Nicholson Construction Company

12 McClane Street
Cuddy, PA 15031
Telephone: 412-221-4500
Facsimile: 412-221-3127







Installation of Drilled Case Micropiles
using Low Mobility Grout


by


Curt Fitzgerald
Nicholson Construction Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan


Dwayne Lewis
Nicholson Construction Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan








Presented at:
12th Annual Great Lakes Geotechnical/Geoenvironmental Engineering Conference
Akron, Ohio
May 7, 2004


04-06-143
1
INSTALLATION OF DRILLED CASED MICROPILES USING LOW
MOBILITY GROUT


Curt Fitzgerald
1
and Dwayne Lewis
2


Abstract
Occasionally, projects come out to bid that the designer welcomes
the innovative contributions from the contractor. This is usually presented
in such a way that welcomes alternates to what is shown in the bid
documents. In situations where time constraints and/or cost are of
significant impact, the alternates may be presented to the contractors as
part of the bid documents. Such was the case at the Grand Rapids
Convention Center Project.

The site geology is comprised of miscellaneous fill consisting of
various sand, gravel, and clay layers. Cobbles and boulders were present
throughout the site. The underlying bedrock consisted of alternating
layers of moderately weathered shale, limestone, and gypsum. Voids
were evident in most of the exploratory borings within the limestone and
gypsum layers as the result of karstic weathering. The anticipated column
loads for the new building varied from 300 to 800 kips. Taking into
account the existing geology and column loading, it was determined that a
deep foundation system would be required.

The designers primary system used small diameter friction
caissons. Large diameter end bearing caissons and groups of drilled
cased micropiles were also presented as alternates by the

1
Project Engineer, Nicholson Construction Company, 5945 W. Main Street, Suite 102,
Kalamazoo, MI 49009
2
Project Manager, Nicholson Construction Company, 12 McClane Street, Cuddy, PA
15031
2
engineers. All three options specified that a grouting program using low
mobility (LMG) grout to fill the suspected voids would be required.

The selection of the micropile alternative was based on many
factors. The most important factor was the ability to penetrate the various
man-made and natural obstructions using drilling techniques compared to
excavation operations. Secondly, the grouting requirement would be
satisfied by using low mobility grout in the installation of the piles. A third
advantage was that the micropile operation utilized smaller equipment,
greatly reducing the congestion on an already busy site.

The paper discusses many of the considerations taken in the use of
LMG as it pertains to the installation of the micropiles on this project. It
also addresses sequencing issues regarding grout placement as it relates
to drilling and adjacent grouting operations for the installation of 352
micropiles, totaling 18,656 linear feet (lf), during the third phase of work.

Introduction

The Grand Rapids-Kent County Convention/Arena Authority
desired to renovate and expand the existing convention facilities as part of
an ongoing development of Grand Rapids which is the metropolitan focal
point of West Michigan. The new facility consists of a 160,000 square foot
(sf), column-free exhibit hall, with a 54,000 sf grand gallery
(public/welcome area and meeting rooms), and a 50,000 sf ballroom area.
The project was a multi-phase project and this paper discusses the
foundation work completed for the third of three phases. The foundation
work was identified as part of Phase 3C.

The Phase 3 work for the project involved removal of the existing
Welsh Auditorium and renovation of the existing Grand Center area
converting the space into support facilities including the addition of new
stairwells and an elevator shaft within the existing structure and
construction of the ballroom area of the new structure. Along with
foundations for the new construction, foundations for the new stairwells
and elevator shaft, and to accommodate increased loads at existing
foundations were required.

Column loads for Phase 3C varied from 300 to 800 kips. These
loads combined with the existing geology and site history created the need
for a unique foundation system. Following is a brief description of the site
geology and history, along with a summary of foundation work completed
during the first two phases. The first two phases of foundation work were
considered in the selection of the Phase 3C foundations.
3

Site Geology/History

The Grand River Valley is a glacial outwash area and soils are
primarily granular with numerous cobbles and boulders deposited by
glacial water flows. An 1837 map of the area shows the east bank of the
Grand River as a black ash swamp in the vicinity of the project site. It is
presumed that the area was filled with miscellaneous material above the
river bank level to the current grade at an approximate elevation of 611
feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) when the existing flood
wall was constructed. Test borings found the post-glacial alluvium ranged
from poorly graded gravel with sand, to lean clay. Cobbles and boulders
were encountered in both the fill and alluvium.

The bedrock formation consists of a limestone and sandstone cap
of the Bayport formation overlying weathered shale and gypsum of the
Michigan Formation. The Map of Bedrock Formations of the Southern
Peninsula of Michigan and test borings of the site revealed the
limestone/sandstone cap is only present in the northern two-thirds of the
site. The top of the limestone/sandstone cap is relatively shallow with top
of rock elevations ranging from 587 to 599 feet and the formation was
found to be slightly weathered but heavily fractured. Test boring logs
indicated that circulation of drilling fluids was frequently lost within the
limestone/sandstone cap and grout quantities required to backfill the
boreholes were typically 10 to 15 times the theoretical volume. Test
boring logs also indicated voids ranging from 4 inches to more than 2 feet
were encountered within the bedrock. The voids encountered and
excessive grout takes within the bedrock are indicative of a karstic
formation.

The project site is located along the east bank of the Grand River
as it passes through downtown Grand Rapids. Figure 1 shows the site
location. The site housed industrial facilities during the late 1800s and
early 1900s, prior to construction of the existing Welsh Auditorium in the
1930s. The existing convention center and performance hall facilities
were constructed during the early 1980s. A power canal and tailrace for a
water wheel that served the industrial facilities traversed the middle of the
site in a north-south direction. This canal was converted to a 6.5-foot by
6-foot trunk sewer in the northern portion of the site and routed to the east
of the Welsh structure around the time of its construction.

4


Fig. 1 Topographic Map of Grand Rapids, MI


Settlement of the existing structures was detected in 1992 and
subsequently efforts to determine the cause of failure, stabilize the
subgrade, and raise the subsided structures were completed.
Investigation and remedial efforts included injection of approximately
1,700 cubic yards (cy) of LMG under pressures of up to 600 pounds per
square inch (psi) into voids within the bedrock formation, repair of two
broken sanitary sewer lines, and mechanically raising the subsided
structures. The epicenter of the subsidence was at a location were the
Welsh Auditorium, the Grand Center, and the DeVos Performance Hall
join. This spot corresponds with the power canal tailrace location just
south of where the trunk sewer was routed to the east to remain outside of
the Welsh Auditorium. Confirmatory borings revealed a grout-filled void 5
to 8 feet in height, beneath 20 to 25 feet of fractured limestone cap. Other
borings revealed several soft clay seams within the limestone, indicative of
Convention Center
Construction Site
Grand River
5
sediment-filled voids. A settlement study report submitted to the City of
Grand Rapids Engineers Office concluded that the cause of the
destabilization was a vertical migration of soils, through natural or man-
made passages, to unknown destinations.

Project History

Phase 1 was a lobby addition for the existing DeVos Performance
Hall with a limited work area. Given the limited space the foundation was
designed for 25 and 75-ton micropiles with a specified pile tip elevation
below the zone where voids had been encountered during the site
investigation. The designers anticipated the use of LMG with the material
specified as a sanded grout suitable for pile construction and void filling
purposes in order to accomplish injection of a low-slump, specially
formulated, cementitious, cohesive grout under pressure to fill existing
voids. The method is not intended to fill small fractures and seams within
the bedrock formations. The slump of the grout was not specified and an
8 to 10-inch slump grout was selected for the Phase 1 micropiles.
Excessive grout takes occurred in areas.

The Phase 2 foundation work was awarded as a combination of
deep, small-diameter, friction caissons and shallow end bearing caissons
with grout points for void filling purposes at each foundation element
through the middle portion of the project site where the
limestone/sandstone cap tapers off. A total of 22 micropiles were installed
at locations adjacent to the existing structures with limited access where
caissons could not be installed. These micropiles were installed with the
same tip elevations and grout material specifications as the Phase 1 piles.
However, a 6-inch slump was specified to reduce grout takes. The grout
injection for the caisson locations was through 4-inch casing to a depth of
approximately 55 feet below grade. The average grout takes were
approximately 10 cy, 50 times the theoretical volume per injection point.
Several locations took 100 to 250 times the theoretical volume. One
location took 500 times the theoretical volume at just over 100 cy.

During installation of the Phase 2 caissons, obstructions became a
significant contract issue as nestled boulders and old foundations from the
industrial facilities were frequently encountered, particularly in the
southwest portion of the Phase 2 area, just north of the Phase 3 work
area. The contractor performing the LMG work and installation of the 100-
ton micropiles successfully used low-slump grout under high pressures to
grout the bedrock. For the Phase 3C work, the construction manager
recognized that LMG could be successfully used at the site, but it was
important to use a pre-qualified micropile contractor experienced with
6
LMG grouting and micropile installation in karstic or otherwise fractured
and voided rock.

Selection of the Foundation System

The bid package for the Phase 3C work contained a base bid
foundation system along with two alternate foundation designs. All three
options specified a grout program using LMG to fill the voids within the
bedrock formation as in the previous phases. The designers primary
system consisted of approximately 100 small-diameter, deep-friction
caissons with 54 micropiles at locations adjacent to and within the existing
structures. Large-diameter, end-bearing caissons and groups of drilled
cased micropiles were presented as alternates by the engineers. The
micropile work consisted of 352 piles with an average depth 52 feet.

Many factors made the micropile alternate the most favorable of the
three options. One significant factor was the ability to penetrate the
various man-made and natural obstructions using smaller diameter drilling
techniques compared to the excavation operations and large diameter
drilling procedures associated with caisson installation. Significant
obstructions had been encountered during the Phase 2B work, particularly
in the area just north of the Phase 3C work creating significant cost
overruns. Because smaller-diameter drilling techniques penetrate
obstructions without much impact to production rates, obstructions are not
typically a line item cost for micropile installation work.

Satisfying the grouting requirement using LMG in the installation of
the piles as a single operation was another significant factor. For both of
the caisson designs, the required grout program would be a second
operation separate from the caisson work. Although the number of
caissons was significantly less than the number of micropiles required,
having a second operation for the grout program required schedule time
and also limited the access to the area by other trades.

A third advantage of the micropile alternate was the use of smaller
equipment which greatly reduced congestion on the busy site and
presented an opportunity for accelerated scheduling of subsequent work.
Along with installation as a single operation, the equipment and tooling for
micropile installation is significantly smaller than equipment typically used
for caisson installation and the volume of spoils generated is significantly
less. The reduced volume of spoils was particularly significant for this
project since disposal costs were higher due to the presence of
contaminated soils in areas.

7
Pile Design Requirements

Phase 3C project documents called for 100-ton drilled, steel cased,
pressure-grouted micropiles with a minimum diameter of 8 inches. The
pile tip elevations were to be set at 545 feet or below, and the casing tip
elevations were to be set at 585 feet or below. Full-depth, no. 18 bar with
centralizers were required and the pile cap connection was a bent no. 9
deformed bar extended 4 feet into the micropile. The specification called
for a base bid volume of 10 cy of grout at each pile location with the
material specified as in Phase 2. The final structural design of the
micropiles was the contractors responsibility. This approach ensured the
drilling would reach a minimum depth for grouting of the potential voids
and allowed the contractors to be flexible with the internal structural
design. Two load tests, at different ends of the work area, were specified
to confirm the suitability of the pile design and installation methods.

The internal structural design submitted for the project was
determined by analyzing the micropiles for axial load using allowable
stress percentages from the Federal Highway Administration Micropile
Implementation Manual (FHWA-SA-97-070). This analysis resulted in the
pile configuration shown in Figure 2, with 7-inch by 0.5-inch N80 Casing
and a no. 18 (2.25-inch diameter), grade 75 threadbar with 4,000 psi
grout. A 9-inch by 9-inch by 1-inch bearing plate and nut configuration
was proposed and accepted in lieu of the bent no. 9 bar detailed in the
project documents for the pile cap connection.
8
Fig. 2 Typical Pile Detail


Load Testing

The micropile test requirements were for two load tests to twice the
allowable design load in accordance with the quick load procedures of
Grout fc
4,000 psi
9
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1143 with the total
load maintained for 24 hours. Acceptance criteria were established as net
settlement not to exceed 0.01 inch per ton of test load or 0.5 inch total.
With a maximum test load of 200 tons, the 0.5 inch total net settlement
was the controlling criteria. Due to voids within the bedrock formation the
grout volumes at the two piles were significantly different at 24.2 cy and
12.4 cy at the first (northeast) and second (southwest) locations,
respectively. Four hours into the 24 hour load hold of the first test, the
deflection readings had stabilized with total deflection at 0.40 inches and
remained stable for the remainder of the test. Approximately 15 hours
into the load hold period crews for the other trades began working the
morning shift, and vibrations of the reference beam along with erratic
deflection readings were noted as equipment passed near the test
location. Performance of the test pile was discussed with the project team
and the load test was terminated early since deflection at full test load was
below the allowable net settlement acceptance criteria. Net settlement
after unloading the test pile was 0.102 inches, 20 percent of the allowable
deflection. Initially the design team was concerned that the large grout
volume had influenced the results. However, performance of the second
load test was consistent with the first and deflections were less even
though the grout take was half of that placed for the first test pile.
Deflection readings stabilized at 0.23 inches by the fourth hour of the load
hold and net settlement was only five percent of the allowable deflection at
0.024 inches.

Installation Methods

Micropile locations were set with a total station and referenced to
control points provided by the construction manager. Casing was
advanced to the plan tip of pile elevation using rotary percussive drilling
techniques with a down the hole hammer (DTHH) and eccentric bit to
penetrate the cobbles, old foundations, and bedrock formations. High
volume, high pressure air flush with water injection was used to clear the
cuttings as the drilling advanced. An underhead swivel and discharge
hoses were used to control and contain the flush return in small pits
excavated and maintained by the excavation contractor.

Once the casing was advanced to depth, the core steel with
centralizer was placed into the casing prior to grouting. With an overall
depth of 55 to 60 feet, the core steel was placed in sections using
couplers with set-screws to prevent unscrewing of the couplers as the
casing was turned during the extraction process. Grout was delivered
from a ready-mix supplier and pumped at a 4 to 6-inch slump by a truck
mounted concrete pump through an underhead swivel into the casing as
10
the drill rig withdrew the casing to the plan tip of casing elevation.
Pressure at the grout header (underhead swivel) was maintained at a
minimum of 150 psi with the actual pressure and volume recorded as each
10 foot section of casing was removed. The minimum pressure was
specified to ensure any voids intersecting the pile location were filled.
Occasionally distinct voids could be identified while drilling by a lack of
resistance to casing advancement, however most of the time the volume
of grout required could not be predicted based on the drilling conditions. A
total of 352 micropiles, totaling 18,656 linear feet (lf), were installed.

Scheduling/Sequencing Issues

Several factors impacted the scheduling and sequencing of the
micropile installation including distance restrictions in the project
specifications, an accelerated schedule developed by the construction
management team, drilling and grouting production rates, and availability
of different work areas at different times.

Concerns about communication between locations disturbing fresh
grout and compromising the integrity of completed piles prompted the
design team to place distance restrictions in the project specification.
Micropile installation activities were not allowed to occur within 20 feet of a
previously installed micropile within 24 hours of the completion of the
adjacent pile.

Attempts were made to conduct the drilling operation 20 feet from
fresh grout by keeping the drill several locations ahead of the grouting
operation to avoid drilling near locations grouted each day. However, it
became apparent that meeting the distance requirement for the grouting
operation required skipping pile caps at 15 foot spacing. As the sequence
moved along wall lines, only two locations per day could be completed
within a stair tower supported on 4 pile caps with 5 micropiles each. This
restriction doubled the number of times the equipment had to pass along
the wall line and doubled the amount of time required for completing the
stair tower as the original plan was to complete one location at each of the
four pile caps each day.

Ultimately, it was determined that the best approach was to use
one rig drilling with a second rig grouting. This approach would allow the
drill crew to work ahead of the grouting operation, placing casing at pile
caps that were spaced 15 feet apart, keeping the air flush well away from
the grouting operation.

11
Increased production was important as completion of the exterior
wall and stair tower were on the critical path of an accelerated schedule
the construction management team had developed. The construction
manager developed the accelerated schedule to allow erection of the
structural steel framing eight weeks ahead of the original date specified in
the bid documents. Acceleration of the schedule was made possible with
the grouting and pile installation as a single operation and the smaller
equipment allowing access for pile cap construction and below grade
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work while the micropile installation
was ongoing.

An average of 12.5 cy of grout were placed at the first micropile
installed at each pile cap. Subsequent micropiles had significantly lower
grout takes (with an average of 3.6 cy) indicating major voids within the
bedrock formation were substantially filled. Based on the difference
between grout takes at initial and successive micropile locations for
individual pile caps, it was apparent that the micropile sequencing was
appropriate. The micropile sequencing and production met the schedule
needs of the construction team and provided the design team with a level
of confidence that the integrity of the installed micropiles were not
compromised.

As the installation work advanced into new areas of the site the
drilling operation would get ahead of the grouting which would then catch
up as each area was being completed due to the differential in grout
volumes between installation of initial and successive micropiles at each
pile cap. Balancing the drilling and grouting production rates to maintain
the distance requirements through the center area with pile caps spaced
at 30-foot centers worked very well. However, installation of micropiles at
four other areas around the existing Grand Center structure, along the
north side of the remaining lobby, and the ramp area in the southwest
corner, required extraordinary coordination and cooperation by all parties
involved. This cooperation enabled the schedule requirements to be met
without violating without violating the distance requirements.

Summary and Conclusions

The Grand Rapids Convention Center (now called DeVos Place)
projects geological conditions, site history, and design loads presented
many challenges for foundation construction. There were several factors
that contributed to the success of this project, beginning with a site
investigation and geotechnical report that clearly identified the challenges.
The geotechnical report provided recommendations for several foundation
systems, allowing the construction management team to obtain bids for
12
alternate systems and select the most cost effective system. In this case,
the drilled cased micropiles provided a cost effective solution with high
level of quality. The micropile drilling techniques used, with the right
tooling, were able to quickly penetrate the various man-made and natural
obstructions without additional cost to the owner. Grouting of the
micropiles with LMG enabled the filling of the voids within the bedrock
formation. Confirmation was secured through the monitoring of volumes
and pressures. Since the design team had included an appropriate base
bid volume for the micropiles, the installation was completed without
additional costs to the owner for the grout volumes. Completion of pile
load tests and maintenance of a high level of quality control provided
confidence regarding the performance of the installed micropile.

Along with preventing additional costs to the owner, the selection of
the LMG micropiles with smaller equipment and single operation
installation, allowed the construction management team to develop an
accelerated schedule for the trades that followed. The execution of the
accelerated schedule depended on the ability to efficiently sequence the
work and coordinate the parties involved. It must be recognized that
effective communication and mutual respect between the specialty
contractor, construction manager, architectural/structural engineers,
inspectors, and geotechnical engineer was critical to the success of this
project.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Steven M. Elliott, PE of Materials
Testing Consultants, J ohn Bassett, AIA of Progressive AE, and Don Van
Beek and Howard Oosterink of Erhardt Construction for sharing the
breadth of their knowledge regarding the site history and conditions
encountered during remediation work completed in the 1990s. The
authors also thank Brian OGara and Marty Taube of Nicholson
Construction Company for their assistance in preparing the paper.

References

Materials Testing Consultants, Inc., (December 7, 2000). Report of
Geotechnical Investigation, Grand Rapids Convention Center, Grand
Rapids, Michigan.

Map of Bedrock Formations of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan