one source FOR

QUALITY SYSTEMS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION & FASTENER INDUSTRIES

Surface Stabilization

MULTI Williams Type B System

Extruded Free Stress Length Typical Strand Anchor – PTI Class II
STRAND
ANCHOR
Deep Foundations

All-Thread Bar
with Steel Casing
Geo-Drill
Injection Bar

MICROPILE
Support of Excavation

TIEBACK & Williams Type B System

Extruded Free Stress Length Typical Strand Anchor – PTI Class II
TIEDOWN
ANCHOR

Williams 150 KSI All Thread Bar Anchor System

reliable | durable | versatile

Williams Form Engineering Corp. has been a leader in manufacturing quality products and customer
service, for the Construction and Fastener Industries for over 80 years.

Belmont, MI 616.866.0815 Portland, OR 503.285.4548

San Diego, CA 858.320.0330
Golden, CO 303.216.9300
Lithia Springs, GA 770.949.8300
Collegeville, PA 610.489.0624 For More Information Visit:
Kent, WA 253.854.2268
London, ON 515.659.9444 williamsform.com

A New Approach for the Design of Micropiles in Tension
As micropiles have become more widely
accepted for public and private projects,
new test data has provided a greater
understanding of their capabilities as an
alternate to other types of deep foundations
(e.g., driven and drilled piles). Design
manuals, such as the 7th edition of the
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications published in
2014, allow micropiles to be used to resist
tension (uplift) forces as well as to resist
axial compression and lateral loading.
Standard design practices generally
recommend that a central reinforcing bar
extend from the bond zone and be installed
into the pile cap to accommodate the
applied loading. American Geotechnical
and Environmental Services (A.G.E.S.) was
recently involved in a project incorporating
AUTHORS Sebastian Lobo-Guerrero Ph.D., P.E., and Todd DeMico, P.E., A.G.E.S., Inc.
tension load testing on micropiles with and
without this continuous bar. The results
indicate that the tensile resistance of
traditional micropiles is typically under-
estimated in design.
Standard Design Procedures
A review of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications suggests that tensile
force in micropiles be checked against the
available geotechnical and structural
resistances (i.e., limit state design). The
geotechnical resistance of the micropile
depends on the grout-to-ground and/or the
grout-to-steel bar shear/bond strength(s) of
the bond zone, which is independent of the
direction of the applied loading (e.g., axial
compression or uplift force).
The structural resistance of the pile is
based on the tensile strength of the upper
FEATURE ARTICLE
Tension testing setup on a micropile
steel cased zone and the tensile strength of
the lower uncased zone. For the uncased
portion, the tensile resistance is provided
only by the reinforcing bar. For the cased
portion, both the casing and reinforcing
bar provide tensile resistance. Therefore,
most designs are controlled by only the
resistance of the central reinforcing bar.
Although the design equation for the
upper, cased zone incorporates cross-
sectional areas for both the steel casing and
the reinforcing bar, AASHTO does not
explicitly indicate that a reinforcing bar
must extend into the pile cap for tension
forces. Instead, the design specifications
indicate that the grout-to-steel bond may
govern micropile design at the overlap
interface of the reinforcing bar and the
casing in the upper zone (i.e., the
development length of the reinforcing bar
DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2019 • 89
within the grout). AASHTO indicates that
the development length of the reinforcing
bar must be checked to ensure adequate
resistance is provided.
The requirements in the AASHTO
specifications suggest that a reinforcing bar
does not need to extend into the pile cap to
resist tensile forces, although this is not
explicitly indicated within the document.
Based on this information, it can be
concluded that the tension loading can be
taken by micropiles without the reinforcing
bar extending to the surface. The tension
loading can be resisted via load transfer
from the upper casing to the lower
reinforcement bar within the bond zone.
The load transfer is provided by the grout
within the development length zone.
For the transfer of the tension load to be
accounted for in design, the shear strength
of the grout and the bond strength between
the reinforcing bar and the grout must be
considered to calculate the minimum
required development length. The AASHTO
specifications provide typical bond values
between steel and grout.
The Micropile Design and Construction
Reference Manual published by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2005
provides reference to tensile loading from
the casing throughout the document;
however, as with the AASHTO speci-
fications, the FHWA manual does not
explicitly indicate that the tensile
resistance from the casing alone is
permissible. The FHWA manual provides
examples of typical design schematics for
the connection from the micropile to the
pile cap. In those schematics, the
micropiles were designed for tension
loading and include a central reinforcing
bar extending into the pile cap. However, a
statement in the manual also indicates that
steel casing located within a corrosive
environment shall not be relied upon in
the design to resist tensile loading.
However, this statement suggests that the
steel casing could be designed to resist
some degree of tensile loading in non-
corrosive environments.
In summary, the design manual and
specifications do not provide sufficient
documentation to justify that micropiles
utilized in tension can be designed without
90 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2019
LRFD methodology considering only
geotechnical resistance from the side
Pile Cap
resistance (friction) within the bond zone,
as the end bearing resistance was neglected
in the design. The micropiles had an
Steel cased zone
from ground
outside diameter of 7 in (178 mm), and the
surface to top of steel casing in the upper portion of the
Unbonded
zone bond zone micropile consisted of 80 ksi (552 MPa)
steel with a wall thickness of 0.453 in
Reinforcement
bar extending
(11.5 mm). The uncased length of the
into pile cap micropile consisted of a grouted zone that
was 7-3/4 in (197 mm) in diameter (i.e., the
uncased zone was slightly larger in
Competent diameter than the cased zone due to the
rock bond
material Grout bond zone micropile casing). The reinforcement in the
uncased length was a No. 20 (2-1/2 in or
64 mm), Gr. 75 ksi (517 MPa) all-thread
central steel reinforcing bar. The resistance
Micropile with reinforcing bar extending of the micropile was based on an 11 ft (3.4 m)
into the pile cap for tensile resistance
(traditional design) long bond zone in limestone. The grout
used in the micropile satisfied the 28-day
minimum compressive strength of 4,000
psi (27.6 MPa).
Pile Cap Based on the 2014 AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications and the applied
loading on the micropile, a minimum
Steel cased zone development length of about 30 in
from ground
(762 mm) was required for adequate load
Unbonded surface to top of
zone bond zone transfer between the grout and central
reinforcing bar. This development length
Reinforcement was computed considering a resistance
bar development factor of 0.8 and an ultimate bond strength
length for tensile between the bar and the grout of 0.3 ksi
force transfer
(all-thread bar). Conservatively, the bar
Competent
rock bond
was extended about 5 ft (1.5 m) into the
material casing based on traditional practice for
Grout bond zone
compression-type micropiles.
The evaluation program included
tension testing micropiles with and with-
Micropile with development length of
central reinforcing bar providing
out central reinforcement that extended
adequate load transfer for tensile into the pile cap. The micropiles without
resistance the central reinforcement bar extending
into the pile cap were only used in areas of
a central reinforcing bar extending into the the project were the maximum factored
pile cap. Based on the lack of adequate uplift force was approximately 29 kips
direction, most designers typically specify (129 kN). For these micropiles, the testing
that tensile forces in micropiles shall be was performed to 1.75 times the maximum
resisted by the central reinforcing bar. factored load. The maximum test load was
approximately 51 kips (227 kN). Since the
Case Study reinforcing bar did not extend to the
A.G.E.S. was recently involved in a project ground surface, a plate was welded to the
that incorporated the concept of tensile micropile steel casing. The welded con-
micropiles without a continuous center nection was designed to exceed the
bar. The micropiles were designed using strength of the steel casing.
 designers and contractors work together to
test this approach, more data (and testing
to higher loads) will become available to
better optimize the design of micropiles in
tension.

Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere
appreciation to Rick Deschamps, Ph.D.,
P.E., vice president of engineering at
Nicholson Construction, and Ed Laczynski,
P.E., vice president of geotechnical
construction at Wagman Heavy Civil
Construction, for their invaluable discus-
sions and input regarding this topic.

Sebastian Lobo-Guerrero Ph.D., P.E., is a

geotechnical project manager/AAP laboratory
manager at American Geotechnical and
Environmental Services (A.G.E.S.) at the Pittsburgh
headquarters. He has more than 17 years of
Micropile casing welded to steel plate for the tension testing (there was no central
reinforcement bar within the casing) experience in geotechnical engineering, specializing
in the design of deep/shallow foundations, earth
The results of the tension test per- omitted, simple calculations for the retaining structures and landslide stabilization. He
formed on the micropile without the central development length of the reinforcement is a member of the DFI Anchored Earth Retention
Committee.
reinforcement bar extending into the pile bar can be performed to justify the design,
Todd DeMico, P.E., is a geotechnical project
cap successfully satisfied the acceptance as discussed and outlined in the 2014 engineer at A.G.E.S. in Pittsburgh. He has more
criteria. There were three components of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. than 7 years of geotechnical experience in the design
the established acceptance criteria: The case study presented in this article of bridge foundations, earth retaining structures
validated this design. As more owners, and soil/rock slide stabilization.
1. Movement of no more than 0.04 in
(2.5 mm) within the time span of 1 and
10 minutes under a sustained maxi-
mum test load
2. Movement (plastic deformation) of no
more than 0.3 in (7.6 mm), which was
the maximum allowable deflection
3. No pullout failure at the maximum test
load
During the tension test, the maximum total
elongation (i.e., plastic and elastic) was
0.23 in (5.8 mm).

Conclusion
The results presented in this article provide
insight into the potential of the tensile
resistance of micropiles without a con-
tinuous central reinforcing bar, something
often overlooked in the design of micropile
foundations. Although the design criteria
outlined in the design manuals and
specifications are not explicit whether the
continuous central reinforcing bar can be Tensile load test on micropile

DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2019 • 91