Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1843–1856 | Cite as

Field loading tests of screw micropiles under axial cyclic and monotonic loads

  • Zhengyang Guo
  • Mujtaba Khidri
  • Lijun DengEmail author
Research Paper
  • 238 Downloads

Abstract

Unlike conventional grouted micropiles, screw micropiles have been recently introduced to the foundation industry. Full-scale field tests of screw micropiles were carried out at a cohesive soil site. The screw micropiles have a diameter varying from 76 to 114 mm and a length varying from 1.6 to 3 m, and spiral threads welded on the lower half of the steel tubular shaft. Site investigation from cone penetration tests (CPT) and laboratory testing implies that the soil was medium to stiff, low plasticity clay. Six axial monotonic and three axial cyclic load tests were performed on three micropiles. One micropile was instrumented with strain gauges to investigate the shaft load distribution during loading. The axial cyclic loading was intended to simulate cyclic inertia load during vertical ground motions. Results showed that the micropiles behave as frictional piles during monotonic tests; the unit shaft resistance and adhesion coefficient were calculated and compared with results in the literature. The end installation torque was estimated using CPT shaft resistance and was shown to agree reasonably with the measured torque. Under axial cyclic loading, the micropiles underwent small cumulative displacements and the magnitude of the displacement decreased with increasing pile length and diameter. Cyclic loading redistributed the load transfer along different segments of the micropile. Negative skin resistance was observed along the smooth pile shaft when the pile underwent decreasing axial loading.

Keywords

Axial behavior Cyclic loads Field test Pile Screw micropile 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was financed by Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) under the Collaborative R&D Program (CRDPJ 469600-14). The authors acknowledge Krinner Canada Inc. for the financial and in-kind support. The first author also appreciates the NSERC-Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship with the support of Krinner, and the technical support of Tomas Johansson, Krinner, and Benoit Trudeau, Work On That Structure Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007) ASTM D1143-07, standard test methods for deep foundations under static axial compressive loads. ASTM, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abd Elaziz AY, El Naggar MH (2012) Axial behaviour of hollow core micropiles under static and cyclic loadings. Geotech Test J 35(2):249–260Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruce DA (1988) Aspects of minipiling practice in the United States. Ground Eng 21(8):20–39Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruce DA, Yeung CK (1984) A review of minipiling with particular regard to Hong Kong applications. Hong Kong Eng 12(6):31–54Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cadden A, Gomez J, Bruce D, Armour T (2004) Micropiles: recent advances and future trends. In: DiMaggio JA, Hussein MH (eds) Current practices and future trends in deep foundations. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp 140–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cavey JK, Lambert DV, Miller SM, Krhounek RC (2000) Observations of minipile performance under cyclic loading conditions. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv 4(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drbe OFE, El Naggar MH (2015) Axial static and cyclic compression behaviour of hollow-bar micropiles. Can Geotech J 52(4):426–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El Naggar MH, Wei JQ (2000) Cyclic response of axially loaded tapered model piles. Geotech Test J 23(1):100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2005) Micropiles design and construction. Publication no. FHWA-NHI-05-039, U.S. Department of Transportation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    German Institute for Standardization (DIN) (2006) DIN EN 10219-1, cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels-part 1: technical delivery conditions. German Institute for Standardization (DIN), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    German Institute for Standardization (DIN) (2006) DIN EN 10219-2, cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels-part 1: tolerances, dimensions and sectional properties. German Institute for Standardization (DIN), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo Z, Deng L (2018) Field behaviour of screw micropiles subject to axial loading in cohesive soils. Can Geotech J 55(1):33–44Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guo Z, Deng L (2016) Report of field load tests of Krinner ground-screw piles. Rep. no. UA/GC-D-2016/04, University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Han J, Ye S-L (2006) A field study on the behavior of micropiles in clay under compression or tension. Can Geotech J 43(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Juran I, Bruce DA, Dimillio A, Benslimane A (1999) Micropiles: the state of practice. Part II: design of single micropiles and groups and networks of micropiles. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv 3(3):89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li W, Deng L (2018) Axial load tests and numerical modeling of single-helix piles in cohesive and cohesionless soils. Acta Geotech 1:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0669-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malik AA, Kuwano J, Tachibana S, Maejima T (2017) End bearing capacity comparison of screw pile with straight pipe pile under similar ground conditions. Acta Geotech 12:415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Opus Stewart Weir Ltd (2013) Preliminary geotechnical site investigation: proposed Clover East Industrial Park. Opus Stewart Weir Ltd, Sherwood Park, p 46Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poulos HG, Sim KB (1990) Engineered piles to improve cyclic load capacity. Mar Geotechnol 9(2):131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robertson PK, Cabal R (2012) Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering. Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc., Signal HillsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rollins KM, Olsen RJ, Egbert JJ, Jensen DH, Olsen KG, Garrett BH (2006) Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group behavior: load tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(10):1262–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salgado R (2008) The engineering of foundations. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM, Makdisi F, Banerjee J (1975) Representation of irregular stress time histories by equivalent uniform stress series in liquefaction analysis. Rep. no. EERC 75-29, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klohn Crippen Berger LtdCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations