one source FOR

QUALITY SYSTEMS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION & FASTENER INDUSTRIES

Surface Stabilization

MULTI Williams Type B System

Extruded Free Stress Length Typical Strand Anchor – PTI Class II
STRAND
ANCHOR
Deep Foundations

All-Thread Bar
with Steel Casing
Geo-Drill
Injection Bar

MICROPILE
Support of Excavation

TIEBACK & Williams Type B System

Extruded Free Stress Length Typical Strand Anchor – PTI Class II
TIEDOWN
ANCHOR

Williams 150 KSI All Thread Bar Anchor System

reliable | durable | versatile

Williams Form Engineering Corp. has been a leader in manufacturing quality products and customer
service, for the Construction and Fastener Industries for over 80 years.

Belmont, MI 616.866.0815 Portland, OR 503.285.4548

San Diego, CA 858.320.0330 Collegeville, PA 610.489.0624 For More Information Visit:
Golden, CO 303.216.9300
Lithia Springs, GA 770.949.8300
Kent, WA 253.854.2268
London, ON 515.659.9444 williamsform.com
 FEATURE ARTICLE

Tension testing setup on a micropile

A New Approach for the Design of Micropiles in Tension

As micropiles have become more widely tension load testing on micropiles with and steel cased zone and the tensile strength of
accepted for public and private projects, without this continuous bar. The results the lower uncased zone. For the uncased
new test data has provided a greater indicate that the tensile resistance of portion, the tensile resistance is provided
understanding of their capabilities as an traditional micropiles is typically under- only by the reinforcing bar. For the cased
alternate to other types of deep foundations estimated in design. portion, both the casing and reinforcing
(e.g., driven and drilled piles). Design bar provide tensile resistance. Therefore,
manuals, such as the 7th edition of the Standard Design Procedures most designs are controlled by only the
American Association of State Highway and A review of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge resistance of the central reinforcing bar.
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Design Specifications suggests that tensile Although the design equation for the
Bridge Design Specifications published in force in micropiles be checked against the upper, cased zone incorporates cross-
2014, allow micropiles to be used to resist available geotechnical and structural sectional areas for both the steel casing and
tension (uplift) forces as well as to resist resistances (i.e., limit state design). The the reinforcing bar, AASHTO does not
axial compression and lateral loading. geotechnical resistance of the micropile explicitly indicate that a reinforcing bar
Standard design practices generally depends on the grout-to-ground and/or the must extend into the pile cap for tension
recommend that a central reinforcing bar grout-to-steel bar shear/bond strength(s) of forces. Instead, the design specifications
extend from the bond zone and be installed the bond zone, which is independent of the indicate that the grout-to-steel bond may
into the pile cap to accommodate the direction of the applied loading (e.g., axial govern micropile design at the overlap
applied loading. American Geotechnical compression or uplift force). interface of the reinforcing bar and the
and Environmental Services (A.G.E.S.) was The structural resistance of the pile is casing in the upper zone (i.e., the
recently involved in a project incorporating based on the tensile strength of the upper development length of the reinforcing bar

AUTHORS Sebastian Lobo-Guerrero Ph.D., P.E., and Todd DeMico, P.E., A.G.E.S., Inc.

DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2019 • 89

within the grout). AASHTO indicates that LRFD methodology considering only
the development length of the reinforcing geotechnical resistance from the side
Pile Cap
bar must be checked to ensure adequate resistance (friction) within the bond zone,
resistance is provided. as the end bearing resistance was neglected
The requirements in the AASHTO in the design. The micropiles had an
Steel cased zone
specifications suggest that a reinforcing bar from ground
outside diameter of 7 in (178 mm), and the
does not need to extend into the pile cap to surface to top of steel casing in the upper portion of the
Unbonded
resist tensile forces, although this is not zone bond zone micropile consisted of 80 ksi (552 MPa)
explicitly indicated within the document. steel with a wall thickness of 0.453 in
Reinforcement
Based on this information, it can be bar extending
(11.5 mm). The uncased length of the
concluded that the tension loading can be into pile cap micropile consisted of a grouted zone that
taken by micropiles without the reinforcing was 7-3/4 in (197 mm) in diameter (i.e., the
bar extending to the surface. The tension uncased zone was slightly larger in
loading can be resisted via load transfer Competent diameter than the cased zone due to the
rock bond
from the upper casing to the lower material Grout bond zone micropile casing). The reinforcement in the
reinforcement bar within the bond zone. uncased length was a No. 20 (2-1/2 in or
The load transfer is provided by the grout 64 mm), Gr. 75 ksi (517 MPa) all-thread
within the development length zone. central steel reinforcing bar. The resistance
For the transfer of the tension load to be Micropile with reinforcing bar extending of the micropile was based on an 11 ft (3.4 m)
into the pile cap for tensile resistance
accounted for in design, the shear strength (traditional design) long bond zone in limestone. The grout
of the grout and the bond strength between used in the micropile satisfied the 28-day
the reinforcing bar and the grout must be minimum compressive strength of 4,000
considered to calculate the minimum psi (27.6 MPa).
required development length. The AASHTO Pile Cap Based on the 2014 AASHTO LRFD
specifications provide typical bond values Bridge Design Specifications and the applied
between steel and grout. loading on the micropile, a minimum
The Micropile Design and Construction Steel cased zone development length of about 30 in
from ground
Reference Manual published by the Federal (762 mm) was required for adequate load
Unbonded surface to top of
Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2005 zone bond zone transfer between the grout and central
provides reference to tensile loading from reinforcing bar. This development length
the casing throughout the document; Reinforcement was computed considering a resistance
however, as with the AASHTO speci- bar development factor of 0.8 and an ultimate bond strength
fications, the FHWA manual does not length for tensile between the bar and the grout of 0.3 ksi
force transfer
explicitly indicate that the tensile (all-thread bar). Conservatively, the bar
Competent
resistance from the casing alone is rock bond
was extended about 5 ft (1.5 m) into the
permissible. The FHWA manual provides material casing based on traditional practice for
Grout bond zone
examples of typical design schematics for compression-type micropiles.
the connection from the micropile to the The evaluation program included
pile cap. In those schematics, the tension testing micropiles with and with-
Micropile with development length of
micropiles were designed for tension central reinforcing bar providing
out central reinforcement that extended
loading and include a central reinforcing adequate load transfer for tensile into the pile cap. The micropiles without
bar extending into the pile cap. However, a resistance the central reinforcement bar extending
statement in the manual also indicates that into the pile cap were only used in areas of
steel casing located within a corrosive a central reinforcing bar extending into the the project were the maximum factored
environment shall not be relied upon in pile cap. Based on the lack of adequate uplift force was approximately 29 kips
the design to resist tensile loading. direction, most designers typically specify (129 kN). For these micropiles, the testing
However, this statement suggests that the that tensile forces in micropiles shall be was performed to 1.75 times the maximum
steel casing could be designed to resist resisted by the central reinforcing bar. factored load. The maximum test load was
some degree of tensile loading in non- approximately 51 kips (227 kN). Since the
corrosive environments. Case Study reinforcing bar did not extend to the
In summary, the design manual and A.G.E.S. was recently involved in a project ground surface, a plate was welded to the
specifications do not provide sufficient that incorporated the concept of tensile micropile steel casing. The welded con-
documentation to justify that micropiles micropiles without a continuous center nection was designed to exceed the
utilized in tension can be designed without bar. The micropiles were designed using strength of the steel casing.

90 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2019

 designers and contractors work together to
test this approach, more data (and testing
to higher loads) will become available to
better optimize the design of micropiles in
tension.

Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere
appreciation to Rick Deschamps, Ph.D.,
P.E., vice president of engineering at
Nicholson Construction, and Ed Laczynski,
P.E., vice president of geotechnical
construction at Wagman Heavy Civil
Construction, for their invaluable discus-
sions and input regarding this topic.

Sebastian Lobo-Guerrero Ph.D., P.E., is a

geotechnical project manager/AAP laboratory
manager at American Geotechnical and
Environmental Services (A.G.E.S.) at the Pittsburgh
headquarters. He has more than 17 years of
Micropile casing welded to steel plate for the tension testing (there was no central
reinforcement bar within the casing) experience in geotechnical engineering, specializing
in the design of deep/shallow foundations, earth
The results of the tension test per- omitted, simple calculations for the retaining structures and landslide stabilization. He
formed on the micropile without the central development length of the reinforcement is a member of the DFI Anchored Earth Retention
Committee.
reinforcement bar extending into the pile bar can be performed to justify the design,
Todd DeMico, P.E., is a geotechnical project
cap successfully satisfied the acceptance as discussed and outlined in the 2014 engineer at A.G.E.S. in Pittsburgh. He has more
criteria. There were three components of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. than 7 years of geotechnical experience in the design
the established acceptance criteria: The case study presented in this article of bridge foundations, earth retaining structures
validated this design. As more owners, and soil/rock slide stabilization.
1. Movement of no more than 0.04 in
(2.5 mm) within the time span of 1 and
10 minutes under a sustained maxi-
mum test load
2. Movement (plastic deformation) of no
more than 0.3 in (7.6 mm), which was
the maximum allowable deflection
3. No pullout failure at the maximum test
load
During the tension test, the maximum total
elongation (i.e., plastic and elastic) was
0.23 in (5.8 mm).

Conclusion
The results presented in this article provide
insight into the potential of the tensile
resistance of micropiles without a con-
tinuous central reinforcing bar, something
often overlooked in the design of micropile
foundations. Although the design criteria
outlined in the design manuals and
specifications are not explicit whether the
continuous central reinforcing bar can be Tensile load test on micropile

DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2019 • 91