INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Proc.lnstn
Base and shaft grouted piles
Introducers
K M. Troughton and M. Stocker
Reporter
P A. Thompson
Base grouting of piles
Mr Troughton presented his experiences of base
grouting piles and considered the reasons for
using this system to be
( a ) The undisturbed ultimate bearing capacity
can be approached for base grouted bored
piles in very dense sand deposits.
(b) Higher working loads can be adopted as the
contribution of the base can be relied upon.
(c) They are economically better than conven-
tional piles for high loads on large diameter
bored piles founded in sands.
(d) They provide quality assurance that is vital
where high loads are to be carried on a
single pile per column.
(e) They are suitable for sands and gravel at
depth.
Comparison of base grouted and ungrouted piles
constructed a t Canary Wharf
Base grouting is a relatively rare method of
construction in the United Kingdom due to the
predominance of clay founding strata. However,
this was not the case for the Canary Wharf
development where the Thanet Sand stratum
exists at relatively shallow depths and therefore
base grouting was considered a viable option. Mr
Troughton presented the results of four pile
tests from Canary Wharf to demonstrate the
advantages and limitations for base grouting.
The results from two 900 mm and two 1500 mm
diameter straight shafted piles were presented.
One of each pile type was base grouted using the
U-tube system and the other ungrouted.
The 900 mm diameter piles were tested to a
maximum applied load of 900 tonnes, as shown
in Fig. 1. The full shaft capacity is estimated to
occur at the change of gradient of the load/
deflection curve for the ungrouted pile at
450 tonnes applied load. In order to determine
the ultimate pile capacity of each pile type the
load/deflection curves have been extrapolated
to a head settlement of one-tenth of the pile
diameter (90 mm), as shown in Fig. 1.
Designvalues. The basisused to determine
the design pile capacity (QD) at Canary Wharf,
from the ultimate shaft capacity (Qs) and the
-
186
ultimate end-bearing capacity (QB), is given as
follows
Civ. Engrs
Geotech. Engng,
1996, 119,July,
18&192
Ground Board
Geotechnical
Engineering Panel
QD = ces + QB)/2.5
(grouted and ungrouted piles) (1)
QD = Qs/l.2 (ungrouted piles only) (2)
working concrete stress limited to 7 N/mm2
(3)
Interpretation of results. For the base
grouted pile the design capacity is limited by
the working concrete stress to a value of 445
tonnes. For the design of the ungrouted pile the
contribution from the base is considered un-
reliable and therefore not considered. Using
equation (1) above, a design capacity of 375
tonnes is determined. Back analysis of the
results for the grouted and ungrouted piles
indicated an average angle of shearing resis-
tance for the Thanet Sand of G’= 36“ (peak
value in shear box) and G’= 33” (residual value
in shear box), respectively. Comparison of the
design capacities for each pile indicates that
only a 19% increase is achieved by grouting
unless a higher strength concrete is used to
increase the working concrete stress.
The extrapolated applied load/head settle-
ment curves for the two 1500 mm diameter
piles are presented inFig. 2. Back analysis of
the results for the grouted and ungrouted piles
indicated similar average angles of shearing
resistance for the Thanet Sand to those
determined for the 900 mm diameter piles. The
design capacity of the grouted pile is limited by
the working concrete stress to a value of
12350 kN. The design capacity of the ungrouted
pile was determined using equation (2) above
which gave a value of 625 tonnes. In this case
the process of grouting achieves a 98% increase
in the design capacity of the pile, which can be
further increased by using a higher strength
concrete. In this case, the economics of
increased concrete strength and concrete
volume should be compared.
The main conclusions drawn from the results Meeting held 5.30pm
of the four trial piles were as follows on 14 December 1994
at the Institution
( a ) Base grouting is only really of benefit for of Civil Engineers
piles with diameters in excess of 1050 mm.
I/: M. Troughton,
(6) Base grouting stiffens the load/settlement
Westpile Ltd
response of the pile at working loads and
allows high working loads at permissible
settlements.
M . Stocker,Bauer
Specialtiefbau
 INFOFWAL DISCUSSION

1800

B = 36"

1600

1400

I Stratigraphy

1200

v)

g 1000
-
""I
I

v
I /
-
0
U
._
I
-g 800
-2

600
/g
/ Qs
/'
Q, base grouted= 700 t
QULd2.5 41= 36"

= 450t

Q base grouted = 445 t

Base grouted
Ungrouted
Extrapolation
7 Woolwich

400 #orking concrete stress = 7 N/mmz I

I
i Q, ungrouted = 375 t

i
200
m Thanet

0
Fig. 1. Loadagainst
0 20 10 30 40 60 50 70 80 90 pile head settlement for
Settlement: mm 900 m m diameter pile

Base grout systems bentonite. This phenomenon occurs with

Si systems of base grouting are currently piles where excavation exceeds 48 h and
available on the market a thick filter cake forms at the soil inter-
face. Uplift of the pile may be observed
( a ) U-tubes1 at grout pressures less than 10 bar. In
(b) flatjack' this event, grouting should be stopped
(c) tube-a-manchettes3
and the pile regrouted after 24 h.
(d) gravelbasket4 (c) Hydrofracture
(e) pressureplates5
(i) Hydrofractureoccurswhen thegrout
U, drilling andgrouting.6 pressure is sufficiently high to fracture
A brief description of each system was the soil, creating flow paths away from
presented by Mr Troughton, further details of the pile.
whichcan be obtainedfrom the references (ii) Hydrofracture is easily identified bya
indicated. significant reduction in grout pressure
and a corresponding increase in grout
volume injected. To minimize hydro-
Problems and observations
Common problems and observations asso- fracture it was recommended that the
ciated with the base grouting technique are as rates of grout injection be limited to
follows. 2 l/min.
(iii) In the event of hydrofracture it is
( a ) Base contamination recommended that grouting is stopped
(i) sediment can be trapped under the and the pile regrouted 24 h later.
grouting system (d) Monitoring uplii
(ii) sediment can be swept to the pile peri- (i) During base grouting the grout may
meter by concrete flow from the tremie. spread away from the pile due to
(b) Pile slippage at low grout pressures hydrofracture or through gravel layers.
(i) Common to piles constructed under This may result in ground heave over
 INFORMAL DISCUSSION

4500
Q, base grouted
9 = 36"

4000 /
/
/
/
/
/
3500 /
/
/
/
/
3000
/
/
/
/
/ Q, ungrouted
9=33"
I
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
3 2500
/ /
/
c
L l /
'D
-0
'D
-
._
l /
B 2000
a
Q base grouted = 1750 t
QELT/2.5 9 = 36"

1500
I I /- 1

Ease grouted
1000 Ungrouted

I i Extrapolated

I I I
500

I I I I I I I I I
0 I I I I I I I I I Fig. 2. Load against
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 .
pile head settlement for
Settlement: mm 1500 mm diameter pile

the area around the pile, which may l i i friction over the depth of the basement
the reference frame away from the pile and reduction in effective stress from
head thus distorting the reading of the the release of overburden pressure. A
dial gauge transducer. A dual monitoring case study of a test pile undertaken to
system using a precise level located at a investigate the degree of capacity loss
reasonable distance from the pile is from these effects and from rising
therefore recommended to check for groundwater was presented, the details
ground heave. of which can be obtained from the paper
(e) The effects of basement excavations and by Troughton et al. (1989).7
rising groundwater on base grouted pile (ii) It was concluded that a 50%reduction in
capacity and performance mean effective stress at the base of the
(i)It is understood that the ultimate pile, due to either excavation or rising
capacity of piles supporting a basement groundwater, results in a small pile
structure will be reduced by the ex- settlement and a small reduction in pile
cavation of the soil due to loss of skin capacity of about 20%.
188

Shaft grouting of piles
History of post-grouting
Manfred Stocker commenced his presentation
with a brief review of the evolution of post-
grouting in piles. The concept of post grouting
originated during the 1960s and early 1970s
when considerable efforts were put into in-
creasing the bearing capacities of ground
anchors, especially in weak or cohesive soils.
French companies, especially Soletanche,
started to improve the soil around the anchor
with cement or chemical grout using the tube-a-
manchette method. Continuous attempts were
made to study the bearing behaviour of bored
piles, especially in respect of contracts in
overseas counties, where concrete was expen-
sive and of poor quality, thus providing the
incentive to reduce the pile proportions.
The widespread theory at the time was that
most of the pile load was transmitted to the soil
through the base. However, from the anchor
tests it was learned that skin friction could
transfer significant forces and this finding was
later translated to the behaviour of piles. In
Germany, many pile tests were undertaken to
measure the base and shaft components of the
pile capacity in their service state which proved
that approximately 7040% was carried by skin
friction. It was therefore concluded that it would
be more effective to post-grout the shaft and, or
instead of, the base.
The technique of shaft grouting requires the
attachment of small-diameter tubes with man-
chette valves to the reinforcing cage which is
lowered into the pile bore, as shown in Fig. 3.
The manchettes are positioned at the required
level for optimum efficiency, which is usually in
Fig. 3. Scheme of post-grouting system
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
sand layers. On the day after concreting the
grout flow paths need to be formed. The
manchette valves are isolated using packers and
opened with water under pressures up to 80 bar.
Post-grouting with suitable cement grout of
water:cement ratio 0.4-0.5 can be undertaken at
any time and in one or several stages. This
method has proved the most versatile but also
expensive and time consuming.
In practice it has been shown that several
small-diameter tubes with a single outlet,
distributed around the shaft, can fulfil the same
purpose. With this method the tubes may be
flushed after grouting. Grouting can be accom-
plished in several stages with the advantage that
no packers are required, making the procedure
quick and easy.
In both cases the distribution of the valves
should be symmetrical around the shaft such
that each supplies grout to about 2 m2 to 5 m2
of shaft surface, depending upon the soil and
pile diameter. The grouting pressure and
volumes should be monitored and recorded
carefully.
Effect of post-grouting
When the valves are opened with hydraulic
pressure the concrete shell surrounding the
reinforcement cage is fractured. The concrete
fragments are pushed against the surrounding
L Post-grouting tube
Fig. 4. Effect of post-
grouting
-
189
 INFORMAL DISCUSSION

soil and the spaces between are filledwith 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12

'B B il
grout, thus bracing the pile against the soil
surface as shown in Fig. 4. In addition to the 3.0
effect of bracing, an improvement of the
surrounding soil is sometimes reached by the
following mechanisms
f
3.0
(a) the high lateral pressure causes a local I_
increase of the soil density
(b) in loose granular soil a cementation of the c$ 570
570
570
570 570 570
570 550 670 135 135 135
soil particles may occur Fig, 5. Summary of piles constructed to investigate the effects of post-grouting
(c) at boundaries of two geological strata or soil
layers, voids, cavities or washed-out canals Load: kN
may be filled with grout.
0 500
1000
1500 2000 2500 3000
3500

Pilecapacities
The results of an extensive research pro-
gramme undertaken in1979 comprising 12
different pile types were presented, a summary
of which is shown in Fig. 5.
Piles 1 to 6 and 8 were considered. The piles
had a diameter of 570 mm and were constructed
to a depth of 6 m in loose to dense sand using
the following methods
( a ) piles 1 to 4: within full length casing Fig. 6. Load against
(b) piles 5 to 6: without casing and under pile head settlement for
bentonite slurry piles 1, 4, 5 and 6
(c) pile 8: with a continuous flight auger (CFA).
Skin friction:kN/rn2
The upper 3 m of each pile was wrapped
0 100
150
200
250
300
350
50 400 500
450
with a plastic sleeve to eliminate shaft friction.
Load cells were installed at 3 m and 6 m below
ground level. The effects of the following
different construction techniques were studied
(a) without post-grouting
(b) with base grouting
(c) with shaftgrouting
E
(d) with shaft and base grouting. 0, 50

Figure 6 shows the load/deflection curves for 60

piles 1, 4, 5 and 6. Piles 4 and 6 were base and
70
shaft grouted and exhibit an ultimate load
capacity almost 100%greater than the 80
ungrouted piles, thus clearly demonstrating the
benefit that can be obtained. No significant
difference in the capacity of piles constructed Fig. 7. Skin friction against pile head settlement for piles 1-3, 5, and 9-12
using full length casing or bentonite slurry was
observed. End bearing: kN/rn'
Figure 7 shows a plot of the measured skin
0 1000 2000
3000
4000
5000 6000 7000
friction against the pile settlement. The non-
shaft grouted piles 1, 2 and 5 show similar
results. However, the shaft grouted bored pile
No. 3 and the post-grouted CFA pile No. 8
achieve an ultimate capacity about 50-60%
higher.
Figure 8 shows a plot of the measured base
pressure against the pile settlement. The
ungrouted piles Nos 1 and 5 show similar
results, with the base surprisingly being mobil-
ized at a settlement of roughly 5-10 mm. The Fig. 8. Base pressure
base pressure of the base grouted pile No. 2 is against pile head

-
190
mobilized almost instantaneously and rises to an
enhanced ultimate value.
settlement for piles 1,
2, 3 and 5
 INFORMAL DISCUSSION

After load-testing the piles were excavated Table 1. Measured pile diameter
and their true dimensions measured, a sum- Pile No. Theoretical pile diameter Enlargement Measured
mary of which is given in Table 1. The results drilling . ofpile diameter
indicatedan increase in the pile diameter of diameter: Min: Mm: Medium: (medium):
between 1430~3.5%for cased non-shaft grouted mm cm cm cm %
piles and 5&6.1% for cased shaft grouted piles. 1 57.0 570 58.0 59.5 1.8
The non-shaft grouted pile constructed under 2 570 58.5 60.0 59.0 3.5
bentonite showedan increase of 10.2% com- 3 570 58.0 64.0 60.5 6.1
pared to 14.7% for the shaft grouted bentonite 4 570 58.0 66.0 60.3 5.8
pile. 5 570 60.5 10.2 62.8 65.0
Figures 9 and 10 show a statistical plot of 6 570 65.4 69.0 62.514.7
measured skin friction for different pile types
and anchors constructed in non-cohesive and
cohesive soils, respectively. The general trend of
the data indicates that the skin friction increases
with decreasing: diameter which mav be ex-
plained by thekffect of dilatation. ' h e same
600 I
results are obtained for cohesive soils.

Discussion 500
I-
I
Settlement = 10 mm
I
1
A speaker presented a summary of the
collective experience of the Resident Engineers "E 400 -
at Canary Wharf. She highlighted the difficul-
ties of establishing effective base
grouting .g.- 300 -
C

procedures to ensure repeatable results. At -

L
+
0
Canary Wharf l-2% of all thebasegrouted piles
gave anomalous results whichled to delaysin
c
2oo - X0
X0
A
construction progress. She highlighted the
important role of the contractor inachieving the 100 - '9
required performance criteria. X" :Hi;
0 W
Another speaker proposed that the principle
of shaftgroutingrequires a prestressing force 0: mm 1000 - 570 - 570 ioo 1100 ;-
I200 io0
1500 900
to be interposed between the base and shaft.
Post - groutedSmall - diameter
The details for this approach may be referenced Bored piles bored
Diles
Diles Anchors
from the paperbyFleming (1993).8 The Chair-
man commented that observation of base
grouting often did not show much 'heave' of the Fig. 9. Skin fiiction of cast in situ bored piles (at a settlement of 10 mm)
pile head. The speaker responded that the and anchors in non-cohesive soils
application of the stress at the base wouldnot
result in significant movement at the pile head
as most would be taken by elastic shortening of
the pile.
A speakerproposed theuse of finite element 600
techniques to model the mechanism of base I
Settlement = 10 mm
grouting. He presented the development of and -
results from a simple finite element model for a
single base grouted pile within a pile group 0

0 -
supporting a raft foundation.
0
Another speaker presented construction and
long-term settlement data for contract base 00-
grouted piles constructed at SouthQuay Plaza, 23
to examine mechanisms for base grouting. 00
0
-
Load/settlement and construction data from
base grouted piles formed at other sites
"P
including data from an instrumented base
-
0
grouted test pile at Canary Wharf were also
presented. Possible mechanisms for improving
90-
pile performance by base grouting are sum- 180
marizedin Fig. 11. Some compaction of loose inchors with
material was observed in cores drilled through host-grouting
the base of one of the piles at South Quay
Plaza.
Reversal of stresses brestressing) on the pile
Fig. 10.friction
Skin situofincast
and anchors in cohesive soils
bored piles (at a settlement of 10 mm)
-
191
 INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Compacted
(a) soil (6)
Fig. 11. Mechanisms for improving pile performance by base grouting (a) compaction of loose material
at Pile base; (b) reversal of stresses; (c) migration of grout - formation of socket
shaft is not considered to be particularly
significant due to the uniform load/settlement
performance observed despite large variations
in base grouting pressures and pile uplifts, and
the low residual base stresses demonstrated
from the instrumented pile.
The formation of a 'socket' due to grout
migration is considered to be an important
mechanism. Evidence presented for this in-
cluded the performance of piles that initially
showed u p l i at very low grout pressures,
Canary W h a r f test pile data and the long-term
settlement behaviour of the South Quay Plaza
contract piles.
References
J. M. Base grouted
D. E. and MITCHELL
1. SHERWOOD
piles in Thanet Sands. London piling and deep
foundations conference, 1989.
2. ROBSONR J. and WAHBYA. Base and shaft grouted
bored pile foundations for the first residential
complex, Giza, Egypt. Piling and deep foundations
conference, Brussels, 1994.
3. LI~TLEJOHN G. S. et al. Improvement in base
resistance of large diameter piles founded in silty
sand. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hel-
sinki,1983.
4. DIAMANTIR. Nouvelle technique pour I'execution
des pieux de grande diametre. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Moscow, 1973, pp. 75-81.
5. SIMONSM. et al. The bridge spanning Luke
Maracaibo in knezuela. Benverlag GmbH Wies-
baden, Berlin 1963, pp. 22-89.
6. BUsTAMANE M. and GWENOTD. Grouting: a
method for improving the bearing capacity of deep
foundations. Proceedings of the 8th European Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Helsinki,1983, pp. 131-134.
7. TROUGHTON V. M., and PLATES A. The effects of
changes in effective stress on a base grouted pile
in sand. Piling and Deep Foundations Conference,
London, 1989.
8. FLEMINC W. G. K. The improvement of pile
performance by base grouting. Proc. Instn Civ.
Engrs Civ. Engng, 1993, 97, May, 88-93.