4 TBM Vs D&B

BOND STRENGTH OF MICROPILE/GROUT/CONCRETE INTERFACES IN
RC FOOTINGS STRENGTHENED WITH MICROPILES
Joo Veludo1, Eduardo Jlio2, Paulo Lopes Pinto3
ABSTRACT
Rehabilitation of bridges and buildings often include the need to strengthen

foundations. Adding micropiles to existing RC footings is a common technique that
presents major advantages when significant load increase, and/or deformation
reduction are wanted and can be applied in restricted access conditions and in all soil
types.
Although the design of the strengthening micropiles can be based on current
codes, the strength of the connection between the original footing and the added
micro-pile cannot be assessed straightforward. In fact, this is highly influenced by
connection details.
This paper describes an experimental study performed to assess the influence of
the following parameters: (1) texture of the pre-drilled hole surface; 2) diameter of the
pre-drilled hole; (3) embedment length of the micropile; (4) texture of the micropile
surface; and (5) confinement strengthening of the existing footing. One hundred and
four (104) micropile/grout specimens and micropile/RC footing specimens were
submitted to monotonic testing, both in compression and in tension.
Results are discussed and more relevant conclusions are presented.
Keywords: bond; strength; interface; micropile; grout; concrete; confinement;

retrofitting.
(1) PhD Student, ISISE, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Portugal, veludo@estg.ipleiria.pt

(2) Assistant Professor, ISISE, University of Coimbra, Portugal, ejulio@dec.uc.pt
(3) Assistant Professor, University of Coimbra, Portugal, ppinto@dec.uc.pt
1
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most important aspects when micropiles are used for structural
retrofitting is the connection to the existing structures. In structural retrofitting,
micropiles are applied to existing RC footings throughout predrilled holes. After the
micropile is installed, the hole is filled with non-shrink grout. The efficiency of load
transfer between the footing and the structure depends on the bond strength of the
insert-grout and grout-concrete interfaces. This situation falls into the general
classification of a load transfer mechanism.
The type of connections varies depending on the required capacity, the type of
micropile reinforcement and the details of the pile caps [3,11,20]. To increase the
bond strength of the insert-grout interface, steel rings or a spiral steel bar can be
welded around the perimeter of the casing. To improve the bond strength of the
grout-concrete interface, grooves can be chipped into the wall of the hole. Typical
dimensions of the grooves are 20 mm deep and 32 mm wide [10].
Attention must be paid to these types of connections since the existing footing
most probably has not been designed to transfer load this way and, therefore, the
reinforcement of the existing concrete footing can be inadequate. In these situations
it is possible to increase the lateral and axial confinement of the existing footing to
improve the connection capacity.
The variables that may affect the connection capacity include the properties of
the materials (grout, steel and concrete), the surface texture of the micropile and its
confining region. Geometrical variables include the micropile diameter and the
embedment length and the hole diameter and the dimensions of RC footings.
According to Gmez et Cadden [11] the connection capacity of a micropile
applied to an existing footing depends on: the diameter of the predrilled hole; the
compressive strength of both concrete and grout; and the confinement level of the
existing reinforcement.
The assessment of the bond strength of the insert/grout and concrete/grout
interfaces is essential to design the connection between micropiles and existing
footings. Micropiles are usually installed in existing RC footing therefore they are
confined by the borehole wall.
As the basis of this problem, it is then necessary to investigate the mechanisms
of load transfer between a single micropile and the surrounding grout and concrete,
2
in order to determine the influence of the embedment length, of the hole diameter
and the confinement required to most effectively reinforce the existing foundation.
Any attempt to model the behaviour of a micropile in a grout mass must be based on
a fully inter-active analysis in which the behaviour of the RC footing controls the bond
strength of the micropile as well as vice versa.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The bond mechanism of the insert/grout and grout/concrete interfaces is not fully
known. In spite of their frequent use, a very small number of studies were found in
the literature that examined the bond strength at grout/insert and grout/concrete
interfaces.
On the contrary, the bond between reinforcing bars and concrete is presently well
understood and it is generally accepted that this mechanism is composed by three
separate components: chemical adhesion between concrete and steel; friction
between concrete and the reinforcing bar; and bearing of the bar ribs on the
surrounding concrete [1,3].
Design codes for RC structures generally present expressions for the design of
the bond strength. In Table 1 are presented the expressions considered in: ACI 318
[1], the US design code; and Eurocode 2, European design code (EC 2) [7].
Table 1. Expressions for design the ultimate bond strength
f cd
ACI 318 [1] f bd = 20 5.25MPa (1)

EC 2 [7] f bd = 2.25 1 2 f ctd (2)
fbd - Design value of bond strength (MPa);

fcd - Design value of concrete compressive strength (MPa);
fctd - Design value of concrete tensile strength (MPa); - bar diameter (mm);
1 - Coefficient related to the quality of the bond depending on the position of the bar
during concreting;
2 - Coefficient related to the bar diameter.
From the expressions above, it can be seen that the bond strength depends on
the compressive and tensile strength of the concrete, the bar diameter, the position
of the bar during concreting and/or the roughness of the bar.
3
Usually, design codes for RC structures also present expressions to design the
shear at the interface between concrete layers cast at different times. In Table 2 is
presented the design expression of Eurocode 2 [7] for the situation without
reinforcement crossing the interface. In this case, the shear strength depends on: the
tensile strength of the weakest concrete; the roughness of the substrate surface; and
the stress caused by an external normal force across the interface.
Table 2. Design expression of the shear strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces
EC 2 [7] vRdi = c f ctd + n 0,5 v f cd (3)*

*- Expression for interfaces without reinforcement
vRdi - Design shear strength at the interface (MPa);
c, - Factors that depend on the surface roughness;
fctd - Design value of the weakest concrete tensile strength (MPa);
n - Stress per unit area caused by the minimum external force across the interface that
can act simultaneously with the shear force, positive for compression, such that n<
0.6fcd, and negative for tension. When n is negative c.fctd should be taken as 0.
The above expressions do not include a considerable number of parameters with

influence on the connection capacity between micropiles and existing RC footings.
The embedment length of a reinforcing bar grouted in a predrilled hole of an
existing RC footing can be much smaller than the recommended by the current
codes [1,7]. An embedment length between 15 to 20, where is the diameter of
the bar, is enough [10].
A series of compression tests were performed by Gmez e Cadden [11] to study
the connection capacity of micropiles, with smooth and textured (with weld beds)
inserts grouted in holes, previously drilled using jack hammers, in reinforced concrete
footings with dimensions 12001200600 mm3. The adopted casing had a diameter
of 114.3 mm, and the reinforcing bar a diameter of 45 mm. The authors adopted
three different diameters of the holes: 127 mm, 152 mm and 203 mm. The
embedment length varied between 432 mm and 902 mm. The bond strength of the
insert/grout interface determined with tests performed with smooth inserts ranged
from 2.33 MPa to 4.34 MPa and the bond stresses along the perimeter of the weld
beds varied between 4.69 MPa to 4.79. The authors concluded that for smooth
inserts the connection capacity is controlled by adhesion and friction at insert/grout
interface and the residual capacity of the connection is entirely frictional and
dependent on the confinement provide by the footing reinforcement. They also
4
concluded that the connection capacity increases with the decrease of the hole
diameter, and the embedment length has a little influence on the bond strength. For
textured micropiles, connection capacity is mostly controlled by frictional effects and
a plastic response of the connection was observed.
The effect of the chemical adhesion between the tube and the grout is transitory
because the chemical adhesion is destroyed after a relative slip by the micropile. The
importance of adhesion in bond strength is also considered minor because the axial
shear stresses induced near the steel/grout interface at low load levels quickly
exceed the shear strength of the grout. Therefore, even if a significant adhesive bond
between the grout and micropile existed, failure would have tendency to take place in
the grout.
Many researchers have conducted a large array of tests to study the bond stress
in fully grouted bolts. Yazici and Kaiser [14] states that the parameters that could
influence the bond strength at cable/bolt interface are Young modulus of the grout
and the rock, strength of the grout, borehole diameter and the frictional coefficient at
the bolt/grout interface. Hyett et al. [12] performed a detailed pull-out tests using a
modified Hoek cell and confirmed that the bond strength at cable/grout interface is
related to frictional rather than chemical adhesion. They also state that the bond
strength depends on the pressure generated at the cable/grout interface, which in
turn depends on the reaction force generated at cable/grout interface at the bore wall
caused by dilatation during bond failure. Another study performed by Hyett et al [13],
to investigate the factors influencing the bond capacity of grouted cable bolts,
indicate that the majors influence in cable bolt capacity are the cement properties
(w/c ratio), the embedment length and the radial confinement acting on the outer
surface of the cement annulus. Moosavai et al. [17] states that the properties of both
grout and casing play important roles in developing high or low values of bond
capacity. Bond consists of three components: adhesion, friction, and lug resistance
and play different roles depending on the situation but the dominant effect are due to
the frictional effect especially after the onset of slip. Yahia et al. [20] states that the
main mechanism of bond strength mobilization is the friction developed at grout/bar
interfaces and grout/ surrounding materials interface and this friction depends on the
mechanical properties of the rock and grout, the geometry of the hole and the bar,
and the roughness of the drilled hole surface.
5
3. EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
3.1 Introduction
In order to consider the influence of several parameters in the connection

capacity between micropiles and existing RC footings, an experimental program was
developed in three different phases.
In Phase I, a set of forty (40) specimens of smooth micropiles inserts in confined
and unreinforced mass of grout were tested in compression to evaluate the influence
of three parameters that were supposed to have a significant influence in the bond
strength of the insert/grout interface: radial confinement, embedment length and
diameter of grout mass. Two types of confinement were used: steel tube and PVC
tube.
Phase II consisted of thirty four (34) push-off tests performed in micropiles
grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings, with dimensions 450450500 mm3.
Phase III consisted of thirty (30) pull-out tests performed in micropiles grouted in
predrilled holes in RC footings, with dimensions 450450500 mm3. These phases
had the main purpose of quantifying the influence of the following parameters on the
structural behaviour of the connection between existing RC footings and
strengthening micropiles: roughness of drilled hole surface; hole diameter;
embedment length of the micropile insert; surface texture of the micropile; and active
strengthening of lateral confinement of the existing footing.
Besides the studied parameters, all parameters that could influence the bond
strength were kept constant: grout type and strength; concrete type and strength,
micropile inserts; load direction; and the geometry and space of shear rings welded
at micopile surface.
6
3.2 Materials
3.2.1 Grout
A grout with an estimated compressive strength of 53.43 MPa (at 28 days of

age), a water-cement ratio of 0.40 and a specific weight of 19.2 kN/m3 was adopted.
The mix proportions of the grout used were (per m3) 1326.9 kg of type I:42.5 R
Portland cement, 530.4 l of water, 13.27 kg of a modified polycarboxylate admixture
(high range water reducer) and 13.27 kg of an expansive admixture.
According to EN 445 [5] and EN 196-1 [4], six sets of prismatic specimens, with
dimensions 4040160 mm3, were tested at 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 56 days of age to
evaluate the average compressive strength in Phase I and Phase II. Another set was
tested for Phase III.
Moreover, a set of 100 mm cubic specimens was tested at the same ages.
The Young modulus was assessed using prismatic specimens with dimensions
4040160 mm3, at 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 56 days.
The obtained unconfined compressive strength and Young modulus values are
summarized in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.
60.00 20.00
Unconfined Compressive Strength, fg,m (MPa)
50.00
16.00
Young Modulus, Eg (GPa)
40.00
12.00
30.00
8.00
20.00
Phase I and II: Push-Off Tests

4.00
10.00 Phase III: Pull-Out Tests
Cubic Specimens 100 mm
0.00 0.00
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
Curing Time (days) Curing Time (days)
Figure 1. Results of unconfined Figure 2. Results of Young modulus tests

compression tests in grout in grout
According to EN 445 [5] flowability, bleed and volume change were measured.
The results from these tests were between the limits imposed by EN 447 [6].Table 3
shows the summary of the grout measured mechanical and physical properties.
7
Table 3. Properties of the grout
Eg,28 Air content fcg,28 Flowability Bleed Volume Change
(GPa) (%) (MPa) (s) (%) (%)
14.88 1.5 49.98 11.0 0.45 0.0
Limits from EN 447 [6] 30 MPa 25 s 2% -1 % V 5%
The main purpose to make an expansive grout was to prevent (or at least
reduce) shrinkage. If the expansion of expansive grout is confined by steel tube or
concrete, pre-tensioning occurs in the steel tubes reacting against the expansive
grout. This may be helpful to groutsteel and grout-concrete interfaces bond.
3.2.2 Concrete
The concrete used in this investigation, in RC footings, was chosen to have a

minimum compressive strength, corresponding to the strength class C20/25
according to Eurocode 2 [7], since rehabilitation of existing RC footings is addressed.
The mix proportions of the concrete were (per m3) 280 kg of type II: 42.5 R of
Portland cement, 180 l of water, 250 kg of washed siliceous sand with 2.56 fineness
modulus, 710 kg of siliceous sand with 3.71 fineness modulus, 880 kg of limestone
crushed aggregates with 6.35 fineness modulus and 2.8 l of a water reducing
plasticizer admixture.
From each truck of ready mixed concrete, corresponding to the push-off and
pull-out tests, twenty four cubic specimens and two prismatic specimens were
prepared.
The blocks and the tests specimens from push-off tests were cured inside
laboratory in the same conditions. The blocks and the tests specimens from pull-out
tests were cured outside the laboratory in same conditions, except the prismatic
specimens for assessing the Young modulus that were cured inside the laboratory.
According to EN 12390-1 [8] and EN 12390-3 [9] three sets of cubes with
nominal size 150 mm were tested at 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56 and 112 days to evaluate
the compressive strength of concrete. According to EN 12390-1 [8] and specification
E 397 [15] two sets of prismatic specimens with dimensions 150150600 mm3 were
tested at 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56 and 112 days to evaluate the Young modulus.
The unconfined compressive strength and the Young modulus results, from each
ready mix concrete are summarized in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.
8
50.0 45.0
Unconfined Compressive Strength, fcm (MPa)

45.0
40.0
40.0
35.0
Young Mdulus, Ecm (GPa)

35.0
30.0
30.0
25.0
25.0
20.0 20.0
15.0 15.0
Phase II: Push-Off Tests Phase II: Push-Off Tests
10.0 10.0
Phase III: Pull-Out Tests Phase III: Pull-Out Tests
5.0 Phase II: Push-Off Tests Phase II: Push-Off Tests
5.0
Phase III: Pull-Out Tests Phase III: Pull-Out Tests
0.0
0.0
0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112
0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112
Curing Time (days)
Curing Time (days)
Figure 3. Results of unconfined Figure 4. Results of static Young

compression tests in concrete from modulus tests from concrete of Phase II
Phase II and Phase III and Phase III
The differences observed in the compressive strength from each ready mix are
due to different curing conditions.
Table 4 shows the summary of the properties measured on the concrete mixes.
Table 4. Properties of the concrete mixes

Ready Mix 1 Push-Off Tests Ready Mix 2 Pull-Out Tests
fcm,28 Eg,28 Slump test fcm,28 Eg,28 Slump test
(MPa) (GPa) (cm) (MPa) (GPa) (cm)
32.81 35.19 13 39.85 35.06 12.5
The reinforcement adopted for the footings was a mesh of S400, 8 mm ribbed
bars, five in each direction, with 50 mm cover. Figure 5 show a typical rebar cage.
Figure 5. Typical rebar cage used for reinforcement of RC footings
9
3.2.3 Micropile insert
Two types of micropile inserts were used. For micropiles inserts used in push-off
tests a 60 mm API N80 steel tube with 6 mm thickness, reinforced with a 16 mm
grade 500/600 MPa Dywidag bar was adopted. For micropile inserts used in pull-out
tests a 60 mm K55-J55 steel tube with 5.5 mm thickness, reinforced with a 16 mm
grade 500/600 MPa Dywidag bar was chosen. Each insert was built by first welding
the 16 mm bar to the centre of a 15015020 mm3 steel plate. Then, the tube was
placed around the bar, centred, and welded to the steel plate. Finally, the insert was
placed inside the hole and fully grouted.
The textured micropiles were constructed in the way previously reported and, in
addition, by welding around the tube three, four or five, depending on the embedment
length of the insert, steel rings with 75 mm spacing, a thickness of 5.5 mm and 5 mm
height.
Figure 6 shows the different micropile inserts used in push-off and pull-out tests.
a) b)
c) d)
Figure 6. Micropile inserts: a) Smooth insert (Tube API N80); b) Textured insert
(Tube API N80); c) Smooth insert (Tube K55-J55); d) Textured insert (Tube K55-J55)
10
3.2.4 Confinement Materials
In push-off tests performed in a confined unreinforced mass of grout two types of

confinement were used: steel confinement and PVC confinement. For steel
confinement, a ST52.3 tube was used with three different diameters. For PVC
confinement a PN10 tube was used also with three different diameters.
3.3 Test Specimens
3.3.1 Phase I: Push-Off Tests on Micropiles Inserts in Confined and

Unreinforced Mass of Grout
For this set of tests, 40 specimens were constructed with smooth micropiles
inserts grouted in a confined and unreinforced mass of grout. The geometry and the
parameters analysed in these tests are shown in Figure 7.
Tube
External PVC or
350
Confinement Steel
275
200
Grout
Steel
Plate
Dg Dg Dg
Figure 7. Typical model of micropiles inserts in confined

and unreinforced grout
In these tests were considered: three diameters of grout mass, three embedment
lengths and two levels of confinement (PVC tube and steel tube).
In the bottom of each specimen a steel plate with a central hole was used to
allow the slippage of the inserts during compression tests.
The dimensions, micropile inserts and confinement adopted are summarized in
Table 5.
11
Table 5. Summary of smooth micropiles inserts used in Phase I
Diameter Confinement
Embedment
Specimen Micropile Casing of Grout
Length Dimensions
n Insert Surface Mass Material
(mm) (mm)
(mm)
G 1-2 Tube Smooth 81 200 PVC Tube De=90; t=4.5
G 5-6 Tube Smooth 81 350 PVC Tube De=90; t=4,5
G 7-8 Tube Smooth 80 200 Steel Tube De=90; t=5.0
(1)
G 37 Tube Smooth 99 350 PVC Tube De=110; t=5.5
G 38(2) Tube Smooth 99 350 PVC Tube De=110; t=5.5
G 39(1) Tube Smooth 100 350 Steel Tube De=110; t=5.0
(2)
G 40 Tube Smooth 100 350 Steel Tube De=110; t=5.0
(1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored vertical deformations
(2) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored horizontal deformations
3.3.2 Phase II: Push-Off Tests on Micropile Inserts on Model Concrete

Reinforcement
For Phase II of tests (push-off tests), thirty four specimens of concrete reinforced
footings, with dimensions 450450500 mm3, were constructed.
A commercial steel formwork was used to construct the blocks. Inside the
formwork wooden panels were placed spaced 450 mm to construct each block. The
ready mix concrete was placed from a bucket by free fall method.
After 28 days of indoor curing, each footing was drilled using a diamond coring
system. Prefabricated micropiles inserts (smooth and textured) were set into each
hole and sealed with non-shrink grout. In Figure 8 are shown different phases of the
preparation of the concrete footings.
12
a) b)
c) d)
Figure 8. Preparation of RC footings a) Formwork; b) Casting concrete footings;
c) Drilling holes on footings; d) Grouting of micropiles inserts
Figure 9 represents the different parameters analysed in these set of tests: (1)
roughness of the surface of the hole, drilled into the foundation; (2) hole diameter; (3)
embedment length of the micropile; (4) surface texture of the micropile; and (5) active
strengthening of lateral confinement of the existing footing.
Steel Plate
Plate Anchorage
Hole
Casing Grout
Lb
Chipped
Dywidag Groove 500 Dywidag
bar
Styrofoam bar
Dh
Reinforcement
450x450
1) Roughness of 2) Hole 3) Embedment 4) Texture of 5) Lateral

the hole surface diameter length micropile surface confimement
Figure 9. Typical model of micropiles inserts in reinforced concrete footing
In these tests were considered three diameters of predrilled holes and three
embedment lengths. For the treatment of the hole surface, three roughness
13
techniques were adopted: left as drilled; wire-brushed; and chipped grooved (groove
with dimensions of 10 mm depth and 15 mm height).
In tests with textured inserts, footings were confined with eight 500/600 MPa
grade Dywidag bars, four in the longitudinal direction and four in the transversal
direction, with a diameter of 16 mm. Three levels of confinement were adopted,
corresponding to: Level 1=30 kN, Level 2=45 kN and Level 3=60 kN applied in each
bar. The bars were anchored to the footing using a 10010010 mm3 steel plate and
a 3240 mm2 anchor nut.
A compressible insert (polystyrene-styrofoam) was installed in the bottom of each
hole to prevent end bearing.
Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of each footing and micropile inserts
used in push-off tests.
Table 6. Summary of concrete footings and micropile inserts used in Phase II

Hole Embedment
Micropile Casing Hole
Test n Diameter Length Confinement
Insert Surface surface
(mm) (mm)
C 1-2 Tube+Bar Smooth Left as Drilled 102 350 No
C 3-4 Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 350 No
C 4i(1) Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 350 No
C 5-6 Tube+Bar Smooth Chipped Grooved 102 350 No
C 30i(1) Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 275 No
C 7-8 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 350 No
C 9-10 Tube+Bar Textured Wire-Brushed 102 350 Level 1
C 11-12 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 350 Level 1
(1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored horizontal and vertical deformations
14
3.3.3 Phase III: Pull-Out Tests on Micropile Inserts on Model Concrete
Reinforcement
For Phase III (pull-out tests), thirty specimens of concrete reinforced footings,
with dimensions 450450500 mm3, were constructed.
The main difference between this and Phase II is that the preparation of the
concrete footings was made outside and the concrete was placed in the formwork
from the chute of a concrete truck by free fall method.
The parameters analysed in this set of tests are the same analysed in Phase II
(see Figure 9). In this phase, only two roughness situations were considered for the
hole surface: left as drilled; and chipped grooved (groove with same dimensions
adopted for the tests performed in Phase II). The same hole diameters have been
considered but with three different embedment lengths (Lb1=150mm; Lb2=225mm;
Lb3=300mm).
In tests with textured inserts, footings were confined as in Phase II.
Table 7 summarizes the characteristics of each footing and micropile inserts
used in pull-out tests.
Table 7. Summary of concrete footings and micropile inserts used in Phase III
Hole Embedment
Micropile Casing Hole
Test n Diameter Length Confinement
Insert Surface surface
(mm) (mm)
T 1-2 Tube+Bar Smooth Left as Drilled 102 300 No
(1)
T 29 Tube+Bar Smooth Left as Drilled 102 300 No
T 3-4 Tube+Bar Smooth Chipped Grooved 102 300 No
T 5-6 Tube+Bar Textured Left as Drilled 102 300 Level 2
T 7-8 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 300 Level 1
T 30i(1) Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 300 Level 2
(1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored horizontal and vertical deformations
15
3.4 Instrumentation and Testing Procedures
3.4.1 Instrumentation
In each phase of the experimental program some of the inserts were

instrumented to monitor vertical and horizontal deformations at the insert/grout
interface.
In the Phase I instrumentation was done in two sets of specimens, one confined
with PVC and the other with steel. In each set of specimens, six TML FLK-6-11
(120) strain gages were bonded to the external surface of the micropile inserts and
six to the external surface of the confinement.
In Phase II instrumentation was previewed in two smooth inserts. In each insert,
sixteen TML FLK-6-11 (120) strain gages were bonded to the perimeter: ten in the
longitudinal direction and six in the horizontal direction.
In Phase III instrumentation was made in two micropile inserts: one smooth insert
and one textured insert. In each micropile inserts twelve TML FLK-6-11 (120) strain
gages were bonded to the perimeter: six in the longitudinal direction and six in the
horizontal direction.
Figure 10 shows instrumentation details for specimens used in Phases I, II and
III.
20
30 20
20
20
118
155
155
125
300
350
350
350
143
125
155
155
20
20 30
20
20
100 100
smooth insert textured insert
Phase I Phase II Phase III

Figure 10. Instrumentation details for Phase III specimens
16
3.4.2 Testing Procedures
Tests were conducted using displacement-control procedures. The specimens
were tested at a load rate of 0.025 mm/s. All tests continued after failure in order to
obtain data on the residual connection capacity.
In Phase I, loads were applied using a universal testing machine of 60 tf. In each
test, two TML CDP-25 displacement transducers were used to measure the relative
displacement between the loading plate and the surface of the grout mass. The load
was monitored using both the machine pressure gauge and an external TML CLC-50
load cell placed on top of the loading plate. Figure 11 shows the test setup adopted
in Phase I.
50 tf
LVDT LVDT
(25mm) (25mm)
bottom steel plate
a)
b) c) d)
Figure 11. Phase I test setup: a) Tests lay-out; b) Test with smooth insert confined
with PVC tube; c) Test with smooth insert confined with steel tube; d) Bottom steel
plate
In Phase II loads were applied using a testing machine of 500 tf. Deformations
were monitored using two TML CDP-25 displacement transducers to measure the
relative displacement between the top of the insert and the top surface of the
17
concrete footing. The load was monitored using both the machine pressure gauge
and an external TML CLC-100 or TML CLC-200 (for some tests performed with
textured inserts) load cells placed on top of the loading plate. In the tests performed
with textured inserts TML CLC-50 load cells were placed between anchor plates, in
both ends of two Dywidag bars placed in the same direction, to monitor the
confinement load. The test setup adopted in Phase II is shown in Figure 12.
100/ Load
200 tf Cell
LVDT LVDT
(25mm) (25mm)
a)
b) c) d)
Figure 12. Phase II test setup: a) Tests lay-out; b) Test with smooth inserts;
c) Test with smooth inserts instrumented; d)Test with textured inserts
Figure 13 shows the testing system used in Phase III. A hydraulic actuator of
100 tf, linked to a loading frame, was used to apply the axial pull-out load to the top
plate of each micropile inserts. In tests performed with textured inserts the top steel
plate used in micropile inserts had a thickness of 40 mm and two stiffeners welded to
the micropile tube and to the top bearing plate.
The blocks were fixed to the laboratory reaction slab using a system of two
orthogonal pairs of steel beams and Dywidag bars. Redundant readings of the
18
applied load were obtained from the load cells placed on top of Dywidag bars and
directly from the actuator.
Deformations were monitored using two TML CDP-25 displacement transducers
to measure the relative displacement between the top of the insert and the surface of
concrete footing. Two displacement transducers TML CDP-10 were used to monitor
the axial displacements in the reaction beams.
Frame
Hydraulic
jack
1240
Load load cells
75 75
Cells
270
reaction LVDT 25
180
beams
1270
300
Dywidag
80
bars LVDT 25
Block Floor
75 75
270
slab
1000 1000 150 150
Side view Side view Top view
Figure 13. Phase III test setup and reaction frame
Pull-out test performed with smooth and textured inserts are shown in Figure 14
and Figure 15 respectively.
Figure 14. Pull-out tests with smooth Figure 15. Pull-out tests with textured
micropile micropile
In each phases the output of load cells, LVDTs and strain gauges were
connected to a TML TDS 303 data logger.
19
4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The tests clearly showed that average bond strength significantly exceeded
expectations being also higher than the results of previous investigations.
Readings in strain gages revealed that the value of the bond stress is not
constant along the micropiles inserts. In Figure 16, the strain variation with the
embedment length, for different load levels, is shown. The mobilized bond stress is
not constant, exhibiting a linear decrease along the insert length.
Strain Gauge (microstrain)
0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000

0
50
Embedment Length (mm)
100
150
Peak Load=224 kN
200
75% of Peak Load
250 50% of Peak Load

25% of Peak Load
300 10% of Peal Load
5% of Peak Load
350
Figure 16. Strain gauge data from push-off test C4i (smooth insert)
Nevertheless, to discuss results, average bond strength along the insert/grout

interface was considered, for smooth inserts, and average bond strength along
grout/concrete was considered, for textured inserts.
The average bond stress, fb (MPa), at any stage during loading is the applied
push-off/pull-out load, P (N), divided by the nominal surface area of the embedment
length, lb (mm), of the micropile insert. For a micropile insert with diameter, dm (mm),
this is given by the follow relationship:
P
fb = (4)
d m lb
20
4.1 Push-Off Tests: Phase I and Phase II
Smooth Inserts
In Table 8, are presented the average values of peak load, bond strength and
axial displacement obtained with tests performed Phase I.
Table 8. Summary of test results in Phase I: push-off tests with micropile inserts
grouted in a confined mass of grout
Average Average
Diameter of Embedment
Tube peak bond Displacement
Test n grout mass length Confinement
surface load strength (mm)
(mm) (mm) (3)
(kN) (MPa)
G 1-2 Smooth 81 200 24.9 0.66 0.585 PVC PN10
G 3-4 Smooth 81 275 29.8 0.57 0.421 PVC PN10
G 5-6 Smooth 81 350 45.8 0.69 0.985 PVC PN10
G 7-8 Smooth 80 200 199.1 5.28 1.308 Steel ST52.3
G 9-10 Smooth 80 275 314.7 6.07 1.152 Steel ST52.3
G 11-12 Smooth 80 350 396.3 6.01 2.091 Steel ST52.3
G 13-14 Smooth 99 200 40.3 1.07 0.425 PVC PN10
G 15-16 Smooth 99 275 46.5 0.90 0.402 PVC PN10
G 17-18 Smooth 99 350 70.5 1.07 0.577 PVC PN10
G 19-20 Smooth 100 200 156.8 4.16 1.105 Steel ST52.3
G 21-22 Smooth 100 275 244.9 4.72 1.364 Steel ST52.3
G 23-24 Smooth 100 350 341.1 5.17 1.475 Steel ST52.3
G 25-26 Smooth 119 200 44.6 1.18 0.712 PVC PN10
G 27-28 Smooth 119 275 69.6 1.34 1.414 PVC PN10
G 29-30 Smooth 119 350 91.8 1.39 0.857 PVC PN10
G 31-32 Smooth 120 200 99.9 2.65 1.072 Steel ST52.3
G 33-34 Smooth 120 275 151.4 2.92 1.509 Steel ST52.3
G 35-36 Smooth 120 350 245.6 3.72 1.751 Steel ST52.3
G 37(1) Smooth 99 350 28.7 0.44 0.813 PVC PN10
(2)
G 38 Smooth 99 350 39.8 0.60 0.603 PVC PN10
(1)
G 39 Smooth 100 350 276.9 4.20 1.399 Steel ST52.3
G 40(2) Smooth 100 350 211.8 3.21 1.528 Steel ST52.3
(1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored vertical displacement
(2) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored horizontal displacement
(3) Average bond strength at insert/grout interface
In Table 9 are presented the average values of the peak load, bond strength and
axial displacement obtained with push-off tests performed on smooth micropiles in
Phase II.
21
Table 9. Summary of test results in Phase II: push-off tests with smooth
micropile inserts grouted in RC footings
Average Average
Hole Emb.
Tube Hole peak bond Displac.
Test n diameter length Confinement
surface surface load strength (mm)
(mm) (mm) (2)
(kN) (MPa)
C 1-2 Smooth Left as Drilled 102 350 485.5 7.36 1.178 No
C 3-4 Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 350 475.9 7.21 1.244 No
(1)
C 4i Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 350 224.0 3.40 0.431 No
C 5-6 Smooth Grooved 102 350 502.2 7.61 1.415 No
(3)
C 30i(1) Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 275 182.2 3.51 0.560 No
(3)
(1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored vertical displacement
(3) In these series of tests the values measured of the peak load are not consistent between the
same tests
The average bond strength measured in the test performed with instrumented
micropiles inserts was significantly lower than the one measured in the
corresponding test performed without instrumentation. The reason for this fact is
related to the reduction in surface area that contributes for the bond strength..
It should be mentioned that failure, observed in push-off tests performed with
smooth inserts in Phase I and Phase II, was always at the insert/grout interface.
In tests performed in Phase I, with PVC confinement, the failure of the connection
was observed after a deflection of less than 1.4 mm of the insert head and, in tests
performed with steel confinement, after a deflection of 2.1 mm.
In all tests performed in Phase II with smooth inserts, failure of the connection
was observed after a deflection of less than 1.45 mm of the insert head.
In Figure 17 is presented the relationship between the connection capacity and
the axial displacement of the insert head, registered in tests performed with smooth
inserts grouted in PVC tube (Test G24), steel tube (Test G17) and in predrilled holes
in RC footings (Test C2).
The load-displacement responses observed in all the tests performed with
smooth inserts seems to follow a similar behaviour. Each curve consists of a linear
branch until 80-90 % of the failure load is reached, and a non-linear branch from this
point onwards, i.e., up to failure and in the post-peak phase. In all the tests
22
performed with smooth inserts, the residual bond strength is significant and cracking
in the blocks was not visible.
Push-Off Tests with Smooth Inserts
Diameter of Grout 100mm, Embedment Length = 350mm
600.0
RC Footings: Test C2
503.6 Steel Confinement: Test G24
500.0
Connection Capacity (kN)

PVC Confinement: Test G17
400.0
329.6
300.0
200.0
100.0 71.3
0.0
0 5 10 15
Axial Displacement (mm)
Figure 17. Results of push-off tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase I and
Phase II with different radial confinement
The radial stiffness (Kr) of the pipes and for the RC footing (considering a
diameter of 225 mm) used can be estimated from thick wall cylinder theory according
to the equation [19]:
2 E do2 di2
Kr = (5)
(1 + ) di (1 2 ) di2 + do2

where E and are the Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio for the material
comprising the pipe and the concrete [E=3 GPa and =0.32 for PVC; E=200 GPa and
=0.3 for steel; E=41.74 GPa (at time of tests) and =0.2 for concrete], and di and do
are the inside and outside diameters of the pipe and RC footings, respectively.
Appropriate values of Kr are listed in Table 10.
Table 10. Radial stiffness of the confining pipes and RC footing used
Ecm do di
Confinement Kr
(GPa) (mm) (mm)
(1) (1)
PVC 3.2 0.32 110 99 7.1
(1) (1)
Steel 200 0.30 110 100 401.3
RC footing 29 0.20 450 100 436.1
(2) (1)
RC footing 41.74 0.20 450 102 627.6
(1) Assumed values: non determinate with tests
(2) Young modulus of concrete at the time of the test performed with RC footings
23
The PVC tube was used only with the purpose of preventing splitting of the grout
mass, whereas the steel tube was adopted to simulate the same confinement of a
concrete block with dimensions 450450500 mm3, assuming a compressive
strength class C20/25.
It can be seen, from Figure 17 and from Table 10, for radial stiffness, that for the
same diameter of grout mass (100 mm) and the same embedment length (350 mm),
the connection capacity increases with the confinement level (PVC: 71.3 kN; Steel:
329.6 kN; RC footing: 503.6 kN). In general, higher capacities were obtained under
conditions of higher radial confinement and a higher rigidity.
Figure 18 illustrates the relationship between the diameter of the grout mass and
the bond strength at the insert/grout interface in tests performed with smooth inserts
in Phase I and Phase II.

Embedment Length = 350 mm
Bond Strength at Insert/grout Interface (MPa)
13.00
RC Footings. Tests C21-22; C3-4; C25-26
12.00 Steel Confinement. Tests G11-12;G23-24;G35-36
11.00 PVC Confinement. Tests G5-6;G17-18;G29-30
10.00
9.59
9.00
8.00 7.21
7.00 6.01 6.03
6.00 5.17
5.00
3.72
4.00
3.00
2.00 1.39
1.07
0.69
1.00
0.00
70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Diameter of Grout Mass (mm)
Figure 18. Relationship between bond strength and diameter of the grout mass in
tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase I and Phase II
It can be seen from Figure 18 that bond strength, in the specimens confined with
PVC tubes, increases with the diameter of the grout mass around the insert, varying
from 0.69 MPa, for the smallest diameter, to 1.39 MPa, for the highest diameter.
These results can be explained by the thick-wall cylindrical pressure vessel theory,
which can be used to obtain a rough estimate of the bond stress at the insert/grout
interface in an unconfined and unreinforced mass of grout. The tangential stress, t,
at the perimeter of the insert can be estimated using the following expression [19]:
24
ri 2 p r2
t = 1 + o2 (6)
(r
i
2
ro2 ) ri
where: ri is the radius of the insert; ro is the outer radius of the grout mass
surrounding the insert; and p is the pressure at the insert/grout interface. From this
equation, positive values are obtained for tensile tangential stress.
The results observed in tests performed with PVC tubes are in accordance to
Equation 6 since the radial pressure increases with the increase of the radius of the
grout mass around the insert. Therefore, in specimens with low confinement (PVC),
the value of bond strength can be predicted using Equation 6.
Due to the frictional nature of the bond slip, the normal stress acting on the
micropile insert is the most important parameter controlling the bond capacity. The
higher the confining stress is, the higher would also be the mobilized load bearing
capacity of the system [16].
Since slippage along the insert/grout interface is being considered and
considering a coefficient of friction of approximately 0.5, the frictional component of
the bond strength should be between 0.52 and 1.07 MPa. Comparing these values
with the measured bond stress at failure for specimens confined with PVC tubes,
values varying from 0.57 to 1.39 MPa, it seems that the frictional component is
significant for inserts embedded in an unreinforced mass of grout with a low
confinement level.
On the contrary, for specimens confined with steel tubes and for specimens
grouted in RC footing, it can be observed that the bond strength decreases with the
increases of radius of the grout mass around the insert. With steel confinement, the
bond strength varies from 2.65 MPa, for the highest diameter, to 6.07 MPa, for the
smallest diameter. In smooth inserts grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings, the
bond strength varies from 6.03 MPa, for the highest diameter, to 9.59 MPa, for the
smallest diameter.
In Figure 19 a chart with the bond strength at the insert/grout interface versus the
embedment length is presented. It can be seen that the bond strength varies slightly
with the embedment length in RC footings and in tests with steel confinement and did
not vary in tests with PVC confinement. These results are not consistent with the
results obtained by Gmez and Cadden [11], where bond strength does not vary
significantly with the embedment length in tests performed with smooth inserts.
25
Grout Diameter = 100 mm

13.00
12.00 RC Footings. Tests C33-34; C29-30; C3-4
Steel Confinement. Tests G19-20;G21-22;G23-24
11.00
PVC Confinement. Tests G13-14;G15-16;G17-18
10.00
9.00 8.21 8.30
8.00 7.21
7.00
6.00 5.17
4.72
5.00 4.16
4.00
3.00
2.00 1.07 0.90 1.07
1.00
0.00
150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure 19. Relationship between bond strength and embedment length

in tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase I and Phase II
In Figure 20 is presented the influence of the roughness condition of the hole

surface on the bond strength, registered in tests with smooth inserts performed in
Phase II. Results did not reveal the influence of this parameter, in this case, since
failure occurred at the insert/grout interface.

Hole Diameter=102mm; Embement Length=350mm

10.00
9.00
8.00 7.61
7.36 7.21
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Left as Drilled:C1-2 Wire Brushed:C3-4 Chipped
Grooved:C5-6
Hole Surface Treatment
Figure 20. Influence of the hole surface treatment on bond strength in

tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase II
26
Textured Inserts
In Table 11 are presented the average values of the peak load, bond strength
and axial displacement obtained with push-off tests performed on textured micropiles
in Phase II.
Table 11. Summary of test results in Phase II: push-off tests with
smooth inserts grouted in RC footings
Average Average
Hole Emb. Displac.
Tube Hole peak bond
Test n diameter length (1) Confinement
surface surface load strength
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(kN) (MPa)(2)
C 7-8 Textured Grooved 102 350 842.1 7.51 1.450 No(Level 0)
C 9-10 Textured Wire-Brushed 102 350 802.5 7.16 1.674 Level 1
C 11-12 Textured Grooved 102 350 1003.9 8.95 2.024 Level 1
(1) Displacement correspond to the onset of slippage of the insert
(2) Average bond strength at grout/concrete interface
It should be mentioned that failure, observed in these tests, seems to have

occurred at the concrete/grout interface.
For tests performed with textured inserts the head displacement varied between
1.2 mm to 2.0 mm. Cracking of the concrete was observed in tests: C11-12;
C17-C18; C19-C20; and C23-C24.
In Figure 21 is presented the relationship between the connection capacity and
the axial displacement of the insert head, registered in tests performed with textured
inserts grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings: C8 without confinement and a
grooved hole surface; C10 with a Level 1 confinement and a wire brushed hole
surface; and C12 with a Level 1 confinement and a grooved hole surface.
Figure 21 shows different types of connection failure. Specimens without
confinement and with a wire brushed hole surface as well as specimens with a low
confinement level and with a grooved hole surface exhibited a brittle failure.
Specimens with higher confinement levels and with grooved hole surface exhibited a
plastic response.
27
Push-Off Tests withTextured Inserts
Hole Diameter=102mm; Embedement Length=350mm
1200.0
Test C12. Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved
1100.0 Test C10. Hole Surface Treatment: Wire Brushed
Test C8. Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved
1000.0

900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
Figure 21. Results of push-off tests performed with textured inserts,

with different hole surface and different confinement levels
(Test C8:Level 0; Test C10: Level 1; Test C12: Level 1)
Figure 22 show the blocks tests C7, C8 and C9. The concrete footings failed
(monolithic failure).
a) Test C7 b) Test C8 c) Test C9
Figure 22. Failure of the blocks in tests C7, C8 and C9 performed

with textured inserts in Phase II
When textured micropiles are used (with welded shear rings), forces acting on
the micropile head are transmitted by the shear rings to the grout injected in the
predrilled hole. To guarantee adequate bond strength at the grout/concrete interface,
it is necessary to make grooves in the hole surface. Results of C9 and C10 tests
28
confirmed this statement. Moreover, this is in accordance with other studies: when
textured micropiles are used the boring of the hole surface must be made by
percussion methods or grooves must be formed to allow transfer of a high loads
[2,18].
In Figure 23 is presented the influence of the roughness condition of the hole
surface on the bond strength, registered in tests with textured inserts performed in
Phase II. Since failure took place at the concrete/grout interface, it was possible to
conclude that the bond strength varies with the roughness of the hole surface, as
expected.
Push-Off Tests with Textured Inserts

Bond Strength at Grout/concrete Interface
10.00
8.95
9.00
8.00
7.16
7.00
6.00
(MPa)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Wire Brushed:C9-10 Chipped Grooved:C11-12
Figure 23. Influence of the hole surface treatment on bond strength in

tests performed with textured inserts in Phase II
Figure 24 illustrates the relationship between the diameter of the hole and the
bond strength at the grout/concrete interface in tests performed with textured inserts
in Phase II.
Results clearly indicate that the bond strength of the grout/concrete interface
increases with the decrease of the hole diameter.
In Figure 25 the bond strength at the insert/grout interface versus the embedment
length is plotted. It can be seen that the bond strength increases with the increase of
the embedment length for textured inserts. These results are not consistent with
those obtained by Gmez and Cadden [11], where bond strength does not vary
significantly with the embedment length.
29
Push-Off
RC Footings. Tests
Tests with Textured
C23-24; Inserts
C9-10; C27-28
Hole Surface Treatment: Wire-Brushed; Embedment Length = 350 mm
13.00
Bond Strength at Grout/concrete interface

12.00 RC Footings. Tests C23-24; C9-10; C27-28
11.00
10.00 10.02
9.00
8.00
(MPa)
7.00
6.00 7.16
4.76
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
85 95 105 115 125
Hole diameter (mm)
Figure 24. Relationship between bond strength and hole diameter

in push-off tests performed with textured inserts in Phase II
with confinement Level 1
Push-Off Tests with Textured Inserts

Hole Surface Treatment: Wire-Brushed; Grout Diameter = 100 mm
10.00
RC Footings. Tests C9-10; C31-32; C35-36

9.00
8.00
7.16
7.00
6.00 5.51
(MPa)
5.00 4.61
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
150 200 250 300 350 400

in tests performed with textured inserts in Phase II
with confinement Level 1
Figure 26 shows the influence of the initial confinement level on the bond
strength, registered in tests with textured inserts performed in Phase II. The bond
strength increases almost linearly with the confinement level.
In all tests performed with textured inserts, the footings were previously confined
with eight pre-stressed 16 mm Dywidag bars, four in each direction. The variation of
30
the axial force in each bar during tests was monitored using load cells, placed
between two anchorage plates.
Push-out Tests with Textured Inserts

Hole Surface: Chipped Grooved

12.00
9.79
10.00 9.28
8.95
8.00 7.51
(MPa)
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Lateral Active Confinement Level
Figure 26. Influence of the confinement level on bond strength in tests

performed with textured inserts in Phase II
Figure 27 shows the variation with time of the load in each bar in the longitudinal
direction. The forces in each bar start to grow at the same time the connection attain
the peak load and visible cracks appear in the blocks.
Push-Off Test With Textured Insert Push-Off Test With Textured Insert
Treatment of Hole Surface:Chipped Grooved;Hole Diameter=102mm Treatment of Hole Surface:Chipped Grooved;Hole Diameter=102mm
Embedment Length=350mm; Confinement Level 2 Embedment Length=350mm; Confinement Level 3
80 80
Load in Each Confined Bar (kN)
Load in Each Confined Bar (kN)
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
Dywidag Bar n 1 Dywidag Bar n 1
20 Dywidag Bar n 2 20 Dywidag Bar n 2
Dywidag Bar n 3 10 Dywidag Bar n 3
10
Dywidag Bar n 4 Dywidag Bar n 4
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Load Time (s) Load Time (s)
a) Push-off Test C17 b) Push-off Test C19
Figure 27. Variation of confining forces in the longitudinal direction with time
for push-off tests C17 and C19
31
Figure 28 shows the relationship between the connection capacity and the axial
displacement for different confinement levels initially applied to the concrete footing.
It can be observed that for push-off tests performed with textured inserts the
bond strength increases with the increase of the confinement level. In footings with
textured inserts, the active confinement significantly reduces cracking and increases
the ductility of the connection.
Push-Off Tests With Textured Inserts

Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved;
Hole Diameter = 102mm; Embedment Length = 350mm
1200
1000
800
600
400
Teste C 19: Nvel 3: 60 kN
200 Teste C 17: Nvel 2: 45 kN
Teste C 12: Nvel 1: 30 kN
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
Figure 28. Results of push-off tests performed with textured inserts,

with different confinement levels
(Test C12:Level 1; Test C17: Level 2; Test C19: Level 3)
Textured inserts provide a larger connection capacity than smooth inserts.

In the presence of higher loads shear rings must be welded to the micropile
surface and grooves must be made in the hole surface to transfer the load from the
head of micropile to the existing RC footing. In some of these cases, foundations
must be also strengthened with a lateral active confinement, and eventually with
vertical anchors, to prevent punching failure.
These results are consistent with the tests performed by Gmez and Cadden [11]
in RC footings with textured micropiles. The tests showed textured micropiles had a
plastic response without sudden failure due to the confinement of the reinforcement
of the footing (reinforcement represent 1% by the volume of the concrete block).
32
4.2 Pull-out Tests: Phase III
As mentioned above, the blocks used in pull-out tests were casted and cured
outside the laboratory. The grouting of the inserts in the predrilled holes was
undertaken at a relatively low temperature. Therefore, the grout took much longer to
harden than expected. Because of this delay, sedimentation and a higher exudation
of the grout were observed compared to the laboratorial tests. The sedimentation
observed is quite different from smooth and textured inserts. In textured inserts the
sedimentation is much lower than the observed in textured inserts because the
presence of the shear rings.
Also different values of the embedment length were adopted due to the low
capacity of the tube and the expected connection capacities. After each test the
micropile insert was completely pulled out from the block and the real embedment
length was accurately measured.
In Table 12 the real embedment length used in the evaluation of the bond
strength are presented.
Table 12. Real values used for embedment length in pull-out tests
Embedment length Hole diameter Embedment length used (mm)
(mm) (mm) Smooth Textured
92 285 295
300 102 275 290
122 270 285
225 102 205 220
150 102 140 145
In Table 9 are presented the average values of the peak load, bond strength and
axial displacement obtained with pull out tests performed with smooth micropiles
inserts in Phase III.
It should be mentioned that failure, observed in pull-out tests performed with
smooth inserts in Phase III was always observed at the insert/grout interface.
In all tests performed in Phase III with smooth inserts, failure of the connection
was observed after a deflection of less than 0.70 mm of the insert head.
33
Table 13. Summary of test results in Phase III: pull-out tests with
smooth inserts grouted in RC footings
Average Average
Hole Emb.
Tube Hole peak bond Displ.
Test n diameter Length Confinement
surface surface (3) load Strength (mm)
(mm) (mm) (2)
(kN) (MPa)
T 1-2 Smooth Left as drilled 102 275 82.19 1.59 0.702 No
(1)
T 29 Smooth Left as drilled 102 275 80.28 1.55 0.647 No
T 3-4 Smooth Grooved 102 275 79.53 1.53 0.485 No
(1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored vertical and horizontal displacement
(3) In these series of tests the values measured of the peak load are not consistent between the
same tests
Similar load-displacement responses were observed in all tests performed with

smooth inserts in Phase III: After the peak load, the connection exhibits significant
residual bond strength and without visible cracking in the blocks.
Pull-out Test with Smooth Inserts Pull-out Test with Smooth Inserts
Hole Diameter=102mm; Embedement Length=300mm Hole Diameter=102mm; Embedement Length=300mm
100.0 100.0
Test T1. Hole Surface Treatment: Left as Drilled Test T3. Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved
Bond Strength at Insert / Grout Interface
Bond Strength at Insert / Grout Interface
90.0 90.0
85.4 86.2
80.0 80.0
70.0 70.0
60.0 60.0
(MPa)
(MPa)
50.0 50.0
40.0 40.0
30.0 30.0
20.0 20.0
10.0 10.0
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Axial Displacement (mm) Axial Displacement (mm)
a) Pull-out Test T1 b) Pull-out Test T3
Figure 29. Results of pull-out tests performed with smooth inserts

in Phase III
Figure 30 illustrates the relationship between the hole diameter and the bond
strength at the insert/grout interface in tests performed with smooth micropiles inserts
in Phase III. It can be observed that the bond strength slightly decreases with the
increase of the hole diameter.
34
Pull-Out Tests with Smooth Inserts
Embedment Length = 300 mm

5.00
RC Footings. Tests T21-22; T1-2; T25-26
4.00
3.00
2.00 1.78
1.59 1.50
1.00
0.00
80 90 100 110 120 130
Hole Diameter (mm)
Figure 30. Relationship between bond strength and hole diameter in tests
performed with smooth inserts in Phase III
In Figure 31, the bond strength at the insert/grout interface versus the
embedment length is plotted for smooth inserts in Phase III. It can be seen that the
bond strength did not vary significantly with embedment length.
Pull-Out
RC Footings. Tests
Tests with Smooth
T17-18; Inserts
T13-14; T1-2
Hole Diameter= 102 mm
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.02 1.96
2.00
1.59
1.00
0.00
100 150 200 250 300 350

in tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase I and Phase II
Results are inconclusive in relation to the influence of the roughness of the hole
surface in the bond stress in pull-out tests with smooth inserts, since failure occurred
at the insert/grout interface.
35
From the results previously presented, it can be stated that highly smooth
micropile casing cannot be used in retrofitting RC footings. The bond strength at the
insert/grout interface is in this case much smaller than that obtained with a rough
micropile casing, like those used in Phases I and II. This may be due to smaller
frictional component of the bond strength and to smaller dilatation effects.
Textured Inserts
In Table 14 are presented the average values of the peak load, bond strength
and axial displacement obtained with pull-out tests performed on textured micropiles
in Phase III.
In some of these tests, a cyclic loading history was adopted: load to 0.25 of the
estimated peak load (EPL), unload to 0.1EPL, reload to 0.5EPL, unload to 0.1EPL,
reload to 0.75EPL, unload to 0.1EPL and than reload until failure is obtained.
Table 14. Summary of test results in Phase III: pull-out tests with textured
micropile inserts grouted in RC footings
Average Average
Hole Emb. Displ.
Tube Hole peak bond
Test n diameter length (1) Confinement
surface surface (3) load strength
(mm) (mm) (2) (mm)
(kN) (MPa)
T 5-6 Textured Left as drilled 102 290 580.1 6.24 2.10 Level 2
T 7-8 Textured Grooved 102 290 516.9 5.56 3.135 Level 1
(1)
T 30i Textured Grooved 102 290 561.6 6.04 3.613 Level 2
(1) Displacement correspond to the onset of slippage of the insert
(2) Average bond strength at grout/concrete interface
(3) Embedment Length considered to determination of bond strength
In the pull-out tests performed with textured inserts, in Phase III, nine failures
were observed at the connection, seven at the RC footing and two at the welded
connection between the head plate and the micropile tube.
For the tests in which failure of the block occurred, values of the peak load
showed in Table 14 represent a lower estimate of the connection capacity.
36
In order to avoid failure at the RC block or excessive cracking of the latter,
vertical bars were epoxy bonded inside holes drilled in the RC footing. A hole
diameter of 20 mm and S400 16 mm steel bars were adopted.
Figure 32 shows the block specimens with textured inserts, confining horizontal
bars and strengthening vertical bars.
Top view
20
125
16
50
100
132
225
150
300
80
22
450
250
500
100
225
300
16 Adhesive
200
100
bonded
bars
20
102 225 225
Side view 450
Figure 32. Vertical adhesive bonded bars
In Figure 33 and Figure 34 are plotted the relationship between the connection
capacity and the axial displacement of the insert head, performed with textured
inserts.
Pull-Out Tests with Textured Inserts Pull-out Test With Textured Insert
Hole diameter=102 mm; Embedment Length=300 mm Treatment of Hole Surface:Left as Drilled;Hole Diameter=102mm
Embedment Length=300mm; Confinement Level 2
700.0
100.0
Load in Each Confined Bar (kN )
Test T5 - Hole Surface: Left as

600.0 Drilled; Confinement Level 2
80.0
500.0
400.0 60.0
300.0 40.0
Dywidag Bar n 1
200.0
Dywidag Bar n 2
20.0
Dywidag Bar n 3
100.0
Dywidag Bar n 4
0.0
0.0 0 200 400 600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Load Time (s)
Figure 33. Results of pull-out test performed with textured inserts

in Phase III: Test T5
37
Pull - Out Tests With Textured Inserts Pull-out Test With Textured Insert
Hole Diameter=102 mm; Embedment Length=300 mm Treatment of Hole Surface:Left as Drilled;Hole Diameter=102mm
700.0 Embedment Length=300mm; Confinement Level 2
100.0
Test T6 - Hole Surface: Left as
Load in Each Confined Bar (kN )

600.0 Drilled; Confinement Level 2
Connection Capacity (kN )
80.0
500.0
400.0 60.0
300.0 40.0
Dywidag Bar n 1
200.0 Dywidag Bar n 2
20.0
Dywidag Bar n 3
100.0 Dywidag Bar n 4
0.0
0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Load Time (s)
Figure 34. Results of pull-out test performed with textured inserts

in Phase III: Test T6
The load-displacement curves registered are similar, consisting of a linear branch

up to 60-80 % of the peak load, followed by a non-linear branch until failure is
observed. In all the pull-out tests performed with textured inserts, sudden failure
occurred with total loss of the connection capacity.
On the graphics above, it is also shown the point when the forces start to
increase in each bar, i.e., when the active confinement was mobilized. In the test T5,
the concrete block failed immediately before the peak load was attained with
significant cracks visible in the block. In the test T6, failure was registered in the
connection simultaneously with the appearance of first cracks. After the connection
failure, cracks became larger.
In Figure 35 is presented the Influence of roughness condition of the hole surface
in the average bond strength, registered in tests with textured inserts performed in
Phase III. Results reveal that the bond strength varies with the roughness of the hole
surface, as expected. In this case, it was possible to analyse the influence of this
parameter since failure took place at the concrete/grout interface.
Figure 36 illustrates the relationship between the hole diameter and the bond
strength at the insert/grout interface in tests performed with smooth micropiles inserts
in Phase III. It can be observed that the bond strength increases with the decrease of
the hole diameter. The measured bond strength seems to be proportional to the hole
diameter. Same results were obtained in Phase II for tests performed with textured
inserts.
38
Pull-out Tests with Textured Inserts

8.00
7.00 6.65
6.24
6.00
5.00
(MPa)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Left as Drilled:T5-6 Chipped Grooved:T9-10
Figure 35. Influence of the hole surface treatment on bond strength in tests
performed with textured inserts in Phase III with confinement Level 2
Pull-Out
RC Footings. TestsT23-24;
Tests with Textured Inserts
T5-6; T27-28
Hole Surface Treatment: Left as Drilled; Embedment Length = 300 mm
10.00
Bond Strength at Grout/concrete interface

9.00
8.00
6.90
7.00 6.24
6.00
(MPa)
4.87
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
85 95 105 115 125
Hole Diameter (mm)
Figure 36. Relationship between bond strength and hole diameter in tests
performed with textured inserts in Phase III with confinement level 2
In Figure 37 a chart with the bond strength at the insert/grout interface versus the
embedment length, in tests performed with textured inserts in Phase III, is presented.
It can be seen that the bond strength increases with the increase of the embedment
length. These conclusions are in accordance to those drawn by Myers (cited by
Gmez and Cadden [11]) from pull out tests performed with textured inserts.
In the tests T19 and T20, blocks cracked at a distance to the surface equal to the
embedment length of the inserts (Lb=150 mm). After these tests, it was decided to
39
strengthen the RC footings with vertical epoxy-bonded reinforced bars, since the
research is focussed in the connection.
Pull-Out Tests with Textured Inserts

Hole Surface Treatment: Left as Drilled; Hole Diameter= 102 mm
10.00

RC Footings. Tests T5-6; T15-16
9.00
RC Footings. Tests T19-20
8.00
7.00 6.24
6.00 5.63
(MPa)
5.00
4.00
2.83
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
100 150 200 250 300 350

in tests performed with textured inserts in Phase III with confinement Level 2
Figure 38 shows the influence of the initial confinement level on the bond
strength, registered in tests with textured inserts performed in Phase III. The bond
strength increases almost linearly with the confinement level, which is in accordance
with the results obtained in Phase II.
Push-out Tests with Textured Inserts

Hole Surface: Chipped Grooved
10.00
9.00
8.00 7.40
7.00 6.65
6.00 5.56
(MPa)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Lateral Active Confinement Level
Figure 38. Influence of the confinement level on bond strength in tests performed
with textured inserts in Phase III
40
5. CONCLUSIONS
For smooth inserts, independently of the roughness of the hole surface, failure
occurs at the insert/grout interface.
For smooth inserts, the connection capacity is controlled first by chemical
adhesion and then by friction at the insert/grout interface. The friction component
grows with the radial confining.
In push-off tests performed with smooth inserts grouted in predrilled holes in RC
footings, as well as in an unreinforced mass of grout confined with steel tube, the
bond strength increases with the decrease of the hole diameter.
For smooth inserts, both in push-off and pull-out tests, the embedment length has
little effect on bond strength.
In all push-out tests with smooth inserts, brittle failure was observed. After the
peak load, the connection capacity decreases fast and then becomes constant,
presenting a significant residual resistance.
The bond strength at the insert/grout interface observed in pull-out tests
performed with smooth inserts is much smaller than that obtained with a rough
micropile casing, like those used in push-off tests. This may be due to smaller
frictional component of the bond strength and to higher dilatation effects.
Textured inserts provide a higher connection capacity than smooth inserts.
For textured inserts, failure occur at the grout/concrete interface, having the
roughness of the hole surface a significant influence in the connection capacity.
Differences observed in the connection capacity between pull-out and push-off tests
because of the Poisson effect.
For textured inserts, the bond strength increases with the hole diameter decrease
and with the embedment length increase.
For pull-out and push-off tests performed with textured inserts, the bond strength
increases with the increase of the confinement level.
In pull-out tests, as well as in push-off tests without confinement, performed with
textured inserts sudden failure occurs with total loss of connection capacity.
Push-off tests performed with textured inserts and with confinement exhibited a
plastic response without sudden failure. Moreover, the confinement strengthening
reduces significantly cracking and increases the ductility of the connections.
41
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the companies Beto-Liz; DSI;
HILTI; SECIL; and SIKA.
REFERENCES
1. ACI, "ACI 408R-03 Bond Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension",
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2003
2. Armour, T., Groneck, P., Keeley, J. and Sharma, S., "FHWA-SA-97-070 - Micropile
Design and Construction Guidelines - Implementaion manual", Federal Highway
Administration - US Department of Transportation, 2000, 376 pp.
3. CEB, "CEB-FIP Model Code 1990", Comit International du Bton (CEB), London,
1991
4. CEN, "EN 196-1 Methods of testing cement - Part 1: Determination of strength",
European Committee for Standarditazion, 2005
5. CEN, "EN 445 Grout for prestressing tendons. Test methods", European Committee
for Standarditazion, 1996
6. CEN, "EN 447 Grout for prestressing tendons. Basic requirements", European
Committee for Standarditazion, 2007
7. CEN, "EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings", European Committee for Standardization, 2004
8. CEN, "EN 12390-1 Testing hardened concrete - Part 1: Shape, dimensions and other
requirements for specimens and moulds", European Committee for Standardization,
2000
9. CEN, "EN 12390-3 Testing hardened concrete - Part 3: Compressive strength of test
specimens", European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2003
10. Cyna, H., et al., "Synthse des rsultats et recommandations du project national sur
les micropieux FOREVER", Opration du Rseau Gnie civil e urbain, IREX, Presses
de lEcole nationale des ponts et chausses, Paris, 2004, pp. 347
11. Gmez, J., Cadden, A., Traylor, R.P. and Bruce, D.A., "Connection capacity between
micropiles and existing footings-bond strength to concrete", Geo3 GEO Construction
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Conference Proceedings, Dallas/Ft. Worth, TXS,
2005, pp. 196-216
12. Hyett, A.J., Bawden, W.F., Macsporran, G.R. and Moosavi, M., "A constitutive law
for bond failure of fully-grouted cable bolts using a modified hoek cell", International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts, 32, 1,
1995, pp. 11-36.
13. Hyett, A.J., Bawden, W.F. and Reichert, R.D., "The effect of rock mass confinement
on the bond strength of fully grouted cable bolts", International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics, Vol. 29, 5, 1992, pp. 503-524.
14. Kaiser, P.K., Maloney, S. and Yazici, S., "A new perspective on cable bolt design",
CIM-Bull., 85(962), 1992, pp. 103-109.
15. LNEC, "Especificao E 397 - Determinao do mdulo de elasticidade em
compresso", Laboratrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, 1993
16. Moosavi, M. and Bawden, W.F., "Shear strength of Portland cement grout", Cement
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 25, 7, 2003, pp. 729-735.
42
17. Moosavi, M., Jafari, A. and Khosravi, A., "Bond of cement grouted reinforcing bars
under constant radial pressure", Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 27, 1, 2005,
pp. 103-109.
18. PWRI, "Design and Execution Manual for Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Pile
Foundations with High Capacity Micropiles", PWRI, 2002
19. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N., "Teoria da Elasticidade", Editora Guanabara
Dois , Rio de Janeiro, 1980, pp. 545
20. Yahia, A., Khayat, K. and Benmokrane, B., "Bond strength of cement grout anchors
cast in dry and submerged conditions", Ground anchorages and anchored structures,
Thomas Telford, London, UK, 1997, pp. 89-99
43

4 TBM Vs D&amp;B

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

4 TBM Vs D&amp;B

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BOND STRENGTH OF MICROPILE/GROUT/CONCRETE INTERFACES IN

RC FOOTINGS STRENGTHENED WITH MICROPILES

Joo Veludo1, Eduardo Jlio2, Paulo Lopes Pinto3

Rehabilitation of bridges and buildings often include the need to strengthen

Keywords: bond; strength; interface; micropile; grout; concrete; confinement;

(1) PhD Student, ISISE, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Portugal, veludo@estg.ipleiria.pt

Table 1. Expressions for design the ultimate bond strength

EC 2 [7] f bd = 2.25 1 2 f ctd (2)

fbd - Design value of bond strength (MPa);

Table 2. Design expression of the shear strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces

EC 2 [7] vRdi = c f ctd + n 0,5 v f cd (3)*

The above expressions do not include a considerable number of parameters with

In order to consider the influence of several parameters in the connection

A grout with an estimated compressive strength of 53.43 MPa (at 28 days of

Phase I and II: Push-Off Tests

Curing Time (days) Curing Time (days)

Figure 1. Results of unconfined Figure 2. Results of Young modulus tests

The concrete used in this investigation, in RC footings, was chosen to have a

Unconfined Compressive Strength, fcm (MPa)

Young Mdulus, Ecm (GPa)

Figure 3. Results of unconfined Figure 4. Results of static Young

Table 4. Properties of the concrete mixes

Figure 5. Typical rebar cage used for reinforcement of RC footings

In push-off tests performed in a confined unreinforced mass of grout two types of

3.3 Test Specimens

3.3.1 Phase I: Push-Off Tests on Micropiles Inserts in Confined and

Figure 7. Typical model of micropiles inserts in confined

3.3.2 Phase II: Push-Off Tests on Micropile Inserts on Model Concrete

1) Roughness of 2) Hole 3) Embedment 4) Texture of 5) Lateral

Figure 9. Typical model of micropiles inserts in reinforced concrete footing

Table 6. Summary of concrete footings and micropile inserts used in Phase II

In each phase of the experimental program some of the inserts were

smooth insert textured insert

Phase I Phase II Phase III

bottom steel plate

Side view Side view Top view

Figure 13. Phase III test setup and reaction frame

Strain Gauge (microstrain)

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000

250 50% of Peak Load

Nevertheless, to discuss results, average bond strength along the insert/grout

Connection Capacity (kN)

Push-Off Tests with Smooth Inserts

Diameter of Grout Mass (mm)

Bond Strength at Insert/grout Interface (MPa)

Embedment Length (mm)

Figure 19. Relationship between bond strength and embedment length

In Figure 20 is presented the influence of the roughness condition of the hole

Push-Off Tests with Smooth Inserts

Hole Diameter=102mm; Embement Length=350mm

Figure 20. Influence of the hole surface treatment on bond strength in

It should be mentioned that failure, observed in these tests, seems to have

Connection Capacity (kN)

Figure 21. Results of push-off tests performed with textured inserts,

a) Test C7 b) Test C8 c) Test C9

Figure 22. Failure of the blocks in tests C7, C8 and C9 performed

Push-Off Tests with Textured Inserts

Hole Surface Treatment

Figure 23. Influence of the hole surface treatment on bond strength in

Bond Strength at Grout/concrete interface

Figure 24. Relationship between bond strength and hole diameter

Push-Off Tests with Textured Inserts

RC Footings. Tests C9-10; C31-32; C35-36

Embedment Length (mm)

4 TBM Vs D&B

4 TBM Vs D&B