International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 4, April 2018, pp. 1307 1315, Article ID: IJCIET_09_04_147 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?jtype=ijciet&vtype=9&itype=4 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON PFRP CONFINED RC DRIVEN PILES SUBJECTED TO VERTICAL LOADS J. Prakash Arul Jose Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Bharath IHER, Chennai P. Rajesh Prasanna Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University, Tiruchirappalli ABSTRACT When the surface soil conditions are not strong enough, we will need to adopt pile foundations so that the load of the structure is transferred to hard strata at a greater depth. Pile foundation also provides additional frictional resistance along their length which supplements the resistance to vertical loads. This experimental study finds the performance of PFRP confined RC driven piles subjected to vertical loads. Load carrying capacity of PFRP confined and unconfined piles were found out using the dynamic formulae and pile load test. Safe load carrying capacity of piles determined from pile load test was slightly higher than the dynamic formulae. The experimental result also shows that surface roughness of specimen is significantly changes the interface friction angle. The shear strength at the interface increases with the increase in surface roughness of the specimens. Keywords: Strengthening, RC piles, FRP, PFRP, vertical loads, driven piles. Cite this Article: J. Prakash Arul Jose and P. Rajesh Prasanna, Experimental Study on PFRP Confined RC Driven Piles Subjected To Vertical Loads, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(4), 2018, pp. 1307 1315. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?jtype=ijciet&vtype=9&itype=4 1. INTRODUCTION Piles have been extensively used for supporting axial loads and lateral loads for variety of structures including heavy buildings, transmission lines, power stations and highway structures. Many transmission towers, high rise buildings and bridges are constructed near steep slopes and are supported by piles. The choice of a suitable type and size of a foundation depends on many factors such as the nature of the soil and its depositional conditions, type and importance of structure, loading conditions etc. The analysis of the interaction between structural foundations and supporting soil media is of fundamental importance to both structural engineering and geotechnical engineering. Results of such analyses provide information, which can be used in the structural design of the foundation and in the analysis http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1307 editor@iaeme.com
Experimental Study on PFRP Confined RC Driven Piles Subjected To Vertical Loads of stresses and deformations within the supporting soil medium. The response of an individual pile to externally applied load is one of the most complex soil-structure interaction problems in the field of foundation engineering. An extensive amount of theoretical and analytical work has been reported on the behavior of single and group piles under vertical and lateral loads. The main focus of this research is to determine the potential of PFRP materials in strengthening of RC piles subjected to vertical loads. To establish the feasibility of using PFRP materials in strengthening of RC piles, more information and performance data were gathered in critical areas, interface behavior between PFRP materials & soil and soil-pile load transfer interactions. Porcino et al. (2003) carried out laboratory tests to investigate the frictional behavior of sand-solid interfaces under more realistic boundary conditions with respect to the traditional constant normal load (CNL) direct shear tests. They found that normal stress and surface roughness have remarkable influence on the interface shear strength. Reddy et al. (2009) studied the retrofitting of RC Piles using GFRP composites. The authors concluded that the axial and lateral load carrying capacity of the GFRP retrofitted pile increases with the conventional pile. Sangeetha and Sumathi (2010) investigated the behaviour of Glass fibre wrapped concrete columns under uniaxial compression. The study concluded that confinement increased the strength of the concrete columns loaded axially. Phanikanth et al. (2010) studied the behavior of single pile in cohesion less soils subjected to lateral loads. The modulus of subgrade reaction approach using finite difference technique is used and the same was coded in MATLAB for the analysis. The analysis was carried out considering free headed pile and floating tip at the base. The influence of soil type, effect of pile length and pile radius on the pile response was observed. Gireesha and Muthukkumaran (2011) studied the interface friction angle of different structural materials (concrete, steel and wood) against well and poorly graded sands with varying relative density. The experimental results show that both internal and interface friction angles decrease with increasing relative density of both well and poorly graded sand. Rao et al. (2012) conducted experimental investigation on the strength degradation of GFRP laminates under environmental impact. From the investigation it is observed that there was a remarkable reduction in mechanical strength (young s and flexural modulus) subjected to different environmental conditions. 2. INTERFACE BEHAVIOR BETWEEN SOIL AND PFRP COMPOSITES It is essential to determine the interface strength between soil and geotechnical structures to make a good estimation of load transfer between structures and soils. FRP has limited use in geotechnical engineering applications to date, due to lack of information regarding the behavior of systems that include these materials. So it is important to study the interface behaviour between FRP and soil. An experimental study was performed to evaluate the importance of various factors. The behavior of the PFRP-soil interfaces was also compared with the concrete-soil interfaces. The interface frictional strength study was carried out in a conventional direct shear test apparatus. Concrete specimens of size 6 cm x 6 cm x 1.4 cm were prepared for interface frictional study. The specimens were tested without any PFRP wrapping and wrapped with PFRP sheet. The specimens were placed in the lower half of the direct shear box and the upper half of the shear box was filled with soil at predetermined density as per Tables 1. The direct shear test setup is schematically shown in Fig. 1. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1308 editor@iaeme.com
J. Prakash Arul Jose and P. Rajesh Prasanna Figure 1 Schematic view of interface friction measurement set up Engineering and Index properties of Soil: Engineering and index properties of soil were determined by conducting experiments in order to understand the interface frictional resistance between PFRP wrapped concrete and soil. The index and engineering properties of the soil is presented in Table 1. 4.75 mm Table 1 Engineering and Index properties of clayey sand % Passing Atterberg Limits Dry unit weight (kn/m 3 ) 425 μm 75 μm LL (%) PL (%) Ip (%) γ d (max) γ d (min) γ d (test) Type of soil (IS 1498) 98.4 60.2 27.4 34 23 11 17.8 17.2 17.4 SC Surface Roughness of Specimens: Surface roughness of the material is one of the important factors that influence the shear strength parameters. Generally, Absolute roughness (R a ) is considered for calculating interface friction between two different materials. The absolute surface roughness of the specimens was estimated using Surface Roughness Meter. The absolute surface roughness values of specimens are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Surface roughness of specimens Specimens Surface roughness, R a (μm) Concrete 6.854 Bi-PFRP wrapped specimen 16.570 The obtained interface friction angle between clayey sand and PFRP composites is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Interface friction angle between soil and PFRP composites Type of interaction Angle of internal /interface friction (degree) Soil - Soil 32.12 Soil - Concrete 33.57 Soil - Bi-PFRP wrapped specimen 36.69 http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1309 editor@iaeme.com
Experimental Study on PFRP Confined RC Driven Piles Subjected To Vertical Loads The experimental results show that surface roughness of specimen is significantly changes the interface friction angle. The shear strength at the interface increases with the increase in surface roughness of the specimens. 3. PREPARATION OF PFRP CONFINED RC DRIVEN PILES Piles are generally used to transmit vertical loads to the surrounding soil media. A relatively new trend in deep foundation industry is to use a fiber reinforced polymer composite materials as a substitute in piling system. This experimental study presents the performance of PFRP confined and unconfined piles subjected to vertical loads. RC pile of length 750 mm with 50 mm diameter was used for this study. The following steps are followed to cast the PFRP confined and unconfined precast RC piles. oncrete: The characteristic compressive strength of concrete used for the study was 30 N/mm 2. The mix ratio adopted for casting the piles was 1: 1.204: 2.755 (Cement: Fine aggregate: Coarse aggregate) with water-cement ratio of 0.385. Reinforcement: The yield strength of steel used for the study was 415 N/mm 2. Six numbers of 6 mm diameter bars were used as longitudinal reinforcement with a cover thickness of 10 mm. Bars of 6 mm diameter at 100 mm spacing were used as ties. Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP): Polypropylene fiber reinforced polymer was used in the study. Properties of PFRP material are given in Table 4. Table 4 Properties of PFRP Materials Properties Polypropylene Bi- directional Mass of fiber (g/m 2 ) 910 Fiber thickness (mm) 0.30 Nominal thickness per layer (mm) 0.5 Fiber tensile vertical load carrying capacity (N/mm 2 ) 3200 Tensile modulus (N/mm 2 ) 100000 Primer Coating: The mixed material of Nitowrap 30 primer was applied over the prepared and cleaned surface and it was allowed for drying about 24 hours before the application of Nitowrap 410 saturant. Properties of Nitowrap 30 primer is given in Table 5. Table 5 Properties of Nitowrap 30 primer Density 1.14 g/cc Pot life 25 minutes @ 27⁰ C Full cure 7 days Saturant Coating: The Nitowrap 410 saturant system used in this work was made of two parts, resin and hardener. The components were thoroughly hand mixed for 3 minutes before application. Properties of Nitowrap 410 saturant is given in Table 6. Fig.2 shows the PFRP confined and unconfined RC piles. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1310 editor@iaeme.com
J. Prakash Arul Jose and P. Rajesh Prasanna Table 6 Properties of Nitowrap 410 saturant Color Application temperature Viscosity Density Pot life Full cure Pale yellow to amber 15⁰C - 40⁰C Thixotropic 1.25 1.28 g/cc 2 hours @ 30⁰ C 5 days @ 30⁰ C a) Unconfined b) Bi PFRP Figure 2 PFRP Confined and unconfined concrete piles 4. SAFE LOAD BASED ON PILE DRIVEN FORMULAE The allowable load Q a is the safe load which the pile can safely and is determined on the basis of (i) ultimate bearing resistance divided by suitable factor of safety, (ii) the permissible settlement, and (iii) overall stability of the pile foundation. The load carrying capacity of a pile can be determined by the following methods: 1. Dynamic formulae 2. Static formulae 3. Pile load tests 4. Penetration tests Dynamic formulae: When a pile hammer hits the pile, the total driving energy is equal to the weight of hammer times the height of drop or stroke. In addition to this, in the case of double acting hammers, some energy is also imparted by the steam pressure during the returns stroke. The total downward energy is consumed by the work done in penetrating the pile and by certain losses. The various dynamic formulae are essentially based on this assumption. It is also assumed that soil resistance of dynamic penetration of pile is the same as to the penetration of pile under static or sustained loading. Following are some the commonly used dynamic formulae. Engineering news formulae: The Engineering News formula was proposed by A. M. Wellington (1818) in the following general form. a http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1311 editor@iaeme.com
Experimental Study on PFRP Confined RC Driven Piles Subjected To Vertical Loads Where, a = Allowable load C = Empirical constant C= 2.5 cm for drop hammer and C = 0.25 (single and double acting hammer) Single acting hammer: If the hammer is raised by steam, compressed air or internal combustion but is allowed to fall by gravity alone, it is called a single acting hammer. The energy of such of hammer is equal to the weight of the ram times the height of fall. Double acting hammer: The double acting hammer employs steam or air for lifting the ram and for accelerating the downward stroke.it operates with succession of rapid blows. Drop hammer: If a hammer is raised by winch and allowed to fall by gravity on the top of a pile, it is called a drop hammer. F = Factor of safety = 6 S = Final set (penetration) per blow, usually taken as average penetration cm per blow for the last 5 blows of a hammer, or 20 blows of a steam hammer. W = Weight of hammer (W = 4.90 kg) H = Height of fall (H = 45 cm) Piles are commonly driven by means of a hammer supported by a crane or by a special device known as pile driver. During pile driving, heads, helmets, or caps are placed on the top of the pile to receive the blows of the hammer and to prevent damage to the head of the pile. A cushion, consisting of a pad of resilient materials, hard wood or rope, is placed between the drive cap and the top of pile to protect the pile head. Single acting hammers are advantageous when driving heavy piles in compact or hard soil, while double acting hammers are generally used to drive piles of light or moderate in soils of average resistance against driving. Piles are ordinarily driven to a resistance measured by the number of blows required for the last 1 cm of penetration. Resistance of 3 to 5 blows per cm is commonly specified for concrete pile. Final set penetration per blow, usually taken as average penetration per blow for the last 5 blows of a drop hammer, or 20 blows of a steam hammer. It is denoted as S. When a pile hammer hits the pile, the total driving energy is equal to the weight of hammer times the height of drop or stroke. In addition to this, in the case of double acting hammers, some energy is also imparted by the steam pressure during the returns stroke. Driving of PFRP confined and unconfined RC piles by single acting hammer are shown in Fig. 3. Table 7 presents the safe load based on pile driven formulae. a) Unconfined b) Bi PFRP Figure 3 Driving of PFRP confined and unconfined RC piles http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1312 editor@iaeme.com
J. Prakash Arul Jose and P. Rajesh Prasanna Table 7 Safe load based on Engineering News formula Types of Confinement No. of blows Safe load (N) Unconfined pile 172 1286.39 Pile confined with bidirectional PFRP mat (Bi-PFRP) 253 1336.51 5. SAFE LOAD BASED ON PILE LOAD TEST The pile load test is carried out in clayey sand. The pile test can be performed either on a working pile which forms the foundations of the structure or on a test pile. The pile load test setup is shown in Fig.4. a) Schematic diagram b) Photograph Figure 4 Test setup Loading Procedure: The vertical load to the pile was applied through steel discs of known weights. The load is applied equal increments of about one fifth of the estimated allowable load. The settlement was recorded with the help of dial gauge of sensitivity 0.02. Each load increment is kept for sufficient time till the rate of settlement becomes less than 0.02 mm per hour. The test piles are loaded until the ultimate load is reached. Safe load based on Settlement criteria: Experimental investigations have been conducted on PFRP confined and unconfined piles. Fig. 5 shows the PFRP confined and unconfined RC piles in the field. The vertical load test was performed in accordance with IS: 2911 (Part 4) - 1985. At each stage of loading, settlement of piles were measured. Vertical load corresponds to 5 mm and 12 mm settlement is tabulated in Table 8. As per IS : 2911(Part 4) - 1985, safe load of the pile was taken as 50% of final load at which the total settlement increases to 12 mm or final load at which the total settlement corresponds to 5 mm at ground level. However, the safe load of the pile is taken as the minimum of the above two. In all the cases it was observed that the first condition is the minimum. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1313 editor@iaeme.com
Experimental Study on PFRP Confined RC Driven Piles Subjected To Vertical Loads Types of Confinement a) Unconfined b) Bi PFRP Figure 5 Pile load test on PFRP confined and unconfined piles Table 8 Safe load based on Settlement criteria Load corresponding to 5 mm settlement at GL (N) Load corresponding to 12 mm settlement at GL (N) Safe load (N) Unconfined pile 1423.235 2794.420 1397.2100 Pile confined with bidirectional PFRP mat (Bi- PFRP) 1480.82 2912.589 1456.2945 6. CONCLUSION The strength and stability of geotechnical structures depends on soil-solid interface behaviour. Direct shear tests were conducted to investigate the interface friction angle between PFRP wrapped concrete specimens with soil. The experimental results show that surface roughness of specimen is significantly changes the interface friction angle. The shear strength at the interface increases with the increase in surface roughness of the specimens. To check the capability of PFRP materials, RC piles were cast with the same reinforcement details to study the behaviour of RC driven piles confined with PFRP under static vertical loads. Experimental results indicate that surface roughness of pile significantly affects the load carrying capacity of driven piles. The load carrying capacity of driven piles increases with the increase in surface roughness of the pile. REFERENCES [1] Gireesha. N.T and Muthukkumaran. K (2011) Study on soil structure interface strength property. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 4, 89-93. [2] IS: 1498-1970 Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes. Bureau of Indian standards. [3] Phanikanth. V.S, Choudhury. D and Reddy. G.R (2010) Response of single pile under lateral loads in cohesionless soils, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15, 813-830. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1314 editor@iaeme.com
J. Prakash Arul Jose and P. Rajesh Prasanna [4] Porcino. D, Fioravante. V, Ghionna. V.N and Pedroni. S (2003) Interface behavior of sands from constant normal stiffness direct shear tests, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 26, 01-13. [5] Rao. P.S, Husain. M.M and Ravishankar. D.V (2012) Investigation on strength degradation of GFRP laminates under environmental impact, International Journal of Composites Materials, 2, 48-52. [6] Reddy. B.P, Alagusundaramoorthy. P and Sundaravadivelu. R (2009) Retrofitting of RC piles using GFRP composites, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 13, 39-47. [7] Sangeetha. P and Sumathi. R (2010) Behaviour of glass fibre wrapped concrete columns under uniaxial compression, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology, 1, 74-83. [8] G.Dhanajayan, K Veeranjaneyulu, V.Vamshi and Dr.M.Satyanarana Gupta Environmental Study on Gfrp Composite Laminates International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(6), 2017, pp. 480 493. http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/index.asp 1315 editor@iaeme.com