Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering (CSEE’19)

Rome, Italy – April, 2019

Paper No. ICGRE 140
DOI: 10.11159/icgre19.140

A Comparison Study: Estimating the Axial Micropiles Capacity

Using Current Practices
Ahmed Elgamal1
1
Mansoura Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology
Mansoura Damietta Road, Mansoura, Egypt
[email protected]

Abstract - According to the innovation of new techniques used in building constructions, a new structural case of loading appears. An
additional usage of micropiles beside the conventional purpose is needed to cope with these cases of loading. Nowadays, retrofit buildings
to resist static and dynamic construction loadings is an urgent need. Due to the uneconomic of conventional piles or the restricted
construction of retrofitting buildings, or to reinforce the weak soils, micropiles are appropriate to be used. Although, up to now, there is
no accurate estimation of the axial capacities of micropiles (i.e., compression and tension). Current design guidelines try to introduce
safe and economic methods of estimating the axial capacities of micropiles. All these guidelines recommend just preliminary designs and
performing a full-scale test is a must to validate the designed capacity. A comparison study is presented in this paper to catch on the most
suitable method should be used to estimate the axial micropile capacities by comparing the results to full-scale tests results. The end
bearing can be neglected in the micropile design in case of the need to limit the building settlement. Some engineering design standards
can be applied to design micropiles and more investigation is needed to enhance the tensile geotechnical capacity of micropiles.

Keywords: Micropile, Axial Capacity, Finite Element, Modelling, Design

1. Introduction
Micropiles are defined as small diameter drilled-grouted piles (e.g., 70 to 300 mm) with length to diameter ratio over 30
[1]. The micropiles can be classified according to the philosophy of behavior (the design concept) into cases 1 and 2, and
according to the method of grouting (the construction concept) into types A, B, C, and D [2] as presented in Table 1. Case 1
indicates that the micropile is used as a conventional pile. Case 2 refers to the usage of the micropile to reinforce the soil.
According to [3], the micropiles are not designed individually to support the structure loads but rather to reinforce the soil
underneath the structure like the root system of a tree. So, the reinforced soil and the root/micro piles behave as an integrated
block to resist the applied loads.

Table 1: Micropile classification based on grouting type (after [2]).

Grouting Description Grout

Type
A Gravity grout only Sand/cement mortar or neat cement.
B Pressured grout through the casing Neat cement.
C Primary grout placed under gravity head then pressure Neat cement.
grouted
D Primary grout placed under gravity then repeatable post- Neat cement.
grout

The micropile axial capacity preliminary design consists of two basic aspects; 1) geotechnical design, and 2)
structural design. The geotechnical design requires the ground/grout interface parameters and the initial stress state in the
ground after micropile installation. The skin and the end bearing resistances govern the axial geotechnical capacity of the
micropiles. However, the end bearing can be neglected in all types of soils except that rested on rocks [4]. Moreover, the

ICGRE 140-1
composite section (i.e., the rod and the grout cross-sectional area) governs the internal structural capacity. The
applied loads on the micropile head are transferred to the ground through the grout to ground skin friction with no
contribution of the end resistance as suggested for the design purposes by [2].
The micropiles can be used to improve the soil behavior as introduced by [5]. A group of 100 mm diameter
micropiles, 4 m length, and 20˚ inclination angle from the vertical position is used to increase the bearing capacity of
the soil underneath an existing foundation. The confining micropiles technique can be used to improve the bearing
capacity of loose sandy soils, especially, in the coastal areas where the higher levels of groundwater [6]. According
to the same research, the bearing capacity of the sandy soil beneath the isolated footing increased to 2.28 times that
of without micro-piling with spacings 2.67 times the micropile diameter. The micropile technique is a successful
tool in cases of retrofit existing defective structures and constructs new buildings ([7], [9], and [10]).
This paper presents the methods recommended by the design guidelines to estimate the capacity of the
micropiles subjected to axial loads in sandy and clayey soils. Comparisons between the list of micropiles design
standards are presented besides numerical investigations which were calibrated using full-scale load tests.

2. Estimate the Micropile Axial Capacity

Micropiles are used to resist types of loadings (e.g., axial compression, tension, lateral, or combined between any
of them with bending moments). As mentioned in the previous section, the axial performance of the micropiles is
governed by the ground conditions (i.e., side friction and end bearing) which limited by the structural capacity of the
micropile cross-section as illustrated in section 2.2. Figure 1 presents the typical details of a micropile.

Fig. 1: Typical details of micropile (after [2]).

ICGRE 140-2
2.1. Structural Design
The structural capacity of micropiles is controlled by the nature of the pile cross-section. Figure 1 presents a typical
cross-section of reinforced-cased micropile. Using the mono reinforcing bar, multiple bars, rolled steel, or a casing of steel
steel pipe to reinforce the micropile are suggested by [2]. The main advantages of these reinforcements are to increase the
the axial capacity and resist the bending moment produced from the lateral load at the pile head or from the pile buckling.
Also, the grouting material has a significant effect on the axial compression capacity. Table 2 shows the different methods
recommended by design guidelines to estimate the compression (𝑃𝑆𝑐 ) and tension (𝑃𝑆𝑡 ) capacities of micropiles.

Table 2: Structural Capacities of micropiles using design standards.

Method Axial structural capacities

Compression (ASD)
𝑃𝑆𝑐 = 0.4 P𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 + 0.47 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (1a)
FHWA (2005) [2]
Tension (ASD)
𝑃𝑆𝑡 = 0.55 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (1b)
Compression (ASD)
DFI/ADSC (2004) [10] 𝑃𝑆𝑐 = 0.33 P𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 + 0.4 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (2a)

IBC (2006) [11] Tension (ASD)

𝑃𝑆𝑡 = 0.6 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (2b)
Compression (ASD)
𝑃𝑆𝑐 = 0.4 P𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 + 0.75 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (3a)
BS-8110
Tension (ASD)
𝑃𝑆𝑡 = 0.58 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (3b)
Compression (LRFD)
𝑃𝑢, 𝑆𝑐 = 0.54 P𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 + 0.637 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (4a)
AASHTO (2014) [12]
Tension (LRFD)
𝑃𝑆𝑡 = 0.8 P𝑅𝑓𝑡 (4b)
𝑓𝑐՛
P𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝐴𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 ; P𝑅𝑓𝑡 = 𝑓𝑦−𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝐴𝑏𝑎𝑟 + 𝑓𝑦−𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔
ASD = Allowable Stress Design; LRFD = Load Resistance Factor Design

Where, 𝑓𝑐՛ is the unconfined compressive strength of the grout, 𝐴𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 is the cross-sectional area of the grout, 𝑓𝑦−𝑏𝑎𝑟
and 𝑓𝑦−𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 are the yield strengths of the steel bar and casing, respectively, and 𝐴𝑏𝑎𝑟 and 𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 are the cross-sectional
areas of reinforcement and cased pipe, respectively.
The Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method tends to use a constant factor of safety (FS) to the ultimate capacity of
the piles. This FS is constant regardless of the material used or the nature of the applied load. The Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) technique started to be applied to the design of substructures (e.g., micropiles) by [12]. The LRFD procedure
applies variable factors of safety considering the structural material (i.e., resistance factor) and the type of loading (i.e., load
factor) to relate the applied load to the required resistance. The main aim of LRFD is to link the material strength to the
structure serviceability using probability and statistics concepts. The LRFD design concept has been slower to catch on in
geotechnical engineering. Where the traditional geotechnical engineering has been based on FS against service loads. It
should be noted that the load and resistance factors compensate the FS in ASD.

ICGRE 140-3
2.2. Geotechnical Design
Indeed, not all the design standards have recommendations for the geotechnical design of micropiles. The β and
methods are listed by [13] to estimate the preliminary design of micropiles in sandy and clayey soils, respectively. The
of α and β influenced by the grout-ground interaction and the grouting type (see Table 3). As introduced before, the
capacity of micropiles can be covered by the side resistance using methods shown in Table 3.
Equation 5 is recommended by [2] to calculate the allowable geotechnical capacity of micropiles (PG) using the
ultimate grout-ground bond resistance (α_bond) which can be calculated using Table 4. The side resistance mobilized
through the bond length of the micropile cab be calculating as:

𝛼𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑑 (5)
𝑃𝐺 = 𝜋 𝐷𝑏 𝐿𝑏
𝐹𝑆
Where, 𝐷𝑏 is the diameter of the pile, and 𝐿𝑏 is the bond length. The factor of safety (FS) is recommended to be 2.5
[2].
The axial compression capacity is increased by adding the tip resistance in the case of resting on the rock [12].
AASHTO applied the LRFD grout-ground bond resistance factor to the pile skin friction as obtained from the following
equation. The values of 𝛼𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑑 are the same of FHWA ones shown in Table 4.

𝑃𝑢,𝐺𝐶 = 0.55 𝛼𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝜋 𝐷𝑏 𝐿𝑏 (6)

Table 3: Preliminary design of micropiles (after [13]).

Soil Micropile Type

Type Type A Type B Type C Type D
𝑃𝐺𝑐 = β σ𝑣𝑜 𝐴𝑠
Where,
β method

𝑃𝐺𝑐 = β σ𝑣𝑜 𝐴𝑠
β = 𝐾1 𝐾2 tan 𝜑 Use typical Charts
Sand Where,
𝐾1 = 1.4 𝑡𝑜 1.7 presented by [14]
β = 0.7 tan 𝜑
𝐾2 = 1.2 ∶ 1.5, dense
= 1.5 ∶ 2.0, Medium
α method

𝑃𝐺𝑐 = α 𝑆𝑢 𝐴𝑠 Use typical Charts

Clay
Where α = 0.6 to 0.8 presented by [15]

σ𝑣𝑜 = vertical effective stress; 𝐴𝑠 = pile side area; 𝜑 = soil friction angle; 𝑆𝑢 = soil undrained shear strength

Table 4: Typical values of ultimate grout-ground bond strength (after [2]).

Ultimate Grout-Ground bond strength 𝜶𝒃𝒐𝒏𝒅 (kPa)

Soil
Type A Type B Type C Type D
Medium Silt / Soft Clay 35-70 35-95 50-120 50-145
Dense Silt / Stiff Clay 50-120 70-190 95-190 95-190
Fine, Loose, Medium Sand 70-145 70-190 95-190 95-240
Fine-Coarse, Medium-very
95-215 120-360 145-360 145-385
dense Sand

ICGRE 140-4
 The end bearing of micropiles is recommended to be neglected by all design guidelines except when the micropile
rests on a rock. This recommendation is because of the large displacement needed to fully mobilize the end bearing (6% of
pile diameter, [12] or about 20 to 40 times less than those required for the end bearing [13]). The side resistance is mobilized
after reaching a micropile displacement of about 2.5 to 10 mm [12]. Using the same methods of drilled shafts to calculate
the end bearing of micropile as in the following equation are suggested by [2].

𝑃𝑢,𝐺𝐶 = 𝑁𝑞 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝐴𝑠 (7)

Where Nq is a bearing load factor ranges between 50 to 100 for bored piles in dense sandy soils, and σ_vo is the
vertical effective stress at the pile tip.

3. Case Study
Two full-scale pile load tests are used to measure the accuracy of the current practice approaches used to estimate the
micropile axial compressive and tensile capacities. Beside numerical investigations using a Finite Element (FE) program
(i.e., MIDAS GTS NX).

3.1. Italian Alpine Region Full-scale test

A series of full-scale axial compression and tensile load tests were performed by [16], in Italian Alpine Region, on
Type A micropiles with 200mm in diameter. A mixture of silt with sand and gravel is extended to 9 m depth below the
ground surface which discontinued at a depth of 6m by the 2.0 m thick of mixture of gravel with silt and sand. No water
table was detected at the testing site. The soil and micropile properties are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

Table 5: Soil properties of the case study (after [16]).

Unit Undrained
Soil depth weight γ, Friction angle compressive
Soil type
(m) kN/m3 φ, degree strength
Su, kPa
0.0 – 6.0 Sandy silt with some gravel 17.0 25˚ 100 - 110
6.0 – 8.0 Sandy gravel with a trace of 19.0 42˚ -
silt
8.0 – 9.0 Sandy silt with gravel 19.0 42˚ -

Table 6: Micropile properties of the case study (after [16]).

Casing Bar
Total Embedded Hole
Load Outer RFT Grout
No. Length Length Dia. Thickness
Type Dia. Dia. Type
(m) (m) (mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm)
1 C 7.05 6.65 200 127 10 32 A
2 T 6.89 6.54 200 127 10 32 A
C = Compression; T = Tension

3.2. Finite Element Model (FEM)

Figure 2 portrays the general layout dimensions of the FEM. MIDAS GTS NX is used to generate the three-
dimensional soil-pile model. A pile with total length (L) and diameter (D) is embedded into the soil profile shown in Table
5. The hybrid mesh size is extended to 16D from the center of the pile to release the effect of boundary conditions. The
model is restrained at the bottom face, and the vertical sides are fully fixed in X- and Y- directions.

ICGRE 140-5
 Load

Micropile

Fig. 2: The layout of the FE model.

The Mohr-Coulomb criteria are applied to model the soil, and a linear-elastic material is used for the micropile. The
soil and pile properties used in the FE modeling are presented in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. The soil-pile interface in
MIDAS can be produced using: 1) the ultimate shear force (Qu) which represents the ultimate skin friction that can be
calculated using design standards (e.g., [2]), 2) the shear stiffness modulus (Kt) which is a function of soil shear modulus (G)
using soil modulus of elasticity (E) and soil Poisson`s ratio (ν) as in Eq. 7, and 3) the normal stiffness (K n) using the interface
Poisson`s ration (𝜈𝑖𝑛𝑡 ) as in Eq. 8. It should be noted that the values of Qu, Kt, and Kn are calculated per the pile total length.

𝐺 𝐸 (7)
𝐾𝑡 = 𝐿 𝑡 , where 𝐺 = 𝑅 2 (1+𝜈)
𝑣
𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 (1−𝜈𝑖𝑛𝑡 ) (8)
𝐾𝑛 = , where 𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 = 2 𝐺
𝐿 𝑡𝑣 2 (1−2 𝜈𝑖𝑛𝑡 )

According to MIDAS user manual [17], R is a reduction factor for interface strength which ranges from 0.6 to 0.7
and 0.8 to 1 for steel and concrete piles, respectively, tv is a virtual thickness for the interface element that has a value between
0.01 to 0.1.

Table 7: Sand Properties Used in FEM.

Depth γ(kN/m3) φ (degree) Su (kPa) ν* E* (kN/m2)

0.0 – 6.0 17 25 105 0.30 25000
6.0 – 9.0 19 42 - 0.35 40000
* Values of soil Poisson`s ratio (ν) and modulus of elasticity (E) are assumed according to Bowles (1996).

ICGRE 140-6
 Table 8: Piles Properties Used in FEM.

Interface Parameters
L EI
Section D (mm) Depth (m) Qu Kt Kn (kN/m3)
(m) (kN-m2) 2
(kN/m ) (kN/m3)
0.0 – 6.0 95 112179.5 1233974
Circular 200 7.05 2383.6
6.0 – 9.0 95 1656805 18224852

3.3. Analysis and Results

Figure 3 presents the load-displacement curves of the compression and tensile tests from the full-scale test reported
by [16] and the one calculated using FEM. Despite the good agreement observed in Fig. 3, the FE model is sensitive to the
interface element parameters especially the value of tv ([18]; [19]). As portrayed in Fig. 3a, the end bearing has a significant
effect on the axial response of micropiles. However, the design guidelines recommend using only the shaft resistance due to
the limitation of micropile displacements.

(a) Compression full-scale test (Test C) (b) Tensile test (Test T)

Fig. 3: Load-displacement tests for compressive and tensile loads.

The ultimate compressive capacity has been determined from the full-scale test and FEM results using [20] method as
shown in Table 9. The estimated ultimate capacities, using previously mentioned design guidelines, are compared to those
obtained from the full-scale tests and FEM results (see Table 9 and Fig. 4). When considering that the axial capacity, the
results obtained from [10] and BS-8110 are the nearest to the full-scale tests. But for considering both the geotechnical and
structural capacities, [2] and [12] are the most applicable methods.

ICGRE 140-7
 Table 9: Axial capacities of Italian Alpine Region test.

𝑷𝑮,𝒂𝒍𝒍 (kN) 𝑷𝑺,𝒂𝒍𝒍 (kN) 𝑷𝒂𝒍𝒍 (kN)

Method
Side Tip Comp. Tension Comp. Tension
Pu = 830 kN in compression, Pall = 332 kN (FS = 2.5)
Full-Scale using [20]
Pu = 375 kN in tension, Pall = 133 kN (FS = 2.5)
Pu = 890 kN in compression, Pall = 356 kN (FS = 2.5)
FE model using [20]
Pu = 520 kN in tension, Pall = 208 kN (FS = 2.5)
FHWA (2005) [2] 184 111 360 590 295 184
DFI and ADSC (2004) [10] N/A N/A 360 650 360 184
BS-8110 N/A N/A 360 630 360 184
AASHTO (2014) [12] 180 111 360 870 291 180
JURAN et al. (1999) [13] 70 111 N/A N/A 181 70
FS = 1.4 is applied to the AASHTO results
The structural tension capacity is used equally to FHWA (2005) for N/A values

Figure 4 presents the ratio between the calculated to the full-scale axial capacities for Italian Alpine Region
micropiles. It should be noted that the allowable axial compression capacities shown in Table 9 are calculated by adding
the skin resistance to the end bearing of the micropile as derived by [16]. Also, the allowable structural capacity is limited
by the axial compression force which causes the pile buckling. Moreover, the uplift capacity of micropiles needs to be
reduced using a multiplier of 0.72 to match the estimated capacity to the measured one.

Fig. 4: Load-displacement tests for compressive and tensile loads.

ICGRE 140-8
4. Conclusion
The allowable compression and tension capacities of micropiles are investigated using Finite Element models and the
results are compared to those obtained from a full-scale test performed at the Italian Alpine Region. Also, the micropile
capacities are estimated using current practices (i.e., FHWA, AASHTO, DFI/ADSC, BS, and α-β methods). Through this
study the following results are founded:
1. The FHWA (2005) and AASHTO (2014) design guidelines are the most accurate methods to calculate the axial
compression capacity of micropiles.
2. The axial tensile capacity of micropile needs more investigation to reduce the estimated values obtained using
current practices. The current study recommends a multiplier equal to 0.72.
3. In case of limited structure settlements, the design of micropiles should only consider the side resistance and the
end bearing can be neglected.
4. In case of using of micropiles as an alternative solution comparing to the traditional drilled shafts, no need to depend
only on the side resistance but also the end bearing should be added to minimize the construction cost.
5. A sensitivity analysis should be performed on the interface element parameters in FE programs to determine
formulas consider micropiles especially the grouting type.

References
[1] D. Liu, J. Zheng, and L. Liu, “Current Situation Review of the Micropile,” Int. J. Comput. Eng., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81-
86, 2016.
[2] FHWA, “Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines,” Handbook, no. NHI 132078, p. 456, 2005.
[3] F. Lizzi, “Reticulated root piles to correct landslides,” ASCE Conv., p. Preprint 3370, 1978.
[4] A. Cadden, J. Gomez, D. Bruce, and T. Armour, “Current Practices and Future Trends in Deep Foundations,” in
Current Practices and Future Trends in Deep Foundations, 2004, pp. 140-165.
[5] Y. D. Honrao, A. Gupta, and D. Desai, “Micro - piles,” IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. , pp. 48-50, 2009.
[6] N. Unnikrishnan and P. Sachin, “Influence of Confining Micro Piles on the Bearing Capacity of Sand,” in
INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION CONGRESS AND EQUIPMENT EXPO, 2009, pp. 367-374.
[7] P. D. Martin, “Micropile foundations for ESSROC cement plant expansion,” Contemporary Topics in Deep
Foundations - 2009 International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo. pp. 375-382, 2009.
[8] B. Byford and M. Hampton, “Micropiles for re-support and lifting of two buildings under construction,” Geotechnical
Special Publication, no. 185. pp. 383-389, 2009.
[9] J. B. Pease, Use of Multiple Techniques to Support Construction of a New Hospital Addition. 2009.
[10] DFI and ADSC, GUIDE TO DRAFTING A SPECIFICATION FOR MICROPILES. Hawthorne, New Jersey and
Dallas, Texas, 2004.
[11] IBC, International Building Code. 2006.
[12] (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specification, 7th ed. 2014.
[13] I. Juran, D. A. Bruce, A. Dimilliot, and A. Benslimane, “Micropiles: the state of practice. Part II: design of single
micropiles and groups and networks of micropiles,” Gr. Improv., vol. 3, pp. 89-110, 1999.
[14] H. Ostermayer and F. Scheele, “RESEARCH ON GROUND ANCHORS IN NON-COHESIVE SOILS,” revenue
française de géotechnique, vol. 3, pp. 92-97, 1978.
[15] H. Ostermayer, “Construction, carrying behavior and creep characteristics of ground anchors,” in DIAPHRAGM
WALLS & ANCHORAGES, 1975, pp. 141-151.
[16] D. Bellato, S. D’Agostini, and P. Simonini, “Interpretation of failure load tests on micropiles in heterogeneous Alpine
soils,” Ital. Geotech., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 3-16, 2013.
[17] MIDAS User Manual, “Midas Users Manual.” 2014.
[18] M. Ashour, A. AlaaEldin, and M. G. Arab, “Battered Piles under Lateral Loads using Strain Wedge Model and
Current Practice Mohamed,” New York Sci. J., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 20-28, 2018.

ICGRE 140-9
[19] Y. H. Ong, “Back analysis of laterally loaded pile behavior using Midas/GTS to determine stiffness modulus of pile-
soil interface,” Japanese Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ., vol. 2, no. 35, pp. 1279-1284, 2015.
[20] M. T. Davisson, “High capacity piles,” in Proceedings, Lecture Series, Innovations in Foundation Construction,
ASCE, 1972, p. 52.

ICGRE 140-10