International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and

Science (IJAEMS)
Peer-Reviewed Journal
ISSN: 2454-1311 | Vol-9, Issue-4; Apr, 2023
Journal Home Page: https://ijaems.com/
Article DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.94.2

Behavior of Composite Piles Reinforced by Geosynthetics

El-Sayed A. El-Kasaby1a, Mohab Roshdy 1b, Mahmoud Awwad 1c, Mona I. Badawi 1*

Civil Engineering Department Benha Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, Cairo, Egypt
a Prof. of soil mechanics and foundations. Email. [email protected]
b Lecturer. Email. [email protected]

c Lecturer. Email. [email protected]

* Teaching Assistant. PhD Student. Email. [email protected]

Received: 15 Mar 2023; Received in revised form: 10 Apr 2023; Accepted: 18 Apr 2023; Available online: 26 Apr 2023

Abstract— This study presents the results of five reinforced concrete (RC) pile specimens that were created
and horizontally loaded. The RC piles were reinforced by composite materials such as geogrid, geogrid with
a core of steel rod, and geogrid with a core of glass fibre reinforced polymers (GFRP) or carbon fiber
reinforced polymers (CFRP) rod. This research is expected to investigate the behavior of using composite
materials in pile reinforcement and check their efficiency in carrying horizontal loads. The horizontal pile
loading test was applied to four pile specimens and a reference pile specimen reinforced by steel rods. All
specimens have the same dimensions (150 mm in diameter and 1050 mm in height). A comparison has been
carried out between the experimental results for all specimens and the reference specimen. The experimental
results illustrated that the specimens carried a lower ultimate horizontal load by 44%–87% compared to the
reference specimen. Also, a non-linear finite element analysis has been verified by Abaqus software and
achieved a great degree of reconciliation compared to the experimental results. Finally, a comparison of the
reinforcement costs for the specimens revealed that utilizing these composite piles could reduce the cost up to
15.2%.
Keywords— Geosynthetics Geogrid, Composite piles, Horizontal load

I. INTRODUCTION wall in HCCs [14]. AlAjarmeh O.S. et al. (2019) explored

In recent years, a relatively new trend in deep the use of GFRP composite rods as reinforcement for
foundations is the use of composite piles due to their HCCs and evaluated the effect of the reinforcement ratio
inherent advantages over traditional piles. Composite piles on HCC structural behavior. Their results showed that
refer to alternative pile foundations composed of fiber increasing the diameter and number of rods enhanced the
reinforced polymers (FRPs) or geosynthetic that are placed strength, ductility and confinement efficiency of HCC. For
into the ground to support axial and horizontal loads [1]. columns with equal reinforcement ratios, using more and
Geosynthetics geogrids was proved to be a promising smaller-diameter GFRP rods yielded 12% higher
material in replacing traditional pile materials such as confinement efficiency than in the columns with fewer and
concrete and steel. Development and use in other larger-diameter rods. The crushing strain of the GFRP rods
industries have driven the price of production down to an embedded in the HCC was 52.1% of the ultimate tensile
attractive price point and produced a commercially viable strain [15]. Previous studies related to the performance of
technology [2]. Composite piles with fiber-reinforced hollow FRP piles only include superficial consideration of
polymers (FRP) are a suitable solution to the problems the impact behavior of the fiber materials and do not
faced by traditional piles as illustrated in several studies systematically describe their impact strength. These studies
[3-13]. Omar Alajarmeh et al. (2020) investigated the use described the impact behavior of the fiber composite
of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) rods as a materials through the observed damage mechanisms only
solution for corrosion and the use of hollow composite [16][17]. Ahmed H. Ali et al. (2020) presented a numerical
reinforced sections (HCRSs) to confine the inner concrete analysis investigation, using finite element model (FEM)

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 10

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

and modified compression field theory (MCFT), which C carbon fiber rod
was conducted to evaluate the shear capacity and behavior G geogrid
of circular concrete piles reinforced with steel and FRP
rods by considering shear behavior, shear strength, and H horizontally loaded
deflection shape [18]. Pando et al. (2006) carried out a
large-scale pile load test investigating the performance of II. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
FRP piles as the supporting structure for a highway
2.1 Specimens and Test Matrix
overpass in Virginia. They compared driven precast
concrete piles to concrete in-filled FRP piles. Axial pile five specimens were contained in the experimental
load tests showed that the FRP piles performed program as shown in table 1. The pile specimens were
comparably to the concrete pile [19]. constructed and tested. The tested specimens included five
reinforced concrete piles with the same dimensions (150
This study targeted to examine a new technique for
mm in diameter x 1050 mm in height). The reference pile
reinforcing piles by using different materials and check
specimen was reinforced using high tensile steel that
their efficiency under horizontal loads(H). horizontal pile
formed of four rods with 8 mm diameter and a spiral
loading tests was applied on five piles as reference
stirrup of mild steel with 6 mm diameter. The second pile
concrete pile (PSH) reinforced by steel rods, a concrete
specimen PGH was reinforced using G formed as a
pile (PGH) reinforced by geosynthetics geogrids (G), and
cylindrical roll. The other three pile specimens (PSGH,
concrete piles (PSGH, PLGH, PCGH) reinforced by
PLGH, and PCGH) were reinforced by cylindrical roll of
geosynthetics geogrids with a core of steel rod in the
geogrid with a core of steel, GFRP or CFRP rod in the
middle. Also, the costs of the specimens were compared.
middle. The horizontally loading test was applied on all
Nomenclature specimens. The reinforcing schemes used in the present
P pile study according to the previous explanation was shown in
figure 1. The variables of the experimental program were
S steel rod
the materials used in the reinforcement and the
L glass fiber rod combination of two materials.

Table 1. Test matrix

Loading
Group No. Pile Code Conditions Applied Material
Type
Reference PSH Reference Steel Rods (S)
PGH Geogrid (G)
PSGH Horizontal Steel Rod (S) & Geogrid (G)
PLGH load Glass Fiber Rod (L) & Geogrid (G)
PCGH Carbon Fiber Rod (C) & geogrid (G)

b
a

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 11

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

Fig.1 Cross section of composite pile specimens.

(a) Reference pile PSH, (b) PGH, (c) PSG, (d) PLGH, (e)PCGH.

2.2 Material Properties spiral stirrups and 8 mm diameter high tensile steel rods as
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC-42.5 grade), vertical reinforcement.
and natural sand with 2.6 fineness moduli with filter stones GFRP rods used in this research were manufactured by
having a maximum aggregate size of 9 mm were used in Russian company Armastek and imported by Fiber
the tested specimens. At 28 days, the predicted Reinforcement Industries Company [22]. According to the
compressive strength (fcu) was 25 MPa. The actual fcu manufacturer, the mechanical properties of the GFRP rods
was gained on the day of testing. were given in Table 2.
High tensile steel rods grade (40) having 8 mm Geosynthetics Geogrid manufactured by Tensar
diameters was used as the main reinforcement of the tested International Corporation and imported by National
piles. Normal mild steel rods grade (36) was used for spiral Geotechnical Company for (GEOTECH) [23]. Table 2
stirrups having 6 mm diameter. The reference concrete pile gives the mechanical properties of geogrid, according to
was reinforced with 6 mm diameter normal mild steel as the manufacturer.
Table 2. Dimensions and characteristic properties of FRP rods. [22],[23]

Features Geogrid (G)

Thickness (mm) 1.3

Tensile strength (N/mm) 10
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 200000
Strain at failure 0.5%
Features GFRP rod (L)
Diameter (mm) 12
Tensile strength (MPa) 1100
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 45000
Strain at failure 2.2%
Features CFRP rod (C)
Diameter (mm) 12
Tensile strength (MPa) 1050
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 120000
Strain at failure 0.5%

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 12

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

2.3 Test Set-Up system and collected on a computer at two-second

The specimens were loaded with a hydraulic jack with intervals. Figure 2 showed the tests setup which was
a maximum capacity of 1000 (KN), conjoined to electric applied in the concrete laboratory of Benha Faculty of
pump, and suspended with a rigid reaction frame with a Engineering at the University of Benha.
maximum capacity of 1000 (KN). The horizontal loaded
specimens were placed on two I beam at both sides; one III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
beam represented the pile cap and the other represented the
3.1 Ultimate Horizontal Load.
end bearing layer. The load was transferred horizontally by
a steel rod to the pile surface using steel plate. The applied Table 3 presented the ultimate horizontal load (N),
loads were measured by a load cell with a maximum deflection at failure (mm), and the cost of reinforcement
capacity of 1000 (KN) located below the hydraulic jack. (L.E.) for tested pile specimens PSH, PGH, PSGH, PLGH,
To monitor displacement for the horizontal loaded PCGH. The relationship between the horizontal load
specimens, one Linear Variable Differential Transducer against the deflection for the experimented pile specimens
(LVDT) was installed beneath the upper third of the pile PSH, PGH, PSGH, PLGH and PCGH was shown in fig. 4.
surface. All test data were collected with a data acquisition
Table 3. Experimental results

Price of Price of
Ultimate Ultimate Load/
Deflection at Reinforcement Reinforcement
Group No. Pile Code Horizontal Ultimate load
Failure (mm) compared to
Load (KN) of PSH % (L.E.) PSH %
Reference PSH 27.853 Reference Pile 11.30 40 -
PGH 12.205 44 5.45 6.15 15.25
PSGH 21.302 76.5 7.35 23.95 59.65
PLGH 23.655 85 8.7 14.15 35.25
PCGH 24.21 87 18.5 106.15 265.3

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 13

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

Fig.2 Horizontally loaded test set-up.

3.2 Results and Discussion for Ultimate Horizontal decreased using geogrid with or without a core of (steel,
Load GFRP, CFRP) rod. The reason for this decrement was its
The ultimate horizontal loads for pile specimens PGH, ability to make confinement with low tensile strength. It
PSGH, PLGH, and PCGH achieved a change of 44%, can be noted that using a core of steel rod increased the
76.5%, 85%, and 87% respectively compared to reference ultimate horizonal load by 32.5% compared to using
pile specimen PSH as shown in Table 3, the use of geogrid geogrid alone, while using a core of GFRP rod increased
resulted a decrease in the ultimate horizontal load, the the ultimate horizonal load by 41% compared to using
ultimate horizontal load was decreased to 44% of the geogrid alone and using a core of CFRP rod increased the
reference specimen using geogrids. Also, it was decreased ultimate horizonal load by 43% compared to using geogrid
to 76.5% of the reference pile specimen using a core of alone So, using a core of steel rod, GFRP rod or CFRP rod
steel rod with geogrid, while it was decreased to 85% enhanced the horizontal capacity of the pile.
using a core of GFRP rod with geogrid and decreased to The price of reinforcement for pile specimens PGH,
87% using a core of CFRP rod with geogrid. It can be PSGH, PLGH, and PCGH achieved a change of 15.25%,
noted that the core of the steel rod or GFRP rod increased 59.65%, 35.25%, and 265.3% respectively compared to
the horizontal load with the geogrid. reference pile specimen PSH as shown in Table 3. The
Comparing the specimens reinforced with different price of the reinforcement decreased effectively using the
materials and loaded by horizontal load as shown in figure geogrid material alone or with a core of steel or GFRP rod.
6, it can be noted that the ultimate horizontal load was

Fig.4 Horizontal load - displacement curve for tested pile Fig.5 Horizontal load vs reinforcement material
specimens PSH, PGH, PSGH, PLGH and PCGH. relationship for Horizontal loaded specimens

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 14

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

3.3 Modes of Failure ductile failure by tension, while for geogrid with a core of
For the reference specimen, the mode of failure acted a steel rod, the mode of failure acted a brittle failure by
ductile failure by tension. For geogrid, or geogrid with a tension. The modes of failure for all specimens are shown
core of steel rod or GFRP rod the modes of failure were a in fig. 6.

a b

c d

e
Fig.6 Modes of failure for horizontal loaded specimens
a) PSH b) PGH, c) PSGH, d) PLGH and e) PCGH.

IV. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS rods, and geogrids were inputted into the Abaqus software
Using a finite-element software Abaqus/CAE standard to reproduce the experimental program. The material
6.14-2, a finite-element (F.E) analysis was performed to properties factors were considered in modeling, such as
simulate the behavior of concrete piles reinforced with concrete compressive strength, steel, CFRP and GFRP,
different materials (steel rods, geogrid and geogrid with geogrid tensile strength. A solid part was used to model the
steel, CFRP or GFRP rod) under the effect of horizontal concrete. A wire parts were used to model the
load. A lot of features were considered in the F.E.M. as, reinforcement as steel, CFRP or GFRP rods and a shell
each part of the model, material properties, the assembly planar part was used to model the geogrid shell. In the
for modeling, the steps of modeling, the contact between concrete pile, the reinforcement elements were inserted as
the model parts, condition of loading, meshing of the embedded elements. In the F.E.M, the load was applied
model, and finally solving the model. horizontally. The modeling of the horizontal loaded pile
specimens was shown in figure 7.
The same material properties applied in the
experimental program for the concrete, steel, CFRP, GFRP
This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 15
©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

a) b)

d)
c)
Fig.7 Simulating of horizontal loaded pile specimens.
a) Meshing of the model, b) Loading case, c) The deflection on the model, d) Stresses on the model.
The results gained from the FE modeling were verified 102.94%, and 101.1% respectively compared to the
with the experimental results. The FE model was used for reference specimen PSH. The experimental, and the FEM
the verification process of the pile specimens (PSH, PGH, ultimate horizontal load results were shown in table (4)
PSGH, PLGH, PCGH). The horizontally loaded specimens and achieved a great convergence as shown. Figure 8
PSH, PGH, PSGH, PLGH and PCGH achieved a change in presented the load-deflection curves for the experimental
ultimate horizontal load of 107.89%, 99.1%, 101.39% and FEM results of the specimens respectively.

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 16

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

Fig.8 Horizontal load –Displacement relationship for experimental and FEM.

Table 4. Experimental, and FEM results.

Pile Code VEXP (KN) VFE. (KN) VEXP. /VFE
PSH 27.85 25.82 1.08
PGH 12.21 12.31 0.99
PSGH 21.30 21.01 1.01
PLGH 23.66 22.98 1.03
PCGH 24.21 23.95 1.01
Mean 1.02
SD 0.0331
Covariance 0.0011

V. ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS Mu = (αG×(K×e/R) ×R3 ×fcu ) + (αs×(K×e/R) ×R3 ×fcu

All specimens were horizontally loaded. the ultimate )(KN.m) (2)
predicted horizontal load of the control specimen (pile Where:
reinforced with steel rods) can be estimated by applying in Mu Ultimate horizontal moment on the specimen
equation (1) according to ECP 201 (201) [20] and using
Vu Ultimate horizontal load on the specimen
interaction diagrams for design circular section under
moment. fcu: concrete compressive strength.
Mu = (K×e/R) ×R3 ×fcu (KN.m) K×e/R: factor depends on the ratio of reinforcement and
(1) the radius of the specimen that can be estimated
from the interaction diagram according to ECP
201 (201) [20].
Up to now, the ultimate horizontal load of piles
R: the radius of the specimen.
reinforcement by geogrids cannot be estimated by ECP
201 (201) [30]. The following paragraph presents αs: reduction factor depends on the position of the
suggested equation for specimens reinforced with geogrids reinforcement rod.
which estimated the ultimate horizontal moment by αs =1 for steel rods on the edges, αs = 0.45 in the
applying in Equation (2). Where, αs is a reduction factor center, αs = 0.75 for FRP rods.
depends on the position of the reinforcement rod and αG is
αG reduction factor depends on the material.
a reduction factor depends on the geogrid material. Table
(6) presents a comparison between experimental and αG = 0.45 for the geogrid used.
theoretical results which listed in the same table. A great
convergence was verified from the theoretical and
experimental results.

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 17

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

Table 6: Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical with GFRP bars and spirals” Journal of Composites for
Results. Construction Volume 25.
[4] Paramanantham N. S., (1993), “Investigation of the
Pile VEXP Vth.
VEXP. /Vth behavior of concrete columns reinforced with fiber
Code (KN) (KN) reinforced plastic rebars”, Lamar University.
PSH 27.853 26.52 1.005 [5] Alsayed S. H., Al-Salloum Y. A., Almusallam T. H., and
Amjad M. A., (1999), “Concrete columns reinforced by
PGH 12.205 11.934 1.095
glass fiber reinforced polymer rods”, Special
PSGH 21.302 21.024 0.984 Publication. Volume 188, Pages 3-12.
PLGH 23.655 23.25 1.018 [6] De Luca A., Matta F., and Nanni A., (2010), “Behavior of
full-scale glass fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced
PCGH 24.21 23.8 1.01 concrete columns under axial load”, ACI Structural
Mean= 1.022 Journal. Volume 107.
[7] Pantelides C. P., Gibbons M. E., Reaveley L. D., (2013),
SD= 0.04299 “Axial load behavior of concrete columns confined with
Covariance = 0.001848 GFRP spirals”, Journal of Composites for Construction,
Volume 17.
[8] Mohamed H. M., Afifi M. Z., Benmokrane B., (2014)
“Performance evaluation of concrete columns
VI. CONCLUSION
reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars and confined
• Using geogrid as reinforcement didn’t enhance with FRP hoops and spirals under axial load”, Journal
the ultimate horizontal load of the pile. of Bridge Engineering. Volume 19.
[9] Tobbi H., Farghaly A. S., and Benmokrane B., (2014),
• The ultimate horizontal load was decreased by
“Behavior of concentrically loaded fiber-reinforced
44%- 87% for specimens reinforced by geogrids polymer reinforced concrete columns with varying
with or without a core of (steel GFRP or CFRP) reinforcement types and ratios”, ACI Structural Journal
rod, but the core of steel, GRFP or CFRP rod was Volume 111.
effective in withstanding horizontal load with the [10] Hales T. A., Pantelides C. P., and Reaveley L. D., (2016),
geogrid. “Experimental Evaluation of Slender High-Strength
Concrete Columns with GFRP and Composite
• The cost of the reinforcement decreased
Reinforcement”, Journal of Composites for Construction.
effectively for the pile specimens reinforced by
[11] Hadi M. N., and Youssef J., (2016), “Experimental
geogrids and geogrid with a core of steel or GFRP
Investigation of GFRP-Reinforced and GFRP-Encased
rod, but it increased effectively using a core of Square Concrete Specimens under Axial and Eccentric
CFRP. Load, and Four-Point Bending Test”, Journal of
• Non-linear finite Element analysis has been Composites for Construction, Volume 20.
verified and achieved a great convergence against [12] Karim H., Sheikh M. N., Hadi M. N., (2016), “Axial load-
the experimental results. axial deformation behaviour of circular concrete
columns reinforced with GFRP bars and helices”,
• A theoretical equation has been suggested to Construction and Building Materials, Volume 112.
predict the ultimate horizontal load which [13] Hadi M. N., Karim H., and Sheikh M. N., (2016),
achieved a great convergence with the “Experimental investigations on circular concrete
experimental results. columns reinforced with GFRP bars and helices under
different loading conditions”, Journal of Composites for
Construction, Volume 9.
REFERENCES [14] Alajarmeh O., Manalo A., Benmokrane B., Ferdous W.,
[1] Guades E., Aravinthan T., Islam M., and Manalo A., Mohammed A, Abousnina R., Elchalakani M., Edoo A.,
(2012), “A review on the driving performance of FRP (2020) “Behavior of circular concrete columns
composite piles”, Compos Struct, ELSEVIER, Volume 94, reinforced with hollow composite sections and GFRP
Pages 932–1942. bars”, Marine Structures, ElSEVIER, Volume 72.
[2] Giraldo J., and Rayhani M. T., (2014), “Load transfer of [15] AlAjarmeh O. S., Manalo A. C., Benmokrane B.,
hollow Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) piles in soft Karunasena W., and Mendis P., (2019), “Axial
clay”, Elsevier, Transportation Geotechnics, Volume 1, Performance of Hollow Concrete Columns Reinforced
Pages 63–73. with GFRP Composite Bars with Different
Reinforcement Ratios,” Composite Structures,
[3] Afifi M. Z., Mohamed H. M., and Benmokrane B., (2013),
ElSEVIER, Volume 213, Pages 153-164.
“Axial capacity of circular concrete columns reinforced

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 18

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
El-Kasaby et al. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 9(4) -2023

[16] Guades E. J., Aravinthan T., and Islam M. M., (2011),

“Driveability of composite piles”, In: Proceedings of the
1st intl postgraduate conference on eddBE2011, Brisbane,
Australia, p. 237–42.
[17] Mirmiran A., and Shahawy Y. S. (2002), “Analysis and
field tests on the performance of composite tubes under
pile driving impact”, Compos Struct, Volume 55.
[18] Ali A. H., Goudaa A., Mohameda H. M., Rabiea M. H.,
Benmokraneb B. (2020), “Nonlinear finite elements
modeling and experiments of FRP-reinforced concrete
piles under shear loads”, Structures, ElSEVIER, Volume
28, Pages 106-119.
[19] Pando A. M., Ealy C. D., Flitz M. G., Lesko J. J., and
Hoppe E. J., (2006), “A laboratory and field study of
composite piles for bridge substructures”, McLean, VA:
Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-
HRT04-043.
[20] ECP-Egyptian Code of Practice-201. (2011), "Egyptian
code of Practice", No. 201 for calculating loads and forces
in structural work and masonry, National Research Center
for Housing and Building, Ministry of Housing, Utilities
and Urban Planning, Cairo.

This article can be downloaded from here: www.ijaems.com 19

©2023 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/