrothermal and freeze-thaw environments. Compos. Struct. 2022, 293, 115719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, P.; Li, C.; Bai, Y.; Dong, S.; Xian, G.; Vedernikov, A.; Akhatov, I.; Safonov, A.; Yue, Q. Durability study on the interlaminar shear behavior of glass-fibre reinforced polypropylene (GFRPP) bars for marine applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 349, 128694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, R.; Li, C.; Xian, G. Water absorption and long-term thermal and mechanical properties of carbon/glass hybrid rod for bridge cable. Eng. Struct. 2023, 274, 115176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.S.; Dave, U.V.; Solanki, H. FRP Wrapping for RC Columns with Varying Corner Radii. Procedia Eng. 2013, 51, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vijayan, D.S.; Mohan, A.; Daniel, J.J.; Gokulnath, V.; Saravanan, B.; Kumar, P.D. Experimental Investigation on the Ecofriendly External Wrapping of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer in Concrete Columns. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 2021, 2909033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khandelwal, S.; Rhee, K.Y. Recent advances in basalt-fiber-reinforced composites: Tailoring the fiber-matrix interface. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 192, 108011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramaswamy, A.; Chachithanantham, S.; Arumugam, S. Performance of BFRP Retrofitted RCC Piles Subjected to Axial Loads. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 323909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teshager, D.K.; Kabeta, W. Review on experimental and finite element analysis of vertically loaded piles. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2020, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- González, F.; Carbonari, S.; Padrón, L.A.; Morici, M.; Aznárez, J.J.; Dezi, F.; Maeso, O.; Leoni, G. Benefits of inclined pile foundations in earthquake resistant design of bridges. Eng. Struct. 2019, 203, 109873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyerhof, G.G. The Uplift Capacity of Foundations Under Oblique Loads. Can. Geotech. J. 1973, 10, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chattopadhyay, B.C.; Pise, P.J. Uplift Capacity of Driven Piles in Sand. J. Inst. Eng. Civ. Eng. Div. 1987, 68, 89–91. [Google Scholar]
- Rowe, R.K.; Davis, E.H. The Behaviour of Anchor Plates in Sand. Geotechnique 1982, 32, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, E.J.; Geddes, J.D. Uplift of Anchor Plates in Sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 1988, 114, 1461–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilamparuthi, K.; Dickin, E.A.; Muthukrisnaiah, K. Experimental investigation of the uplift behaviour of circular plate anchors embedded in sand. Can. Geotech. J. 2002, 39, 648–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IS 12269; 2013 Ordinary Portland Cement, 53 Grade Specification. Bureau Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2013; pp. 1–14.
- IS 383:2016; Coarse and Fine Aggregate for Concrete-Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 1–18.
- IS:2386 (Part I); Method of Test for Aggregate for Concrete (Particle Size and Shape). Bureau Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1963.
- IS 10262; Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design Proportioning. Bureau Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2009; pp. 1–14.
- Maheswaran, J.; Chellapandian, M.; Arunachelam, N. Retrofitting of severely damaged reinforced concrete members using fiber reinforced polymers: A comprehensive review. Structures 2022, 38, 1257–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IS 516; Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete. Bureau Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1959; pp. 1–30.
- IS 5816; Indian Standard Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete- Method of Test. Bureau Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1999; pp. 1–14.
- IS 456; Plain Concrete and Reinforced Concrete. Bureau Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2000; pp. 1–114.
- Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.; The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1995; ISBN 0-07-912247-7. [Google Scholar]
- IS:2911 (Part1/Section 2); Design and Construction of Pile Foundations-Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2010; Volume 2911, p. 2911.
- IS:2911 (Part 4); Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations. Part 4: Load Test on Piles. Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1985.
- Ni, P.; Mangalathu, S.; Mei, G.; Zhao, Y. Permeable piles: An alternative to improve the performance of driven piles. Comput. Geotech. 2017, 84, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brinkgreve, R.B.J.; Kumarswamy, S.; Swolfs, W.M.; Waterman, D.; Chesaru, A.; Bonnier, P.G.; Haxaire, A. Plaxis 2015; Plaxis BV: Delft, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 9789076016184. [Google Scholar]
- Rohith, M.; Mouli, S.; Balunaini, U. Interference of Two Closely-Spaced Footings on Finite Sand Layer. Geotech. Eng. 2018, 49, 128–135. [Google Scholar]
- Ghosh, P.; Mukherjee, S.; Roy, N.; Banerjee, S. Response of Single Pile to Lateral Load with Constant Uplift. In Advances in Computer Methods and Geomechanics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 283–298. [Google Scholar]
- Nasrollahzadeh, E.; Hataf, N. Experimental and numerical study on the bearing capacity of single and groups of tapered and cylindrical piles in sand. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2019, 16, 426–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, B.M. Procedure for Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Rough Piles. Soils Found. 1983, 23, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Desai, C.S.; Pradhan, S.K.; Cohen, D. Cyclic Testing and Constitutive Modeling of Saturated Sand–Concrete Interfaces Using the Disturbed State Concept. Int. J. Géoméch. 2005, 5, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Property | Experimented Values | IS Codal Requirements [31] |
---|---|---|
Specific gravity (No Unit) | 3.13 | - |
Fineness (m2/kg) | 227 | ≥225 |
Standard Consistency (%) | 31.2 | - |
Initial Setting Time (min) | 49 | ≥30 |
Final Setting Time (min) | 510 | ≤600 |
Soundness (%) | 0.3 | ≥0.8 |
Type and Grade | OPC 53 | - |
Property | Fine Aggregate | Coarse Aggregate |
---|---|---|
Gradation Zone | II | - |
Source | River Sand | Local Quarry |
Specific Gravity | 2.61 | 2.65 |
Bulk Density (kg/m3) | 1578 | 1611 |
Combined Index (%) | - | 11.23% |
Grade | Cement | FA | CA | Water | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mix Proportion | M30 | 380 kg/m3 | 730 kg/m3 | 1041 kg/m3 | 145 kg/m3 |
Mix Ratio | 1 | 1.92 | 2.74 | 0.42 |
Properties | Thickness (mm) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elastic Modulus (GPa) | Ultimate Strain (%) | Fibre Thickness (mm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BFRP | 1 | 1450 | 51 | 1.6–3.0 | 1 |
GFRP | 1.5 | 830 | 44 | 2.0–4.5 | 0.90 |
Mix ID | Specifications |
---|---|
UC | Unconfined concrete |
BF-PL-1 | Unidirectional, single-ply BFRP-confined concrete with fibres parallel to loading |
BF-PL-2 | Unidirectional, double-ply BFRP-confined concrete with fibres parallel to loading |
BF-PR-1 | Unidirectional, single-ply BFRP-confined concrete with fibres perpendicular to loading |
BF-PR-2 | Unidirectional, double-ply BFRP-confined concrete with fibres perpendicular to loading |
GF-PL-1 | Unidirectional, single-ply GFRP-confined concrete with fibres parallel to loading |
GF-PL-2 | Unidirectional, double-ply GFRP-confined concrete with fibres parallel to loading |
GF-PR-1 | Unidirectional, single-ply GFRP-confined concrete with fibres perpendicular to loading |
GF-PR-2 | Unidirectional, double-ply GFRP-confined concrete with fibres perpendicular to loading |
IS Classification | D10 (mm) | Cu | Cc | Natural Moisture Content (%) | Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3) | Maximum Dry Density (kN/m3) | Minimum Dry Density (kN/m3) | Specific Gravity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SP (Poorly Graded Sand) | 0.24 | 3.42 | 0.85 | 17.14 | 16.28 | 16.64 | 15.37 | 2.64 |
Mix ID | Compressive Strength (MPa) | % Increase Compared with UC | Split Tensile Strength (Mpa) | % Increase Compared with UC | Flexural Strength (Mpa) | % Increase Compared with UC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UC | 38.25 | - | 4.12 | - | 4.16 | - |
BF-PL-1 | 45.88 | 19.95% | 5.56 | 34.95% | 5.58 | 34.13% |
BF-PL-2 | 53.55 | 40.00% | 7.04 | 70.87% | 7.10 | 70.67% |
BF-PR-1 | 55.46 | 44.99% | 6.78 | 64.56% | 6.86 | 64.90% |
BF-PR-2 | 72.68 | 90.01% | 8.73 | 111.89% | 8.81 | 111.78% |
GF-PL-1 | 42.08 | 10.01% | 4.94 | 19.90% | 4.98 | 19.71% |
GF-PL-2 | 45.84 | 19.84% | 5.77 | 40.05% | 5.79 | 39.18% |
GF-PR-1 | 49.72 | 29.99% | 5.97 | 44.90% | 6.11 | 46.88% |
GF-PR-2 | 61.20 | 60.00% | 7.74 | 87.86% | 7.78 | 87.02% |
Specimen | Interface Type | Angle of Interfacial Friction Dry State | Angle of Interfacial Friction Wet State |
---|---|---|---|
- | Sand–sand | 35.31° | 28.95 |
UC | Sand–concrete | 33.87° | 28.11 |
GF-PL-1 | Sand–0° GFRP-wrapped specimen | 36.11° | 30.87 |
GF-PR-1 | Sand–90° GFRP-wrapped specimen | 37.78° | 31.92 |
BF-PL-1 | Sand–0° BFRP-wrapped specimen | 37.54° | 31.47 |
BF-PR-1 | Sand–90° BFRP-wrapped specimen | 38.26° | 32.32 |
Type of Wraps | Load-Carrying Capacity (kN) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dry Condition | Submerged Condition | |||||
Experimental (Pexp) | Finite Element Analysis (Pfea) | Pexp/Pfea | Experimental (Pexp) | Finite Element Analysis (Pfea) | Pexp/Pfea | |
Unconfined | 59.4 | 63.0 | 0.94 | 37.80 | 42.77 | 0.88 |
GFRP | 68.64 | 71.0 | 0.97 | 42.60 | 49.23 | 0.87 |
BFRP | 80.52 | 82.3 | 0.98 | 49.38 | 52.84 | 0.93 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Meeran Mydeen, M.Y.; Madasamy, M.; Seeni, B.S. Uplift Behaviour of External Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Wrapping on RC Piles in Dry and Submerged Sandy Soil. Buildings 2023, 13, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030778
Meeran Mydeen MY, Madasamy M, Seeni BS. Uplift Behaviour of External Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Wrapping on RC Piles in Dry and Submerged Sandy Soil. Buildings. 2023; 13(3):778. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030778
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeeran Mydeen, Mohamed Younus, Murugan Madasamy, and Bright Singh Seeni. 2023. "Uplift Behaviour of External Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Wrapping on RC Piles in Dry and Submerged Sandy Soil" Buildings 13, no. 3: 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030778