You are on page 1of 13



Hayel M. El-Naggar, Research Assistant, Geotechnical Engineering Department, Housing and

building Research Center, Cairo, Egypt,
Sherif A. Akl, Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt,


Although grouted piles have been used for several decades since the idea was proposed in 1970s, their
design is mostly based on experience and unpublished proprietary methods. There is little research on
grouting drilled shaft tips and even less on grouting shaft sides. This paper presents the analysis of 4
instrumented pile loads tests on base and shaft grouted piles from different sites in Egypt; with particular
emphasis on one of the tests, to demonstrate the analysis process. The data from the tests are fitted to a
model for developing unit side friction with relative displacement. A numerical model using the finite
element software PLAXIS is used to investigate the effect of grouting on the surrounding soil stress state.
The paper combines the observations from full scale pile load tests and results from the numerical model
to suggest an idealized behavior of side friction development with relative displacement of the grouted
part of the shaft. The suggested model considers an envelope of Unit Side Friction (USF) with
displacement, initially dominated by grout pile resistance then at higher relative displacements, the
friction with radially pressured soil takes over. The grout provides very high USF values up to a relative
displacement of 2mm. however, the USF drops to a typical pile soil side friction behavior; however, the
contact stress between pile and soil are significantly increased due to compaction grouting.

KEYWORDS: Grouted Piles, Shaft grouting, Base grouting, Instrumented grouted Pile Load Tests, soil-
cement-pile interaction.

Base and shaft pile grouting has been significantly developing in recent years to accommodate the
unfavorable conditions in major projects such as the high loads in high rise building, and founding on
unfavorable soil formations. Grouting aims to decrease settlements and increase the capacity of the pile
under axial load. The technique is first introduced by Kraft (1974), but took off in 1980s. Typically there
are two types of grouting; compaction, and permeation. Compaction grouting is the more common type of
grouting used in pile foundations, and many researchers have provided case histories of pile load tests on
base grouted piles and base and shaft grouted piles (Gouvenot and Gabaix,1975; Stocker, 1983; Ghazali
et al., 1988; Fleming, 1993; Kusakabe et al., 1994; Robson and Wahby,1994; Joer and Randolph, 1998;
Hamza and Leoni, 1998; Mullins et al. 2000; Littlechild et al., 2000; Suckling and Eager, 2001; Dapp and
Mullins, 2002; Ho, 2003; Fu and Zhou, 2003; Brettmann and NeSmith, 2005; Ruiz, 2005; Mullins, 2006;
Dapp and Brown, 2010; Beadman et al., 2012; Nguyen et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2013; Sinnreich and
Simpson, 2015; Hui and Lin, 2015). Research showed that grouting improves the capacity of the piles by
two to five times. The enhancement of the capacity varies according to the pile type, grouting process,
and especially grouting pressure. Although there are many case histories of pile load tests on grouted piles
but there is no well-defined agreed-upon method to predict grouted pile capacity as typically done in
ungrouted piles. Few lab experiments discussed the shaft grouting effects on the soil especially the
compaction grouting. The experiments concluded that the compaction grouting forms a homogeneous
layer between the pile and the soil, and a residual effective stress is achieved simultaneously with a
significant densification of the soil around the pile with noticeable decreasing in void ratio. (Fattahpour et

al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015). Recently, studies used numerical analysis to investigate the behavior of the
grouted piles and the changes in the surrounding soil (Chiang et al., 2013). The study focuses on the
simulation of the base pressure grouting with a simple FE model, and predicts the reduction of the pile
settlement by 10 to 20%. Another numerical study using a complex model conducted by Zhou et al.
(2017), presented a clear understanding of the friction capacity for the grout-pile interface and the grout-
soil interface.

This paper presents data from instrumented load tests on base and shaft grouted piles. The analysis of the
pile load test results and a numerical simulation of the grouting process provide insight into the resistance
mechanisms of axially loaded post grouted bored piles. This is part of compiling an electronic database of
field scale pile load tests. The paper concludes by proposing a side friction development model with
displacement based on the field tests and the numerical model.


An electronic database namely Egypt Foundations Database (EFD) is under development for the purpose
of improving the design practices of geotechnical foundation systems. This database is being developed at
Cairo University by the Geotechnical Analysis and Reliability Assessment Studies team (GARAS). EFD
houses data from axial load tests on drilled shafts, driven piles, shaft and base grouted piles, and micro
piles. The database also includes data on laterally loaded drilled shafts, tests for ground anchors, tension
tests on piles, and axial load tests on footings. Furthermore, EFD includes comprehensive records related
to the soil profile, in-situ tests, and pile characteristics.

In this study, the authors focus on the Grouted Pile Load Tests (GPLT) included in the EFD which
contain data from 11 reliable GPLT conducted in Egypt. Only Seven tests are instrumented, and the
summary of all the tests are shown in Table 1. For the piles in project (ID=1), piles ends are in limestone
and the bottom 5.5 meters as well. For each of the remaining tested piles, the bottom part of the shaft is
grouted and rests in sand as well as the pile tip.

Table 1. Geometric and design information of GPLT

Project Test Shape Instrum Dimension, Pile Base Shaft
ID No. ented mm length, Grouted grouted
test m length,
TP1 C 1200 33.55 15560 10.0
1 TP2 C 1500 33.55 21260 10.0
TP3 R 1000 x 2800 33.55 32220 10.0
2 TP4 C 1200 26.30 11600 9.0
3 TP5 C 1000 17.70 8910 8.0
TP6 C 1000 37.50 11300 10.0
TP7 R 800 x 2800 37.50 28000 10.0
TP8 C 1000 18.00 12000 6.0
TP9 C 1200 18.00 17000 6.0
TP10 R 800 x 2800 37.00 25000 3.0
TP11 R 640 x 2800 37.00 20000 3.0

Shaft and base grouting practice in Egypt

For the purpose of shaft grouting, bundles of poly-ethylene pipes are fixed to the reinforcement cage.
Each bundle consists of a number of grout pipes (22mm diam.) and each pipe covers 2m of grout length.
The number of pipes depends on the size of pile. Arrangement of pipes and bundles. Approximately two
days after concreting, cement grout (consisting of cement and water with w/c = 0.5) is pumped under
pressure through the grouting pipes. The green concrete cover is easily fractured thus allowing the grout
to flow freely around the shaft along the grouted length. Past experience shows that the grout initially
travels along and completely fills the interface between the shaft and soil, and then compression occurs
The design of the grouting procedure and distribution of grouting pipes takes into consideration that 25 %
of the installed pipes may be lost. The criterion for shaft grouting is to reach a pressure of 50 bars.
Normally, this is reached in one phase of grouting. If, however; this pressure is not reached after pumping
100 meters of grout per pipe, grouting shall be temporarily stopped and a second phase of grouting shall
take place after a minimum of 12 hours to reach the required value.

The base grouting is performed using the flat jack method. The flat jack at the bottom acts as a one-way
valve, and is connected with two grout pipes (one spare). Not earlier than 2 days after shaft grouting
completion, the flat jack is charged with grout (with the same mix used for shaft grouting) at pressure
ranging from 30 to 50 bars. The circumferential seal between the steel top plate and the thin steel
membrane is broken and grout initially compacts and then flows into the soils beneath and around the toe.
The criteria for base grouting is either reaching a grouting pressure of 50 bars or a maximum uplift of 2
mm, whichever occurs first. If however the required pressure is not reached after pumping of 100 liters,
grouting will be temporarily stopped and repeated later.

Description of a demonstrative Pile load test

The demonstrating test case (TP4 in Table 1) is performed on a trial ordinary bored pile, 1.20 m in
diameter, and bored to depth of 26.3 m with the bottom nine-meter of the shaft is grouted two days after
the construction. The base grouting is carried out two days after the shaft grouting. The pile is reinforced
along the entire length of the pile with a high-strength steel reinforcing case; the used concrete strength
fcu= 25 MPa and E = 21,000 MPa. As the pile, should extend to platform level, a double wall casing
extending from platform level to cut-off level (4.30) was installed to eliminate the skin friction along this
part during the loading test. The soil strata and their properties are obtained from a comprehensive site
investigation program comprised of four boreholes that are drilled to a depth of 50 m from the ground
surface. The ground water table (G.W.T.) is measured in piezometers at 4.5 m below ground surface as
presented in Fig.1 [A].

The maximum applied load is 11,600 kN, administered in two cycles of loading and unloading in
accordance with ASTM D 1143. The test arrangement, shown in Fig.1 [B], illustrates the reaction system
that consisted of a crown restrained by twelve ground anchors distributed around the pile as shown in
Fig.1 [C]. The axial load was applied using three 6,000 kN hydraulic jacks that are placed between the
pile head and the loading crown. The pile is instrumented with distributed vibrating wire sister bar strain
gauges (VWSG) to be used to measure the strain at five different levels of the pile. The levels are selected
based on soil strata; cut off level, top of sand level, and grouted length. Strain gauges are located at the
top, middle and 1 m above the end of the grouted length. Each level is equipped with four VWSG which
are located opposite to each other. The axial Pile head movement was measured by four dial gauges with
a precision of 0.01mm. A precise level, equipped with plane plate micrometer with 0.1 mm resolution is
used to measure and backup check the axial movement at three points fixed to the pile head. In addition,
to measure the relative displacement along the shaft, three tell-tales extensometer are fixed to the pile at
three levels; top of sand, top of shaft grouting and toe of pile as shown in Fig.1 [A&D].
Tested pile 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
[A] Length=26.30 m
Diam. = 1.20 m
Ground Surface 2
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Double wall [B]

casing Loading Crown
Made Ground 6

Cut-off level 8 Form

(4.00) (4.30) m
5 G.W.T (4.50) 12

Stiff Brown CLAY 16

Test Pile
20 Anchor
(11.00) 22
VWSG (11.0) m
& Tell-Tale
26 [D]
Depth (m)

> 5D
Medium dense to dense 28
30 Base Grouting Pipe
15 Tell-Tale to (23.80)

32 Grouted Body Grouted Body

(17.00) Shaft Grouting Pipes
34 Shaft Grouting Pipes
VWSG (17.30) (36.30)
& Tell-Tale 36
Spacer - @2000 mm
Shaft Grouted part

20 40

Medium dense to very Tell-Tale to (15.00) Tell-Tale to (8.70)

dense SAND
VWSG (21.80) m Shaft Grouting Pipes Sonic Coring Pipes

25 VWSG (25.30) m
(26.30) & Tell-Tale

Grouted Base
Tip of pile (26.30) m

Fig. 1. [A] schematic of the test pile and soil profile; [B] Filed test apparatus; [C] anchors
arrangement; [D] test pile cross-section
Test results

The axial strain profiles ( ) measured from VWSG shown in Fig. 2 [a] at each load increment, and once
the ( ) obtained the actual geotechnical response can be calculated using the Equ. 1.


Where = the axial force at certain depth from the pile top, = axial rigidity of pile ( = Young’s
modulus, = cross-sectional area). The axial force is shown in Fig. 2 [b], values of load obtained at the
last level of VWSG (1.0 m above the pile tip) taken as the pile tip load. Fig. 2 [c] shows the
displacements at each load increment are obtained from tell-tales. The data show that the base pressure is
mobilized during the loading process by significantly low rates. The rate of mobilizing base resistance in
this grouted pile is much lower than that typically observed in non-grouted piles. The load settlement
curve presented in Fig. 3, shows that the pile carries the maximum load (11,600 kN) safely at the small
settlement of (9.13 mm). Although the pile load test has conducted to high value of load the ultimate shaft
friction has not fully mobilized and the shaft friction took high percent of the load compared to the end-
bearing, the maximum percent that base resistance reached is 22 % from the total load which is a low
value. The total, shaft, and end-bearing load curves do not exhibit any non-linearity as shown in Fig. 4.
The measured displacements at each level are presented in Fig. 5, and it can be observed that although the
displacements are very small in sand and clay layers, loads reached the ultimate values. Consequently, the
clay and sand layers resist the load initially in the test, and when they reach the ultimate capacity the
grouted layers begin to resist the load as shown in Fig. 6. The first grouted layer is not fully mobilized to
the ultimate capacity throughout the test. The second layer is subjected to even less loads than the first.
The part of the double wall casing did not exhibit any significant friction values compared to the total
value of load.

[B] [C]
0 0

5 5

10 10

Depth from Pile top [m]

Depth from Pile top [m]

Depth from Pile top [m]

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30
30 0 4 8 12 0 3 6 9 12
-300 -150 0 Axail Load [MN] Displacment [mm]
Axail Strain [𝜇𝜀]
Fig.2: (a) Axial Strain; (b) Axial Load; (c) Vertical Displacement along the pile shaft

Aplied Load, P [MN] Applied Load, P [MN]

0 4 8 12 0 5 10 15
0 0
Vertical Displacment, [mm]

2 Shaft Friction
Settlement (mm)

2.5 End-Bearing

5 6

Cycle 1 10
Cycle 2
10 12
Fig. 3: applied load-head displacement Fig. 4: Components of pile resitance

Aplied Load, P [MN] 3

Wall Casing
Shaft Friction, SF(MN)

0 4 8 12 2.5 Layer1 (CLAY)

0 Layer2 (SAND)
Vertical Displacment, [mm]

Layer3 (G-SAND)

2.5 1.5 Layer4 (G-Sand)

7.5 Top of Grout
Top Of Sand 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12
Head of Pile Total applied load [MN]
Fig. 5: applied load-displacement at different Fig. 6: Friction Component at different levels.

Behavior of Clay, Sand, and Grouted layers

The behavior of the un-grouted soil layers, Clay and sand layers, is investigated by many studies, and the
behavior is almost fully established (Fleming et al., 1985, 1992, 2014; Tomlinson and Woodward, 2008,
2014). It can be observed from Figs. 7-8 that the shaft friction of clay and sand layers is fully mobilized
and a yielding point is clearly developed. The unit shaft friction (USF) can be determined at the yielding
point, for clay layer USF equal to 50 kPa, and for sand layer USF is 75 Kpa. These results are in good
agreement with many values existed in the standards such as FHWA (2010) and AASHTO (2007). On the
contrary, grouted layers behave very differently as shown in Figs. 7-8. The behavior is almost linear and
do not present a yielding point. The grouted sand layers have reached USF close to 200 kPa which is
greater that the un-grouted ones by 140% to 170 % and the ultimate values have not been observed. On
the other hand, base resistance behavior similar to grouted shaft layer’s behavior reached 2.20 MPa,
where the curve behaves linearly and the maximum value may not be determined.

400 2.5 400 2.5

Clay Layer Clay Layer
Sand Layer Sand Layer
G-Sand 1 G-Sand 1

Base Pressure, qp [MPa]

Base Pressure, qp [MPa]
Shaft Friction, SF [KPa]

G-Sand 2 G-Sand 2

Shaft Friction, SF [KPa]

300 300
Base Base

200 1.25 200 1.25

100 100

0 0 0 0
0 3 6 9 12 0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Applied Load, P [MN] Displacement, UZ [mm]
Fig. 7: applied load-displacement at different Fig. 8: applied load-displacement at different

Ultimate Axial Capacity Evaluation

The ultimate capacity (UC) is obtained using Chin-Kondner extrapolation method (1972) and the Decourt
extrapolation method (2008) as shown in Figs. 9-10. The UCs for the two methods are very close to each
other and the difference between them around 7%.

0.001 2500
Settlement / load

Load / Settlement

0.0002 1250
Qult = 25000 kN Qult = 26719 kN
0 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5000 10000 15000
Settlement [mm] Applied Load, P [kN]
Fig. 9: Ultimate resistance using Chin-Kondner Fig.10: Ultimate resistance using Decourt
method method

This measured capacity (PM)is compared to the calculated capacities (PC) obtained from static methods
considering the pile is conventional pile using the AASHTO (2007) FHWA (2010). The calculated
nominal capacities are 88221 and 9141 kN respectively. The ratio of (PM / PC) is 3 in average.


The first 4 tests in Table 1 (TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4) are considered usable for interpreting grouted shaft and
base behavior in resisting loads. In this section, the data from the 4 pile tests are compiled to shed light on
the rates of gaining resistance with relative displacement. Then, a numerical simulation of the grouting
process describes the stress state of the soil around the grouted pile. The load-displacement curves of the
test piles are shown in Fig. 11. The Shaft Friction (SF) and the End-Bearing (EB) values at every
displacement are separated in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13. In general, SF values are much higher than EB. SF is
ranging from (9 to 14) MN at the maximum applied load, however in TP3 which is rectangular section,
SF is 29 MN at the maximum load. EB is ranging from (1.5 to 3.5) MN at the Maximum load, except for
TP2 EB is 7.30 MN which is out of the range. It can be seen that grouting the tested pile results in very
low settlements; hence an observed failure is impossible to achieve (Zhou et al. 2017). Fig. 14 shows
how the relationship between base pressure and tip displacement does not follow any conceivable trend.
This might be attributed to the possible drilling problems of large diameter bored piles which typically
leads to soft hole bottoms full of debris. It is more prudent to focus on the trends possibly observed from
the side friction behavior.

40 35
TP2 30 SF-TP2
Shaft Friction, SF [MN]
Applied Load, P [MN]

30 TP3 SF-TP3


0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement, UZ [mm] Displacement, UZ [mm]
Fig.11: Applied load verses head Fig.12: Shaft Friction versus head displacement
8 5
Base pressure, qP [MPa]

End-Bearing, EB [MN]

4 TP2
6 EB-TP3 TP3
5 EB-TP4 3 TP4
3 2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement, UZ [mm] Tip displacement [mm]
Fig.13: End Bearing verses head displacement Fig.14: Base pressure verses tip

Analysis of Unit Side Friction Measurements

The data are interpreted for grouted sand and rock layers from VWSG data, and it can be seen in Fig.15
and Fig.16 respectively. The unit side friction with the relative displacement are calculated using the
equations below (Pelecanos et al., 2017) and plotted.

∫ [3]
The side shear failure mechanism for grouted pile is much different from the ordinary bored pile as shown
in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18. The cement layer around the grouted pile has high compressive strength but
exhibits brittle failure mechanism when relative displacement of 2mm is reached (Lehane et al., 2005; and
Zhou et al., 2017); then no meaningful friction is mobilized. However, the compaction grouting will lead
to significant change in the stress state around the grouted pile which would alter the USFu typically
calculated for a no-grouted pile in Equ. (4).


Fig. 19 and Fig. 20 present the best estimate for the slope shown in Fig. 17 from the instrumentation data
for rock and sand layers respectively. It can be concluded that kgrout in rock is 457 kPa/mm and in sand is
112 kPa/mm.

0.5 0.3
USF for G-sand [MPa]

0.4 GR-TP2
USF for G-Rock [MPa]

GS-TP4 0.2 GR-TP3



0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Relative Displacement [mm] Relative displacement [mm]
Fig.15: USF for G-sand layers verses relative Fig.16: USF for G-rock layers verses relative
displacement displacement

Fig.17: Elastic model for failure mechanism in Fig. 18: Elastic model for friction failure
Grout (after Lehane et al., 2005). between pile and non-grouted soil.
1.4 0.4
1.2 TP2 0.3 TP3

USF for G-Sand [MPa]

USF for G-Rock [MPa]

1.0 0.3

0.8 0.2

0.6 0.2

0.4 0.1
GR y = 0.457x + 0.0142 0.1
GS y = 0.1116x + 0.0215
0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Relative displacement [mm] Relative displacement [mm]

Fig.19. kgrout for Rock Layers Fig.20. kgrout for Sand Layers

Numerical Simulation of Radial Grouting in TP4

A simple axisymmetric model of the pile from the demonstrative case (TP4) is created in the 2D finite
element program PLAXIS as shown in Fig. 21. The model focuses on the behavior of the soil around the
lower part of the shaft which is to be grouted. The grouting process in this case and typically in Egypt is
compaction grouting rather than permeation grouting. The simulation of the grouting process focuses on
the response of the soil, with its inherent properties, to the radial pressure emanating from the pile (the
embedded tubes in the pile); rather than improving the properties of such soil.

The lower cluster of elements simulating the grouted part of the shaft is radially engorged by applying
volume strain to this body only in the radial directions and not in the vertical direction, as the shaft
grouting is the focus of this model (Fig. 21). The applied volume strain is a numerical artifact and does
not have much of a physical meaning. The volume of the lower part of the pile is increased until the radial
pressure around the pile reached the 5000 kPa typically used in grouting.

The stress state of a soil element at the mid-depth of the layer is monitored throughout the simulated
grouting process. The ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stresses (K) is shown in Fig. 22. Two soil
models are used in this analysis, the typical Mohr Coulomb (MC) model and the Hardening Soil (HS)
model. The input parameters of the MC model are shown in Fig. 22 and derived from SPT data using
typical correlations. The HS stiffness parameters are suggested with less certainty using rules of thumb
listed below, while the shear failure parameters are not changed ( ).



The value of K increases significantly from the K0 state typically found in soils before any disturbance. It
is assumed that K0 in the initial conditions of the model. The two models show significant
increase in K, however only the HS model predicts that Kp is reached (Kp ). The MC model
predicts that K exceeds unity as well, but at the 5000kPa grouting pressure, K asymptotes to a value of

[A] [B] 6

5 Passive Coefficient = 4.6

4 Hardening soil model

Mohr Coulomb model

1 Pile Installed

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Grouting pressure [kPa]

Fig. 21: [A] The 2D numerical model of a pile Fig. 22: The state of stress at a soil element
being grouted, and [B] The simulation of the adjacent to the grouted part of the shaft.
shaft grouting process

Derivation of a model for relationship with displacement

The results from the previous two sub-sections can be combined and a proposal for the friction
mechanism between a grouted pile and surrounding soil is proposed. Fig. 23 shows the proposal for Unit
Side Friction change with relative displacement along the pile shaft. The values in Fig. 23 are calculated
using the data introduced earlier from TP4. Initially the bond between the soil and the pile is dominated
by the strength of the cement layer and side friction can be calculated using kgrout only until the 2mm
threshold is reached. Typically, relative displacements in this area does not exceed 2mm even at high
loads; and head displacements compress the pile rather than induce displacements along the grouted part
of the shaft. However, in the unlikely event that threshold is reached, it may be assumed the typical pile
soil friction behavior takes over. However, this pile soil behavior is now affected with the significant
lateral pressures applied to the soil during grouting and the ratio to horizontal to vertical effective stresses
may be taken as 0.75 Kp rather than unity as proposed by Chen and Kulhawy (1994).








0 5 10 15 20

Fig. 23: A proposed USF -displacement model applied to the TP4 demonstrative case.


The paper presents data from the Egyptian Foundation Database (EFD) regarding instrumented load tests
on base and shaft grouted piles. The analysis of one of the pile load tests is presented to demonstrate the
data acquired from the instrumentation and the separation between side friction and base resistance
developing with head and tip displacement. The paper focused on the side friction resistance around the
grouted part of the shaft and fitted to a model for Unit Side Friction (USF) developing with relative
displacement using data from 4 of the tests in the database. This is combined with results from a
numerical simulation of the grouting process to delineate the change in stress state of the soil around the
grouted shaft. The following points can be concluded.

 The capacity of the pile due to grouting is much higher than any prediction from static formulae.
The ultimate capacity of the pile is not easily predicted because recorded displacements in tests
are typically very low, and the lack of standard methods to predict the ultimate capacity.
 The recorded behavior of the base pressure with tip displacements did not show any usable
trends, but the data from the grouted part of the shaft shows a clear mechanism when interpreted
in the form of USF and relative displacement.
 The rate of friction increase with relative displacement (kgrout) is different for each soil type
around the pile. kgrout between pile and rock is found to be 457 kPa/mm and between pile and sand
is found to be 112 kPa/mm. More data is needed to prove the consistency of these values and if
similar values may be found with other types of soils.
 Compaction grouting leads to significant changes in the soil stress state. It is proposed to consider
the value of horizontal to vertical effective stress ratio (K) as 0.75 the passive earth pressure
coefficient (Kp).
 A model is proposed for the USF development with displacement. The model assumes the
dominance of grout resistance until a relative displacement of 2mm is reached (kgrout). Then USF
drops to the typical pile soil side friction development. However, the soil resistance to the
displacement of the pile is affected by the increased values of K due to grouting.

AASHTO (2007) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Customary U.S. Units, 6th edition (2013 Interim),
Washington, D.C.
ASTM D 1143 Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations under Static Axial Compressive Load.
Beadman, D., Pennington, M. and Sharratt M. (2012). Pile test at the Shard London Bridge, Ground
Engineering, 45 (1), 24–29.
Brettmann, Tracy, and Willie NeSmith. (2005) "Advances in auger pressure grouted piles: design,
construction and testing." Advances in Deep Foundations. 1-13.
Brown, D.A., Turner, J.P., and Castelli, R.J., (2010). “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD
Design Methods”. Publication FHWA-NHI-10-016, FHWA, Washington, D.C.
Chen, Y. J., & Kulhawy, F. H. (1994). Case history evaluation of drilled shaft behavior. Report TR-
104601, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto.
Chiang, C. C., et al. (2013) "Effects of Drilled-Shaft Tip Grouting in Numerical Simulations." Danjiang
Institute of Science and Technology 16.1: 41-44.
Chin, FV, and Kondner, A. (1972) Estimation of the ultimate load of piles notcarried to
failure.Proceedings of the 2nd Southeast AsianConference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, pp. 81–
Dapp, Steve, and Dan Brown. (2010) "Evaluation of base grouted drilled shafts at the Audubon
Bridge." GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design. 1553-1562.
Dapp, Steven D., and Gray Mullins. (2002) "Pressure grouting drilled shaft tips: Full-scale research
investigation for silty and shelly sands." Deep Foundations 2002: An International Perspective on
Theory, Design, Construction, and Performance. 335-350.

Decourt, L., (2008). Loading tests: interpretation and prediction of their results, ASCE GeoInstitute
Geocongress New Oreleans, March 9-12, "Housing John from Reaserch to Practice in Geotechnical
Engineering", Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP180, Edited by J.E. Laier, D.K. Crapps, and
M.H. Hussien, PP. 452-488.
Fattahpour, Vahidoddin, Béatrice Anne Baudet, and James Wang-Cho Sze. (2015) "Laboratory
investigation of shaft grouting." Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical
Engineering 168.1: 65-74.
FHWA (2010), Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-NHI-10-016, Drilled Shafts Manual, chapter
13, pp. 13-17, and pp. 19-23.
Fleming, K., Weltman, A., Randolph, M., & Elson, K. (2014). Piling engineering. CRC press.
Fleming, W. G. K. (1993) "The improvement of pile performance by base grouting." Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering. Vol. 97. No. 2..
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, MF & Elson, WK (1992). Piling Engineering.
Fleming, W. K, Weltman, AJ, Randolph, MF and Elson, WK (1985)." Piling engineering".
Fu, Xudong, and Zhengbing Zhou. (2003) "Study on bearing capacity of bored cast-in-situ piles by post
pressure grouting." Grouting and Ground Treatment:. 707-715.
Ghazali, Fouad M., Elias Sotiropoulos, and Osama A. Mansour. "Large-diameter bored and grouted piles
in marine sediments of the Red Sea." Canadian Geotechnical Journal25.4 (1988): 826-831.
Gouvenot, D. and Gabaix, J. (1975), A new foundation technique using piles sealed by cement grout
under high pressure. Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Texas, Paper Number OTC
Hamza, M.M. and Ibrahim, M.H.Z. (2002): "Performance of base and shaft grouted barrettes",
Proceeding of III regional conference on civil engineering technology, American society of civil
engineers (ASCE), Egypt section, Cairo, Egypt.
Hamza, M.M. and Leoni, F. (1998). “High capacity, long-life bored piles in Bibliotheca Alexandrina
Project,” Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, DFI98,
Vienna, Austria, pp. 1.12.1-1.12.25.
Ho, Chu Eu. (2003). "Base grouted bored pile on weak granite." Grouting and Ground Treatment. 716-
Hui, C. Su, Ma, Lin, J. and Shi Cong (2015). "Post-Grouting to Reduce Bridge Settlement in Beijing-
Shanghai High-Speed Railway." Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 20: 971-979.
Joer, H.A. and Randolph M.F. (1998), Capacity &model grouted piles in calcareous sediments, 7 th
International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep Foundations, DFI98, Vienna, 1.4.1-
Kraft, L. M., and C. G. Lyons. (1974) "State-of-the-Art: Ultimate Axial Capacity of Grouted
Piles." Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
Kusakabe, Osamu, et al. (1994) "Structural capacity of precast piles with grouted base." Journal of
geotechnical engineering 120.8: 1289-1306.
Lehane, B. M., C. Gaudin, and J. A. Schneider (2005). "Scale effects on tension capacity for rough piles
buried in dense sand." Géotechnique 55.10: 709-719.
Littlechild, B. D., Plumbridge, G. D., Hill, S. J., & Lee, S. C. (2000). Shaft Grouting ofDeep Foundations
in Hong Kong. In N. D. Dennis Jr., R. Castelli & M. W.O’Neill (Eds.), New Technological and
Design Developments in Deep Foundations Geotechnical Special Publication No. 100 (pp. 33-45).
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Miller, M., et al. (2013). "Improving the capacity of bored piles by shaft grouting." Proceedings of the
18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paper. No. 2525.

Mullins, Gray, Danny Winters, and Steven Dapp. (2006) "Predicting end bearing capacity of post-grouted
drilled shaft in cohesionless soils." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 132.4: 478-487.
Mullins, Gray, Steven D. Dapp, and Peter Lai. (2000) "Pressure-grouting drilled shaft tips in sand." New
technological and design developments in deep foundations. 1-17.
Nguyen, V. L., L. Nie, and M. Zhang (2013). "Method cement post-grouting to increase the load capacity
for bored pile." Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology: 5.19 4727-32.
Pelecanos, Loizos, et al. (2017) "Distributed Fiber Optic Sensing of Axially Loaded Bored Piles." Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: 144.3 04017122.
Robson, R.J. and Wahby, A. (1994), Base and shaft grouted bored pile foundations for the first residential
complex, Giza, Egypt, Proceedings International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations,
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Ruiz, Miguel E. (2005) "Study of axially loaded post grouted drilled shafts using CPT based load transfer
Sinnreich, Jon, and Robert C. Simpson. "Case Histories of Full-Scale Comparative Load Testing of Base
Grouted and Ungrouted Test Shaft Pairs." IFCEE 2015. 486-499.
Stocker, M. (1983), the influence of post-grouting on the load-bearing capacity of bored piles, 8th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki.
Suckling, T.P. and Eager, D.C. (2001). Non base grouted piled foundations in Thanet sands for a
project in East India Dock, London, Underground Construction Symposium, Brintex, London,
UK, 2001, pp. 413–424.
Tomlinson, M., and J. Woodward (2014). Pile design and construction practice. CRC Press.
Wang, Duanduan, Longfei Wang, and Lipeng Zhang (2015). "Experimental study on post grouting
bearing capacity of large diameter bored piles." MATEC Web of Conferences. Vol. 22. EDP
Zhou, J. J., Gong, X. N., Wang, K. H., Zhang, R. H., & Yan, J. J. (2017). Testing and modeling the
behavior of pre-bored grouting planted piles under compression and tension. Acta Geotechnica,
12(5), 1061-1075.