Compressive Behaviour of Hollow Core Micropiles in Cohesive Soil

"Abstract: The use of micropiles has greatly increased the last twenty years, including applications involving low capacity micropile networks, seismic retrofitting, underpinning of existing foundations and high capacity foundations for new structures. This paper presents a field study of the behaviour of single hollow core micropiles in firm to stiff lean clay. Eight micropiles were installed using hollow bars (76 mm OD and 48 mm ID) with air/water flushing technique and advanced to a depth of 5.75m: six micropiles were installed using 228 mm (9 in) drill bit and two micropiles were installed using 178 mm (7 in) drill bit. All micropiles were instrumented with linear potentiometers to measure the vertical displacement of the micropile head and vibrating wire strain gauges to measure the axial strain at three points along the micropile length. Twelve full scale tests were conducted on the eight micropiles, four monotonic compression, four cyclic compression and four tension tests. Only the results of micropiles tested under monotonic compression is presented in this paper. The full scale load tests and a comparison of the performance of the micropiles with 228 mm and 178 mm drill bit are presented and discussed in terms of load-displacement curves, bond strength and tip resistance. The results showed that the proposed values of bond strength in FHWA give a conservative design of the hollow core micropiles. The micropiles constructed with 228 mm drill bit performed marginallybetter than the micropile with 178 mm drill bit in terms of the ultimate capacity.IntroductionMicropiles have been defined in a variety of ways, but can universally be classified as small diameter (less than 300mm), bored, and grouted in place piles (FHWA, 2005; Bruce et al., 1999; and Scherer et al., 1996). They can sustain axial (compression and tension) and/or lateral loads. Dr. Fernando Lizzi used micropiles in 1952 for underpinning of historic buildings damaged during World War II (Bruce D. A., 1988). Since then, micropile applications have expanded rapidly to include underpinning for existing foundations, in situ reinforcement, and seismic retrofitting and foundations for new construction. In particular, micropiles have graduated from use in low-capacity micropile networks toapplications as single high-capacity foundation.Micropiles capacity is affected by the construction technique, which involves drilling, placing reinforcement, and placing or pressurizing the grout. For example, the drilling method influences the degree of bonding between the grout and the ground, and the placement of reinforcement and the choice of grouting method have an impact on the development of the bonding. Bruce et al. (1997) showed that grout/ground bond is most affected by the grouting method. Based on the type of pressure applied during the grouting process, micropiles are classified as follows (FHWA, 2005): Type A: grout is placed under gravity pressure only using either sand-cement mortars or neat cement grout. Type B: pressures typically in the range of 0.5 MPa to 1 MPa are applied in order to inject the neat cement grout into the drilled hole while the temporary drill casing is withdrawn. Type C: involves two-step process; neat cement grout is first placed in the hole under gravity pressure head only as in type A, and prior to the hardening of this primary grout, a similar grout is then injected via a preplaced sleeved grout pipe at a pressure of at least 1 MPa. Type D: like type C, this type is a twostep process: neat cement grout is placed in the hole under gravity pressure head only (but pressure could be applied in some cases), additional grout is injected via a sleeved grout pipe at a pressure of 2 MPa to 8 MPa once the primary grout has hardened. In some cases, a packer is used inside the sleeved pipe, enabling specific horizons to be treated. Recently, Type E micropile is proposed, which involves"