FRP-Strengthened RC Piles.

II:
Piles under Cyclic Lateral Loads
Madasamy Murugan 1; Kasinathan Muthukkumaran, M.ASCE 2; and Chidmabrathanu Natarajan 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Roorkee on 01/22/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Pile foundations are usually used when heavy superstructural loads have to be transmitted through weaker subsoil. Piles are also
subjected to significant amounts of lateral loads and overturning moments besides axial loads. Lateral loads are in the order of 10–15% of the
vertical loads in the case of onshore structures, whereas in the case of coastal and offshore structures, these lateral loads can exceed 30% of
the vertical loads. Therefore, proper attention has to be given in designing such pile structures under lateral loads. In recent years, many
investigations have addressed the externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymer composites for strengthening of concrete structures. This paper
presents an experimental study on glass and carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRP and CFRP) strengthened reinforced concrete (RC) piles
subjected to cyclic lateral loads. The effects of GFRP and CFRP strengthening on RC piles were studied. The load deflection, stiffness
degradation, and energy dissipation of piles are also presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000964. © 2017 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Strengthening; Reinforced concrete (RC) piles; Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP); Glass fiber-reinforced polymers
(GFRP); Carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP); Lateral loads; Cyclic loads.

Introduction 2000), RC column (Chaallal and Shahawy 2000), square concrete

Concrete, steel, and timber are the traditional materials for piling
and exhibit many problems when used in corrosive soils and harsh
environments. Performance disadvantages of these materials are
deterioration of timber, corrosion of steel, and degradation of con-
crete. Marine piling has been a common problem for structural en-
gineers due to wetting and drying during storm activity, and tidal
fluctuations result in accelerated decay of steel, concrete, and wood
pilings. Pile foundations may be required to resist significant lateral
forces induced by earthquakes, winds, waves, earth pressures, and
ship impacts, and most of the time these loads will be cyclic in
nature. The performance of pile foundations subject to cyclic lateral
load is of considerable importance in geotechnical practice. The use
of externally bonded fiber-reinforced-polymer (FRP) composite for
strengthening and repair can be a cost-effective alternative for
restoring or upgrading the performance of existing RC piles. Effec-
tive wrapping can enhance both the confined concrete strength and
the pile load-carrying capacity. This paper will provide some in-
sight regarding glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRP) and carbon
fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP) confinement in pile load-carry-
ing capacity subjected to cyclic lateral loads. This study will also be
beneficial to the researchers and practicing engineers working in
soil-structure interaction problems under cyclic lateral load.
Many researchers have reported the retrofitting or strengthening
of structural members like bridge piers (Alkhrdaji and Nanni
1 Loading Procedure/Loading Sequence
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620015, India.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620015, India (corresponding
author). E-mail: kmk@nitt.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technol-
ogy, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620015, India.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 29, 2015; approved on
August 30, 2016; published online on February 2, 2017. Discussion period
open until July 2, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
columns (Iacobucci et al. 2003), rectangular RC columns (Bousias
et al. 2004), underwater piles (Sen and Mullins 2007), RC columns
(Ilki et al. 2008), RC columns with near-surface-mounted FRP and
stainless steel (Bournas and Triantafillou 2009), concrete columns
constructed with low-quality concrete (Ilki et al. 2009), RC piles
(Purushotham Reddy et al. 2009), concrete columns under uniaxial
compression (Sangeetha and Sumathi 2010), and low-strength re-
inforced members (Goksu et al. 2012) by using FRP. The laterally
loaded pile behavior under different loading conditions and direc-
tions and including group effect were studied by Broms (1964a, b),
Gandhi and Selvam (1997), Narasimha Rao et al. (1998), Abdullah
and Al-Mhaidib (2006), Muthukkumaran et al. (2008), Almas
Begum and Muthukkumaran (2009), Chandrasekaran et al. (2010),
Muthukkumaran (2014), Kong et al. (2015), and Muthukkumaran
and Almas Begum (2015).
Test Setup and Procedure
Lateral Load Application and Installation of Dial
Gauges
Lateral load application and installation of dial gauges are dis-
cussed in the companion paper.
The loading sequence adopted in the test is in accordance with IS:
2911 (Part 4) (Bureau of Indian Standards 1985). Section 6.2
("Maintaining Load Method") was adopted in this test. In this
method, increasing the test load and taking measurements of dis-
placement in each stage of loading was maintained until the rate of
displacement of the pile either 0.1 mm in first 30 min or 0.2 mm in
first hour or until 2 h had passed, whichever occur first. In the cyclic
lateral load test, each load was applied in increments of 20% of the
working load until reaching the ultimate lateral load. After each
load step, the load was released and then brought to a no load

© ASCE 04017004-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(3): 04017004

 40
condition, then the next increment load was applied. Each load step
was maintained as described earlier. The displacement values were 35
measured and recorded at each load step.
30

25

Load (kN)
Results and Discussion
20

15
FRP Strengthened RC Piles Subjected to Cyclic Lateral
Loads 10

An experimental investigation has been conducted on another six 5

RC piles. Out of the six piles, one reference pile was tested without
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Roorkee on 01/22/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

any wrapping and the remaining five piles were wrapped with
GFRP and CFRP composites of varying configurations. The cyclic
lateral load test was performed in accordance with IS: 2911 (Part 4)
(Bureau of Indian Standards 1985). In the cyclic lateral load test,
each load was applied in increments of 20% of the working load
until reaching the ultimate lateral load. After each load step, the
load was released and then brought to the no load condition, then
the next incremental load was applied. Each load step was main-
tained as described earlier.
Hysteresis Behavior of Unconfined Pile
The hysteresis behavior of an unconfined pile is shown in Fig. 1.
The maximum load observed was 25.16 kN and the correspond-
ing maximum lateral displacement behind the loaded point was
96.80 mm. Based on load-deflection, the pile stiffness and energy
dissipation (area under the curve was estimated). The initial stiffness
of the pile was 0.58 kN=mm. Based on the hysteresis behavior, the
stiffness degradation and energy dissipation per cycle are estimated.
It can be seen that the stiffness degrades continuously in all the
cycles. The stiffness degraded from 0.58 to 0.26 kN=mm after eight
cycles. However, in the case of energy dissipation, it is increasing in
the subsequent cycles. The energy dissipation was increased from
0.10 to 1,176.50 kN=mm after eight cycles. The total cumulative
energy dissipation observed was 1,722.76 kN=mm.
Hysteresis Behavior of Pile Confined with Uni-GFRP-L
The hysteresis behavior of a pile confined with an unidirectional
GFRP mat with fiber orientation along the length of the pile is
shown in Fig. 2. The maximum load observed was 35.86 kN and
the corresponding maximum lateral displacement behind the
loaded point was 97.20 mm. The initial stiffness of the pile con-
fined with an unidirectional GFRP mat with fiber orientation along
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lateral displacement behind the loaded point (mm)
Fig. 2. Hysteresis behavior of pile confined with uni-GFRP-L
the length of the pile was estimated 0.90 kN=mm, which is nearly
55% more than for an unconfined pile. Based on the hysteresis
behavior, the stiffness degradation and energy dissipation per cycle
are estimated and shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It can be
seen that the stiffness degrades continuously in all the cycles. The
stiffness degraded from 0.90 to 0.37 kN=mm after 12 cycles. How-
ever, the energy dissipation increases with the increase in number
of cycles. The energy dissipation was increased from 0.04 to
1,336.29 kN=mm after 12 cycles. The total cumulative energy dis-
sipation observed was 2,857.81 kN=mm, which is nearly 66%
greater than the unconfined pile energy dissipation.
Hysteresis Behavior of Pile Confined with Uni-GFRP-C
The hysteresis behavior of a pile confined with an unidirectional
GFRP mat with fiber orientation along the circumference of the
pile is shown in Fig. 3. The maximum load observed was 28.94 kN
and the corresponding maximum lateral displacement behind the
loaded point was 97.85 mm. The initial stiffness of the pile con-
fined with an unidirectional GFRP mat with fiber orientation along
the circumference of the pile was estimated 0.61 kN=mm, which
is about 5% more than unconfined pile, whereas this is about
32% less than the pile confined with unidirectional GFRP mat with
fiber orientation along the length. Based on the hysteresis behavior,
the stiffness degradation and energy dissipation per cycle are esti-
mated and shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It can be seen that

35
30
30
25
25
20
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

20
15
15
10
10

5 5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lateral displacement behind the loaded point (mm) Lateral displacement behind the loaded point (mm)

Fig. 1. Hysteresis behavior of unconfined pile Fig. 3. Hysteresis behavior of pile confined with uni-GFRP-C

© ASCE 04017004-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(3): 04017004

 35 50
45
30
40
25 35
Load (kN)

30

Load (kN)
20
25
15
20

10 15
10
5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Roorkee on 01/22/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lateral displacement behind the loaded point (mm) Lateral displacement behind the loaded point (mm)

Fig. 4. Hysteresis behavior of pile confined with bi-GFRP Fig. 5. Hysteresis behavior of pile confined with uni-CFRP-L

the stiffness degrades continuously in all the cycles. The stiffness

35
degraded from 0.61 to 0.30 kN=mm after nine cycles. However, the
energy dissipation increases in the subsequent cycles. The energy 30
dissipation was increased from 0.04 to 1,248.62 kN=mm after 9
cycles. The total cumulative energy dissipation observed was 25
1,914.58 kN=mm, which is about 11% more than that of the un-
confined pile, whereas this is about 33% less than the pile confined Load (kN) 20
with unidirectional GFRP mat with fiber orientation along the
length. 15

10
Hysteresis Behavior of Pile Confined with Bi-GFRP
5
The hysteresis behavior of a pile confined with a bidirectional
GFRP mat is shown in Fig. 4. The maximum load observed 0
was 32.86 kN and the corresponding maximum lateral displace- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ment behind the loaded point was 96.94 mm. The initial stiffness Lateral displacement behind the loaded point (mm)
of the pile confined with bidirectional GFRP mat was estimated
0.78 kN=mm, which is about 34% more than that of the unconfined Fig. 6. Hysteresis behavior of pile confined with uni-CFRP-C
pile, whereas this is about 13% less than the pile confined with the
unidirectional GFRP mat with fiber orientation along the length of
the pile and 28% more than the pile confined with the unidirec-
tional GFRP mat with fiber orientation along the circumference 1.2
Unconfined
of the pile. Based on the hysteresis behavior, the stiffness degra- Uni-GFRP-L
dation and energy dissipation per cycle are estimated and shown 1 Uni-GFRP-C
Bi-GFRP
in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It can be seen that the stiffness de-
Stiffness (kN/mm)

Uni-CFRP-L
grades continuously in all the cycles. The stiffness degraded from 0.8
Uni-CFRP-C
0.78 to 0.34 kN=mm, but the energy dissipation increased in the
subsequent cycles. The energy dissipation increased from 0.10 0.6
to 1,036.20 kN=mm. The total cumulative energy dissipation ob-
served was 2,523.96 kN=mm, which is about 46% more than that 0.4
of the unconfined pile, whereas this is about 12% less than the pile
confined with the unidirectional GFRP mat with fiber orientation 0.2
along the length of the pile and 32% more than the pile confined
0
with the unidirectional GFRP mat with fiber orientation along the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
circumference of the pile. Number of cycles

Hysteresis Behavior of Pile Confined with Uni-CFRP-L Fig. 7. Stiffness degradation of piles

The hysteresis behavior of a pile confined with a unidirectional

CFRP mat with fiber orientation along the length of the pile is
shown in Fig. 5. The maximum load observed was 42.92 kN
and the corresponding maximum lateral displacement behind the
loaded point was 97.67 mm. The initial stiffness of pile confined
with the unidirectional CFRP mat with fiber orientation along
the length of the pile was estimated 1.05 kN=mm, which is nearly
81% more than the unconfined pile. Based on the hysteresis behav-
ior, the stiffness degradation and energy dissipation per cycle are
estimated and shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It can be
seen that the stiffness degrades continuously in all the cycles. The
stiffness declined from 1.05 to 0.44 kN=mm after 14 cycles.

© ASCE 04017004-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(3): 04017004

 1600 35
Unconfined
1400 Uni-GFRP-L
30
Energy dissipation (kNmm)
Uni-GFRP-C
1200 Bi-GFRP
Uni-CFRP-L 25

Lateral load (kN)

1000
Uni-CFRP-C
800 20

600 15
400
10
200

0 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Roorkee on 01/22/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of cycles 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Fig. 8. Energy dissipation of piles Lateral displacement at GL (mm)

Fig. 11. Load-displacement behavior of pile confined with

uni-GFRP-C
30

25 35

30
20
Lateral load (kN)

25

Lateral load (kN)

15
20

10 15

10
5
5

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Lateral displacement at GL (mm)
Lateral displacement at GL (mm)
Fig. 9. Load-displacement behavior of unconfined pile
Fig. 12. Load-displacement behavior of pile confined with bi-GFRP

40
50
35
45
30 40
Lateral Load (kN)

25 35
Lateral load (kN)

30
20
25
15
20
10 15

5 10
5
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Lateral displacement at GL (mm)
Lateral displacement at GL (mm)
Fig. 10. Load-displacement behavior of pile confined with
Fig. 13. Load-displacement behavior of pile confined with
uni-GFRP-L
uni-CFRP-L

However, the energy dissipation increased with the increase in num-

ber of cycles. The energy dissipation increased from 0.02 to Hysteresis Behavior of Pile Confined with Uni-CFRP-C
1,090.10 kN=mm after 14 cycles. The total cumulative energy dis- The hysteresis behavior of a pile confined with unidirectional
sipation observed was 3,091.41 kN=mm, which is nearly 80% CFRP mat with fiber orientation along the circumference of the pile
greater than the unconfined pile energy dissipation. is shown in Fig. 6. The maximum load observed was 31.39 kN

© ASCE 04017004-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(3): 04017004

 35
energy dissipation increased in the subsequent cycles. The energy
30
dissipation rose from 0.05 to 1,151.55 kN=mm after 10 cycles.
The total cumulative energy dissipation was observed to be
25 2,185.28 kN=mm, which is about 27% more than the unconfined
Lateral load (kN)

pile, whereas this is about 29% less than the pile confined with
20 the unidirectional CFRP mat with fiber orientation along the length.

15
Lateral Load-Carrying Capacities of FRP-Strengthened
10
RC Piles Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loads
In order to estimate the lateral load-carrying capacity of piles under
5 cycle load, plots were drawn between lateral load versus lateral
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Roorkee on 01/22/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

displacement at ground level since the lateral load capacity has

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
to be estimated corresponding to ground level displacement. Such
Lateral displacement at GL (mm)
plots are shown in Figs. 9–14. From these plots, the peak load of
each cycle and corresponding ground level displacement were plot-
Fig. 14. Load-displacement behavior of pile confined with uni-CFRP-C ted to estimate the safe lateral load capacity of the pile. Fig. 15
shows the variation of lateral displacement with applied lateral
load. The safe lateral load-carrying capacity of the pile was esti-
mated from Fig. 15 and reported in Table 1.
50

45
Conclusions
40
Experimental results indicate that the CFRP-confined pile with
35
fiber orientation along the length of the pile shows more load-
30 carrying capacity and the unconfined pile shows less. For both
Load (kN)

25
20
15
10
5 Uni-CFRP-C
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Lateral displacement (mm)
Fig. 15. Lateral displacement of piles at ground level
and the corresponding maximum lateral displacement behind the
loaded point was 97.26 mm. The initial stiffness of the pile con-
fined with unidirectional CFRP mat with fiber orientation along
the circumference of the pile was estimated as 0.70 kN=mm, which
is about 20% more than the unconfined pile, whereas this is about
33% less than the pile confined with the unidirectional CFRP mat
with fiber orientation along the length. Based on the hysteresis
behavior, the stiffness degradation and energy dissipation per cycle
are estimated and shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It can
be seen that the stiffness degrades continuously in all the cycles.
The stiffness fell from 0.70 to 0.32 kN=mm after 10 cycles, but the
CFRP and GFRP, the fiber orientation along the length has higher
strength than fibers oriented along the circumference. Unidirec-
Unconfined
Uni-GFRP-L
tional GFRP with fiber direction along the length showed a higher
Uni-GFRP-C load-carrying capacity than unidirectional CFRP with fiber ori-
Bi-GFRP entation along circumference. FRP confinement increases the stiff-
Uni-CFRP-L ness as well as cumulative energy dissipation. The following
conclusions could thus be drawn:
• The lateral capacity of FRP-confined piles was significantly
18 20 22 higher than for an unconfined pile of same length and diameter
under cyclic lateral loads;
• The experimental results indicate a significant increase in lateral
strength in GFRP-confined piles than that of an unconfined pile.
GFRP-confined piles with fiber orientation along the length of
the pile indicated 42.53% more lateral strength than an uncon-
fined pile for cyclic lateral loads. However, the increase in the
lateral load-carrying capacity was only 15.02% for cyclic load-
ing for fiber orientation along the circumference of the pile;
• CFRP-confined piles showed higher lateral load-carrying capa-
city than GFRP-confined piles. CFRP-confined piles with fiber
orientation along the length of the pile provided 70.59% more
lateral strength than an unconfined pile for cyclic lateral loads.
However, the increase in the lateral load-carrying capacity was
only 24.76% for cyclic loading for fiber orientation along the
circumference of the pile;
• The initial stiffness of the pile was significantly increased by
FRP wrapping. The initial stiffness of piles strengthened with

Table 1. Lateral Load-Carrying Capacities of Tested Piles

Ultimate Load corresponding to Load corresponding to Safe
load, 12 mm displacement 5 mm displacement load
Type Pu (kN) at GL (kN) at GL (kN) (kN)
Unconfined pile 25.16 21.50 11.72 10.75
Unidirectional GFRP-confined pile with fibers along the length 35.86 30.91 16.90 15.45
Unidirectional GFRP-confined pile with fibers along the circumference 28.94 25.19 12.75 12.59
Pile confined with bidirectional GFRP mat 32.86 28.46 15.52 14.23
Unidirectional CFRP-confined pile with fibers along the length 42.92 35.68 19.36 17.84
Unidirectional CFRP-confined pile with fibers along the circumference 31.39 26.91 14.06 13.45

© ASCE 04017004-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(3): 04017004

 the unidirectional GFRP mat with fibers along the length and
circumference of the pile was 55 and 5%, respectively, whereas
this increment was 81 and 20% for CFRP-confined piles. The
fiber orientation plays a significant role in initial stiffness of pile
irrespective of the type of FRP; and
• The percentage increase in cumulative energy dissipation of
piles strengthened with an unidirectional GFRP mat with fibers
along the length and circumference of the pile was 66 and 20%,
respectively, whereas this increment was 80 and 27% for CFRP-
confined piles.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Roorkee on 01/22/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Alkhrdaji, T., and Nanni, A. (2000). “Flexural strengthening of bridge piers
using FRP composites.” Advanced Technology in Structural Engineer-
ing, Philadelphia, 1–13.
Almas Begum, N., and Muthukkumaran, K. (2009). “Experimental inves-
tigation on single model pile in sloping ground under lateral load.” Int.
J. Geotech. Eng., 3(1), 133–146.
Al-Mhaidib, A. I. (2006). “Experimental investigation of the behavior of
pile groups in sand under different loading rates.” J. Geotech. Geol.
Eng., 24(4), 889–902.
Bournas, D. A., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2009). “Flexural strengthening of
reinforced concrete columns with near surface mounted FRP or stain-
less steel.” ACI Struct. J., 106(4), 495–505.
Bousias, S. N., Triantafillou, T. C., Fardis, M. N., Spathis, L., and O’Regan,
B. A. (2004). “Fiber-reinforced polymer retrofitting of rectangular re-
inforced concrete columns with or without corrosion.” ACI Struct. J.,
101(4), 512–520.
Broms, B. B. (1964a). “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils.”
J. Geotech. Eng., 90, 3, 123–156.
Broms, B. B. (1964b). “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils.” J. Soil
Mech. Found. Engg. Div., 90, 2, 27–63.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1985). “Code of practice for design and
construction of pile foundations. Part 4: Load test on piles.” IS: 2911,
New Delhi, India.
Chaallal, O., and Shahawy, M. (2000). “Performance of fiber-reinforced
polymer-wrapped reinforced concrete column under combined axial-
flexural loading.” ACI Struct. J., 97(4), 659–668.
Chandrasekaran, S., Boominathan, A., and Dodagoudar, G. (2010). “Group
interaction effects on laterally loaded piles in clay.” J. Geotech. Geo
Environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000245, 573–582.
© ASCE 04017004-6
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(3): 04017004
Gandhi, S. R., and Selvam, S. (1997). “Group effect on driven piles under
lateral load.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(1997)123:8(702), 702–709.
Goksu, C., Polat, A., and Ilki, A. (2012). “Attempt for seismic retrofit of
existing substandard RC members under reversed cyclic flexural ef-
fects.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000256,
286–299.
Iacobucci, R. D., Sheikh, S. A., and Bayrak, O. (2003). “Retrofit of square
concrete columns with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer for seismic
resistance.” ACI Struct. J., 100(6), 785–794.
Ilki, A., Demir, C., Bedirhanoglu, I., and Kumbasar, N. (2009). “Seismic
retrofit of brittle and low strength RC columns using fiber reinforced
polymer and cementitious composites.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 12(3),
325–347.
Ilki, A., Peker, O., Karamuk, E., Demir, C., and Kumbasar, N. (2008).
“FRP retrofit of low and medium strength circular and rectangular
reinforced concrete columns.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2008)20:2(169), 169–188.
Kong, L., Chen, R., Wang, S., and Chen, Y. (2015). “Response of 3×3 pile
groups in silt subjected to eccentric lateral loading.” J. Geotech. Geo
Environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001313, 04015029.
Muthukkumaran, K. (2014). “Effect of slope and loading direction on lat-
erally loaded piles in cohesionless soil.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000293, 1–7.
Muthukkumaran, K., and Begum, N. A. (2015). “Experimental investiga-
tion of single model pile subjected lateral load in sloping ground.” Int. J.
Geotech. Geol. Eng., 33(4), 935–946.
Muthukkumaran, K., Sundaravadivelu, R., and Gandhi, S. R. (2008).
“Effect of slope on P-Y curves due to surcharge load.” Soils Found.,
48(3), 353–361.
Purushotham Reddy, B., Alagusundaramoorthy, P., and Sundaravadivelu,
R. (2009). “Retrofitting of RC piles using GFRP composites.” KSCE
J. Civ. Eng., 13(1), 39–47.
Rao, S. N., Ramakrishna, V. G. S. T., and Rao, M. B. (1998). “Influence
of rigidity on laterally loaded pile groups in marine clay.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:6(542),
542–549.
Sangeetha, P., and Sumathi, R. (2010). “Behaviour of glass fibre wrapped
concrete columns under uniaxial compression.” Int. J. Adv. Eng.
Technol., 1(1), 74–83.
Sen, R., and Mullins, G. (2007). “Application of FRP composites for under-
water piles repair.” J. Compos., 38(5–6), 751–758.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.