Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Review article

Bond strength of textured micropiles grouted to concrete footings

J. Veludo a,d,⇑, D. Dias-da-Costa b,e, E.N.B.S. Júlio c,d, P.L. Pinto b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Campus 2 – Morro do Lena – Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico of the Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
d
ICIST, Av. Rovisto Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
e
INESC Coimbra, Rua Antero de Quental 199, 3000-033 Coimbra, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In a previous research study the authors performed push-out tests with smooth micropile inserts grouted
Received 12 July 2011 under varying confinement conditions. It was shown that: (i) failure always occurs at the steel-to-grout
Revised 3 October 2011 interface; and (ii) the connection capacity increases with the passive confinement. To increase the con-
Accepted 2 November 2011
nection capacity, it is a common practice to weld steel rings on the surface of the micropile and execute
Available online 7 January 2012
grooves in the predrilled hole. Therefore, a new study is herein presented aiming to widen the conclu-
sions already drawn by analysing the influence of most important parameters in the bond strength of tex-
Keywords:
tured micropiles grouted to concrete footings.
Bond
Strength
Laboratory tests were specifically designed for assessing the effect on the connection capacity of the: (i)
Confinement diameter of the predrilled hole; (ii) insert’s embedment length; (iii) active confinement of the footing;
Retrofitting and (iv) treatment of the hole surface. Eighteen textured micropile inserts grouted in RC footings were
Interface submitted to monotonic push-out tests until failure. In brief, it can be stated that the capacity of the
Micropile micropile-to-footing connection increases by increasing the insert’s embedment length and by decreas-
Grout ing the hole diameter. Moreover, an adequate active confinement must be provided to achieve the
Push-out tests required capacity.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
2. Research significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
3. Experimental program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.1. Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.1.1. Reinforcing micropile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.1.2. Grout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.1.3. Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.2. Test specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
3.3. Test set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
4.1. Hole diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
4.2. Embedment length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
4.3. Active confinement level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
4.4. Hole surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic Institute

of Leiria, Campus 2 – Morro do Lena – Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal. Tel.:
+351 244 820 300; fax: +351 244 820 310.
E-mail addresses: joao.veludo@ipleiria.pt (J. Veludo), dias-da-costa@dec.uc.pt
(D. Dias-da-Costa), ejulio@civil.ist.utl.pt (E.N.B.S. Júlio), ppinto@dec.uc.pt (P.L. Pinto).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.012
 J. Veludo et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295
1. Introduction
Micropiles are usually applied to existing RC footings through
predrilled holes and sealed with non-shrink grout. Detailing de-
pends mainly on the required capacity of the connection [1–3]. It
is a common practice to weld steel rings or a steel spiral around
the perimeter of the micropile (see Fig. 1) in order to increase
the capacity and the ductility of the connection. In this case, load
is transmitted from the micropile to the footing by friction be-
tween shear rings and surrounding grout. Grooves at the hole sur-
face (see Fig. 1) are also required to guarantee sufficient bond
strength at the grout-to-concrete interface [1,4,5].
Attention must also be paid to the reinforcement of the existing
concrete footing since this can be insufficient for the strengthened
situation. In this case, both lateral and vertical confinement of the
existing footing should be increased to assure the required connec-
tion capacity [2]. Namely, vertical prestressing is required to en-
hance the shear capacity, while lateral prestressing is required to
enhance both shear and flexural capacities of the footings. Pre-
stressed tendons or aramid/carbon fibres can be used with this
aim.
The assessment of the bond strength of the micropile-to-grout
and concrete-to-grout interfaces is vital for designing the connec-
tion between micropiles and existing footings. However, few stud-
ies are available. One of the most relevant was performed by
Gómez et al. [6], using push-out tests to evaluate the connection
capacity of micropiles considering smooth and textured inserts in
reinforced concrete footings. Holes were drilled using a jack ham-
mer to guarantee sufficient bond at grout-to-concrete interface.
The reinforcement represented approximately 1% by volume of
the concrete footing. For textured inserts weld beads were created
around the perimeter of two micropiles to simulate shear rings
with 150 mm spacing and a thickness varying between 10 and
12.5 mm. The authors concluded that for textured micropile inserts
the connection capacity is mostly controlled by frictional effects
due to the dilation caused by the relative slip at the micropile-
to-grout interface. It was concluded that the use of textured micro-
piles increases both capacity and ductility of the connection.
In a previous research study [7], the authors performed push-
out tests to evaluate the load capacity of existing RC footings
strengthened with smooth micropile inserts grouted in predrilled
holes. It was concluded that: (i) failure always occurs at the
steel-to-grout interface; (ii) the connection capacity increases with
the confinement level of the grout mass and (iii) it decreases with
the increase of the grout diameter. Immediately after reaching the
peak load, all specimens presented a sudden drop of the load car-
rying capacity, down to a residual value of less than 50% of the
maximum load.
Moosavi and Bawden [8] performed shear tests on grout cylin-
ders subjected to varying normal pressure, for which the shear
strength of the cement grout was shown to increase with higher
compressive strength and higher normal stresses.
existing
RC footing
shear
rings
grooves
Fig. 1. Micropile to footing connections with shear rings and grooves at the hole
surface.
289
Studies on bond strength of grouted reinforcing bars using pull-
out tests also present some relevant conclusions for the investiga-
tion herein described and therefore should be referred to.
Darwin and Zavaregh [9] performed several pull-out tests of
individual reinforcing bars grouted in small-diameter holes pre-
drilled in concrete. Bond strength was shown to be insensitive to
the preparation and the diameter of the hole, but increasing with
bar size, cover and embedment length, presenting a nearly linear
relation with the latter. Finally, it is also concluded that the bond
strength increases with the square root of the compressive
strength of the surrounding concrete.
Barley [10] performed several pull-out tests in grouted anchors
to determine the shear capacity of confined grouts. For normal an-
chor grout the direct shear strength is in the range of 12–20 MPa,
whereas for proprietary encapsulating grouts the direct shear
strength can reach 25 MPa.
In another research program, Moosavi et al. [11] studied the bond
of cement grouted reinforcing bars under constant radial pressure in
a series of pull-out tests using a modified Hook cell to assess the ef-
fect of confining pressure on the bond capacity. By increasing the
confining pressure, the connection capacity also increases and the
radial dilation decreases. Furthermore, lower quality grouts also
have decreased dilation which results in a lower bond capacity.
Kılıc et al. [12] performed 80 pull-out tests on rock bolts to eval-
uate the shear strength effect of grout on the bond strength at the
bolt-to-grout interface of a threaded bar. The authors concluded
that the bolt capacity depends on the mechanical properties of gro-
uting materials, with failure occurring at the bolt-to-steel inter-
face. The pull-out force increases with the Young’s modulus,
uniaxial compressive strength and shear strength of the grout,
and a linear relation with the embedment length (until reaching
the ultimate tensile strength of the bolt) is observed. It is also con-
cluded that the water/cement ratio considerably affects the pull-
out strength and that it should be between 0.34 and 0.40.
In the case of steel micropiles connected to RC footings, and
from the studies previously referred to and [13–15], it can be as-
sumed that the load transfer mechanism depends on: (1) chemical
adhesion at both steel-to-grout and concrete-to-grout interfaces;
(2) friction at both steel-to-grout and concrete-to-grout interfaces;
and (3) bearing of the welded steel rings at the micropile-to-grout
interface. Consequently, five possible failure mechanisms can be
predicted: (i) bond failure at the steel-to-grout interface; (ii) bond
failure at the concrete-to-grout interface; (iii) failure of the RC
footing; (iv) failure, yielding or buckling of the micro-pile; and
(v) a combination (of some or all) of the previous.
All design codes for RC structures, namely ACI 318 [16], EC2
[17] and MC 2010 [18], specify design expressions for both the
bond strength and the anchorage length of bars embedded in con-
crete. However, there are no specific expressions addressing the
bond strength of steel tubes grouted in predrilled holes in concrete.
Furthermore, if the existing expressions are used to estimate the
anchorage length of a micropile grouted in a predrilled hole, too
conservative solutions are obtained, requiring a significantly dee-
per foundation and are generally not feasible in practice.
The study herein described focuses specifically on the behav-
iour of both micropile-to-grout and concrete-to-grout interfaces
with textured micropile inserts aiming to quantify the influence
on the bond capacity of the micropile of: diameter of the predrilled
hole; insert’s embedment length; active confinement of the foot-
ing; and treatment of the hole surface.
2. Research significance
Although strengthening existing RC footings with grouted micro-
piles is currently one of the most used retrofitting techniques, the
290 J. Veludo et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295

behaviour and the design of these connections are not addressed in to enable three different confinement levels of the RC footings,
current codes [16–18]. A previous study performed by the authors eight Dywidag bars were used, four in the longitudinal direction
with smooth micropiles [7] revealed: (i) an undesirable response and four in the transversal direction. Afterwards, these specimens
since failure occurs with a substantial reduction of the load capacity; were tested in compression until failure, to evaluate the influence
and (ii) the importance of the confinement for the bond strength at of the parameters previously referred to on the bond strength of
the micropile-to-grout interface. Moreover, in most of foundation the insert/grout/concrete interface. Besides these, the remaining
rehabilitation works textured inserts are used to reach higher capac- parameters were kept constant: grout type and strength; concrete
ities and a more ductile connection. In this case, the load transfer type and strength; micropile insert; and loading.
mechanism depends on the behaviour of the micropile/grout/con-
crete interface. Thus, the experimental study herein described aims 3.1. Materials
to contribute to the knowledge of the behaviour of these interfaces,
being addressed the effect of: (i) the active confinement; and (ii) the 3.1.1. Reinforcing micropile
treatment of the hole surface. The micropile inserts were produced using 60 mm API N80 steel
tube, grade 760/860 MPa (values obtained from tensile tests), with
6 mm thickness, reinforced with a 16 mm grade 500/600 MPa
3. Experimental program Dywidag bar. An average roughness of 1 mm for the tube’s surface
was measured with a laser roughness analyser [19]. Each insert
The experimental program consisted of push-out tests with tex- was built by first welding the 16 mm bar to the centre of a
tured micropiles grouted in RC footings, to investigate the effect in 150  150  20 mm3 steel plate. Then, the tube was placed around
the connection capacity of the hole diameter, the embedment the bar, centred, and welded to the steel plate. Afterwards, steel
length, the active confinement, and the treatment of hole surface. shear rings were welded to each micropile. Three, four or five rings
Nine different situations were defined and, for each one, two spec- were adopted, depending on the embedment length of the insert
imens were tested in compression. (200, 275 and 350 mm), with 75 mm spacing, a thickness of 5.5
Eighteen textured inserts were positioned inside holes pre- and 5 mm height. Finally, the insert was fully grouted.
drilled in RC footings. Then, a cement grout was used to seal the
void between the inserts and the walls of the tubes/holes. In order 3.1.2. Grout
A grout with a measured compressive strength of 53.4 MPa and
Unconfined Compressive Strength, fcm (MPa)

70
a Young’s modulus of 14.0 GPa, at 28 days, and a water–cement ra-
tio of 0.40 was adopted. The following mix proportions were
60
53.4
adopted, per cubic meter: 1327 kg of type I: 42.5R Portland ce-
ment, 530 l of water, 13.27 kg of modified polycarboxylate admix-
50
ture (high range water reducer); and 13.27 kg of expansive
admixture. A set of six specimens, obtained from the flexural
40
strength testing of three prismatic specimens with
32.5
40  40  160 mm3, was used to evaluate the average compressive
30 strength at 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, and 90 days of age [20,21], (see
Fig. 2a). Another set of three prismatic specimens with the dimen-
20 sions previously referred to was used to evaluate the correspond-
ing Young’s modulus [22] (see Fig. 2b). The specific gravity of the
10 grout was 19.2 kN/m3. The following properties were also mea-
Concrete Grout sured, according to European standards [21]: a flowability of 11s;
0 a volume change of 0%; a bleed of 0.45%; and an air content of
0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112
2%. These results were considered acceptable, also according to
Curing Time (days) European standards [23].
a) Unconfined compressive strength From the material characteristics listed above, a failure load of
1100 kN, and an axial stiffness of 281,850 kN were predicted for
Young´s Modulus, Ecm (GPa)

45 the micropile. It is pointed out that these are lower bounds since
the effect of the confinement for the grout inside the tube was
40
35.2 not considered.
35
3.1.3. Concrete
30
For the RC blocks, a concrete mix with a measured compressive
25 strength of 32.5 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 35.2 GPa, at

20
tube shear plate grooves
150
L1

14.0
15 rings anchorage
drilled
68 75 75 75 68

hole
10 anchor
350
Le

grout nut
5
500

Dywidag
Concrete Grout bar Dywidag
0 bar
0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112 polystyrene
Dh 102
insert
Curing Time (days) (in mm)
450x450 450x450
b) Young’s Modulus a) Wire-brushed surface b) Grooved surface

Fig. 2. Mechanical properties of concrete and grout. Fig. 3. Geometry of the specimens.
 J. Veludo et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295 291

28 days, was used. The following mix proportions per cubic meter
of concrete were adopted: 280 kg of type II: 42.5 R Portland ce-
ment, 180 l of water, 250 kg of washed siliceous sand with 2.56
fineness modulus, 710 kg of siliceous sand with 3.71 fineness mod-
ulus, 880 kg of limestone crushed aggregates with 6.35 fineness
modulus and 2.8 kg of a water reducing admixture. Three cubes
with 150 mm were produced to evaluate the average compressive
strength [24,25] at each of the following ages: 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56
and 90 days (see Fig. 2a). The corresponding Young’s modulus was
also measured [22], using 150  150  600 mm3 specimens (see
Fig. 2b).
The concrete blocks were reinforced at the bottom face with an
8 mm S400 grid, with five bars in each direction, and presenting a
50 mm of nominal cover.
To confine the RC blocks, eight Dywidag bars with a 16 mm and
grade 500/600 MPa were used. The bars were anchored to the foot-
ing using a 100  100  10 mm3 steel plate and a 32  40 mm2 an-
chor nut.

3.2. Test specimens

Fig. 3 presents the geometry of the adopted specimens for the

push-out tests performed with textured inserts.
In Table 1 the nine different situations are presented each one
composed by two specimens, where the following variables are
considered: two treatments of the hole surface (wire brushed
and grooved); three diameters of the pre-drilled hole (92, 102
and 122 mm); three embedment lengths of the insert (200, 275
and 350 mm).
As mentioned above, each RC footing was confined with eight
Fig. 4. Preparation of the RC footings.
Dywidag bars, four in the longitudinal direction and four in the
transversal direction (except in the test performed with the lower
embedment length were only one layer of confinement was used,
3.3. Test set-up
(see Table 1). Three levels of confinement were adopted, corre-
sponding to: Level 1 (30 kN), Level 2 (45 kN) and Level 3 (60 kN)
The test set-up is shown in Fig. 5. Loads were applied using a
applied at each bar. The prestress was applied with a dynamomet-
500 tonf compressive testing machine. The relative displacement
ric key.
between the insert and the grout mass was measured with two lin-
In Fig. 4, the main six stages of the production of the RC blocks
ear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) placed between the
are presented: (a) first, steel and wooden formwork were assem-
loading plate and the surface of the block.
bled to execute the 450  450  500 mm3 RC blocks; (b) then, con-
The applied load was monitored using the machine pressure
crete was cast and vibrated; (c) after 28 days of indoor curing, the
gauge as well as an external load cell placed at the top of the load-
holes were drilled using a diamond coring system for insert appli-
ing plate. Four load cells were placed between anchor plates to
cation; (d) then, a special equipment attached to the same drill ring
monitor the confinement load (only in one of the sides of the block
was used to open four grooves in the hole, in eight specimens; a
due to space limitations). A TML TDS 303 datalogger was used to
compressible (polystyrene) plate was positioned at the bottom of
record data from the load cells and from the LVDTs. All tests were
each hole to prevent end bearing thus allowing the slippage of
conducted until failure with displacement control, considering a
the inserts during push-out tests; (e) next, the prefabricated micro-
load rate of 0.025 mm/s, in order to also obtain the residual con-
pile inserts were positioned into the holes and were sealed with
nection capacity.
grout; and (f) last, the RC footings were confined using Dywidag
bars.

Table 1
The complete push-out test program.

Test Hole surface Dh (mm) Le (mm) Pe (kN)

C1,2 Wire brushed 102 200 120 (Level 1⁄)
C3,4 Wire brushed 102 275 240 (Level 1)
C5,6 Wire brushed 102 350 240 (Level 1)
C7,8 Wire brushed 92 350 240 (Level 1)
C9,10 Wire brushed 122 350 240 (Level 1)
C11,12 Grooved 102 350 0 (Level 0)
C13,14 Grooved 102 350 240 (Level 1)
C15,16 Grooved 102 350 360 (Level 2)
C17,18 Grooved 102 350 480 (Level 3)

Dh, hole diameter; Le, embedment length; Pe, confinement level; ⁄, only one layer of
confinement. Fig. 5. Test set-up.
292 J. Veludo et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295

4. Results and discussion

The load and vertical displacement values were used to calcu-

late the corresponding average values of bond stress and slip.
The average bond strength, fb, was calculated dividing the peak
load, Pu, by the nominal surface area of the embedment length,
Le, of the micropile insert, thus assuming a uniform bond
distribution:
Pu
fb ¼ ð1Þ
p  dm  Le
where dm is the diameter of failure interface. The displacement val-
ues are referred to the horizontal upper surface by taking into ac-
count the elastic elongation of the head of the micropile [26]:
d ¼ dmea  de ð2Þ
in which d is the total slip of micropile inside the grout, dmea is the
total displacement measured by two LVDTs as indicated in Fig. 5,
and de is the elastic deformation of the micropile estimated as
follows:
P  L1
de ¼ ð3Þ
EA
where L1 is the distance from the lower surface of the top plate of
the micropile to the surface of the grout (L1 = 150 mm), as shown
in Fig. 3; and EA is the axial stiffness of the micropile.
Push-out failure was defined at the maximum push-out load,
for which the corresponding maximum nominal bond stress (fb)
and displacement (du) were calculated.
In Table 2 the average values of the peak load, bond strength,
axial displacement at peak load, initial stiffness, axial displacement
at yield, and ductility are presented. The bond strength was calcu-
lated according to the observed failure mechanism, i.e. at the con-
crete-to-grout interface, for wire-brushed holes, and at the
perimeter of the shear rings, for holes with grooves. The initial
stiffness was defined as the stiffness in the elastic stage. The duc-
tility is defined as the ratio between the displacement at peak load
and the slip at yield. The yield point was defined assuming the ini-
tial stiffness up to the failure load [27]. Results show that shear
rings provide a higher load capacity of the connection, when com-
pared to those obtained with smooth micropiles (see [7]).
Fig. 6 illustrates the three different failure modes observed in
tests: (1) bond failure at concrete-to-grout interface (registered
in specimens with wire-brushed holes and active confinement);
(2) a mixed bond failure at steel-to-grout and concrete-to-grout
interfaces (registered in specimens with grooved holes and active
confinement); and (3) monolithic failure of RC blocks (registered
in specimens with grooved holes and without active confinement).
All average load–displacement curves are shown in Fig. 7a)
which contains the results from tests performed with wire- Fig. 6. Bond failure: (a) at concrete-to-grout interface; (b) at steel-to-grout
brushed hole, lowest level of confinement (240 kN) and different interface; (c) monolithic failure of concrete.

hole diameters and embedment lengths; whereas Fig 7b) shows

Table 2 the results from tests with grooved hole surface, different levels
Summary of results.
of confinement and only one hole diameter (Dh = 102 mm) and
Test Pu (kN) fb (MPa) du (mm) K0 (kN/mm) dy (mm) du/dy embedment length (Le = 350 mm). The curve marked with (⁄) in
C1,2 301.8 4.71 13.55 275 1.09 12.4 Fig. 7a) does not correspond to the one actually measured. Initial
C3,4 486.3 5.52 8.38 775 0.66 12.6 specimens were performed with a hole diameter of 82 mm, result-
C5,6 802.6 7.16 1.33 1482 0.55 2.4 ing in a deficient sealing of the micropile. Therefore, these tests
C7,8 864.6 8.55 2.54 1548 0.56 4.5 were repeated, but under different curing conditions, which led
C9,10 638.4 4.76 4.61 1130 0.57 8.1
C11,12 842.1 10.79 1.15 1075 0.78 1.5
to a higher Young’s modulus for the concrete. From a previous re-
C13,14 980.5 12.56 1.58 1529 0.62 2.6 search programme the authors concluded that the connection
C15,16 1040.4 13.33 4.54 1544 0.67 6.8 capacity varies linearly with the Young’s modulus [7], thus justify-
C17,18 1097.6 14.06 5.66 1611 0.68 8.3 ing the curve to be modified by a constant coefficient of 0.85 (cor-
Pu, peak load; fb, bond strength; du, total displacement of micropile inside the grout responding to the ratio between the expected Young’s modulus
at peak load; K0, initial stiffness; dy, displacement at yield; du/dy, ductility. and the measured one).
 J. Veludo et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295 293

1200 (2) In specimens with grooved holes and without confinement,

1100 Micropile failure
a monolithic failure (see Fig. 6c) with a sudden decrease of
1000 the load capacity immediately after the peak was observed.
Thus, the connection capacity is not entirely mobilized and
the peak load represents a lower bound. For confined speci-
800
Load (kN)

mens, a mixed failure was observed and the resisting mech-

* C 3,4: Le=275mm
C 5,6: Le=350mm
C 7,8: Dh =92mm
C 9,10: Dh =122mm anism is assured by grout compressive struts and friction
600 developing at the micropile-to-grout interface. Upon failure,
struts gradually crush forming wedges at the shear rings (see
400 Fig. 6b). Failure at concrete-to-grout interface was observed
beyond the last groove and beyond the confining bars. This
200
indicates that the confinement should be placed along the
one layer of entire embedment length of the insert and more grooves
confinement should be provided at the hole surface. Barley [10] stated
C 1,2: Le=200mm
0
that the shear strength of the confined grout ranges from
0 5 10 15
12 to 20 MPa. These values clearly exceed the bond strength
Displacement (mm)
observed at concrete-to-grout interfaces and therefore
C 1,2 C 3,4 C 5,6 C 7,8 C 9,10
reveals the benefit of using grooves (the grout must be
a) wire-brushed hole sheared prior to push-out) which prevents failure at this
1200 interface (if sufficient confinement is provided). For the
1100 Micropile failure highest level of confinement (C17 and C18 specimens),
1000 lower dilations are generated and grout between shear rings
is completely sheared during push-out the micropile.
800
Load (kN)

Level 3 The initial stiffness seems to be independent of the confinement

Level 2 level, in spite of displacement at peak load and ductility increase
600 (see Table 2). Specimens with active confinement and grooved
Level 1
holes exhibit a ductile response. Furthermore, the active confine-
400 ment significantly reduces and distributes cracking in the concrete
block. It is highlighted that yielding of the confining bars was not
200
Level 0 achieved in any of these tests. For confinement levels 2 and 3,
the obtained bond strength means that yielding of the micropile
can occur. In fact, this was observed in three tests, also indicating
0
0 5 10 15
that the embedment length was adequately defined.
Displacement (mm) Following, the response of specimen C15 is thoroughly pre-
sented. This test was performed with an intermediate level of con-
C 11,12 C 13,14 C 15,16 C 17,18
finement (45 kN at each Dywidag bar, providing a total of 360 kN)
b) grooved surface and having the specimen a grooved hole surface. Fig. 8 shows the
load–displacement curve and the behaviour of the confining bars.
Fig. 7. Results of the performed tests.
As the applied load increases, circumferential tensile stresses,
due to bearing at the shear rings, produce splitting cracks at the
Each curve exhibits three different stages. First, a linear elastic surface of the grout pocket, which propagate along the embedment
branch is identified, presenting different values of tangent stiffness length of the insert. In this stage, the load–slip response is almost
varying with the embedment length, hole diameter and confine- linear until the value of 965 kN is reached. The effectiveness of the
ment level (see Tables 1 and 2). Then, the response becomes confinement is reduced as further splitting cracks appear, propa-
non-linear at 60–90% of the peak load. At this stage the response gate, and extend from the grout to the surface of the surrounding
depends on the specimen characteristics:

(1) In specimens with wire-brushed holes, the load capacity is 1200 80

1100 Micropile failure
controlled by adhesion and friction at concrete-to-grout
Force in Dywidag Bars (kN)

1059.7 1
interface. The initial stiffness is observed to depend on the 1000
2
70
965
embedment length and on the hole diameter. For short 3
4
embedment lengths (200 and 275 mm) and for the highest 800 60
Load (kN)

diameter (122 mm), concrete does not split, although the

grout annulus presents radial cracks (three or four). There- 600 50
fore, after the peak load, a ductile behaviour maintains a 45
high capacity due to the confinement provided by the con- 400 40
crete cover. The value of the ductility ratio varies between
8.1 and 12.6. For diameters of 92 and 102 mm, and higher 200 K0 30
embedment length (350 mm), the load capacity is increased,
but the post peak behaviour is brittle. In this situation, split- 0 20
ting cracks are visible at the surface and edges of the con- δy δu
0 5 10 15
crete block, resulting in the decrease of the confinement Displacement (mm)
provided by the concrete cover and in a sudden loss of the
Test C15 Bar 1 Bar 2 Bar 3 Bar 4
connection capacity down to a residual value of 40-50% of
the maximum load. Fig. 8. Load and force in Dywidag bars vs. displacement curve for specimen C15.
294 J. Veludo et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295

concrete and, then, to the edges of the concrete block beyond the 16
embedment length of the insert. This results in a nonlinear re- Hole surface: grooved
15 Failure at micropile-to-grout interface
sponse of the connection, accompanied with the observed soften-

Bond Strength (MPa)

ing and failure of the connection. The tension force, initially Micropile failure 1100 kN (f b=14.1 MPa)
14
applied to the Dywidag bars, starts to increase immediately after (lower bound) 14.06

Level 3
the failure of the connection, according to the splitting patterns, 13.33
13 12.56
until a constant value is reached.

Level 2
In Figs. 9–11, the relationships between bond strength and hole
12

Level 1
diameter, embedment length and confinement level are shown. In
these figures, nominal (dashed bullets) and average values (solid 11 Level 0
filled bullets) are presented. 10.79
10

4.1. Hole diameter fb = 0.006Pe + 11.074; R² = 0.926

9
0 120 240 360 480 600
Fig. 9 illustrates the bond strength at the concrete-to-grout
interface vs. the hole diameter in tests performed with wire- Confinement Level (kN)
brushed holes. Results indicate that the bond strength decreases
Fig. 11. Bond strength vs. confinement level.
with the hole diameter. These results are consistent with those
previously obtained by the authors in tests performed with smooth
micropile inserts [7] and are also corroborated by Gómez et al. [6]. smaller correlation coefficient. This fact is explained by the differ-
ence observed between both specimens with the lowest embed-
4.2. Embedment length ment lengths. These results are not consistent with those
obtained by Gómez et al. [6], where bond strength does not signif-
In Fig. 10, the bond strength at the concrete-to-grout interface icantly vary with the embedment length. However, these tests dif-
vs. embedment length is plotted. It can be seen that the bond fer from the tests performed in this investigation since higher
strength increases with the embedment length although with a embedment lengths (ranging from 450 to 900 mm) were adopted.

4.3. Active confinement level

12
Hole surface: wire-brushed
Failure at concrete-to-grout interface
Fig. 11 shows the bond strength vs. the level of the initial con-
10 finement applied to the concrete footing. Contrarily to the bond
Bond Strength (MPa)

strength between a reinforcing bar and concrete, the increase rate

8.55
8 of bond strength does not appear to reduce with the confinement
7.16 level (as reported in MC 2010 [18]) at micropile-to-grout, interface
of grouted micropiles. It can be observed that the bond strength in-
6
creases linearly with the confinement level, although this should
4.76
be limited by the smaller of: (i) the failure of the micropile; (ii)
4
the failure of the confinement bars; and (iii) the compressive fail-
ure of concrete at the anchorage zones.
2

fb= -0.125Dh + 19.922; R² = 0.935 4.4. Hole surface treatment

0
80 90 100 110 120 130 Fig. 12 illustrates the capacity of the connection with the hole
Hole Diameter (mm) surface treatment. The roughness of the hole surface influences
the failure mode of the connection. For confined specimens, two
Fig. 9. Bond strength vs. hole diameter.

1200
10
Hole surface: wire-brushed
Failure at concrete-to-grout interface 980.5
1000
Bond Strength (MPa)

8
802.6
7.16 800
Load (kN)

Failure at micropile-to-grout interface

Failure at concrete-to-grout interface

6
5.52
600
4.71
4
400

2
200

fb = 0.016Le + 1.307; R² = 0.636

0 0
150 200 250 300 350 400 Wire Brushed Grooved

Embedment Length (mm) Hole Surface Treatment

Fig. 10. Bond strength vs. embedment length. Fig. 12. Load vs. hole surface treatment.
 J. Veludo et al. / Engineering Structures 35 (2012) 288–295
failure mechanisms were identified and previously described: fail-
ure at concrete-to-grout interface in tests performed with wire-
brushed holes; and a mixed failure at micropile-to-grout and con-
crete-to-grout interfaces for tests performed with grooved hole
surface.
It can also be seen that grooves lead to an increase in the con-
nection capacity of approximately 20%.
5. Conclusions
From the research study herein described, it was concluded
that: (i) textured inserts provide higher load capacity than smooth
inserts; (ii) the roughness of the hole surface has a significant influ-
ence at the behaviour of the connection when textured micropiles
are used. For specimens with wire-brushed holes, failure occurs at
the grout-to-concrete interface, whereas for specimens with
grooved holes a mixed bond failure is observed; (iii) in order to
prevent failure at the concrete-to-grout interface, an active con-
finement must be placed along the entire embedment length of
the insert and more grooves must be made at the hole surface;
(iv) for long embedment lengths, brittle failure is observed in spec-
imens with wire-brushed holes, whereas for specimens with
grooved holes, a ductile response is observed for the highest levels
of confinement. Moreover, the latter always provides higher load
capacity, reaching 20% capacity increase; (v) the bond strength de-
creases with the hole diameter and increases with the embedment
length; and (vi) in practice, attention must be paid to the reinforce-
ment of the existing RC footings. If this proves to be insufficient, ac-
tive lateral confinement must be provided to prevent monolithic
failure. Moreover, this also reduces and distributes cracking, thus
increasing the ductility of the connection.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the compa-
nies Betão-Liz, DSI, HILTI, SECIL, and SIKA.
References
[1] Armour T, Groneck P, Keeley J, Sharma S. Micropile design and construction
guidelines – implementation manual report FHWA-SA-97-070. Federal
Highway Administration – US Department of Transportation. 2000, p. 376.
[2] Cyna H, Schlosser F, Frank R, Plumelle C, Estephan R, Altamayer F, et al.
FOREVER: Synthèse des résultats et recommandations du project national sur
les micropieux (1999–2003): Presses de L’École National des Ponts et
Chaussées; 2004 p. 347 [in French].
[3] Rasines JME. Micropiles to footing connection. Jornadas técnicas SEMSIG-
AETESS 3ª Sesión, CEDEX, Naos Livros: Madrid; 2003 p. 131–141 [in Spanish].
295
[4] Bruce DA. American developments in the use of small diameter inserts as piles
and in situ reinforcement. DFI international conference on piling and deep
foundations, London: 1989, p. 11–22.
[5] PWRI. Design and execution manual for seismic retrofitting of existing pile
foundations with high capacity micropiles. Japan: Public Works Research
Institute; 2002, p. 110.
[6] Gómez J, Cadden A, Traylor RP, Bruce DA. Connection capacity between
micropiles and existing footings-bond strength to concrete. In: Bruce DA,
Cadden AW, editors. Geo3 GEO construction quality assurance/quality control
conference proceedings, TX: Dallas/Ft. Worth; 2005. p. 196–216.
[7] Veludo J, Júlio ENBS, Dias-da-Costa D. Compressive strength of micropile-to-
grout connections. Constr Build Mater 2012;26:172–9.
[8] Moosavi M, Bawden WF. Shear strength of Portland cement grout. Cement
Concrete Compos 2003;25:729–35.
[9] Darwin D, Zavaregh SS. Bond strength of grouted reinforcing bars. ACI Struct J
1996;93:486–95.
[10] Barley AD. Properties of anchor grouts in a confined state. ICE conference on
ground anchorages and anchored structures. London; 1997, p. 10.
[11] Moosavi M, Jafari A, Khosravi A. Bond of cement grouted reinforcing bars
under constant radial pressure. Cement Concrete Compos 2005;27:103–9.
[12] Kılıc A, Yasar E, Celik AG. Effect of grout properties on the pull-out load
capacity of fully grouted rock bolt. Tunn Underground Sp Tech
2002;17:355–62.
[13] FIB, Bond of reinforcement in concrete. Lausanne, Switzerland: Fédération
Internationale du Béton; 2000, p. 434.
[14] ACI, Bond Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (408R-03).
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan: 2003, p. 49.
[15] Tepfers R. Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed reinforcing
bars. Mag Concrete Res 1979;31:3–12.
[16] ACI, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary (ACI
318M-05). American Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills, Michigan; 2005, p.
438.
[17] CEN. EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization; 2010, p. 225.
[18] CEB. CEB-FIP Model code 2010. Lausanne, Switzerland: Comité Euro-
International du Béton; 2010, p. 317.
[19] Santos PMD, Júlio ENBS. Development of a laser roughness analyser to predict
in situ the bond strength of concrete-to concrete interfaces. Mag Concrete Res
2008;60:329–37.
[20] CEN. EN 196-1 methods of testing cement – part 1: determination of strength.
European Committee for Standardization. 2005, p. 26.
[21] CEN. EN 445: grout for prestressing tendons. Test methods. European
Committee for Standardization; 2000, p. 19.
[22] LNEC. Specification E 397 – Static Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Under
Compression. Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil; 1993, p. 2. [in
Portuguese].
[23] CEN. EN 447: Grout for prestressing tendons. Basic requirements. European
Committee for Standardization; 2000, p. 14.
[24] CEN. EN 12390-1 Testing hardened concrete – part 1: shape, dimensions and
other requirements for specimens and moulds. European Committee for
Standardization; 2000.
[25] CEN. EN 12390-3 Testing hardened concrete – part 3: compressive strength of
test specimens. European Committee for Standardization; 2000.
[26] Zhang B, Benmokrane B. Pullout bond properties of fiber-reinforced polymer
tendons to grout. J Mater Civil Eng 2002;14:399–408.
[27] Stephens J, McKittrick L. Performance of steel pipe pile-to concrete bent cap
connections subject to seismic or high transverse loading: phase II. Research
No. FHWA/MT-05-001/8144. Montana Department of Transportation and
Federal Highway Administration; 2005, p. 151.