You are on page 1of 43

BOND STRENGTH OF MICROPILE/GROUT/CONCRETE INTERFACES IN

RC FOOTINGS STRENGTHENED WITH MICROPILES

João Veludo1, Eduardo Júlio2, 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 Gómez 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)
φ

EC 2 [7] f bd = 2.25 ⋅η1 ⋅η 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);
η1 - Coefficient related to the quality of the bond depending on the position of the bar
during concreting;
η2 - 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 + µ ⋅ σ n ≤ 0,5 ⋅ v ⋅ f cd (3)*
*- Expression for interfaces without reinforcement
vRdi - Design shear strength at the interface (MPa);
c,µ - Factors that depend on the surface roughness;
fctd - Design value of the weakest concrete tensile strength (MPa);
σn - 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 σn<
0.6fcd, and negative for tension. When σn 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 Gómez 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 1200×1200×600 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

Hyett et al. friction.concluded that the connection capacity increases with the decrease of the hole diameter. For textured micropiles. They also state that the bond strength depends on the pressure generated at the cable/grout interface. to investigate the factors influencing the bond capacity of grouted cable bolts. which in turn depends on the reaction force generated at cable/grout interface at the bore wall caused by dilatation during bond failure. failure would have tendency to take place in the grout. 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. 5 . 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. Bond consists of three components: adhesion. the geometry of the hole and the bar. and the embedment length has a little influence on the bond strength. and the roughness of the drilled hole surface. indicate that the majors influence in cable bolt capacity are the cement properties (w/c ratio). [17] states that the properties of both grout and casing play important roles in developing high or low values of bond capacity. Many researchers have conducted a large array of tests to study the bond stress in fully grouted bolts. borehole diameter and the frictional coefficient at the bolt/grout interface. 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. Yahia et al. Therefore. 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. Moosavai 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. [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. Another study performed by Hyett et al [13]. even if a significant adhesive bond between the grout and micropile existed. connection capacity is mostly controlled by frictional effects and a plastic response of the connection was observed. strength of the grout. the embedment length and the radial confinement acting on the outer surface of the cement annulus.

Besides the studied parameters. Phase III consisted of thirty (30) pull-out tests performed in micropiles grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings. micropile inserts. hole diameter. and the geometry and space of shear rings welded at micopile surface. concrete type and strength. load direction. 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.1 Introduction In order to consider the influence of several parameters in the connection capacity between micropiles and existing RC footings. all parameters that could influence the bond strength were kept constant: grout type and strength. 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. with dimensions 450×450×500 mm3. EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH 3. with dimensions 450×450×500 mm3. embedment length of the micropile insert.3. embedment length and diameter of grout mass. and active strengthening of lateral confinement of the existing footing. an experimental program was developed in three different phases. Phase II consisted of thirty four (34) push-off tests performed in micropiles grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings. surface texture of the micropile. Two types of confinement were used: steel tube and PVC tube. In Phase I. 6 .

Another set was tested for Phase III. 530. with dimensions 40×40×160 mm3. a set of 100 mm cubic specimens was tested at the same ages.27 kg of an expansive admixture.Table 3 shows the summary of the grout measured mechanical and physical properties. 3.5 R Portland cement. 14. The results from these tests were between the limits imposed by EN 447 [6].00 Young Modulus. Moreover. Eg (GPa) 40. at 1.3.00 20. bleed and volume change were measured. The obtained unconfined compressive strength and Young modulus values are summarized in Figure 1 and Figure 2.00 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. 3.2 Materials 3. a water-cement ratio of 0. 7 . fg.9 kg of type I:42.00 30.4 l of water.00 20. were tested at 1.27 kg of a modified polycarboxylate admixture (high range water reducer) and 13. six sets of prismatic specimens. The Young modulus was assessed using prismatic specimens with dimensions 40×40×160 mm3.2. Results of Young modulus tests compression tests in grout in grout According to EN 445 [5] flowability.00 10. According to EN 445 [5] and EN 196-1 [4].00 0.40 and a specific weight of 19. respectively. 21. The mix proportions of the grout used were (per m3) 1326. 60. 7.1 Grout A grout with an estimated compressive strength of 53.m (MPa) 50. 28 and 56 days of age to evaluate the average compressive strength in Phase I and Phase II.00 16.2 kN/m3 was adopted. 28 and 56 days. Results of unconfined Figure 2. 14. 7. 13.00 Phase III: Pull-Out Tests Cubic Specimens 100 mm 0.00 Unconfined Compressive Strength.43 MPa (at 28 days of age).00 12.00 Phase I and II: Push-Off Tests 4.00 8. 21.

corresponding to the push-off and pull-out tests.45 0. 14. Properties of the grout Eg.8 l of a water reducing plasticizer admixture. This may be helpful to grout–steel and grout-concrete interfaces bond. 250 kg of washed siliceous sand with 2. If the expansion of expansive grout is confined by steel tube or concrete. was chosen to have a minimum compressive strength. 3.88 1. except the prismatic specimens for assessing the Young modulus that were cured inside the laboratory.28 Flowability Bleed Volume Change (GPa) (%) (MPa) (s) (%) (%) 14.98 11.5 R of Portland cement. According to EN 12390-1 [8] and EN 12390-3 [9] three sets of cubes with nominal size 150 mm were tested at 1.56 fineness modulus. 180 l of water. Table 3. 7. 21.5 49. 7. 28.28 Air content fcg. 3. According to EN 12390-1 [8] and specification E 397 [15] two sets of prismatic specimens with dimensions 150×150×600 mm3 were tested at 3. 28. The blocks and the tests specimens from push-off tests were cured inside laboratory in the same conditions. pre-tensioning occurs in the steel tubes reacting against the expansive grout. From each truck of ready mixed concrete.2 Concrete The concrete used in this investigation. from each ready mix concrete are summarized in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. 14. 8 . The unconfined compressive strength and the Young modulus results.0 0.35 fineness modulus and 2. The mix proportions of the concrete were (per m3) 280 kg of type II: 42.0 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. The blocks and the tests specimens from pull-out tests were cured outside the laboratory in same conditions. since rehabilitation of existing RC footings is addressed. 21. 710 kg of siliceous sand with 3. 56 and 112 days to evaluate the Young modulus. corresponding to the strength class C20/25 according to Eurocode 2 [7]. 880 kg of limestone crushed aggregates with 6.2. in RC footings.71 fineness modulus. twenty four cubic specimens and two prismatic specimens were prepared. 56 and 112 days to evaluate the compressive strength of concrete.

0 40.5 The reinforcement adopted for the footings was a mesh of S400. Figure 5 show a typical rebar cage. Table 4.0 0.06 12.28 Eg. Properties of the concrete mixes Ready Mix 1 – Push-Off Tests Ready Mix 2 – Pull-Out Tests fcm. Table 4 shows the summary of the properties measured on the concrete mixes.0 30.28 Slump test (MPa) (GPa) (cm) (MPa) (GPa) (cm) 32. five in each direction. with 50 mm cover.0 15.0 Phase III: Pull-Out Tests Phase III: Pull-Out Tests 0.0 20.28 Slump test fcm.0 30.0 Phase II: Push-Off Tests Phase II: Push-Off Tests 5. 50.0 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 3.28 Eg.0 40. fcm (MPa) 45.0 Young Módulus. 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. Figure 5.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 25.0 Unconfined Compressive Strength.19 13 39.0 20.0 Phase III: Pull-Out Tests Phase III: Pull-Out Tests 5. Typical rebar cage used for reinforcement of RC footings 9 . Ecm (GPa) 35.0 10.85 35.0 Phase II: Push-Off Tests Phase II: Push-Off Tests 10. Results of unconfined Figure 4.0 15. 8 mm ribbed bars.81 35.

reinforced with a 16 mm grade 500/600 MPa Dywidag bar was adopted. by welding around the tube three. a thickness of 5. the tube was placed around the bar.2. Each insert was built by first welding the 16 mm bar to the centre of a 150×150×20 mm3 steel plate. depending on the embedment length of the insert.3. centred. reinforced with a 16 mm grade 500/600 MPa Dywidag bar was chosen. d) Textured insert (Tube K55-J55) 10 . the insert was placed inside the hole and fully grouted. Micropile inserts: a) Smooth insert (Tube API N80). For micropiles inserts used in push-off tests a 60 mm API N80 steel tube with 6 mm thickness.3 Micropile insert Two types of micropile inserts were used. a) b) c) d) Figure 6. four or five. in addition. Finally. steel rings with 75 mm spacing. Figure 6 shows the different micropile inserts used in push-off and pull-out tests.5 mm and 5 mm height. The textured micropiles were constructed in the way previously reported and. Then. b) Textured insert (Tube API N80).5 mm thickness. and welded to the steel plate. c) Smooth insert (Tube K55-J55). For micropile inserts used in pull-out tests a 60 mm K55-J55 steel tube with 5.

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.3 tube was used with three different diameters.3 Test Specimens 3.3. Tube External PVC or 350 Confinement Steel 275 200 Grout Steel Plate Dg Dg Dg Figure 7. a ST52. 3. The dimensions. 11 . Typical model of micropiles inserts in confined and unreinforced grout In these tests were considered: three diameters of grout mass. 40 specimens were constructed with smooth micropiles inserts grouted in a confined and unreinforced mass of grout. micropile inserts and confinement adopted are summarized in Table 5. For steel confinement. three embedment lengths and two levels of confinement (PVC tube and steel tube).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.3.1 Phase I: Push-Off Tests on Micropiles Inserts in Confined and Unreinforced Mass of Grout For this set of tests. The geometry and the parameters analysed in these tests are shown in Figure 7. For PVC confinement a PN10 tube was used also with three different diameters.2.

5 G 39(1) Tube Smooth 100 350 Steel Tube De=110. t=10. Summary of smooth micropiles inserts used in Phase I Diameter Confinement Embedment Specimen Micropile Casing of Grout Length Dimensions nº Insert Surface Mass Material (mm) (mm) (mm) G 1-2 Tube Smooth 81 200 PVC Tube De=90. t=5. t=5. t=5. t=10.0 (2) G 40 Tube Smooth 100 350 Steel Tube De=110. Table 5.0 (1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored vertical deformations (2) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored horizontal deformations 3. Prefabricated micropiles inserts (smooth and textured) were set into each hole and sealed with non-shrink grout.5 G 15-16 Tube Smooth 99 275 PVC Tube De=110.3. t=5.0 G 9-10 Tube Smooth 80 275 Steel Tube De=90.2 Phase II: Push-Off Tests on Micropile Inserts on Model Concrete Reinforcement For Phase II of tests (push-off tests). In Figure 8 are shown different phases of the preparation of the concrete footings.5 G 7-8 Tube Smooth 80 200 Steel Tube De=90. 12 .5 G 27-28 Tube Smooth 119 275 PVC Tube De=140. t=5. t=5.5 G 5-6 Tube Smooth 81 350 PVC Tube De=90. t=4. t=5. t=4.0 G 21-22 Tube Smooth 100 275 Steel Tube De=110.0 (1) G 37 Tube Smooth 99 350 PVC Tube De=110.5 G 3-4 Tube Smooth 81 275 PVC Tube De=90.5 G 31-32 Tube Smooth 120 200 Steel Tube De=130. t=5. were constructed. t=5. t=4. t=5.5 G 17-18 Tube Smooth 99 350 PVC Tube De=110. After 28 days of indoor curing.5 G 19-20 Tube Smooth 100 200 Steel Tube De=110.0 G 25-26 Tube Smooth 119 200 PVC Tube De=140. t=5.0 G 33-34 Tube Smooth 120 275 Steel Tube De=130.5 G 29-30 Tube Smooth 119 350 PVC Tube De=140. t=10. thirty four specimens of concrete reinforced footings.5 G 38(2) Tube Smooth 99 350 PVC Tube De=110. each footing was drilled using a diamond coring system. A commercial steel formwork was used to construct the blocks. t=5.0 G 23-24 Tube Smooth 100 350 Steel Tube De=110. Inside the formwork wooden panels were placed spaced 450 mm to construct each block.0 G 11-12 Tube Smooth 80 350 Steel Tube De=90. The ready mix concrete was placed from a bucket by free fall method. with dimensions 450×450×500 mm3.0 G 35-36 Tube Smooth 120 350 Steel Tube De=130. t=5. t=5. t=5.0 G 13-14 Tube Smooth 99 200 PVC Tube De=110. t=5.

Preparation of RC footings a) Formwork. b) Casting concrete footings. For the treatment of the hole surface. 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. a) b) c) d) Figure 8. (4) surface texture of the micropile. and (5) active strengthening of lateral confinement of the existing footing. Typical model of micropiles inserts in reinforced concrete footing In these tests were considered three diameters of predrilled holes and three embedment lengths. drilled into the foundation. (2) hole diameter. three roughness 13 . (3) embedment length of the micropile. 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.

wire-brushed. Level 2=45 kN and Level 3=60 kN applied in each bar. with a diameter of 16 mm. Summary of concrete footings and micropile inserts used in Phase II Hole Embedment Micropile Casing Hole Test nº 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 29-30 Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 275 No C 30i(1) Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 275 No C 33-34 Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 200 No C 21-22 Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 92 350 No C 25-26 Tube+Bar Smooth Wire-Brushed 122 350 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 C 17-18 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 350 Level 2 C 19-20 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 350 Level 3 C 31-32 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 275 Level 1 C 35-36 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 200 Level 1 C 23-24 Tube+Bar Textured Wire-Brushed 92 350 Level 1 C 27-28 Tube+Bar Textured Wire-Brushed 122 350 Level 1 (1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored horizontal and vertical deformations 14 . Table 6. footings were confined with eight 500/600 MPa grade Dywidag bars. Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of each footing and micropile inserts used in push-off tests. corresponding to: Level 1=30 kN.techniques were adopted: left as drilled. In tests with textured inserts. A compressible insert (polystyrene-styrofoam) was installed in the bottom of each hole to prevent end bearing. four in the longitudinal direction and four in the transversal direction. and chipped grooved (groove with dimensions of 10 mm depth and 15 mm height). The bars were anchored to the footing using a 100×100×10 mm3 steel plate and a 32×40 mm2 anchor nut. Three levels of confinement were adopted.

Table 7. were constructed. thirty specimens of concrete reinforced footings. footings were confined as in Phase II.3. The parameters analysed in this set of tests are the same analysed in Phase II (see Figure 9). 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.3 Phase III: Pull-Out Tests on Micropile Inserts on Model Concrete Reinforcement For Phase III (pull-out tests). The same hole diameters have been considered but with three different embedment lengths (Lb1=150mm. Lb2=225mm. Table 7 summarizes the characteristics of each footing and micropile inserts used in pull-out tests. Lb3=300mm). Summary of concrete footings and micropile inserts used in Phase III Hole Embedment Micropile Casing Hole Test nº 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 13-14 Tube+Bar Smooth Left as Drilled 102 225 No T 17-18 Tube+Bar Smooth Left as Drilled 102 150 No T 21-22 Tube+Bar Smooth Left as Drilled 92 300 No T 25-26 Tube+Bar Smooth Left as Drilled 122 275 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 T 9-10 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 300 Level 2 T 11-12 Tube+Bar Textured Chipped Grooved 102 300 Level 3 T 15-16 Tube+Bar Textured Left as Drilled 102 225 Level 2 T 19-20 Tube+Bar Textured Left as Drilled 102 150 Level 2 T 23-24 Tube+Bar Textured Left as Drilled 92 300 Level 2 T 27-28 Tube+Bar Textured Left as Drilled 122 275 Level 2 (1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored horizontal and vertical deformations 15 . In this phase. only two roughness situations were considered for the hole surface: left as drilled. with dimensions 450×450×500 mm3. In tests with textured inserts.3. and chipped grooved (groove with same dimensions adopted for the tests performed in Phase II).

Instrumentation details for Phase III specimens 16 . In each insert. In each micropile inserts twelve TML FLK-6-11 (120Ω) strain gages were bonded to the perimeter: six in the longitudinal direction and six in the horizontal direction. In the Phase I instrumentation was done in two sets of specimens. one confined with PVC and the other with steel. sixteen TML FLK-6-11 (120Ω) strain gages were bonded to the perimeter: ten in the longitudinal direction and six in the horizontal direction.4 Instrumentation and Testing Procedures 3. In Phase III instrumentation was made in two micropile inserts: one smooth insert and one textured insert.4. In each set of specimens. In Phase II instrumentation was previewed in two smooth inserts.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. 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 10.3. six TML FLK-6-11 (120Ω) strain gages were bonded to the external surface of the micropile inserts and six to the external surface of the confinement.

Figure 11 shows the test setup adopted in Phase I. In each test. 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 . The specimens were tested at a load rate of 0.2 Testing Procedures Tests were conducted using displacement-control procedures. All tests continued after failure in order to obtain data on the residual connection capacity. 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. loads were applied using a universal testing machine of 60 tf.3. Phase I test setup: a) Tests lay-out. b) Test with smooth insert confined with PVC tube.025 mm/s. two TML CDP-25 displacement transducers were used to measure the relative displacement between the loading plate and the surface of the grout mass.4. 50 tf LVDT LVDT (25mm) (25mm) bottom steel plate a) b) c) d) Figure 11. In Phase I. d) Bottom steel plate In Phase II loads were applied using a testing machine of 500 tf. c) Test with smooth insert confined with steel tube.

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. In the tests performed with textured inserts TML CLC-50 load cells were placed between anchor plates. Redundant readings of the 18 . Phase II test setup: a) Tests lay-out. The blocks were fixed to the laboratory reaction slab using a system of two orthogonal pairs of steel beams and Dywidag bars. 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 both ends of two Dywidag bars placed in the same direction. to monitor the confinement load. 100/ Load 200 tf Cell LVDT LVDT (25mm) (25mm) a) b) c) d) Figure 12. linked to a loading frame. was used to apply the axial pull-out load to the top plate of each micropile inserts.concrete footing. The test setup adopted in Phase II is shown in Figure 12. b) Test with smooth 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.

applied load were obtained from the load cells placed on top of Dywidag bars and directly from the actuator. Pull-out tests with textured micropile micropile In each phases the output of load cells. Pull-out tests with smooth Figure 15. Figure 14. LVDTs and strain gauges were connected to a TML TDS 303 data logger. Two displacement transducers TML CDP-10 were used to monitor the axial displacements in the reaction beams. 19 . 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. 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. 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.

to discuss results. divided by the nominal surface area of the embedment length. Readings in strain gages revealed that the value of the bond stress is not constant along the micropiles inserts. for smooth inserts. of the micropile insert. average bond strength along the insert/grout interface was considered. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The tests clearly showed that average bond strength significantly exceeded expectations being also higher than the results of previous investigations. Strain gauge data from push-off test C4i (smooth insert) Nevertheless. is shown. for textured inserts. The mobilized bond stress is not constant. this is given by the follow relationship: P fb = (4) π ⋅ d m ⋅ lb 20 . exhibiting a linear decrease along the insert length. P (N). lb (mm). the strain variation with the embedment length. For a micropile insert with diameter. at any stage during loading is the applied push-off/pull-out load. and average bond strength along grout/concrete was considered. fb (MPa). for different load levels.4. dm (mm). The average bond stress. 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. In Figure 16.

28 1.6 1.9 4.4.21 1.8 1.712 PVC PN10 G 27-28 Smooth 119 275 69.3 G 25-26 Smooth 119 200 44.07 0.6 3.8 0.17 1.3 G 13-14 Smooth 99 200 40.7 6.20 1.18 0.813 PVC PN10 (2) G 38 Smooth 99 350 39.3 G 11-12 Smooth 80 350 396.399 Steel ST52.585 PVC PN10 G 3-4 Smooth 81 275 29.1 5.8 0.4 2. bond strength and axial displacement obtained with push-off tests performed on smooth micropiles in Phase II.9 0.57 0.857 PVC PN10 G 31-32 Smooth 120 200 99.152 Steel ST52. 21 .8 4. Table 8.603 PVC PN10 (1) G 39 Smooth 100 350 276.3 1.3 G 33-34 Smooth 120 275 151.72 1.92 1.66 0. are presented the average values of peak load.072 Steel ST52.1 Push-Off Tests: Phase I and Phase II Smooth Inserts In Table 8.105 Steel ST52.16 1.364 Steel ST52.3 G 35-36 Smooth 120 350 245.3 6.3 G 37(1) Smooth 99 350 28.3 (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.39 0.3 G 23-24 Smooth 100 350 341.3 G 40(2) Smooth 100 350 211.414 PVC PN10 G 29-30 Smooth 119 350 91.425 PVC PN10 G 15-16 Smooth 99 275 46.07 1.65 1.5 0.751 Steel ST52.091 Steel ST52.01 2.60 0. 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 nº grout mass length Confinement surface load strength (mm) (mm) (mm) (3) (kN) (MPa) G 1-2 Smooth 81 200 24.72 1.9 4.8 3.6 1.421 PVC PN10 G 5-6 Smooth 81 350 45.475 Steel ST52.3 G 9-10 Smooth 80 275 314.8 0.509 Steel ST52.07 0.402 PVC PN10 G 17-18 Smooth 99 350 70.69 0. bond strength and axial displacement obtained with tests performed Phase I.34 1.5 1.9 2.528 Steel ST52.90 0.1 5.7 0.3 G 21-22 Smooth 100 275 244.308 Steel ST52.44 0.985 PVC PN10 G 7-8 Smooth 80 200 199.577 PVC PN10 G 19-20 Smooth 100 200 156.

up to failure and in the post-peak phase. and a non-linear branch from this point onwards..2 7.03 1. Test nº diameter length Confinement surface surface load strength (mm) (mm) (mm) (2) (kN) (MPa) C 1-2 Smooth Left as Drilled 102 350 485.e.59 1. The reason for this fact is related to the reduction in surface area that contributes for the bond strength. Table 9.9 7.0 9. was always at the insert/grout interface. observed in push-off tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase I and Phase II. the failure of the connection was observed after a deflection of less than 1.872 No C 21-22 Smooth Wire-Brushed 92 350 633. It should be mentioned that failure.560 No (3) C 33-34 Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 200 309.1 mm.21 0. Summary of test results in Phase II: push-off tests with smooth micropile inserts grouted in RC footings Average Average Hole Emb. in tests performed with steel confinement. The load-displacement responses observed in all the tests performed with smooth inserts seems to follow a similar behaviour.5 7. steel tube (Test G17) and in predrilled holes in RC footings (Test C2).4 8. i.244 No (1) C 4i Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 350 224. failure of the connection was observed after a deflection of less than 1.136 No (1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored vertical displacement (2) Average bond strength at insert/grout interface (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. In all tests performed in Phase II with smooth inserts.1 6.36 1. after a deflection of 2. Each curve consists of a linear branch until 80-90 % of the failure load is reached.40 0.415 No (3) C 29-30 Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 275 430. registered in tests performed with smooth inserts grouted in PVC tube (Test G24). In all the tests 22 .61 1.0 3.808 No C 30i(1) Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 275 182. In tests performed in Phase I.4 mm of the insert head and. In Figure 17 is presented the relationship between the connection capacity and the axial displacement of the insert head. Tube Hole peak bond Displac.21 1.3 8.431 No C 5-6 Smooth Grooved 102 350 502.45 mm of the insert head. with PVC confinement.283 No C 25-26 Smooth Wire-Brushed 122 350 398.51 0..2 3.30 0.178 No C 3-4 Smooth Wire-Brushed 102 350 475.

0 0 5 10 15 Axial Displacement (mm) Figure 17.performed with smooth inserts.6 Steel Confinement: Test G24 500. 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 +ν )  di ⋅ (1 − 2ν ) ⋅ di2 + do2     where E and ν are the Young´s modulus and Poisson´s ratio for the material comprising the pipe and the concrete [E=3 GPa and ν=0.3 for steel.74 GPa (at time of tests) and ν=0.0 Connection Capacity (kN) PVC Confinement: Test G17 400.32 110 99 7.0 200.6 300.1 (2) (1) RC footing 41. Table 10. Radial stiffness of the confining pipes and RC footing used Ecm do di Confinement ν Kr (GPa) (mm) (mm) (1) (1) PVC 3.0 RC Footings: Test C2 503.20 450 102 627.3 RC footing 29 0.0 71. and di and do are the inside and outside diameters of the pipe and RC footings.74 0. Appropriate values of Kr are listed in Table 10. Push-Off Tests with Smooth Inserts Diameter of Grout ≅ 100mm. E=200 GPa and ν=0.32 for PVC.0 100.2 0.3 0.0 329. E=41.1 (1) (1) Steel 200 0. Embedment Length = 350mm 600.20 450 100 436.30 110 100 401. the residual bond strength is significant and cracking in the blocks was not visible.2 for concrete].6 (1) Assumed values: non determinate with tests (2) Young modulus of concrete at the time of the test performed with RC footings 23 . respectively.

00 9. Tests G11-12. for the smallest diameter.00 7. 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.00 2.17 5. The PVC tube was used only with the purpose of preventing splitting of the grout mass. at the perimeter of the insert can be estimated using the following expression [19]: 24 . varying from 0.00 1. the connection capacity increases with the confinement level (PVC: 71.3 kN. Tests C21-22. It can be seen. that for the same diameter of grout mass (100 mm) and the same embedment length (350 mm). In general. for the highest diameter.00 5.00 3.69 1. to 1.00 6. Steel: 329.00 0.G23-24.G29-30 10.G17-18. C3-4.6 kN. RC footing: 503. for radial stiffness. whereas the steel tube was adopted to simulate the same confinement of a concrete block with dimensions 450×450×500 mm3.00 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Diameter of Grout Mass (mm) Figure 18. increases with the diameter of the grout mass around the insert.G35-36 11. σt.03 6. from Figure 17 and from Table 10.00 3. assuming a compressive strength class C20/25.01 6.69 MPa. in the specimens confined with PVC tubes.00 RC Footings. 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.21 7. 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.59 9.00 8.39 1.39 MPa. The tangential stress. Push-Off Tests with Smooth Inserts Embedment Length = 350 mm Bond Strength at Insert/grout Interface (MPa) 13. Tests G5-6.6 kN). C25-26 12.00 PVC Confinement.72 4.00 Steel Confinement.07 0. These results can be explained by the thick-wall cylindrical pressure vessel theory.

52 and 1.57 to 1. positive values are obtained for tensile tangential stress. ro is the outer radius of the grout mass surrounding the insert. From this equation. Since slippage along the insert/grout interface is being considered and considering a coefficient of friction of approximately 0. 25 . In Figure 19 a chart with the bond strength at the insert/grout interface versus the embedment length is presented. for the highest diameter. for the smallest diameter.65 MPa.5.59 MPa. in specimens with low confinement (PVC). for specimens confined with steel tubes and for specimens grouted in RC footing. for the smallest diameter. 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. ri 2 ⋅ p  r2  σt = ⋅ 1 + o2  (6) (r i 2 − ro2 )  ri  where: ri is the radius of the insert. the normal stress acting on the micropile insert is the most important parameter controlling the bond capacity. Comparing these values with the measured bond stress at failure for specimens confined with PVC tubes. the value of bond strength can be predicted using Equation 6. 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. On the contrary. the frictional component of the bond strength should be between 0. values varying from 0. In smooth inserts grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings.39 MPa. it seems that the frictional component is significant for inserts embedded in an unreinforced mass of grout with a low confinement level. and p is the pressure at the insert/grout interface. the bond strength varies from 2. These results are not consistent with the results obtained by Gómez and Cadden [11].07 MPa. The higher the confining stress is. the bond strength varies from 6. Due to the frictional nature of the bond slip.07 MPa. it can be observed that the bond strength decreases with the increases of radius of the grout mass around the insert. to 9.03 MPa. Therefore. to 6. for the highest diameter. With steel confinement. where bond strength does not vary significantly with the embedment length in tests performed with smooth inserts. the higher would also be the mobilized load bearing capacity of the system [16].

00 6.07 0.00 0. in this case.00 RC Footings. Tests C33-34.G21-22. Results did not reveal the influence of this parameter.00 1.G17-18 10.00 1.00 5. Push-Off Tests with Smooth Inserts Grout Diameter = 100 mm Bond Strength at Insert/grout Interface (MPa) 13.00 0.00 9. Influence of the hole surface treatment on bond strength in tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase II 26 .21 7.16 4.17 4.00 6. 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.G23-24 11.00 2.36 7.00 5.00 2.21 7. Embement Length=350mm 10.90 1.00 Left as Drilled:C1-2 Wire Brushed:C3-4 Chipped Grooved:C5-6 Hole Surface Treatment Figure 20.21 8.00 3.00 7.61 7. since failure occurred at the insert/grout interface.72 5. C3-4 Steel Confinement.00 150 200 250 300 350 400 Embedment Length (mm) Figure 19.00 4.07 1.00 9. registered in tests with smooth inserts performed in Phase II. C29-30.00 7. Push-Off Tests with Smooth Inserts Bond Strength at Insert/grout Interface (MPa) Hole Diameter=102mm. Tests G13-14.00 4.00 12.00 PVC Confinement.00 8.30 8. Tests G19-20.G15-16.00 3.00 8.

C10 with a Level 1 confinement and a wire brushed hole surface.95 2. 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. and C12 with a Level 1 confinement and a grooved hole surface. C19-C20. seems to have occurred at the concrete/grout interface.024 Level 1 C 17-18 Textured Grooved 102 350 1040.319 Level 1 C 35-36 Textured Wire-Brushed 102 200 295. Summary of test results in Phase II: push-off tests with smooth inserts grouted in RC footings Average Average Hole Emb. observed in these tests.626 Level 3 C 31-32 Textured Wire-Brushed 102 275 485. registered in tests performed with textured inserts grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings: C8 without confinement and a grooved hole surface.218 Level 1 C 23-24 Textured Wire-Brushed 92 350 1013.51 1.154 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.756 Level 2 C 19-20 Textured Grooved 102 350 1097. 27 .9 8. Displac.4 4. Figure 21 shows different types of connection failure.1 4.28 1. bond strength and axial displacement obtained with push-off tests performed on textured micropiles in Phase II.5 7.61 1.02 1. Specimens with higher confinement levels and with grooved hole surface exhibited a plastic response.1 7.16 1.450 No(Level 0) C 9-10 Textured Wire-Brushed 102 350 802.6 10. and C23-C24.Textured Inserts In Table 11 are presented the average values of the peak load.76 1. For tests performed with textured inserts the head displacement varied between 1.79 1.51 1.6 5.2 mm to 2. C17-C18. Table 11. Cracking of the concrete was observed in tests: C11-12. In Figure 21 is presented the relationship between the connection capacity and the axial displacement of the insert head.4 9.674 Level 1 C 11-12 Textured Grooved 102 350 1003.0 mm.689 Level 1 C 27-28 Textured Wire-Brushed 122 350 638.6 9. Tube Hole peak bond Test nº diameter length (1) Confinement surface surface load strength (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (MPa)(2) C 7-8 Textured Grooved 102 350 842.

0 700. To guarantee adequate bond strength at the grout/concrete interface.0 500. forces acting on the micropile head are transmitted by the shear rings to the grout injected in the predrilled hole.0 Connection Capacity (kN) 900.0 0.0 Test C10. Test C12: Level 1) Figure 22 show the blocks tests C7.0 400.0 0.0 Test C12.0 800. Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved 1100. Hole Surface Treatment: Wire Brushed Test C8. Failure of the blocks in tests C7. Push-Off Tests withTextured Inserts Hole Diameter=102mm. Test C10: Level 1. C8 and C9.0 600.0 200.0 100.00 10. Embedement Length=350mm 1200. it is necessary to make grooves in the hole surface.00 15.0 300. C8 and C9 performed with textured inserts in Phase II When textured micropiles are used (with welded shear rings). a) Test C7 b) Test C8 c) Test C9 Figure 22. The concrete footings failed (monolithic failure).00 5. Results of push-off tests performed with textured inserts. with different hole surface and different confinement levels (Test C8:Level 0. Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved 1000. Results of C9 and C10 tests 28 .00 Axial Displacement (mm) Figure 21.

These results are not consistent with those obtained by Gómez and Cadden [11].95 9.00 (MPa) 5.00 2. Embement Length=350mm Bond Strength at Grout/concrete Interface 10.00 Wire Brushed:C9-10 Chipped Grooved:C11-12 Hole Surface Treatment Figure 23.confirmed this statement. where bond strength does not vary significantly with the embedment length.00 0. In Figure 23 is presented the influence of the roughness condition of the hole surface on the bond strength. Moreover.00 3.00 8.18]. It can be seen that the bond strength increases with the increase of the embedment length for textured inserts. Since failure took place at the concrete/grout interface.00 6. In Figure 25 the bond strength at the insert/grout interface versus the embedment length is plotted.00 4. 29 . Push-Off Tests with Textured Inserts Hole Diameter=102mm. as expected. 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.00 8. Results clearly indicate that the bond strength of the grout/concrete interface increases with the decrease of the hole diameter.16 7. it was possible to conclude that the bond strength varies with the roughness of the hole surface.00 7. 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 [2.00 1. registered in tests with textured inserts performed in Phase II.

00 6. 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. Tests C23-24.00 0.00 (MPa) 7.51 (MPa) 5. C9-10.00 7.16 7.00 Bond Strength at Grout/concrete interface 12. C27-28 Hole Surface Treatment: Wire-Brushed.00 7.00 4. Embedment Length = 350 mm 13. Tests Tests with Textured C23-24.00 RC Footings.00 8. Push-Off RC Footings.00 Bond Strength at Grout/concrete Interface RC Footings.61 4. Relationship between bond strength and embedment length 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. Grout Diameter = 100 mm 10. the footings were previously confined with eight pre-stressed 16 mm Dywidag bars. The variation of 30 .00 4.16 4.00 5. C27-28 11.00 150 200 250 300 350 400 Embedment Length (mm) Figure 25. C35-36 9. C31-32.00 0. In all tests performed with textured inserts. four in each direction. registered in tests with textured inserts performed in Phase II.02 9.00 6.00 10.00 1.00 85 95 105 115 125 Hole diameter (mm) Figure 24. The bond strength increases almost linearly with the confinement level. Tests C9-10. Inserts C9-10.00 1.00 3.76 5.00 2.00 3.00 10.00 2.00 8.

00 9. Embement Length=350mm Hole Surface: Chipped Grooved Bond Strength at Grout/concrete Interface 12.00 4.Hole Diameter=102mm Embedment Length=350mm.00 2.00 9.Hole Diameter=102mm Treatment of Hole Surface:Chipped Grooved. 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 nº 1 Dywidag Bar nº 1 20 Dywidag Bar nº 2 20 Dywidag Bar nº 2 Dywidag Bar nº 3 10 Dywidag Bar nº 3 10 Dywidag Bar nº 4 Dywidag Bar nº 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 27.51 (MPa) 6. 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.00 Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Lateral Active Confinement Level Figure 26. Push-Off Test With Textured Insert Push-Off Test With Textured Insert Treatment of Hole Surface:Chipped Grooved. Push-out Tests with Textured Inserts Hole Diameter=102mm. Confinement Level 2 Embedment Length=350mm. 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.28 8.79 10. placed between two anchorage plates. Variation of confining forces in the longitudinal direction with time for push-off tests C17 and C19 31 .the axial force in each bar during tests was monitored using load cells.00 0.95 8.00 7.

It can be observed that for push-off tests performed with textured inserts the bond strength increases with the increase of the confinement level. These results are consistent with the tests performed by Gómez and Cadden [11] in RC footings with textured micropiles. with different confinement levels (Test C12:Level 1. 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). In some of these cases. Test C17: Level 2. Figure 28 shows the relationship between the connection capacity and the axial displacement for different confinement levels initially applied to the concrete footing.00 5. Test C19: Level 3) Textured inserts provide a larger connection capacity than smooth inserts.00 15. Results of push-off tests performed with textured inserts. Push-Off Tests With Textured Inserts Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved. 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. foundations must be also strengthened with a lateral active confinement. Embedment Length = 350mm 1200 1000 Connection Capacity (kN) 800 600 400 Teste C 19: Nível 3: 60 kN 200 Teste C 17: Nível 2: 45 kN Teste C 12: Nível 1: 30 kN 0 0. the active confinement significantly reduces cracking and increases the ductility of the connection. Hole Diameter = 102mm.00 10. to prevent punching failure. 32 . and eventually with vertical anchors.00 Axial Displacement (mm) Figure 28. In footings with textured inserts.

observed in pull-out tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase III was always observed at the insert/grout interface. sedimentation and a higher exudation of the grout were observed compared to the laboratorial tests.4. The sedimentation observed is quite different from smooth and textured inserts. the grout took much longer to harden than expected. Because of this delay. 33 . In textured inserts the sedimentation is much lower than the observed in textured inserts because the presence of the shear rings. the blocks used in pull-out tests were casted and cured outside the laboratory. In all tests performed in Phase III with smooth inserts. In Table 12 the real embedment length used in the evaluation of the bond strength are presented. Also different values of the embedment length were adopted due to the low capacity of the tube and the expected connection capacities.70 mm of the insert head. Therefore. bond strength and axial displacement obtained with pull out tests performed with smooth micropiles inserts in Phase III. The grouting of the inserts in the predrilled holes was undertaken at a relatively low temperature. After each test the micropile insert was completely pulled out from the block and the real embedment length was accurately measured. 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. Table 12.2 Pull-out Tests: Phase III As mentioned above. failure of the connection was observed after a deflection of less than 0. It should be mentioned that failure.

0 40.0 80.0 40.0 90.59 0.18 1. Pull-out Test with Smooth Inserts Pull-out Test with Smooth Inserts Hole Diameter=102mm.37 2.0 10.53 0.2 80.0 30.0 60. Test nº diameter Length Confinement surface surface (3) load Strength (mm) (mm) (mm) (2) (kN) (MPa) T 1-2 Smooth Left as drilled 102 275 82.352 No T 21-22 Smooth Left as drilled 92 285 95. Table 13.0 (MPa) (MPa) 50.19 1. Tube Hole peak bond Displ.0 100.0 30. Hole Surface Treatment: Chipped Grooved Bond Strength at Insert / Grout Interface Bond Strength at Insert / Grout Interface 90. 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.28 1.485 No T 13-14 Smooth Left as drilled 102 195 75. Embedement Length=300mm 100.0 10.02 0.647 No T 3-4 Smooth Grooved 102 275 79.0 70.0 85. It can be observed that the bond strength slightly decreases with the increase of the hole diameter.0 70. Hole Surface Treatment: Left as Drilled Test T3.418 No T 25-26 Smooth Left as drilled 122 270 76.480 No (1) Instrumented with wire strain gauges: monitored vertical and horizontal displacement (2) Average bond strength at insert/grout interface (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.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 29.0 20.0 60. Embedement Length=300mm Hole Diameter=102mm.0 0. Summary of test results in Phase III: pull-out tests with smooth inserts grouted in RC footings Average Average Hole Emb.71 1.96 0.63 1. 34 . the connection exhibits significant residual bond strength and without visible cracking in the blocks.0 Test T1.0 0.0 50.55 0.78 0.702 No (1) T 29 Smooth Left as drilled 102 275 80.53 1.433 No T 17-18 Smooth Left as drilled 102 145 53.4 86.0 20.50 0.

Relationship between bond strength and embedment length 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.00 3. It can be seen that the bond strength did not vary significantly with embedment length. the bond strength at the insert/grout interface versus the embedment length is plotted for smooth inserts in Phase III. Pull-Out RC Footings.00 RC Footings. T13-14.78 1. T25-26 4.96 2.00 0.00 80 90 100 110 120 130 Hole Diameter (mm) Figure 30. Tests Tests with Smooth T17-18. 35 .00 1. Tests T21-22.00 0. Relationship between bond strength and hole diameter in tests performed with smooth inserts in Phase III In Figure 31.50 1.00 2. T1-2 Hole Diameter= 102 mm Bond Strength at Insert/grout Interface (MPa) 5. since failure occurred at the insert/grout interface.00 100 150 200 250 300 350 Embedment Length (mm) Figure 31.00 2.59 1. Tests T17-18. Inserts T13-14. T1-2 4.59 1.02 1.00 3.00 RC Footings. T1-2. Pull-Out Tests with Smooth Inserts Embedment Length = 300 mm Bond Strength at Insert/grout Interface (MPa) 5.00 1.

nine failures were observed at the connection.7 4. like those used in Phases I and II. From the results previously presented. For the tests in which failure of the block occurred. unload to 0.819 Level 3 T 15-16 Textured Grooved 102 220 396.921 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.40 2.1EPL and than reload until failure is obtained. values of the peak load showed in Table 14 represent a lower estimate of the connection capacity.24 2.90 2.743 Level 2 T 27-28 Textured Left as drilled 122 285 531.4 7. reload to 0.9 5.135 Level 1 (1) T 30i Textured Grooved 102 290 561. Textured Inserts In Table 14 are presented the average values of the peak load. a cyclic loading history was adopted: load to 0.8 6. Summary of test results in Phase III: pull-out tests with textured micropile inserts grouted in RC footings Average Average Hole Emb. reload to 0.10 Level 2 T 7-8 Textured Grooved 102 290 516. Table 14.5 2. The bond strength at the insert/grout interface is in this case much smaller than that obtained with a rough micropile casing. Displ.1EPL.613 Level 2 T 9-10 Textured Grooved 102 290 617. Tube Hole peak bond Test nº 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. In some of these tests.5EPL. seven at the RC footing and two at the welded connection between the head plate and the micropile tube. it can be stated that highly smooth micropile casing cannot be used in retrofitting RC footings.04 3.87 1.63 0.869 Level 2 T 19-20 Textured Grooved 102 145 131.75EPL.6 6. bond strength and axial displacement obtained with pull-out tests performed on textured micropiles in Phase III. in Phase III.481 Level 2 T 11-12 Textured Grooved 102 290 687. unload to 0.65 2. 36 .6 5.2 6.818 Level 2 T 23-24 Textured Left as drilled 92 290 578. This may be due to smaller frictional component of the bond strength and to smaller dilatation effects. unload to 0.83 0.1EPL.1 6.56 3.25 of the estimated peak load (EPL).

Pull-Out Tests with Textured Inserts Pull-out Test With Textured Insert Hole diameter=102 mm.0 Dywidag Bar nº 4 0.Hole Surface: Left as 600.0 40. A hole diameter of 20 mm and S400 16 mm steel bars were adopted.0 Dywidag Bar nº 1 200.0 Load in Each Confined Bar (kN ) Test T5 . In order to avoid failure at the RC block or excessive cracking of the latter.Hole Diameter=102mm Embedment Length=300mm.0 0. 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. confining horizontal bars and strengthening vertical bars. Figure 32 shows the block specimens with textured inserts.0 Drilled. Embedment Length=300 mm Treatment of Hole Surface:Left as Drilled.0 400.0 500.0 0 200 400 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Load Time (s) Axial Displacement (mm) Figure 33. Results of pull-out test performed with textured inserts in Phase III: Test T5 37 . Confinement Level 2 Connection Capacity (kN) 80.0 100. vertical bars were epoxy bonded inside holes drilled in the RC footing. performed with textured inserts. 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. Confinement Level 2 700.0 60.0 300.0 Dywidag Bar nº 2 20.0 Dywidag Bar nº 3 100.

the concrete block failed immediately before the peak load was attained with significant cracks visible in the block.0 40. 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.e. i.. In the test T6.0 Dywidag Bar nº 4 0. Results of pull-out test performed with textured inserts in Phase III: Test T6 The load-displacement curves registered are similar. In all the pull-out tests performed with textured inserts. In this case.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Load Time (s) Axial Displacement (mm) Figure 34. Embedment Length=300 mm Treatment of Hole Surface:Left as Drilled. registered in tests with textured inserts performed in Phase III. sudden failure occurred with total loss of the connection capacity.0 Test T6 . cracks became larger. consisting of a linear branch up to 60-80 % of the peak load.0 500. 38 . failure was registered in the connection simultaneously with the appearance of first cracks.0 Dywidag Bar nº 2 20. Confinement Level 2 Connection Capacity (kN ) 80. Results reveal that the bond strength varies with the roughness of the hole surface. Confinement Level 2 100. when the active confinement was mobilized.0 Dywidag Bar nº 3 100. as expected.0 Drilled.Out Tests With Textured Inserts Pull-out Test With Textured Insert Hole Diameter=102 mm. Same results were obtained in Phase II for tests performed with textured inserts.0 Dywidag Bar nº 1 200. it was possible to analyse the influence of this parameter since failure took place at the concrete/grout interface. The measured bond strength seems to be proportional to the hole diameter. Pull . After the connection failure. In Figure 35 is presented the Influence of roughness condition of the hole surface in the average bond strength. followed by a non-linear branch until failure is observed. It can be observed that the bond strength increases with the decrease of the hole diameter.0 300.Hole Surface: Left as Load in Each Confined Bar (kN ) 600. In the test T5.0 400. On the graphics above.0 Embedment Length=300mm.0 0.0 60. it is also shown the point when the forces start to increase in each bar.Hole Diameter=102mm 700.

00 3.00 8.00 6. blocks cracked at a distance to the surface equal to the embedment length of the inserts (Lb=150 mm). Tests T23-24.00 (MPa) 4.00 6.65 6.00 (MPa) 4. it was decided to 39 . TestsT23-24. Tests with Textured Inserts T5-6.00 0.00 1.24 6.00 2.00 7.00 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. Embedment Length = 300 mm 10. Pull-out Tests with Textured Inserts Hole Diameter=102mm.00 4.00 2. 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.00 6. T5-6.87 5.00 Bond Strength at Grout/concrete interface RC Footings. After these tests.00 Left as Drilled:T5-6 Chipped Grooved:T9-10 Hole Surface Treatment Figure 35. It can be seen that the bond strength increases with the increase of the embedment length. T27-28 9.00 0. Embement Length=300mm Bond Strength at Grout/concrete Interface 8. These conclusions are in accordance to those drawn by Myers (cited by Gómez and Cadden [11]) from pull out tests performed with textured inserts.00 1. In the tests T19 and T20.24 6. in tests performed with textured inserts in Phase III. is presented. T27-28 Hole Surface Treatment: Left as Drilled.90 7.00 5.00 3.

00 0.56 (MPa) 5.40 7. Pull-Out Tests with Textured Inserts Hole Surface Treatment: Left as Drilled.83 3. Embement Length=300mm Hole Surface: Chipped Grooved Bond Strength at Grout/concrete Interface 10.00 4. T15-16 9.00 0.24 6. Relationship between bond strength and embedment length 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.00 100 150 200 250 300 350 Embedment Length (mm) Figure 37.00 9.00 2.00 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Lateral Active Confinement Level Figure 38.00 6.00 7.00 1.00 5.00 Bond Strength at Grout/concrete Interface RC Footings.63 (MPa) 5. The bond strength increases almost linearly with the confinement level.00 1.00 8.00 3. Tests T5-6. Push-out Tests with Textured Inserts Hole Diameter=102mm.00 RC Footings.00 7.00 5.65 6.strengthen the RC footings with vertical epoxy-bonded reinforced bars. Hole Diameter= 102 mm 10. Influence of the confinement level on bond strength in tests performed with textured inserts in Phase III 40 . which is in accordance with the results obtained in Phase II.00 4. Tests T19-20 8.00 2.00 2. registered in tests with textured inserts performed in Phase III. since the research is focussed in the connection.00 6.

Differences observed in the connection capacity between pull-out and push-off tests because of the Poisson effect. presenting a significant residual resistance. CONCLUSIONS For smooth inserts. For smooth inserts. the bond strength increases with the increase of the confinement level. brittle failure was observed. having the roughness of the hole surface a significant influence in the connection capacity. In all push-out tests with smooth inserts. like those used in push-off tests.5. Push-off tests performed with textured inserts and with confinement exhibited a plastic response without sudden failure. In pull-out tests. independently of the roughness of the hole surface. as well as in an unreinforced mass of grout confined with steel tube. This may be due to smaller frictional component of the bond strength and to higher dilatation effects. After the peak load. the bond strength increases with the decrease of the hole diameter. the bond strength increases with the hole diameter decrease and with the embedment length increase. as well as in push-off tests without confinement. Moreover. For pull-out and push-off tests performed with textured 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. both in push-off and pull-out tests. the connection capacity decreases fast and then becomes constant. In push-off tests performed with smooth inserts grouted in predrilled holes in RC footings. For textured inserts. performed with textured inserts sudden failure occurs with total loss of connection capacity. the embedment length has little effect on bond strength. failure occur at the grout/concrete interface. 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. Textured inserts provide a higher connection capacity than smooth inserts. For textured inserts. 41 . the confinement strengthening reduces significantly cracking and increases the ductility of the connections. failure occurs at the insert/grout interface. For smooth inserts.

CEN. P. Traylor. 1995. Hyett. A. CEN. and SIKA. pp. Cement and Concrete Composites. Paris. Vol. W. 2003.. Hyett.P. G. 1996 6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 1993 16. pp.. "EN 12390-3 Testing hardened concrete .Implementaion manual". Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil. T. "The effect of rock mass confinement on the bond strength of fully grouted cable bolts". 347 11. CEB. Maloney. A. J. REFERENCES 1. "Shear strength of Portland cement grout". European Committee for Standarditazion. 42 .Determinação do módulo de elasticidade em compressão". "EN 447 Grout for prestressing tendons. ACI.. Cyna. Bawden.F. Keeley. 2004 8. CIM-Bull. 2003 10. W. and Bawden. "ACI 408R-03 Bond Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension". "FHWA-SA-97-070 .Part 1: Shape.. SECIL. CEN. European Committee for Standarditazion. R. 14. 1992. 7. pp. 32.. 1991 4. Vol. S. DSI. 503-524. 376 pp. IREX..K. 2000 9. 2000. "EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures . "EN 12390-1 Testing hardened concrete .. HILTI. 1992. American Concrete Institute. M. 29. 2005. 2004.. Kaiser. 2007 7. Moosavi. 2003 2.J. pp. "CEB-FIP Model Code 1990". Mich. D. 3. M.. P. "Connection capacity between micropiles and existing footings-bond strength to concrete". J. Bawden. H. LNEC. "EN 196-1 Methods of testing cement . pp. 25. and Sharma.. 13. A. 103-109.Part 1: Determination of strength".. "Especificação E 397 . 2005 5.US Department of Transportation. W.Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens". 5. et al. 729-735. Opération du Réseau Génie civil e urbain.. "Synthèse des résultats et recommandations du project national sur les micropieux FOREVER". CEN. dimensions and other requirements for specimens and moulds". Armour. 1.J.Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines . Presses de l’Ecole nationale des ponts et chaussées. Basic requirements". 15. European Committee for Standardization. London. S.F. Groneck. Test methods". "EN 445 Grout for prestressing tendons.. and Moosavi.D. pp. Cadden. European Committee for Standarditazion. Dallas/Ft. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts.. Geo3 GEO Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Conference Proceedings. 11-36. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics. 85(962).. Farmington Hills. and Bruce.. S.A. and Reichert.. European Committee for Standardization. TXS. Worth. 196-216 12. R. Federal Highway Administration . Comité International du Béton (CEB)..Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings".ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the financial support of the companies Betão-Liz. "A new perspective on cable bolt design". and Yazici. CEN.F. "A constitutive law for bond failure of fully-grouted cable bolts using a modified hoek cell". Gómez.R. CEN. Macsporran.

Rio de Janeiro. pp.. A. K. A. 1. Ground anchorages and anchored structures. 103-109. UK..P.. and Goodier. 18.N.. Editora Guanabara Dois . Thomas Telford. and Khosravi. A. Khayat. Moosavi. M. "Design and Execution Manual for Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Pile Foundations with High Capacity Micropiles". London.17.. Timoshenko. pp. Cement and Concrete Composites. 27. "Bond of cement grouted reinforcing bars under constant radial pressure". Vol. 89-99 43 . 545 20. PWRI. 2002 19. B. "Teoria da Elasticidade". 1980. Jafari. J. Yahia. "Bond strength of cement grout anchors cast in dry and submerged conditions". pp. PWRI. 1997. 2005. and Benmokrane. S.