Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This paper includes the interpretation of the additional data from the proof tests
performed and refines recommended values for design of hollow core bar
micropiles in soils similar to those encountered in these two projects. The authors
believe that the data collected will significantly add to the relatively small existing
database on micropile tests and may also be useful during implementation of the
LRFD design methodology.
0.5
1.0
1.5
Deflection (in)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Bridge 1
The authors found that measurement of the micropiles is presented in previous work (Gómez
drilling rates was an invaluable tool to confirm et al. 2007).
the materials encountered and to have firm data
for technical discussions with the project team. VERIFICATION TESTS
The drilling rates measured in one site using a
specific set of equipment and tools may be used Two to three verification load tests were
as a measurement of the consistency of performed at each bridge location to a maximum
micropile installation but must not be directly test load of 200 kip (889.6 kN) (250 percent of
correlated with those measured at other sites. the design load). One of the verification tests at
Specific gravity was the primary quality control each bridge site was loaded to geotechnical
of the grout. It was measured using a calibrated failure. For each load increment, micropile
mud balance according to API RP 13B-1, deflections were measured using dial gauges.
“Recommended Practice Standard Procedure Each load increment was held for 10 or 20
for Field Testing Water-Based Drilling Fluids.” minutes. A 12-hour load hold was performed at
The minimum specific gravity value was 133 percent of the design load to verify the
specified at 1.4 for the drilling grout and 1.8 for potential for creep.
final grout.
Figure 4 shows the data obtained from the
Grout cubes were tested following ASTM C109, micropile tested on granular material, Figure 5
“Standard Test Method for Compressive shows the data obtained from the test micropiles
Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars.” Grout bonded to fine soils at Bridges 2 and 3, and
cubes were formed in 2-inch (5.1 cm) square Figure 6 shows the data obtained from the
polyethylene or brass molds. Cubes were stratified soil at Bridge 4.
molded from final grout batches at the grout
hopper after mixing and from samples of the Interpretation of the results of the verification
final grout return at the top of the pile. The tests consisted of calculating the average
project specification called for strength of 4000 ultimate bond strength based on the results of
psi (27.6 MPa) at 28 days, which was typically the tests taken to failure, and on the
met throughout the project. Additional approximate interpretation procedure discussed
information on drilling, grouting and quality subsequently in this paper.
control for the installation of hollow core bar
Load (kip)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0.0
0.5
1.0
Displacement (inches)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Bridge 2
Load (kips)
0.5
1.0
Displacement (inches)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Bridge 3
Figure 5. Data from Test Piles at Bridges 2 and 3 Installed in Stiff Silty Clay.
PROOF LOAD TESTING load hold period. Creep was not significant in
most of the production piles, and did not exceed
All 404 production micropiles were proof-tested the specified maximum of 0.08 inches (0.20 cm)
to a maximum load ranging from 75 to 150 per log cycle of time in any of the production
percent of the 80-kip (355.9 kN) design load. micropiles. Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12
The existing bridges were the reaction for the show the range of load-deflection responses for
proof load tests (Gómez et al., 2007). all the proof-tested micropiles. Micropiles
installed in the granular soils at the Bridge 1
Figure 9 contains typical load-deflection data location were generally stiffer than micropiles
from one of the tests. The deflection values installed in the fine-grained soils at Bridges 2
under the maximum test loads were generally and 3 and the combined soils of Bridge 4. Also,
within 0.1 to 0.4 inches (0.25 to 1.02 cm). The the load-deflection data from micropiles installed
increase in deflection under constant load at 80 in granular soils showed less scatter than those
kip (355.9 kPa) corresponds to creep during the from micropiles in fine-grained soils.
Load (kips)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0.0
0.5
1.0
Displacement (inches)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Bridge 4
BOND VALUES IN SAND The average ultimate bond strength along the
clay layer on Bridge 3 was estimated from the
Both verification micropiles at Bridge 1 results of Verification Load Test 3-3, which was
satisfactorily carried a load of 250 percent of the loaded close to geotechnical failure under 204
design load. Verification micropile 1-2 at Bridge kips (907.4 kN). Considering that the upper
1 was loaded beyond the maximum specified casing carried approximately 20 kip (89.0 kN) at
test load until the pile reached geotechnical failure, the load carried by the 40-foot (12.2 m)
failure under 318 kip (1414.5 kN). Based on bond zone of the pile was 184 kip (818.5 kN).
interpretation of the load-displacement curve, The corresponding ultimate bond strength was
the load carried by the 26-foot (7.9 m) bond 4.6 kip per linear foot (67.3 kN per linear meter)
length of the pile at failure was approximately of bond zone, or 16 psi (110.3 kPa) considering
260 kip (1156.5 kN), which considered that the a nominal diameter of the grout body of 7.5
upper casing carried approximately 58 kip inches (19.05 cm).
test load until the pile reached geotechnical
failure under 280 kip (1245.5 kN). Considering
that the upper casing carried approximately 20
kip (89.0 kN) at failure, the load carried by the
40-foot (12.2 m) bond zone of the pile was 260
kip (1156.5 kN). The corresponding ultimate
bond strength was 6.5 kip per linear foot (94.8
kN per linear meter) of bond zone, or 23 psi
(158.6 kPa) considering a nominal diameter of
the grout body of 7.5 inches (19.05 cm).
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 9. Typical Load-Deflection Data from One Proof Test on a Hollow Core Bar Micropile.
Load (kip)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0
0.1
Deflection (in)
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 10. Summary of All Load-deflection Test Data from Proof Tests at Bridge 1.
Load (kip)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
1.5
2.0
Bridge 2 Bridge 3
Figure 11. Summary of All Load-Deflection Test Data from Proof Tests at Bridges 2 and 3.
Load (kip)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0
0.5
Deflection (inches)
1.0
1.5
2.0
Bridge 4
Figure 12. Summary of All Load-Deflection Test Data from Proof Tests at Bridge 4.
30 18
16
25
14
Number of Micropiles
20
Number of Micropiles
12
15 10
8
10
6
5
4
0 2
4
10
12
14
16
18
20
More
0
Load Transfer Ratio (kip/ft) - Bridge 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20More
Load Transfer Ratio (kip/ft) - Bridge 4
Figure 13. Histogram in Sand (Bridge 1).
35
In a Type B micropile, neat cement grout is
placed into the hole under pressure as the
Number of Micropiles
30