Journal Pre-proof

Performance of hollow bar micropiles using green grout incorporating treated oil sand
waste

M. Aboutabikh, A.M. Soliman, M.H. El Naggar

PII: S2352-7102(19)30218-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100964
Reference: JOBE 100964

To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering

Received Date: 11 February 2019

Revised Date: 4 September 2019
Accepted Date: 19 September 2019

Please cite this article as: M. Aboutabikh, A.M. Soliman, M.H. El Naggar, Performance of hollow bar
micropiles using green grout incorporating treated oil sand waste, Journal of Building Engineering
(2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100964.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

First Author:
M. Aboutabikh
MSc. Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

The University of Western Ontario,

London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5B9

Second Author:
A. M. Soliman (Corresponding author)
A. M. Soliman, P.Eng.

Assistant Professor, Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia

University, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8

Email: ahmed.soliman@concordia.ca

Third Author:
M.H. El Naggar, P.Eng.

Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

The University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5B9

1
2 PERFORMANCE OF HOLLOW BAR MICROPILES
3 USING GREEN GROUT INCORPORATING TREATED
4 OIL SAND WASTE
5
6
7 ABSTRACT

8 Implementing waste materials in construction applications represents an effective solution for

9 many waste management problems. This study presents an innovative solution for application of

10 treated oil sands waste (TOSW) in grout mixtures used for micropiles construction. Effects of

11 employing these grout mixtures on micropiles cross-section, surface interface properties and

12 axial behaviour were investigated. The results showed an enhancement in the grout body

13 diameter for micropiles installed using the developed grout, while maintaining the micropile

14 surface properties. Micropiles installed using grout incorporating a high percentage of the TOSW

15 (up to 30%) exhibited the same axial behaviour as that of micropile installed using conventional

16 grout. Therefore, incorporating TOSW in micropile applications has high potential for producing

17 cost efficient micropiles along with providing a green oil sands waste management solution.

18

19 Keywords: Micropiles; Oil sands waste; Interface properties; Axial Behaviour; Grout

20

21 INTRODUCTION

22 Micropiles are small diameter (typically less than 300 mm), drilled and grouted non-

23 displacement reinforced pile (Gómez et al., 2004). The micropiles construction in North America

24 is growing fast since it was first introduced in the United States in the 1970s. Nowadays,

1
1 micropiles are widely used in various applications such as underpinning for existing foundations,

2 in-situ reinforcement, seismic retrofitting and as foundations for new construction. The main

3 advantages of micropiles are: high grout to ground bond strength, fast and limited space

4 installation causing minimal disturbance to adjacent structures (FHWA-NHI, 2005).

5 Micropiles are classified as installation-dependent piles. According to the Federal

6 Highway Administration-National Highway Institution (FHWA-NHI, 2005), micropiles can be

7 categorised into different types based on the applied grouting method during installation (Abd

8 Elaziz and El Naggar, 2014). Drilling, placing reinforcement and grouting are the main three

9 steps during micropiles installation. However, grouting is considered as one of the important

10 factors that contributes to the micropile capacity.

11 Generally, grout mixtures consist of cement, water and, in certain cases, additives such as

12 superplasticizers to enhance the grout properties (FHWA-NHI, 2005). Grout has several

13 purposes in a micropile system including: i) transfers loads between the reinforcement and the

14 surrounding ground, ii) forms a part of the load-bearing cross section of the micropile, and iii)

15 acts as a protective layer for the steel reinforcement from corrosion. Hence, applied grout should

16 meet certain requirements of flowability, strength and stability (Shong and Chung, 2003). The

17 Federal Highway Administration Guidelines for Micropiles Design and Construction require a

18 minimum 28 days design compressive strength of 28 MPa for grout used in micropile application

19 (FHWA-NHI, 2005).

20 On the other hand, cement production is still one of the major contributors to CO2

21 emission worldwide. Every year more than 1 m3 cementitious materials is produced per person

22 worldwide. This huge amount of cement production contributes from 5% to 8% to the CO2

23 emissions around the world (Garcia et al., 2010). However, in many grouting applications,

2
1 excessive amount of cement is wasted in filling voids and soil gaps. Therefore, the addition of

2 filler materials as a replacement of cement, while maintaining the same performance, can be an

3 ideal solution that provides both economic and environmental benefits. Implementing industrial

4 wastes as the filler materials will significantly contribute to worldwide efforts targeting

5 sustainable construction

6 Oil sands drill cuttings waste represents one of the most difficult challenges for the oil

7 sands mining sector (Söderbergh et al., 2007). Several technologies were applied as a pre-

8 treatment process to extract more hydrocarbons from oil sands drill cuttings waste. One of the

9 recent treatment technologies for the oil sands waste is Theremo-mechanical Cuttings Cleaner

10 (TCC) (Ormeloh, 2014). The by-product of TCC is a very fine quartz powder, which has the

11 potential to be used as a filler material in many construction applications.

12 Several studies have investigated the use of waste materials in as a cement replacement

13 in construction applications. For instance, Tuncan et al. (2000) and Hassan et al. (2004)

14 investigated use of oil-contaminated drilling waste in road construction as sub-base material

15 and as replacement for fine aggregates in asphalt concrete mixtures. They stabilized the waste

16 by mixing it with pozzolanic fly ash, lime, and cement and crushed stone aggregates. Their

17 investigation included the stabilization of the tested soil with cement and crushed stone

18 aggregates. The unconfined compressive strength for cement-stabilized contaminated soil at a

19 percentage of 5% remained relatively constant with increasing the cement content. An adverse

20 effect on the cement hydration caused by the addition of waste was also noticed. However, the

21 tested waste was still deemed a good potential for use in road construction. Hassan et al.

22 (2008) also investigated utilizing oil-contaminated soil as a partial replacement of fine

23 aggregates with percentages up to 40% by weight. A reduction in the tested asphalt

3
1 permeability was observed with increasing the waste material percentage. Misra et al. (2011)

2 also investigated the use of oil drill cuttings in road construction and their results demonstrated

3 that the waste can be used safely as a sub-grade material for roads. Similarly, Mahmood and

4 Mulligan (2010) studied incorporating mine tailings waste as a base material for unpaved

5 roads. Their results revealed that the tested waste exceeded the minimum strength

6 requirements for application as a base material for unpaved temporary access roads.

7 Various types of wastes have been incorporated in controlled low strength material

8 (CLSM) mixtures, which is utilized in many geotechnical applications such as trench backfilling,

9 pavement repairs, pipeline beddings, and structural fills. For example, the use of cement kiln

10 dust, wood ash, limestone and shredded tire aggregate in CLSM mixtures has been investigated

11 (Lachemi et al., 2007; Halmen and Shah, 2015). Mneina et al. (2018) investigated the fresh and

12 hardened properties of CLSM incorporating treated oil sand waste produced from the TCC

13 process, similar to that investigated in the current study.

14 Utilizing the TOSW produced from the TCC process in micropiles grouting could offer

15 another innovative solution for waste management problems associated with oil sands industry.

16 Therefore, this study investigated the effect of incorporating TOSW on the behaviour of

17 micropiles. This would pave the way for a wider implementation of TOSW in different

18 construction applications, transforming oil sands drill cuttings waste into a high-value product.

19

20 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

21 Materials and Mixture Proportions

22 Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) Type 10 with a Blaine fineness of 360 m2/kg and specific

23 gravity of 3.15 was used as a binder material. It contains 61% Tricalcium Silicate (C3S), 11%

4
1 Dicalcium Silicate (C2S), 9% Tricalcium Aluminate (C3A), 7% Tetracalcium Aluminoferrite

2 (C4AF), 0.82% equivalent alkalis and 5% limestone. The TOSW material used is a silicate-based

3 material. Chemical compositions and physical properties for OPC and TOSW are provided in

4 Table 1. One of the parameters controlling the applicability of using a certain particulate

5 material in soil grouting applications is its ability to permeate through the soil voids. This

6 permeation ability depends mainly on the size of smallest soil voids and the size of largest grout

7 particles (Warner, 2004). To assess the applicability of using TOSW as a partial replacement for

8 cement in grouted micropiles applications, its particle size distribution was obtained using laser

9 diffraction (i.e. a particle sizing technique) and compared to that of OPC 10 as shown in Figure

10 1. In this method, particles size are measured by analysing light scattering through the tested

11 samples, the diameter of particles are inversely proportional to the deviation angle (Cyr and

12 Tagnit-Hamou, 2001).

13 Four grout mixtures were selected to assess the effect of TOSW addition on the behaviour of

14 hollow bar micropiles. TOSW were added to grout mixtures as a partial replacement for cement

15 by volume at percentages of 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% and will be denoted as M0, M10, M20, and

16 M30, respectively. A constant water-to-powder ratio of 0.42 was used in all grout mixtures.

17 Detailed description of the tests done on different grout mixtures are presented in the research

18 done by (Aboutabikh et al., 2016).

19 Testing Procedure and Methodology

20 This section provides an overview for micropile system, including the grout used and threaded

21 hollow bar, installation process and tests conducted to characterise the performance of micropiles

22 incorporating TOSW.

23 Grout testing and evaluation

5
1 During hollow bar micropiles installation, flowable grout is injected through the hollow core

2 under high pressure. In practice, flowable grout is characterized by flow time in the range of 14

3 to 22 seconds based on the ASTM C939 (ASTM 2013) flow cone test (Turner, 1997). Injecting

4 such flowable grout under high pressure enhances the grout/ground skin friction, permeates grout

5 through the soil voids, densifies grout by forcing excess water out, i.e. pressure filtration

6 behaviour (ASCE/G-I53, 2010), compacts surrounding soil and ream hole leading to an increase

7 in the nominal diameter of the pile (Shong and Chung, 2003). All these features would probably

8 improve micropiles performance.

9 Therefore, effects of TOSW addition on flowability, compressive strength and modulus

10 of elasticity of grout mixtures used for micropile were investigated following ASTM C939

11 (ASTM 2010), ASTM C109 (ASTM 2013) and ASTM C496 (ASTM 2013), respectively. All

12 grout mixtures were prepared according to ASTM C305 (ASTM 2014). Specimens for each test

13 were cast from each tested grout mixture and cured inside a moist curing room at ambient

14 temperature = 23± 2°C and relative humidity = 98% until testing age. In addition, the effect of

15 the injection process under high pressure on grout mechanical properties was evaluated on cubic

16 samples (50 mm) cut from the grout body of the tested micropile.

17 Hollow bar micropile installation

18 Hollow bar micropile is the latest generation of micropiles. Hollow bar has many advantages as

19 it allows drilling, installation, and grouting of the micropile simultaneously. It eliminates the

20 need to remove the drill string and the casing after completion. As a result, it increases

21 production rates typically by two to three times (Abd Elaziz and El Naggar, 2014). During

22 hollow bar micropiles installation, a rough borehole is produced which increases the

6
1 geotechnical adhesion to the soil and enhances grout to ground bond developed along the

2 micropile shaft.

3 Threaded hollow bar micropiles with 1.3m length were tested with different grout mixtures. The

4 hollow bar system was comprised of a fully threaded hollow steel bar with 21 mm inner diameter

5 and 36.4 mm outer diameter (Fig. 2a). In addition, a carbide chisel cross cut bit (90 mm

6 diameter) is threaded to the end of each hollow bar. This drill bit has three nozzles to facilitate

7 grout injection through the hollow core of the threaded bar during micropiles installation. Hence,

8 drilling and grouting are conducted in a single installation step (Abd Elaziz and El Naggar,

9 2012).

10 All micropiles were installed in a 1.35 m diameter and 1.95 m depth steel tank filled with

11 natural washed concrete sand with fines less than 2% (Fig. 2b). To ensure the verticality of

12 hollow bars, a guiding system was constructed over the steel tank as shown in Fig. 2c. In

13 addition, during hollow bar installation, a torpedo level was used frequently to assure the

14 verticality of the installed micropiles. The grout was placed and injected under pressure with the

15 aid of a special fabricated steel cone (Fig. 2d)

16 The steel tank was filled and compacted in layers 25 cm thick. A consistent relative

17 density (i.e. Dr = 35%) was maintained in all tests. Geotechnical properties for the concrete sand

18 were evaluated, including: natural water content, dry unit weight, direct shear tests, specific

19 gravity of soil solids, and standard Proctor tests. Concrete sand properties and grain size

20 distribution are listed in Table 2 and Fig. 3.

21 Initially, TOSW was mixed with water for 30 seconds, then cement was added and mixed

22 for additional 5 minutes to ensure adequate blending of TOSW. For each installed micropile, a

23 total volume of 65 liters of grout was used during the installation process. The grout was injected

7
1 during the hollow bar installation with a constant penetration rate at an injection pressure of 1.1

2 MPa. Injecting pressure was monitored and measured through a pressure gauge and valve fixed

3 on the steel cone.

4 Hollow bar micropile axial compression loading test

5 Figure 4a shows the setup for the axial compression loading test. Four linear variable

6 displacement transducers (LVDTs) were placed over the pile head to monitor the pile

7 displacement. A load cell at the micropile head was used to measure the applied load. In

8 addition, each pile was instrumented with six strain gauges in order to evaluate the load transfer

9 mechanism (Fig. 4b). All data from the LVDTs, strain gauges and the load cell were collected

10 using a data acquisition system. A quick maintained static load test procedure according to

11 ASTM D1143 was adopted. Micropiles were loaded in increments of 5% of their expected

12 failure load. Each load increment was maintained for 5 minutes. All the installed micropiles were

13 loaded to the point of failure.

14 Surface profile evaluation of hollow bar micropiles

15 The interface behaviour affects the performance of micropiles. It depends on soil type, grain size

16 distribution, surface roughness and normal stresses at the interface (Giraldo et al., 2013). In

17 micropile design, the maximum applied compression and tension loads must be resisted through

18 grout to ground bond over the contact area between the grout and soil along the bond length of

19 the micropile. Therefore, in most cases, micropiles attain load carrying capacity mainly through

20 skin friction rather than end bearing (FHWA-NHI, 2005). Under axial load, the grout plays an

21 important role in transferring the load from the hollow reinforcement bar to the surrounding soil.

22 Therefore, the grout must be intact to transfer loads as any damage to the grout will lead to a

23 progressive deboning (Shong and Chung, 2003).

8
1 Installed micropiles with different percentages of TOSW were extracted from the soil

2 after testing in order to investigate their actual profiles through measuring the effective

3 diameters, cross-section details, interface properties (i.e. roughness and grout to soil interface

4 friction angle) and examined for any grout body damage.

5 Roughness evaluation

6 The pile surface roughness has a major impact on its interface behaviour with surrounding soil.

7 According to the literature, surface roughness can be classified into micro and macro-roughness

8 (Ren, 2013). Micro-roughness is relevant at the scale of soil particle size being sheared against

9 the surface (Giraldo et al., 2013). It describes the undulations along the surface of the tested

10 specimens, which can result in more internal forces when the shearing follows this path. Surface

11 roughness can be calculated using different methods. The simplified approach presented by

12 (Giraldo et al., 2013) was adopted in this study to evaluate the surface roughness. In this method,

13 the interface roughness is calculated by measuring the average height at each data point (hn),

14 from which the centerline average or the total roughness (Rt) can be calculated, and by

15 calculating the root mean square of the same points which gives the average roughness (Ra) as

16 shown in (Eq. 1).

17

ℎ +ℎ +⋯+ ℎ +ℎ +⋯+
= , = (1)

18 The roughness profiles were determined using the Barton Comb profiling tool (Barton and

19 Choubey, 1976). Barton Comb consists of linear arranged wires that can take the shape of

20 irregularities when pressed against the surface of specimens. Different sections along the grout

21 body of micropiles were studied. The average and the total roughness of each section were

22 calculated.

9
1 Interface friction angle

2 Previous shear strength studies have shown that the interface friction angle increases as the

3 relative surface roughness increases (Pando et al., 2002). The interface shear strength was

4 evaluated using a direct shear test apparatus which consisted of a shear box with inside

5 dimension 60 mm × 60 mm and a 25.5 mm height. The confining pressure (i.e. vertical stresses)

6 was applied to the specimen by a steel bearing arm using weights. Slice specimens with

7 dimension of 60 mm × 60 mm and 12.5 mm thickness were cut from the grout body of

8 micropiles and placed in the lower portion of the box. The box was carefully reassembled and

9 sand was fitted to ensure complete interface contact between sand and the tested sample. The

10 direct shear tests were conducted under three different normal pressure of 25, 50 and 100 kPa. A

11 constant strain rate of 1.2 mm/min was used during the tests.

12 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

13 Grout Properties

14 Micropile capacity and the load transfer behaviour are mainly governed by its skin friction,

15 which in turn relies on the grout properties (Juran et al., 1999, Shong and Chung, 2003). Table 3

16 summarizes fresh and hardened properties for the tested grout mixtures. In this investigation,

17 flow cone test was used to determine the effect of TOSW on the efflux time of the cement grout.

18 The shorter the efflux time, the higher the flowability of grout mixture (Warner, 2004). The

19 results show that the addition of TOSW had shortened the efflux time producing a higher

20 flowable grout. The effect of TOSW addition can be considered as a resultant of two

21 compensating effects: TOSW is a very fine material; hence, it increases the surface area in the

22 mixture leading to a higher water demand. Simultaneously, small particles size of TOSW allows

23 it to penetrate between cement particles filling the inter-particle spaces and freeing entrapped

10
1 water. Consequently, the increase in the free water content reduces the flow resistance of grout

2 making it more flowable (Khaleel and Razak, 2012).

3 As shown in Table 3, the higher the replacement rate of cement by TOSW, the lower the

4 achieved hardened properties. For instance, at age 28 days, grout mixtures incorporating 10%,

5 20% and 30% exhibited 5.3%, 11.1% and 27.0% lower compressive strength than that of the

6 control grout mixture, respectively. This can be explained as follows: development of hardened

7 properties of grout is mainly related to the progress in the hydration reactions between cement

8 and water. Hence, replacing cement by TOSW, which is an inert filler material, will lead to a

9 dilution effect resulting in a slow hydration progress and consequently lower hardened properties

10 (Amen, 2011). At later ages, filler addition improves compressive strength of grout as it fills

11 voids, reducing the volume needed to be filled by hydration products leading to more

12 homogenous and denser grout (Jaturapitakkul et al., 2011). It should be mentioned that, even

13 though the achieved strengths by TOSW grout mixtures were lower than that of the control

14 mixture, it still met the target strength (i.e. 28 MPa at 28 days (FHWA-NHI, 2005)).

15

16 Micropiles Profile

17 Figure 5 displays the diameter change over the length for each micropile installed with same

18 injection pressure (1.1 MPa) using different percentages of TOSW. It seems that the addition of

19 TOSW slightly improved the penetrability of grout into the surrounding soil. Micropiles installed

20 using 0% and 10% TOSW grout mixtures exhibited the same average diameter (i.e. about 15.0

21 cm = 1.65 drill bit), while micropiles installed using 20% and 30% TOSW grout mixtures

22 showed a slight increase in the achieved average diameter (i.e. 15.3 =1.7 drill bit and 15.8 cm

23 =1.75 drill bit, respectively). Hence, it could be concluded that the addition of TOSW will not

11
1 adversely affect the size of the grout body formed around the steel hollow bar. Furthermore,

2 Figure 6a shows the cross-section for a hollow bar micropile installed using grout incorporating

3 TOSW. The hollow bar micropile grout body consisted of the hollow steel bar, neat cement, a

4 cake like cement paste and a thin layer of cemented sand that covered the grout body. The same

5 cross-section profile was found for micropile installed using conventional grout. This confirms

6 that grout with and without TOSW had similar performance.

7 Micropiles interface Roughness

8 The average roughness (Ra) and the total roughness (Rt) for each section were calculated using

9 Eq. 1. Figure 7 (a,b, c, and d) shows different roughness profiles for the installed micropiles

10 incorporating different percentages of TOSW. It is clear that the addition of TOSW had a minor

11 effect on the micropiles roughness. The maxmium varaitions in Rh and Ra were only around 5%

12 and 2%, respectively. Table 4 summarizes the roughness measurments for the tested micropiles.

13

14 Micropiles interface shear strength

15 Figure 8 illustrates results of direct shear tests between sand and slice samples from the

16 micropile grout body. The shear failure envelopes showed a similar trend for all the tested

17 samples. Table 4 summarizes the results in terms of the ratio between the interface frictional

18 angle and the sand internal friction angle (δ/ϕ). It seems that the addition of TOSW in the grout

19 mixtures did not affect the interface properties of hollow bar micropiles. This is in agreement

20 with surface roughness results as interface behaviour of any material is directly linked to its

21 surface roughness (Lehane et al., 1993). Generally, a high surface roughness leads to a high

22 interface friction and vice versa (Frost et al., 1999).

12
1 One interesting finding is that the interface friction angle between the sand and micropile slice

2 samples was higher than that of the sand used. The average calculated interface friction angle for

3 micropiles slices was 48°. Usually, the upper bound for the interface angle (δ) is assumed to be

4 equal to the angle of internal friction ϕ° of the soil in contact (Vaid and Rinne, 1994). However,

5 the calculated interface angle for rough materials can have values higher than the angle of

6 internal friction of the contact soil (Chu et al., 2006; Giraldo et al., 2013). Chu et al., (2006)

7 investigated the shear strength interface between rock and a cement grout material using direct

8 shear apparatus. They reported higher interface angle than angle of internal friction of rock,

9 which was attributed to the high surface roughness of the tested samples leading to a large

10 waviness angle at the contact between the grout and surrounding sand along with inducing a

11 turbulent shear failure (i.e. round particles tend to rotate neglecting the orientation of the platy

12 particles). Similarly, Giraldo et al. (2013) investigated the interface properties of clay with

13 different construction materials and showed that the ratio between the interface frictional angle

14 of grout and clay internal friction angle (δ/ϕ) was about 1.64.

15 Axial Behaviour of Hollow Bar Micropiles

16 Micropiles transfer axial loads by two mechanisms: skin friction and end bearing. The skin

17 resistance is the result of relative movement and displacement along the grout body of the

18 micropiles and is commonly referred to as the adhesion between the soil and the micropile. The

19 end bearing resistance represents the bearing load transferred from the bottom of the micropile to

20 the soil. However, the end bearing capacity of micropiles is limited by its small cross-sectional

21 area. Therefore, the skin friction of micropiles is usually reported as the primary contributor to

22 the load transfer. Moreover, the Federal Highway Administration for Micropile Design and

23 Construction (FHWA-NHI, 2005) recommend considering the skin friction only in the

13
1 geotechnical design of micropiles. This was confirmed by (Drbe and El Naggar, 2015) as their

2 results showed that the end bearing resistance can be neglected in the design of micropiles.

3 Therefore, in this study, skin friction was considered as the dominant factor controlling

4 the load transfer of micropiles installed using grout with 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% TOSW

5 denoted as MP0, MP10, MP20 and MP30, respectively.

6 Load-displacement curves
7 Micropiles MP0, MP10, MP20, and MP30 were loaded to failure in order to evaluate their

8 ultimate capacities. The measured load-displacement curves for different tested micropiles are

9 shown in Fig. 9. As shown in Fig. 9, plunging failure occurred in all loading tests, which

10 confirms that most of the applied load was transferred through the micropile shaft. The load-

11 displacement curves for MP0 and MP10 show the plunging failure occurred at approximately 51

12 kN and 52 kN respectively. Plunging failures for MP20 and MP30 occurred at slightly higher

13 loads compared to that of the control (i.e. 53 kN and 56 kN, respectively). These loads causing

14 plunging can be considered as the micropile ultimate capacity.

15 To confirm these results, another method for estimating the failure load of piles presented

16 by (Fuller and Hoy, 1970) was applied. In this method, a failure load is defined using a tangent

17 to the load-settlement curve sloping at 0.15 mm/kN. This method is recommended by (FHWA-

18 NHI, 2005) for micropiles and was found to be suitable for short piles tested under quick

19 maintained tests (Drbe and El Naggar, 2015). The ultimate capacity values for the tested

20 micropiles are presented in Table 5. It is noted that interpreted failure loads derived from Fuller

21 and Hoy’s method were close to those defined by the plunging failure. Moreover, there is a

22 minor difference between the capacity of the control micropile and micropiles incorporating

23 different percentages of TOSW. The variation in the achieved micropile capacity was in the

14
1 range of -1.9% and +7.2%. The slight increase in MP30 can be attributed to the enlargement in

2 its average diameter enhancing the soil/ground interface properties.

3 On the other hand, according to the Federal Highway Administration for micropiles

4 design and construction (FHWA-NHI, 2005), hollow bar micropiles can be designed as Type B

5 micropiles. For Type B micropiles installed in loose to medium dense sand, the nominal grout-

6 to-ground strength ranges between 70 kPa and 170 kPa. Therefore, considering the relative

7 density of the soil used in the installation of micropiles the ultimate capacity for micropiles with

8 90 mm drill bits, having an average diameter of 15.2 cm, should have an average ultimate

9 capacity of 53 kN. Following the load displacement curves presented in Fig. 9, there is an

10 agreement between the measured ultimate capacity for the installed micropiles and the calculated

11 ultimate capacity based on (FHWA-NHI, 2005) design equations. It should be mentioned that the

12 difference between the back calculated grout-to-ground bond values from the observed results

13 and those presented in (FHWA-NHI, 2005) was only in the range of 1% to 6%.

14

15 Load transfer mechanism:

16 Strain gauge readings were used to evaluate the load transfer mechanism. The axial forces at

17 different depths (Pz) were calculated based on the measured strains (Eq. 2):

= (2)

18 Where ε is the measured strain, Ap is the cross-sectional area of the micropile, and Ep is the

19 elastic modulus of the micropile material. The threaded hollow bar surface, ensures a full bond

20 between grout and micropiles as shown in Fig. 6b. Hence, strains in the grout and the hollow bar

21 can be assumed to be equal (Drbe and El Naggar, 2015). It is anticipated that this non-uniform

22 surface will probably enhance the bond capacity between the grout and the hollow bar. The

15
1 elastic modulus of micropiles under compression loads can be calculated using the following

2 (Eq. 3):

= + (3)

3 Where Es is the elastic modulus of steel, As is the steel cross-sectional area, Eg is the elastic

4 modulus of grout, and Ag is the grout cross-sectional area. Compressive strength for cubic

5 specimens cut from the grout body was almost the same as that for specimen cast during

6 installation indicating the minimal effect of injecting process (Table 3). According to Sideris

7 (2003), there is a linear relationship between grout compressive strength and its modulus of

8 elasticity. Therefore, modulus of elasticity for grout will not be affected by the injecting process

9 and Eg will be taken equal to values shown in Table 3.

10 The load distributions over the length of installed micropiles are illustrated in Fig. 10. It

11 should be mentioned that, due to challenges during the installation process, some mounted strain

12 gauges were damaged and did not function properly (i.e. for MP20 at location 3 shown in Fig.

13 4b. Moreover, the drill bit, attached to the micropile end, hindered mounting strain gauges.

14 Hence, the nearest strain gauge to end of the micropile (200 mm from the end) was used for

15 evaluating the end bearing behaviour. Based on strain gauge readings at location 3, about 82% of

16 the applied loads for MP0 and MP10 were transferred to the soil through the shaft resistance.

17 This implies the high shaft resistance of the tested micropiles, which can be considered as the

18 governing mechanism for the load transfer mechanism. One interesting point is that, at the same

19 strain gauge location, for MP30 only 76% of the applied load was noticed to be transferred

20 through the shaft resistance. This result can be explained by the fact that MP30 had a larger

21 diameter relevant to other tested micropiles (i.e. MP0, MP10, and MP20) leading to a higher toe

22 resistance. This was confirmed by load transfer curves at strain gauge at locations 2 and 3 for

16
1 different tested micropiles as illustrated in Fig. 11. It is noted that the load transferred through

2 the shaft continued to increase at almost the same rate as micropiles settlement increased (Fig.

3 11a). Moreover, a similar load transfer trend for MP0 and MP10 is noticed (Fig. 11b). On the

4 other hand, a lower shaft resistance was noticed at MP30 at same strain gauge location, which

5 confirms the effect of enlargement of toe diameter and associated increase in the end bearing

6 capacity of micropiles.

7 CONCLUSIONS

8 Incorporation of TOSW in grout mixtures used for hollow bar micropile applications was

9 experimentally evaluated. The following conclusions can be drawn:

10 • Addition of TOSW reduces the compressive strength of grout; however, it still meets the

11 requirements suggested for micropiles applications.

12 • The injection process under used pressure (1.1 MPa) had a minimal effect on grout

13 mechanical properties.

14 • Addition of TOSW did not adversely affect the roughness and profile of micropile grout

15 body.

16 • Micropiles installed using conventional and grout incorporating TOSW show similar

17 axial compression performance.

18 • TOSW has a high potential to be used as a filler material in geotechnical applications.

19

17
1 References

2 1. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). “Compaction grouting consensus guide:

3 ASCE/G-I53-10. Reston.” American Society of Civil Engineers, 122p.
4 2. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2013). “Standard Test Method for
5 Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars.” ASTM C109-13, West
6 Conshohocken, PA.
7 3. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2014). “Standard Practice for
8 Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency.”
9 ASTM C305-14, West Conshohocken, PA.
10 4. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2010). “Standard Test Method for
11 Flow of Grout for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete (Flow Cone Method).” ASTM C939-
12 10, West Conshohocken, PA.
13 5. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2011). “Direct Shear Test of Soils
14 under Consolidated Drained Conditions.” ASTM D3080/D3080M-11, West
15 Conshohocken, PA.
16 6. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2013). “Splitting Tensile Strength
17 of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.” ASTM C496/C496M-13, West Conshohocken, PA.
18 7. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2007). “Deep Foundations under
19 Static Axial Compressive Load.” ASTM D1143/D1134M-07, West Conshohocken, PA.
20 8. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2009). “Standard Test Methods
21 for Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit Weight) of Soil Specimens.” ASTM
22 D7263-09, West Conshohocken, PA.
23 9. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2014). “Standard Test Methods
24 for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer.” ASTM D854-14, West
25 Conshohocken, PA.
26 10. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2011). Standard Practice for
27 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).”
28 ASTM D2487-11, West Conshohocken, PA.
29 11. Abd Elaziz, A. Y. and EL Naggar, M. H. (2012). “Axial Behaviour of Hollow Core
30 Micropiles under Monotonic and Cyclic Loadings.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, 35(2),
31 249-260.
32 12. Abd Elaziz, A.Y. and El Naggar, M.H. 2014. “Evaluation of geotechnical capacity of
33 hollow bar micropiles in cohesive soils.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51(10),1123-
34 1138.
35 13. Aboutabikh, M., Soliman, A.M. and El Naggar, M.H. (2016) “Properties of cementitious
36 material incorporating treated oil sands drill cuttings waste.” Construction and Building
37 Materials, 111, 751-757.
38 14. Aggarwal, Y. and Siddique, R. (2014). “Microstructure and properties of concrete using
39 bottom ash and waste foundry sand as partial replacement of fine aggregates.”
40 Construction and Building Materials, 54(15), 210-223.
41 15. Amen, K.H, (2011). “Degree of Hydration and Strength Development of Low Water-to-
42 Cement Ratios in Silica Fume Cement.” International Journal of Civil & Environmental
43 Engineering IJCEE-IJENS, 11(5), 10-15.
44 16. Cement. International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS,
45 11(5): 10-15

18
 1 17. Barton, N. and Choubey, V. (1976). “The shear strength of rock joints in theory and
2 practice.” Rock mechanics journal,10(1),1-54.
3 18. Bhengu, Z., Kalumba, D. and Chebet, F. C. (2013). “A study of frictional interface
4 properties between typical South African sands and construction materials.” Research
5 and applications in structural engineering, mechanics, and computation, 2525-2530.
6 19. Bishop, J. A., Aschenbroich, H. K. and DeBernardi, B. A. (2006). “Class I and II Micro-
7 Piles with Hollow-Bar Reinforcement Load Tests and Performance Measurements.”
8 Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Micropile, Schrobenhausen, Germany,
9 71 p.
10 20. Chu, L. M. and Yin, J. H. (2006). “Study on Soil–Cement Grout Interface Shear Strength
11 of Soil Nailing.” Geomechanics and Geoengineering journal, 1(4), 259–273.
12 21. Cyr, M. and Tagnit-Hamou, A., (2001). “Particle size distribution of fine powders by
13 LASER diffraction spectrometry. Case of cementitious materials.” Materials and
14 Structures, 34(6), 342-350.
15 22. Drbe, O. F. and El Naggar, M. H. (2015). “Axial monotonic and cyclic compression
16 behaviour of hollow-bar micropiles.” Canadian geotechnical journal, 52, 426-441.
17 23. Drbe, O. F. (2013). “Investigation of Hollow Bar Micropiles in Cohesive Soil.”
18 MScThesis, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 177p.
19 24. Armour, T., Groneck P., Keeley, J. and Sharma, S. (1997). “Micropile Design and
20 Construction Guidelines Implementation Manual Priority Technologies Program (PTP)
21 Project.”
22 25. Frost, J. D., and Han, J. (1999). “Behavior of interface between fiber-reinforced polymers
23 and sands.” Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 125(8), 633-640.
24 26. Fuller, F. M. and Hoy, H. E. (1970). “Pile Load Tests Including Quick-load Test Method
25 Conventional Methods and Interpretations.” Highway Research Board, HRB, 333, 78-86.
26 27. Garcia, M. L. and Coutinho, J. S. (2010). “Grits as a partial cement replacement for
27 concrete.” Proceeding of the 2nd international conference on sustainable construction
28 materials and technologies, Ancona, Italy.
29 28. Giraldo, J. and Rayhani, M. T. (2013). “Influence of Fiber-reinforced Polymers on Pile–
30 Soil Interface Strength in Clays.” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials journal. 2(1),
31 534-550.
32 29. Gómez, J., Cadden, A. and Bruce, D. A. (2003). “Micropiles founded in rock.
33 Development and evolution of bond stresses under repeated loading,” Proceedings of the
34 12th Pan-Am Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Cambridge,
35 1911- 1916.
36 30. Gosselin, P., Hrudey, S.E., Naeth, M.A., Plourde, A., Therrien, R., Kraak, G.V. and Xu,
37 Z. (2010). “The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel: Environmental and Health
38 Impacts of Canada's Oil Sands Industry.” The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
39 Canada, 440.
40 31. Halmen, C., & Shah, H. (2015). Controlled Low-Strength Materials Composed Solely of
41 By-Products. ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL, 112.
42 32. Hassan, H.F., Taha, R. Rawas , A., Shandoudi, B. A. Gheithi, K. A. and Barami, A. M. (2004).
43 "Potential Uses of Petroleum-Contaminated Soil in Highway Construction," Construction and
44 Building Materials, pp. 646-652.

19
 1 33. Hassan, H. F. Rawas, A. Jamrah, A. Al-Futaisi A. and Al-Sabqi, T. (2008). "Investigation of
2 Permeability and Leaching of Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Containing Oil-Contaminated Soils,"
3 Construction and Building Materials, pp. 1239-124.
4 34. Jaturapitakkul, C., Tangpagasit, J., Songme, S. and Kiattikomol, K. (2011). “Filler effect
5 of fine particle sand on the compressive strength of mortar.” International Journal of
6 Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials,18(2), 240-246.
7 35. Ren, Jing. (2013). “Micro/Nano Scale Surface Roughness Tailoring and Its Effect on
8 Microfluidic Flow.” MScThesis, Iowa State University, USA, 167.
9 36. Juran, I., Bruce, D. A., Dimillio, A. and Benslimane, A. (1999). “Micropiles: The State of
10 Practice Part II: Design of Single Micropiles and Groups and Networks of Micropiles.”
11 Ground Improvement, 3, 89-110.
12 37. Kishida, H. l. and Uesegui, H. (1987). “Tests of the Interface between Sand and Steel in
13 Simple Shear 507 Apparatus. Geotechnique journal.” 37(1), 45–52.
14 38. Khaleel, O.R. and Razak, H.A. (2012). “The effect of powder type on the setting time and
15 self compactability of mortar.” Construction and Building Materials, 36, 20-26.
16 39. Lachemi, M., Hossain, K., Shehata, M., & Thaha, W. (2007). Characteristics of
17 controlled low-strength materials incorporating cement kiln dust. Canadian Journal of
18 Civil Engineering, 34(4), 485-495.
19 40. Lawrence, P., Cyr, M. and Ringot, E. (2003). “Mineral admixtures in mortars: Effect of
20 inert materials on short-term hydration.” Cement and Concrete Research, 33(2), 939-
21 1947.
22 41. Lehane, B. M., Jardine, R. J., Bond, A. J., and Frank, R. (1993). “Mechanisms of shaft
23 friction in sand from instrumented pile tests.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
24 119(1), 19-35.
25 42. Mahmood, A. A. and Mulligan, C. N. (2010). "Investigation of the use of mine tailings for
26 unpaved road base," in Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils,Sediments,
27 Water and Energy
28 43. Mneina, A., Soliman, A. M., Ahmed, A., & El Naggar, M. H. (2018). Engineering
29 properties of controlled low-strength materials containing treated oil sand waste.
30 Construction and Building Materials, 159, 277-285.
31 44. Misra, A. K. Mathur, R. Goel, P. and Singh, M. k. (2011). "Evaluation of Suitability of Oil Well
32 Drill Cuttings for Road Making," Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, pp. 305-307.
33 45. Naik, T. R., Canpolat, F. and Chun, Y. M. (2003). “Limestone powder use in cement and
34 concrete.” Report, University of Wisconsin. Milwaukee, United States, 11.
35 46. Ormeloh, J. (2014). “Thermomechanical cuttings cleaner – qualification for offshore
36 treatment of oil contaminated cuttings on the Norwegian continental shelf and Martin
37 Linge case study.” Master thesis, University of Stavanger, Norway, 94.
38 47. Pando, M. A., Filz, G. M., Dove, J. E. and Hoppe, E. J. (2002). “Interface Shear Tests on
39 FRP Composite Piles.” International Deep Foundations Congress, Orlando, FL. 1486–
40 1500.
41 48. Remond, S., Pimienta, P. and Bentz, D.P. (2002). “Effects of the incorporation of
42 municipal Solid waste incineration fly ash in cement pastes and mortars: I. experimental
43 study.” Cement and Concrete Research, 32(2), 303-311.
44 49. Sabatini, P. J., Tanyu, B., Armour, T., Groneck, P., and Keeley, J. (2005). “Micropile
45 design and construction.” US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
46 Administration, Washington, DC, Report No. FHWA-NHI-05-039.

20
 1 50. Sideris, K. K., Manita, P. and Sideris, K. (2003). “Estimation of ultimate modulus of
2 elasticity and poisson ratio of normal concrete.” Cement & concrete composite, 26, 623-
3 631.
4 51. Shong, I.L., and Chung, F.C. (2003). “Design and construction of micropiles.”
5 Geotechnical Course for Pile Foundation Design and Construction, Ipoh, 29–30
6 September
7 52. Söderbergh, B., Robelius, F. and Aleklett, K. (2007). “A crash programme scenario for
8 the Canadian oil sands industry.” Energy Policy, 35(3), 1931–1947.
9 53. Timothy, M. J. and Bean, J. J. (2012). “miniJET: A New Type of Micropile. Grouting
10 and Deep Mixing.” New Orleans, Louisiana: American Society of Civil Engineers
11 (ASCE), 1095-1104.
12 54. Turner, M. J. (1997). “Review of grout material properties and grouting methods for
13 micropiles.” Applied geotechnical engineering, U.K., 67-99.
14 55. Tuncan, A. Tuncan, M. and H. Koyuncu, (2000). "Use of Petroleum-Contaminated
15 Drilling Wastes as Sub-Base Material for Road Construction," Waste Management
16 Research Journal, pp. 489-505
17 56. Vaid, Y. P. and Rime, N. (1995). “Geomembrane coefficients of interface friction.”
18 Geosynthetics International, 2(1), 309-325.
19 57. Warner, J. (2004). “Parctical Handbook of Grouting Soil, Rock and Structures,” 1st
20 edition, John Wiley & Sons, 720 p.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

21
1
2
3
4 Table 1. Chemical composition and physical properties of cementitious materials
5
Types OPC TOSW
Chemical analysis
SiO2 21.60 61.24
Al2O3 6.00 8.73
Fe2O3 3.10 3.00
CaO 61.41 5.55
MgO 3.40 0.92
Physical properties
Density (g/cm3) 3.15 2.23
Surface area (m2/g) 1.07 4.85
6
7 Table 2: Concrete sand soil properties

wc % ρmax (g/cm3) Gs emax emin Φ (deg)

3 1.98 2.69 0.78 0.35 41
8

9 Table 3: Grout mixtures fresh and hardened properties

Flow Compressive strength Modulus of

Mixture Cone (MPa) Elasticity
(sec) 7 Days 28 Days (GPa)
MP0 15.2 44.5 52.0 (51.5)* 15.1
MP10 14.7 36.5 48.5 (48.0) 15.0
MP20 14.5 33.0 46.0 (45.8) 14.8
MP30 14.0 28.0 39.0 (38.5) 14.6
10 *Values between parentheses are compressive strengths of cubes cut from the pile body.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

22
1
2
3
4 Table 4: Pile interface roughness and shear strength properties
5
Rh Ra
Interface ϕ° δ° δ/ϕ tanδ/tanϕ
(mm) (mm)
Micropile MP0 2.61 1.63 41 48.4 1.185 1.295
Micropile MP10 2.70 1.65 41 48.15 1.175 1.285
Micropile MP20 2.65 1.62 41 49.275 1.2 1.335
Micropile MP30 2.74 1.66 41 48.56 1.185 1.305
6
7 Table 5: Pile ultimate compressive capacity
Ultimate capacity
Pile
(Fuller and Hoy) (kN)
MP0 51
MP10 50
MP20 52
MP30 55
8
9

23
1

100
Cement Type 10
TOSW

Acumlative Volume (%)

80

60
Dv50

40

20
Dv10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
2 Particle Size (µm)

3 Figure 1: Particle size distribution using Laser diffraction for OPC

4 and TOSW
5
6

24
1

(a) (b)

2 (c) (d)
3 Figure 2: Installation for a) Steel tank, b) Guiding system to ensure verticality of hollow
4 bar micropiles, c) Pressure cone used for injecting grout under pressure and

100

80
Percentage finer by weight (%)

60

40

20

0
1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size (mm)
5
6 Figure 3: Grain size distribution for concrete sand

25
1
2
(a) (b)

3
4 Figure 4: Illustration for a) axial Compressive testing setup and b) locations of strain
5 gauges on the micropile
6
7

(a) Micropile diameter (cm) (b) Micropile diameter (cm) (c) Micropile diameter (cm) (d) Micropile diameter (cm)
0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16
0 0 0 0

20 20 20 20

40 40 40 40
Pile length (cm)
Pile length (cm)

Pile length (cm)

Pile length (cm)

60 60 60 60

80 80 80 80

100 100 100 100

120 120 120 120

140 140 140 140

8 Figure 5: Changes in hollow bar micropile diameter over the length for a) 0%, b) 10%, c)
9 20%, and d) 30% TOSW

26
 (a)

(b
)

1 Figure 6: Illustration for a) Cross-section for a tested micropile and b)

2 Threaded bar - grout bond surface profile.

27
 0.8 0.8
Height (cm)

Height (cm)
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)

0.8 0.8
Height (cm)

Height (cm)
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)
1
2 (a) Roughness profiles for the control micropile
0.8 0.8

Height (cm)
Height (cm)

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)

0.8 0.8
Height (cm)

Height (cm)

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)
3
45
6 (b) Roughness profiles for micropile incorporating 10% TOSW
0.8 0.8
Height (cm)

Height (cm)

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)

0.8 0.8
Height (cm)

Height (cm)

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)

87
9 (c) Roughness profiles for micropile incorporating 20% TOSW
0.8 0.8
Height (cm)

Height (cm)

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)

0.8 0.8
Height (cm)

Height (cm)

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length (cm) Length (cm)
10
11 (d) Roughness profiles for micropile incorporating 30% TOSW
12

13 Figure 7: Roughness profile of different hollow bar micropile sections

28
 130
120
110 Control
100 10%
Shear stress (kPa)
90
20%
80 δ av = 48o
70 30%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
1 Normal stress (kPa)

2 Figure 8: Calculated interface angle using direct shear test results

3
(a) (b)
60 60

50 50
53 53
52 52
51 51
40 40 50
50
Load (KN)

Load (KN)

49 49
48 48
30 47 30 47

20 20

10 10
Fuller and Hoy Fuller and Hoy
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical Displacement (mm) Vertical Displacement (mm)

4
5 Figure 9: Load-displacement curves for micropiles a)MP0, b)MP10, c) MP20 and d)MP30

29
 Load (KN) Load (KN)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0 0
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.3 0.3
0.4 0.4
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
0.5 0.5
0.6 0.6
0.7 0.7
0.8 0.8
0.9 0.9
1 1
1.1 MP0 1.1 MP10

1 1.2 1.2

2 (a) (b)
Load (KN)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Depth (m)

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1 MP30

3 1.2
4
5 (c)
6 Figure 10: Load distribution for the applied load for a) MP0, b) MP10 and c) MP30
7 micropile
8
9
10
11

30
1

2 a) Load transfer at location (2) b) Load transfer at location (3)

3 Figure 11: Variations in the load transferred at different micropile sections

31
Highlights

• Sustainable approach for Treated oil sands management was evaluated

• Use the Treated oil sands waste to partially replace the fine aggregate in grout mixes

• Fresh, hardened and durability properties of grout incorporated TOSW were evaluated.

• Properties of Treated oil sands waste grout mix indicated a promising approach

• Micropiles prepared with Treated oil sands waste grout mix can be considered as Green

application