Load Transfer Characteristics of Micropiles in Dolomite PDF

Load Transfer Characteristics of Micropiles in Dolomite
Richard J. Fiuno*, M. ASCE, Steven D. Scherer**, M. ASCE, Benoit Paineau***, and Jill
Roboski***
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
* Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

60208, r- fiuno@northwestem.edu
** Vice President, TCDI - A Division of Hayward Baker, 1477 Barclay Blvd., Buffalo
Grove, I1 60089
*** Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL 60208
Abstract
Axial load tests were conducted on four micropiles installed from the floor of a quarry
southwest of Chicago. The mieropiles consisted of 178 mm diameter steel drill casing with
a wall thickness of 13 mm. The piles were drilled into dolomite with sockets that varied in
length from 0.3 to 2 m, were tremie filled, and then grouted with pressures of about 140
kPa. The tests were conducted on piles instrumented with strain gages to determine axial
load distributions and load transfer characteristics. The non-linearity of the response of the
composite pile was considered when determining the axial load distribution in the piles.
Results of the tests suggest the current practice based on structural considerations can be
quite conservative, if the rock is competent. Load transfer through side friction is governed
by the interface shear strength between the steel casing and the surrounding grout.
Introduction
Micropiles socketed in rock are used in rehabilitation work for infrastructure systems. They
differ from many micropiles in that they are designed based on end-bearing rather than
interface shear. There are no specially created procedures for designing micropiles
socketed in rock. Their axial capacities typically are determined either on the basis of
provisions in building codes not specifically related to micropiles or conventional design
methods for drilled shafts. The capacity of a micropile socketed in rock is selected as either
a conservative estimate of structural capacity or its end beating capacity neglecting the
shearing resistance along its side. Results of a number of field axial load tests indicate the
load deflection responses are essentially linear to code-specified design loads, suggesting
the true capacity of the piles are significantly higher than currently-allowed values.
In conjunction with TCDI-a Division of Hayward Baker of Lincolnshire, IL,
Northwestern University conducted four axial load tests on micropiles embedded in the
Vulcan quarry of Countryside, IL. The dolomite in the quarry was directly accessible and
allowed evaluation of the friction at the interface of the mieropiles with the rock, without
the need to drill through deep deposits of overlying soil. Strain gages were installed on the
steel pipes and embedment strain gages were installed in the grout to study the load transfer
during the testing.
This paper briefly summarizes design procedures for micropiles in rock, describes
the axial load test section, and presents the load test results in terms of load-deflection
1038
Deep Foundations 2002

DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1039
curves, axial load distribution and mobilized side friction data. Conclusions are drawn
concerning the capacity of the piles relative to conventional design procedure.
Design Considerations
The axial capacity of a micropile is taken as the smallest of the buckling load, internal
structural column resistance, or the resistance provided by the soil and rock in which the
pile is founded. Buckling is only a design consideration when portions of the pile are
unsupported and will not be considered herein.
Service load design approaches related to the structural column capacity of a
micropile can be summarized by:
P~low = a x f'r x Agrout + 13X fy X A steel (1)

where u and 13are reduction factors to limit the mobilized stresses in the piles to acceptable
levels. Values of a and 13are summarized in Table 1 for 3 methods that have been used to
define the allowable capacity of grout-filled steel casings used as micropiles. Table 1
shows a wide range of allowable axial loads computed by these different methods for a
typical micropile. The dimensions used for the piles are those of the test piles subsequently
described herein: 178-mm-diameter micropile withl3-mm-thick walls with 550 MPa yield
stress filled with a grout that has a compressive strength of 38 MPa.
Table 1. Allowable Loads for the Test Micropile Based on Service Load Designs
Method fy max(MPa) a 13 Allowable Load (kN)
AASHTO (Service load design) 550 0.4 0.47 2000

Chicago Building Code 200 0.4 0.4 (t) 900
Massachusetts Building Code 410 0.33(3) 0.4 (2) 1400
Notes: 1. I~fy is limited to 200 MPa.

2. 13fy is limited to 410 MPa.
3. a f'r is limited to 11 MPa.
The major reason for this wide range is the specified maximum value for the yield
stress in steel varies from fy-maxof 200 MPa in the Chicago Building Code to 550 MPa in
the AASHTO specifications. Because of the large proportion of load supported by the steel
in these types of micropiles, different grades of steel or code-specified fy values introduce
large differences in the allowable load of the micropile. It is clearly over conservative to
use a limit stress of 200 MPa for a steel that has a yield point of 550 MPa, yet these
restrictions exist in parts of the US. A low fy value is not applicable to most micropiles
because of the high grade of steel generally used for casing and rebars.
Micropiles have a high ratio of perimeter to cross-sectional area. When a micropile
consists of a deformed rebar surrounded by grout, the limiting soil-micropile interface is
generally a grout-ground bond. Consequently, most conventional micropile design
methods consider the load transfer at the grout-ground interface and neglect the end-bearing

1040 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002
capacity, which can be negligible due to the small pile diameter. However, for micropiles
consisting of steel casing socketed in rock, it is usually assumed the piles are completely
end-bearing and all load transfer due to side friction is neglected. Therefore, nearly all the
existing micropile literature concerning design is not applicable to these tests.

Designs of micropiles socketed in rock typically are adaptations of the design for
drilled shafts or driven piles on rock. For example, FWHA (2000) indicate moderately
loaded micropiles have been designed for end beating on rock. They suggest that the design
is similar to end beating drilled shafts or driven piles, or may be based on previous load test
experiences of similar piles.
Test Section
Micropiles. The axial load test section was located on the floor of a quarry where dolomite
was directly accessible. The test section consisted of 9 tension anchors that provided
reactions for the axial loading of 4 test micropiles. The reaction frame is shown in Figure
1. Production micropiles for end bearing on competent rock are installed in the Chicago
area by drilling directly into the rock using a tri-cone roller bit attached to the bottom of
Figure 1. Reaction Frame for Axial Load Tests

drilling casing, filling the casing with grout, and pressurizing the grout within the casing
until return is observed through the annulus. It was felt this procedure would have
destroyed strain gages attached to the inside of the steel casing, and thus a different
procedure was following to install the test micropiles. The holes for the micropiles were
drilled with water with a 190-mm-diameter tri-cone, and the assembled micropile was
placed into the completed hole. Grout then was tremied into the bottom of the pile, and
pressurized from the top of the micropile to force the grout through openings in the bottom
of the roller bit and up along the sides of the augered holes. This pressure never exceeded
140 kPa because of the short length of the piles.
Four micropiles were tested in axial compression. They consisted of 178-ram-
diameter, 13-mm-thick, high strength steel tubes filled with grout. The lengths of the
micropiles were 0.61, 1.22, 1.83 and 2.44 m. In addition, each pile had a free length of 300
mm at the top, and a 200-ram-high tri-cone drilling bit welded to the bottom of the steel
casing. At each test pile location, a 3 m long rock core was recovered after the axial load
test. Unconfined compression tests conducted on grout specimens on the same day the
axial load tests were performed indicated the average unconfined compression strength was
42.7 MPa and with a Young's modulus of 8180 MPa. After testing, two of the test piles
were extracted by overcoring a 300 mm hole around the pile so that the conditions of the
grout interfaces could be examined.
Rock Conditions. The condition of the dolomite at each test pile is shown in Figure 2. In
spite of their proximity to one another (test pile to test pile spacing was 3 m), the rock
quality at the locations of micropiles 3 and 4 was significantly higher than that at
micropiles 1 and 2. Micropile 1 was drilled through highly weathered rock, and was seated
on fractured rock with a RQD of 22. Micropile 2 was drilled through and was seated on
highly fractured rock with a RQD of 0. Micropile 3 was founded in moderately fractured to
massive rock, crossed with a near vertical joint, and was tipped in rock with an RQD of 87.
Micropile 4 was drilled through moderately to highly fractured rock, and seams in this zone
were filled with grout from the installation process. The last meter of micropile 4
encountered sound rock, with a RQD of 85. To investigate the development of side
resistance, the last 150 mm of this cored hole was filled with loose cuttings so the end
bearing for pile 4 would be negligible.
Intact specimens of dolomite were obtained from the rock cores and tested in the
laboratory. Results of four uniaxial compression tests indicated the unconfined
compression strength varied from 69 to 95 MPa and averaged 85 MPa. The Young's
modulus of these specimens ranged from 20 to 24 GPa and averaged 21.7 MPa. Results of
eight tensile point load tests indicated the tensile strength of the intact dolomite varied from
7.0 to 7.9 MPa and averaged 7.6 MPa. Based on Deere's classification system, the intact
dolomite is a medium strength rock with an average modulus ratio.
Instrumentation. Weldable, vibrating wire strain gages were attached inside each segment
of steel casing before the gaged sections were shipped to the site and assembled in the field.
The strain gages were installed in pairs and each had its pickup sensor shaved to match the
curvature of the inside diameter of the steel pipes. After the casing was assembled and
placed in the hole, the cables of the strain gage sensors were pulled to the outside of the pile
through a hole drilled at the top of each pile. Additionally, embedment strain gages were
installed on the telltale tubes in micropiles 3 and 4 at the same depth as the last level of

1042 DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002
weldable strain gages. Two telltale tubes were attached to the top of the roller bit
attachment in each micropile
Figure 2. Dolomite at Test Pile Locations

Testing Procedures. The loading system, shown in Figure 1, consisted of a frame of three
beams supported by anchors. A hydraulic loading jack applied the axial load through a
swivel plate and a load chair. Three dial gages measured the displacement of the load
chair, two dial gages measured telltales deformations from a reference frame. An
electronic load cell was used to calibrate the readings from the hydraulic jack. For each
test, the axial load on the pile was transferred via the frame to four tension anchors with a
design capacity of 1110 kN. Each anchor was embedded 6 m in the ground. The bottom
4.5 m of the anchor pile were grouted and the remaining 1.5 m were left unbonded. The
axial load was increased in increments of 220 kN. Each load was maintained for 5 minutes
to allow any time-dependent movement to occur. Unloading was accomplished in 445 kN
decrements. Strain gage and telltale data were collected at each load increment.
Results of Axial Load Tests
Axial load deflection responses. Figure 3 shows the load-deflection responses at the pile
head and tip for micropiles 1 and 3. These piles were loaded to 4450 kN without exhibiting
a plunging failure. An unload-reload cycle was included for micropile 1. In the first cycle,
the electronic load cell was placed in series with the hydraulic jack to check the jack
calibration. This load cell capacity was limited to 2225 kN, so the first loading stopped at
2000 kN. After unloading, the load cell was removed and the axial load was increased to
4450 kN, the estimated safe limit of the anchor system.
The tip deflection is smaller for micropile 3 (1.6 mm at 4450 kN) than for micropile
1 (10 mm at 4450 kN), and reflects the difference of the rock quality at the bottom of each
pile. The RQD of the dolomite under the tip of micropile 3 was 87, whereas the RQD of the
highly weathered dolomite below the tip of micropile 1 was 22.
Figure 3. Axial Load vs. Deflection for Micropiles 1 and 3

According to Davisson's definition of failure, micropile 1 failed at 4000 kN, but

micropile 3 had not yet failed.
Figure 4 shows the axial load-deflection curves for micropile 2. The head of this
pile began to move significantly when the axial load exceeded 500 kN. According to
Davisson's criteria, failure during this first loading cycle occurred at a load of 800 kN. The
pile was unloaded at 1335 kN to reset the dial gages. Upon reloading, the pile did not show
signs of a plunging failure. According to Davisson's failure criteria, the pile failed at 2000
kN during the second cycle of load. The test was stopped at 3560 kN when the loading
chair exhibited signs of distress.
Figure 4. Axial Load vs. Deflection for Micropile 2

Micropile 2 exhibited a different response than micropiles 1 and 3. The load-
deflection curves show the tip and the top moved together during the first load. In this case,
the highly weathered rock (RQD = 0) beneath the pile tip compressed significantly as the
axial load was applied, yet the pile did not plunge during the second loading. Rather, the
pile tip deflection increased slowly during the reloading part to 1100 kN, whereupon the
material beneath the tip began to respond as if loaded in constrained compression; that is
the material became stiffer with increasing load.
The load-deflection responses of micropile 4 are shown in Figure 5. This pile
plunged abruptly at 2000 kN. The tip of the pile did not deform until the plunging load was
attained, and the pile head deflection was essentially equal to the elastic compression of the
pile. This plunging failure was expected because of the loose cuttings placed beneath the
tip of this pile.

Figure 5. Axial Load vs. Deflection for Micropile 4
Axial Load Transfer
The measured strains were converted to axial loads by the procedure described by Fellenius
(1989). This method accounts for the non-linearity in the stress-strain relationship of the
composite micropile. This non-linearity is illustrated in Figure 6a, a plot of axial load at the
pile head versus strain measured at each strain gage for micropile 3. While the modulus of
the steel is constant since the stress in the steel for all tests was below the yield stress, the
modulus of the grout varies over the large stress range imposed in the axial load tests, and
hence depends on the imposed axial loads. Note that significant non-linearities were
observed after 200 microstain in the unconfined compression tests of grout specimens.
Fellenius (1989) derived the following equation for the secant modulus of the composite
pile, Es, as a function of axial strain, e:
E~ = 0.5 A ~ + B (2)
where A is the slope of the tangent modulus versus strain curve and B is the initial tangent
modulus. The constants A and B are determined from a plot of tangent modulus versus
strain for each pile, as indicated in Figure 6b for the strain gages for micropile 3. The
tangent moduli are computed from the slope of the axial load at the pile head versus strain
plots in Figure 6a. For gages near, or preferably, above the ground surface, the modulus for
each increment is unaffected by the shaft resistance and the calculated moduli are
representative of the moduli of the composite pile. At deeper gages, the load increments
are reduced by the mobilized side resistance, and~thus, initially, the computed tangent
moduli are larger than that of the pile. This is observed in Figure 6b where the tangent
moduli computed for the deepest gages, nos. 7 and 8, are initially higher than those of the
shallower gages. After about 800 Ixe, the tangent moduli for all gages converge. At this

point, shaft resistance has been fully mobilized at all gage levels. Hence all applied load is
transferred along the pile, and the calculated moduli are the composite tangent moduli
values for the composite section. Constants A and B are computed from this linear portion
of the tangent modulus versus strain plot.
Figure 6. Strain gage data from Micropile 3
The average friction between two levels of strain gages, fs, was computed by:
AP AE(e) A6
Z =~'- (3)
zDl z Dl
where AP is the difference of load between the two gage levels, l is the distance between
the two gage levels and D is the diameter of the friction interface. Uncertainty arose as to
which friction interface was the most appropriate to use. The friction at the bond between
the rock and the grout is commonly used in computations of side resistance. Relative
movements at the interface between the steel pipe and the grout around the pile were
observed during the load tests. Extraction of piles 1 and 4 from the ground after load testing
revealed that while the bond between rock and grout was intact, the outside diameter of the
steel casing was free of grout, suggesting the steel-casing-grout interface was weaker than
the grout-rock interface. Consequently, the diameter considered herein was the diameter of
the pipe, i.e. 178 mm.
Micropiles 1 and 3. The axial load distributions of micropiles 1 and 3 are shown in Figure
7. The data show no significant load transfer in the first meter of pile. Because micropile 1
was embedded only 0.8 m, the pile was essentially end-bearing. The strain gages in the
upper portions of these piles were stressed beyond their linear range at loads greater than
3000 to 3500 kN, and hence are not include in Figure 7. Appreciable side resistance was
observed below the gage at 1.14 m for micropile 3, and the pile resistance was a

combination of side resistance and end bearing. Note that because of this side resistance,
the strains corresponding to the maximum applied loads were recorded at this depth.
Figure 7. Axial Load Distributions for Micropiles 1 and 3
These results suggest significant tip resistance was generated by the dolomite with
an RQD as low of 22%. At the maximum load of 4450 kN, the deformations at the pile tip
measured by telltales were 10 and 1.6 mm for micropiles 1 and 3, respectively (Figure 3).
The bond average strength, s, between a plain bar and concrete can be estimated
(ACI) as:
s= 17 x / f l (4)
where f~ is the compressive strength of concrete in kPa. Given the average values of f~'
of the grout of 42.7 MPa, the bond strength is estimated to be 3500 kPa. Load deflection
responses from typical steel-concrete pull-out tests show a peak resistance is observed at
about 0.3 mm, and reductions in resistance develop thereafter.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of strains measured by the embedment gage and the
strain gages at a depth of 1.5 m. The strains in the steel and concrete were equal until the
strain reached 180 microstrain. Thereafter, the strain in the steel increased at a faster rate
than in the grout, indicating either stress-strain non-linearity of the composite pile or
debonding between the pipe and the grout inside the pipe.

Figure 8. Comparison of Strains in Grout and Steel for Micropile 3
Micropile 2. The axial load distribution of micropile 2 for the second loading cycle is
shown in Figure 9. The data show significant load transfer does not occur in the upper 0.69
m of the embedded portions of the piles where the gages were located, and suggests most
load is transferred directly to the pile tip, as was the case for micropile 1. This
interpretation agrees with the telltale data shown in Figure 4, where the telltale and pile
head movements were essentially the same during the first loading cycle, indicating the pile
moves rigidly into the material below its base. Very small amounts of side resistance, an
average of 360 kPa, were mobilized during the first loading cycle. The 27 mm of tip
movement recorded during the test is a result of the highly weathered dolomite (RQD = 0)
at the tip. As in the case of micropile 1, the relatively large movements needed to generate
the tip resistance can be explained by poor quality rock. In spite of the poor rock
conditions, significant axial loads developed in the test.

Figure 9. Axial Load Distribution for Micropile 2
Micropile 4. The axial load distribution of micropile 4 is shown in Figure 10 for the first
loading cycle. The figure shows little load transfer in the first 1.14 m, and a higher rate of
load transfer from 1.14 m to the bottom of the pile. Little load reaches the tip of the
micropile until it suddenly plunges at the peak load of 2000 kN. This fact confirms the
hypothesis that the failure did not occur until some load reaches the bottom, as suggested
Figure 10. Axial Load Distribution for Micropile 4

1050 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002
by the telltale data in Figure 5. Recall that this pile was installed with a 150 mm zone of
loose soil below its tip to more easily assess the mobilized side friction. As was the case
with the other piles, very little load was transferred in the upper meter of the micropile,
Unit side resistance. The unit side resistance, fs, is plotted versus axial head deflection for
all micropiles in Figure 11. The values of fs are generally less than 200 kPa at depths less
than 1 m, indicating negligible mobilized side resistance. These low values of side
resistance likely resulted from the low grout pressures (140 kPa maximum), the small
annulus between the rock and the steel casing, and the lack of confinement in the upper
meter of the pile. Below this depth, fs values reach as much as 5400 kPa for pile 3 and 3200
kPa for pile 4.
6000
-Jr- MicropileI (0.0-0.24m)
X <> Micropile2 (0.0-033 m)
5000 [] Mictopile2 (0.33-0.68 m)
0 Micropile3 (0.0-0.54m)
.A Micropile3 (0.54-1.15m)
4000 X Micropile3 (1.15-15 m)
),~ Mictopile4 (0.0-1.15m)
8c
Q~
3000
2000
/ 9
$ Mictoprle4 (1.15-1.76m)
Micropile4 (1.76-2.11 m)
t~
c
1000
-1000 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I
-4 -8 -12 -16 -20

Axial Head Deflection (mm)
Figure 11. Mobilized Side Resistance versus Axial Head Deflection
The mobilized side resistance for pile 4 is similar to the average unit value for the
bond that develops at a smooth steel-grout interface, approximately 3500 kPa based on
equation (4) and 42.7 MPa grout. Given that micropile 4 exhibited a plunging failure, the
side resistance completely mobilized at its failure load. With this low mobilized resistance
and the observations the grout at the outer steel-grout interface was smooth and the grout-
rock interface was intact and revealed no indication of relative movements when micropiles
1 and 4 were recovered after the load tests, it is clear the grout-steel interface was weaker
than the grout - rock interface, even in areas where the RQD of the rock was 0%.
The mobilized side resistance for pile 3 was higher than the estimated value for a
smooth steel-grout interface, yet not inconsistent with its magnitude. Interpretation of load
transfer near the bottom of a pile with significant amounts of side resistance and end
beating is difficult, and was the reason why pile 4 was tested with a soft bottom.

Unfortunately, pile 4 was not extracted at the end of testing to verify the nature of the
critical interface near its tip.
Relation between Quarry Test Results and Production Piles
There are a number of differences between the quarry test micropiles and typical end
bearing micropiles in the Chicago area. In addition to the differences in construction
techniques resulting from the need to install strain gages, production micropiles are much
longer, typically 30 m long in the downtown area of Chicago. The fact that production
micropiles are drilled into the rock will likely ensure the tip of the pile will be in sound rock
since the depth can easily be extended until such rock is reached. However, while the
bedrock in this area is the same dolomite as existed on the floor of the quarry, the large
axial loads will cause much larger elastic compression in the production piles than in the
shorter quarry test piles.
Allowable deformations should be the key factor in determining the allowable axial
capacity for these types of pile. The 178-mm-diameter piles are relatively compressible as
compared to other types of deep foundations, and when they are founded on high quality
rock, they should respond elastically. The side resistance within the soil above the rock
should be relatively low because of the poor bond between the steel casing and the grout
and the relatively large movements created by the elastic deformations of the pile.
Although the potential for much higher axial capacities exists if the interfacial strength
within the rock could be increased, perhaps by artificially roughening the outside of the
casing, the relatively compressible nature of this small diameter element would limit its
capacity when one considers allowable deformations as the main design criteria.
Comparison of Design Load and Observed Capacities
Table 2 summarizes the allowable axial loads for the quarry test micropiles based on a
number of methods. The allowable structural loads were computed by methods prescribed
by AASHTO, and the Chicago and Massachusetts Building Codes and are the same for
micropiles 2, 3 and 4. Micropile 1 differs because the compressive strength of the grout
was 48 MPa for this pile, as compared to 38 MPa for the other 3 piles.
Table 2. Allowable Loads for Test Micropile
Computed Observed
Pile Allowable structuralload(kN) Davisson allowable Allowable load for 13
1 2 3 load with FS = 2 (kN) mm movement (kN)
1 1630 880 1380 2000 3800
2 1560 800 1320 400 1200
3 1560 800 1320 >2225 >4450
4 1560 800 1320 1000 not applicable
Notes: 1 - AASHTO
2 - Chicago Building Code
3 - Massachusetts Building Code

The Davisson method is an approach developed for high capacity driven piles. This
method tends to define the "failure" load at levels where the end bearing is not completely
mobilized, and is reasonable for piles 1, 2 and 4 where the fractured rock, or soft bottom
conditions at pile 4, was compressible enough to permit significant displacements of the

pile tip.
Neither the Davisson method, nor any other method that defines axial capacity in
terms of safety factor applied to a relatively arbitrary definition of failure, is applicable to a
micropile founded on good quality rock, as was the case for micropile 3. If one uses an
allowable deformation of 12.5 mm to define the allowable axial load, then the pile 3 load
test result indicates the capacity exceeds 4450 kN, far in excess of that defined by
conventional structural criteria.
However when one looks at production micropiles founded in good quality rock
with lengths on the order of 25 to 30 m, typical of the downtown area of Chicago, then
most of the movement at the pile head will be a result of elastic compression of the pile.
Recall the tip of micropile 3 moved less than 2 mm with an applied load of 4450 kN.
Hence, it is more rational to design such a pile based on allowable movements, the majority
of which comes from "elastic" compression of the pile. For example, if micropile 3 had
been 27.5 m long and founded in the same quality rock, then the allowable axial capacity
would have been 1350 kN for a 12.5 mm allowable deformation and 2600 kN for a 25 mm
allowable deformation. These values are significantly greater than those defined from
code-based structural considerations, for example, 800 kN in Chicago (Table 2). Note the
non-linearity of the composite pile must be taken into consideration when computing the
"elastic" compression. This approach is valid only when good quality rock is at the tip of
the micropile. Well-constructed production micropiles of the type described herein
founded in competent dolomite meet these criteria.
Conclusions
The axial capacity of the quarry test micropiles described herein, consisting of steel
casing filled with grout and founded on rock, depends primarily on the quality of the rock
below the pile tip. For the micropiles founded on dolomite with an RQD of 0, 22, and 87,
the axial capacities determined by Davisson's method were 1700 kN, 4000 kN and in
excess of 4500kN, respectively. The movements at the pile tips at ultimate loads were 27,
10, and 2 ram, respectively. The stresses in these micropiles were in excess of those
specified by codes without any detrimental effects on the performance of the pile under
axial load.
The interface that determined the distribution of axial load transfer with depth was
not the interface between grout and rock, but the interface between the outside diameter of
the steel and the grout. Because of the small annulus between the steel casing and the rock,
and the low grout pressures necessitated by the shallow depth of the piles, side resistance
did not develop above an embedded depth of approximately 1 m. Below 1 m, the
mobilized friction was limited to that which can develop at the interface of steel casing and
grout, and was approximately equal to that estimated based on pullout tests of smooth steel
rebar from blocks of concrete.
Due to the relatively high compressibility, the allowable axial loads of full-scale
micropiles, installed in the same manner as described herein and founded on competent

DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002 1053
rock, are determined more rationally from allowable deformation considerations, rather
than code-specified allowable stresses in the pile.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by funds from a grant from the Infrastructure Technology
Institute (ITI) of Northwestern University and from the contributions of TCDI. The efforts
of Mr. JeffHill of TCDI to ensure the success of the field testing program are greatly
appreciated. Messrs. Charles A. Sanders and Hamilton White of Vulcan Materials Corp. of
McCook, IL provided access to the quarry floor. Mr. Jim Rupert of O.C.I. Division, Global
Drilling Suppliers Inc. of Brookville, PA, generously supplied micropile casing and bits at
no cost to the project. Mr. Joseph Wiedemann of DYWIDAG Systems of Bollingbrook IL.
provided anchor materials at cost. The authors also appreciate the continuing support of
Mr. David Schulz, the Director of ITI.
References
ACI 318-95. (1995). Building Code Requirementfor Structural Concrete.
Fellenius, B.H. (1989). "Tangent Modulus of Piles Determined from Strain Data,"
Proceedings, Congress on Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, F.H.
Kulhawy ed., Vol. 1, ASCE, p. 500-510.
FHWA. (2000). Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines. Publication no.FHWA-

SA-97-070

Load Transfer Characteristics of Micropiles in Dolomite PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Load Transfer Characteristics of Micropiles in Dolomite PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Load Transfer Characteristics of Micropiles in Dolomite PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Load Transfer Characteristics of Micropiles in Dolomite

* Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Deep Foundations 2002

P~low = a x f'r x Agrout + 13X fy X A steel (1)

Method fy max(MPa) a 13 Allowable Load (kN)

AASHTO (Service load design) 550 0.4 0.47 2000

Notes: 1. I~fy is limited to 200 MPa.

Deep Foundations 2002

existing micropile literature concerning design is not applicable to these tests.

Figure 1. Reaction Frame for Axial Load Tests

Deep Foundations 2002

Deep Foundations 2002

Figure 2. Dolomite at Test Pile Locations

Deep Foundations 2002

Results of Axial Load Tests

Figure 3. Axial Load vs. Deflection for Micropiles 1 and 3

Deep Foundations 2002

According to Davisson's definition of failure, micropile 1 failed at 4000 kN, but

Figure 4. Axial Load vs. Deflection for Micropile 2

Deep Foundations 2002

Figure 5. Axial Load vs. Deflection for Micropile 4

Axial Load Transfer

Deep Foundations 2002

of the tangent modulus versus strain plot.

Figure 6. Strain gage data from Micropile 3

Deep Foundations 2002

Figure 7. Axial Load Distributions for Micropiles 1 and 3

Deep Foundations 2002

Figure 8. Comparison of Strains in Grout and Steel for Micropile 3

Deep Foundations 2002

Figure 9. Axial Load Distribution for Micropile 2

Figure 10. Axial Load Distribution for Micropile 4

Deep Foundations 2002

-4 -8 -12 -16 -20

Figure 11. Mobilized Side Resistance versus Axial Head Deflection

Deep Foundations 2002

Relation between Quarry Test Results and Production Piles

Comparison of Design Load and Observed Capacities

Table 2. Allowable Loads for Test Micropile

Deep Foundations 2002

conditions at pile 4, was compressible enough to permit significant displacements of the

Deep Foundations 2002

ACI 318-95. (1995). Building Code Requirementfor Structural Concrete.

FHWA. (2000). Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines. Publication no.FHWA-

Deep Foundations 2002

You might also like