Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21327-2

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The effect of combined loading on the behavior of micropiled rafts

installed with inclined condition
Ahmed Elsawwaf1 · Ashraf Nazir1 · Waseim Azzam1

Received: 22 March 2022 / Accepted: 2 June 2022 / Published online: 22 June 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
One of the major disadvantages of micropiles is their low lateral stiffness and flexural rigidity due to the small diameter.
This limitation can be handled in current practice, by installing the micropile with inclined condition or providing a steel
casing. Additional steel casings will increase the lateral load capacity of micropiles but increase the project cost as well.
Thus, inclination of micropile which is relatively simple and cheap is recommended. In this paper, a comprehensive numeri-
cal analysis is conducted on the behavior of micropiled rafts installed with inclined condition under combined vertical and
lateral loading. A FEM calibrated against full-scale axial and lateral field tests is used to conduct the analysis. The soil profile
is soft clay soil underlain by a layer of dense sand. The study investigates the impact of several parameters which are as fol-
lows: magnitude of vertical loading, reinforcement type, inclination angle of micropiles, and number of inclined micropiles.
The study reveals that increasing vertical loads causes continuous decrease in the lateral load capacity of micropiled rafts.
When all micropiles installed are inclined, the positively inclined micropiles carry 79–86% of the total lateral load carried
by micropiles, whereas the negatively inclined ones carry 14–21%. Inclined micropiles offer greater lateral load sharing ratio
(αh) than that of vertical ones, largest at θ = 45°. The effect of micropile reinforcement on improving the lateral performance
is low compared to the effect of micropile inclination angle.

Keywords Micropiled raft · Finite element · Combined load · Lateral load capacity · Inclination angle · Load sharing ratio

Introduction poured using a sleeved pipe at a pressure of at least 1 MPa.

Type D: similar to Type C but a packer can be used at spe-
A micropile is essentially a small diameter cast in situ bored cific depths inside the sleeved pipe (FHWA 2005; Kim et al.
pile. Its diameter is typically in the range of 100–300 mm. In 2018). Using pressurized grout in the construction process
North America, micropiles were first used in 1973 through of micropiles offers some advantages such as densifying
several underpinning applications in the New York and Bos- the surrounding soil (especially for coarse-grained soil)
ton areas and their use has been rapidly growing ever since. and enhancing its shear strength. Since the grout is poured
Based on their construction methods, micropiles are classi- under pressure, it penetrates the soil offering an increased
fied into four categories by FHWA (2005) as described in micropile section (Alnuaim et al. 2016). Practically, all
Fig. 1. Type A: the grout is concreted without any injection structures are often subjected to lateral loads due to wind,
pressure. Type B: injection pressure is used in pouring the wave loading, ship impact, etc. When considering onshore
grout into the hole and typically ranges from 0.5 to 1 MPa. structures, lateral load can reach 15% of the applied vertical
Type C: the grout is poured first under gravity head. Then, load, whereas it exceeds 30% of the applied vertical load
after the hardening of the poured grout, additional grout is in case of any marine structure (Rao et al. 1998; Subanan-
tharaj Palammal and Senthilkumar 2018). Therefore, it is
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues significant to assess the lateral behavior of micropiled rafts
under combined loading. However, one of the major dis-
* Ahmed Elsawwaf advantages of micropiles is their low lateral stiffness and
[email protected]
flexural rigidity due to the small diameter. This limitation
1
Structural engineering department, Faculty of Engineering, can be handled in current practice, by installing the micro-
Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt pile with inclined condition or providing a steel casing.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
81322 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

Fig. 1  Micropile classification

based on method of grouting

Additional steel casings will increase the lateral load capac- (1980) and Randolph (1994). It can be used to assess the
ity of micropiles but increase the project cost as well. Thus, vertical load-carrying capacity of a piled raft considering the
inclination of micropile which is relatively simple and cheap number of installed piles. Alnuaim et al. (2018) evaluated
is recommended. To the knowledge of the authors, there the availability of PDR method for micropiled rafts consid-
are no guidelines on the lateral response of micropiled rafts ering the relatively small diameter of micropiles compared
installed with inclined condition under combined vertical to conventional piles. It was found that the PDR method
and lateral loading. Even the studies related to their response can be adopted to analyze micropiled rafts with very stiff
under pure static lateral load are also very limited. Hence, in rafts. However, an adjustment factor was suggested in case
this paper, an attempt is taken to assess the performance of of micropiled rafts with flexible rafts.
inclined micropiled rafts under combined loading through Regarding the vertical performance of micropiles and
finite element modelling. micropile groups, a number of studies have been performed
through full-scale field tests. Jeon and Kulhawy (2001) con-
Prime objectives of the study ducted 21 full-scale field tests on pressure-grouted micro-
piles. The vertical load capacity of the micropile was sig-
The soil profile used in this study is soft clayey soil under- nificantly different from the drilled conventional pile due
lain by a layer of dense sand. An attempt has been taken to to the grouting pressure effect on the state of stresses in the
investigate the impacts of magnitude of vertical loading ­(Fv), surrounding soil. Han and Ye (2006) conducted load tests on
micropile reinforcement, inclination angle of micropiles (θ), a square raft (1.5 m × 1.5 m) supported by four micropiles.
and number of inclined micropiles, on micropiled raft per- It was found that the load carried by the micropiles was
formance under combined vertical and lateral loading. The about 70 to 86% of the additional vertical load applied to
performance is investigated in terms of the lateral response the micropiled raft. Wang et al. (2021) performed full-scale
of the micropiled raft, vertical and lateral load sharing ratios axial compression tests on Type A micropiles and waveform
between the micropiles and the raft, the lateral load carried micropiles. Moreover, a micropiled raft consisting of 2 × 2
by each individual micropile in the group, and the percent- micropiles and a central waveform micropile was loaded ver-
age of increase in the lateral load capacity. tically. The shear keys along the depth of waveform micro-
piles resulted in the enhancement of bearing capacity to be
1.5 times than that of Type A micropiles.
Background Experimental laboratory investigation was also conducted
by many researchers on vertically loaded micropiled rafts
The performance of the micropiled raft foundation is com- and micropiles. For example, Tsukada et al. (2006) evalu-
pletely different from that of surface raft and similar to that ated the mechanism which enhances the bearing capacity
of piled raft. Thus, the design concept of piled rafts under of a spread footing due to reinforcement with micropiles.
vertical loading can be adopted when analyzing micropiled Hwang et al. (2017) performed model tests and a numerical
rafts, where applied loads are shared by both the raft and analysis to investigate the bearing capacity of a micropiled
micropiles. One of the well-known simplified methods that raft on medium dense sand and clayey silt which represent
can be used in analysis is Poulos-Davis-Randolph (PDR) general shear failure and punching shear failure respectively.
method which is based on the studies by Poulos and Davis It was found that the effective installation of micropiles can

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336 81323

enhance the bearing capacity by about 1.5–2.0 times than

that of a surface raft. Borthakur and Dey (2018) investi-
gated the vertical load carrying capacity of micropile group
on highly plastic soft clay soil with cohesion in the range
of 18–20 kPa. The load-carrying capacity increased with
increasing the micropile spacing as well as their number.
FEA was also used by many researchers as an effective
technique to study micropiles and micropile groups. Farouk
(2009) found that the tension ultimate capacity of a single
micropile tends to be lower than compressive ultimate capacity
by about 7 to 12.5%. El Kamash and Han (2017) observed that
vertical displacement of an existing surface raft underpinned
by micropiles decreases with decreasing the initial pressure
ratio and the increase of micropile length. Kim et al. (2018)
conducted a series of numerical analyses to investigate the load
carrying and load sharing behaviors of inclined micropiled
rafts. Alnuaim et al. (2018) studied the vertical performance of
micropiled rafts in soft clay. The tolerable bearing pressure of
micropiled raft was 100% greater than that of isolated raft. El
Kamash et al. (2022) conducted a numerical analysis to study
the influence of consolidation on foundations underpinned by Fig. 2  Negatively and positively inclined micropiles
micropiles in soft clay. They stated that increasing time of con-
solidation causes higher settlement of the foundation and less
skin friction along the depth of micropiles. and positively inclined piles. Malik et al. (2021) assessed
Regarding the lateral performance of micropiles, numer- the influence of installing confining micropiles around foot-
ous studies were conducted to assess the performance of ings on the bearing capacity of sand. The study stated that
vertical micropiles under pure lateral loading. For example, installing inclined micropiles around footings could enhance
Teerawut (2002) performed field lateral load tests on ver- their lateral load capacity. From all the above-mentioned
tical micropiles with different diameters installed in sand studies, it is observed that only vertical loads or lateral loads
soil of different relative densities. The stiffness of the p–y were considered in the analysis of micropiles or micropile
curves increased as the pile diameter increased especially groups. The studies related to inclined micropiled rafts are
in dense sand. Abd Elaziz and El Naggar (2015) conducted limited as well. Thus, this paper aims to study the effect of
two monotonic and six cyclic lateral loading tests on single combined vertical and lateral loading on inclined micropiled
micropiles in stiff to very stiff silty clay. A numerical analy- rafts. Moreover, a number of previous studies assessed the
sis was also conducted. It was concluded that the micropile lateral response of vertical micropiles, but in a single soil
lateral capacity should be evaluated after careful considera- layer. Hence, an attempt has been taken in the present study
tion of the micropile connectivity into the pile cap. Kyung to consider the possible effect of soil stratum in the lateral
and Lee (2018) conducted a parametric study on the lat- response of inclined micropiled rafts.
eral load–carrying capacity of micropiles in order to assess
the effect of micropile inclination and load direction. The
study included model load tests, finite-element analyses, and Finite element modelling
full-scale field tests. The performance for both single and
group micropiles was investigated. Moreover, the micropile Numerical model
mechanism of lateral load carrying was observed through the
FEA. The study mainly depicted that lateral load capacity The 3D model used to carry out the analysis was established
of inclined micropiles was found to increase with increas- using the computer program PLAXIS 3D. The validity
ing the batter angle up to 30° for negatively inclined micro- of the FEM was checked by using the results of full-scale
piles, whereas an opposite trend was observed for positively field loading tests and comparing them with those obtained
inclined micropiles (See Fig. 2). Sharma and Hussain (2019) from the FEA. The advantage of the symmetry across the
performed a parametric study on the lateral behavior of x-axis was taken and a half of the micropiled raft foundation
inclined micropiles through model testing. The ultimate lat- was modelled to decrease the computation time. Based on
eral capacity was found to be greater for the micropiles with results of mesh sensitivity analysis, an appropriate size of
a 15° and 30° negative inclination compared to the vertical the elements and location of mesh boundaries were adopted

13
81324 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

in order to minimize their effect on the calculated response. conventional reinforced concrete cast in place piles. Fig-
The horizontal side boundary was kept 3.2 Br (where Br is the ure 4 presents different cross sections of micropiles which
raft width) and the vertical side boundary was kept 4.6 Br as are commonly used in practice. Reinforcement could be
shown in Fig. 3. 3D 10-node tetrahedral elements were used a single reinforcing bar, a group of reinforcing bars or
to model the soil and micropiles while the raft foundation was a steel tube casing. In order to help improve the lateral
modelled using 6-node triangular plate elements. In order to performance of micropiles, an additional steel casing can
assure high accuracy of the results, denser mesh was used be installed around the steel reinforcing bar(s). In the cur-
at locations where high stress concentration was expected rent study, steel bar group and steel bar group and casing
(e.g., raft base, micropile base, and micropile side surface). are adopted. The true simulation of these two types of
The raft and micropiles were assumed to be linear elastic reinforcement requires proper estimation of the micropile
materials considering the mechanical properties (elastic
modulus, and Poisson’s ratio). The Mohr-Coulomb model
(elastic perfectly plastic behavior) was chosen for simulating
the behavior of the soil. The Mohr-Coulomb model requires
conventional soil parameters including unit weight, cohesion,
friction angle, dilation angle, and Poisson’s ratio. In finite
element analysis, interface elements are used to simulate the
interaction between the micropile or the raft and the adjacent
soil. These interface elements follow the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion; as the shear stress reaches the maximum
shear strength of the soil, slippage happens at the interface.
In PLAXIS 3D, an interface reduction factor, Rint, is used to
model the interface element. Rint represents the strength of
the interface element as a percentage of the shear strength of
adjacent soil.

Modelling of micropiles

In order to ensure that the micropile behavior is simulated

in an accepted manner, its composition and construction
method must be taken into consideration when modelling
of micropiles. First, the large portion of steel area installed
in micropiles induces high elastic modulus compared to Fig. 4  Different types of micropile reinforcement

Fig. 3  3D FEM used in the

analysis and mesh pattern

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336 81325

young’s modulus based on the reinforcement percent- 5000

age. Hence, it was estimated in the study as an average
4000
weighted modulus using the relationship proposed by

Force in kN
FHWA (2005) as 3000

Emicropile = Agrout × Egrout + Asteel × Esteel ∕Amicropile (1) Field

( )
2000
Ks=1.0
where ­Emicropile, elastic modulus of the micropile; A­ grout, sec- 1000 Ks=2.0

tion area of grout; E ­ grout, elastic modulus of grout; ­Asteel, Ks=3.0

0
section area of steel; ­Esteel, elastic modulus of steel; and 0 10 20 30 40 50
­Amicropile, section area of the micropile. According to the Displacemnt in mm
(FHWA 2005), the use of ­Egrout, 31,000 MPa for confined
grout, and E ­ grout, 23,000 MPa for unconfined grout can pro- Fig. 5  Comparison of numerical model results with full-scale field
vide reasonable results for micropiles. axial load tests of a vertical micropile group of Type C by Kyung
et al. (2017)
Second, Rint value is expected to be high to simulate
the rough surface condition for micropiles of Type B,
Type C, and Type D, since these micropile construction
Case ‑1: field axial loading test of a vertical
techniques cause the soil surrounding the micropiles to
micropile group Type C
densify (Alnuaim et al. 2016). Third, the pressurized grout
for micropiles of Type B, Type C, and Type D causes a
The validation process was conducted by comparing the
high confining pressure to the soil around the micropile,
estimated load-deformation behavior with the measured
which would increase the lateral earth pressure coefficient
one by Kyung et al. (2017). The test site was located at
(Ks) (Farouk 2009; Alnuaim et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2018).
Gochang city in Korea where layers of silty sands and clay
Using the proper value of Ks is significant, since it greatly
were observed. Table 1 shows basic soil properties at the
affects the vertical load capacity of micropile which is
test site. A vertical group of 4 micropiles with spacing 1.26
evaluated based on skin friction along the micropile depth
m was installed. They were connected to a 2.52 m x 2.52
according to the following relationship:
m square raft which was 1 m in thickness. The micropiles
Qmicropile = σ�v .Ks . tan ∅� .π.d.Lb (2) were 9.00 m in length and 0.165 m in diameter. Reinforce-
( )
ment used was a 65-mm-diameter steel rod (15.5% of area
where ­Qmicropile, vertical load capacity of micropile; σ�v , cross section) and the Type C grouting technique was used
effective vertical stress; ­Ks, lateral earth pressure coefficient; in the micropile installation, where gravity grouting was first
∅′, internal friction angle; d, micropile diameter; and ­Lb, poured, followed by pressurized grouting. Steel casing was
bond length. placed within the upper 6 m.
The value of Emp was 85 × ­106 kN/m2. The higher stiffness
of micropiles was due to the large portion of steel area due
Comparison and validation of the model to placing permanent upper steel casing. The average values
of E of upper silty sand, middle clay, and lower silty sand
The developed numerical model was validated in two were 5000 kN/m2, 14,000 kN/m2, and 14,000 kN/m2 respec-
stages. In the first stage, the results of full-scale field axial tively. Since the Type C grouting technique was used in the
loading tests of a vertical micropile group Type C were micropile construction, Rint tended to be high in the lower
compared with those obtained from the FEA. Then, in the silty sand layer (uncased bond zone) and was assumed to be
second stage, the results of full-scale field lateral loading 0.95 (Alnuaim et al. 2016; Kyung and Lee 2018). Moreover,
tests of an inclined group micropile Type C were com- densification of the soil was expected which would in turn
pared with those obtained from the FEA. The details for cause increase in the K ­ s value in the lower silty sand layer
both processes are presented in the following sub-sections. (uncased bond zone). Figure 5 shows the variation of the

Table 1  Soil properties in field Parameter Upper silty sand Middle clay Lower silty sand
test site at Gochang city
Depth (m) 0–1 1–6 6–10
Unit weight (kN/m3), γt 17.58 18.77 17.83
Angle of internal friction (°), ∅ 28.64 0 33.52
Cohesion (kN/m2), ­Su 17.4 22.4 32.6

13
81326 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

vertical load versus displacement behavior using different grouting at an injection pressure of 1.3 MPa. Steel casing
values of Ks for the lower silty sand layer. Since an increase was placed within the upper 6 m.
in the Ks value was expected, the studied values began from The value of Emp was 85 × ­106 kN/m2. The average values
a value of 1.00. Then, the Ks value was increased in succes- of E of upper silty sand, middle clay, and lower silty sand
sive runs till there was an acceptable matching between the were 5000 kN/m2, 8000 kN/m2, and 8000 kN/m2 respec-
estimated results and the field test results at a Ks value of tively. Rint tended to be high in the lower silty sand layer
(2.00 to 3.00). Similar approach was used by Farouk (2009) (uncased bond zone) and was assumed to be 0.95 (Alnuaim
to evaluate the optimum value in Ks. et al. 2016; Kyung and Lee 2018). Moreover, densifying
of this soil layer was expected which would in turn cause
Case ‑2: field lateral loading test of an inclined increase in the Ks value which was taken 3.0. Figure 6 pre-
micropile group Type C sents lateral load versus displacement behavior from numeri-
cal analysis compared to field test results obtained by Kyung
The validation process was conducted by comparing the and Lee (2018). With these values, a reasonable match with
estimated load-deformation behavior with the measured the full-scale field test results was achieved.
one by Kyung and Lee (2018). The test site was located at
Gochang city in Korea where layers of silty sands and clay Analysis outline
were observed. Table 1 shows basic soil properties at the
test site. An inclined group of 4 micropiles with spacing The numerical analysis was conducted through a number of
1.26 m was installed. The inclination angle, θ, was 15°. The stages. At the first stage, the initial stress field was calcu-
micropiles were connected to a 2.52 m x 2.52 m raft which lated for the initial geometry configuration. At the second
was 1 m in thickness. They were 10.00 m in length and 0.165 stage, the micropiled raft was installed. In the third stage,
m in diameter. Reinforcement used was a 65-mm-diameter 16 vertical concentrated loads were applied at the top of the
steel rod (15.5% of area cross section) and the Type C grout- raft, and the magnitude of vertical loading was changed in
ing technique was used in the micropile installation, where order to assess its effect on the behavior of micropiled rafts.
gravity grouting was first poured, followed by pressurized In the final step, a lateral displacement of 0.1 d (where d is
the diameter of the micropile) was then applied at the micro-
piled raft to assess the combined loading effect (Deb and Pal
2019; Zormpa and Comodromos 2018).
500
Model configuration and parametric study
400

In this study, a 14 m × 14 m × 0.8 m raft supported on 250

Force in kN

300
mm in diameter micropiles was used. A 6 × 6 micropile
200
Field
group was connected to the raft. The micropile length was
100
13 m and their spacing to diameter ratio was taken 8 as Juran
FEA
et al. (2008) stated that the group effect gets significant when
0 spacing to diameter ratio is smaller than 3–6. The soil pro-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacemnt in mm
file was soft clay soil underlain by a layer of dense sand.
Table 2 shows the input parameters of micropiles, and the
raft used in the FEA. Vertically concentrated loads were
Fig. 6  Comparison of numerical model results with full-scale field
lateral load tests of an inclined micropile group of Type C by Kyung adopted in the study. The studied parameters include mag-
and Lee (2018) nitude of vertical loading (Fv), micropile reinforcement type,

Table 2  Input parameters of Parameter Raft Micropile (bar group) Micropile (bar group
micropiled raft used in FEM and casing)

Constitutive modelling Linear elastic Linear elastic Linear elastic

Unit weight (kN/m3), γt 24 24 24
Modulus of elasticity 22 × ­106 kPa 52 × ­106 kPa 85 × ­106 kPa
Steel reinforcement percentage - 15.6% 29.0%
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.15 0.15 0.15

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336 81327

inclination angle (θ), and number of inclined micropiles. In Table 4  Input parameters of soil layers used in FEM
current practice, it is more common to install the micropiles Parameter Clay layer Sand layer
vertically (not in an inclined condition), despite the ease of
their installation at any angle. Installing several micropiles Unit weight (kN/m3), γt 17.5 20
in an inclined condition may improve the lateral response Angle of internal friction (°), ∅ - 40
and optimize the design of micropiled rafts. Therefore, an Dilation angle (°), ψ - 10
attempt has been taken to access the improvement of the Undrained cohesion (kPa), ­Su 25 -
lateral performance in case of installing combined inclined Elastic modulus (kPa) 20,000 60,000
and vertical micropiles under the same raft. The micropiles Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.4 0.3
in Group 1 only was first taken inclined (see Fig. 7). Then, Lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ks 1.4 3.0
the number of inclined micropiles was increased until all the Rint 0.95 0.95
36 micropiles were inclined. Micropiles on the left-hand side
were inclined in the negative direction, whereas the ones on
the right-hand side were inclined in the positive direction 81,000 kPa, respectively. Considering these field values
compared to the lateral load direction (see Fig. 3). The detail ranges, the modulus of elasticity of the soil layers was
program for the parametric study is presented in Table 3. selected. Rint was assumed 0.95 to simulate the rough sur-
face condition for the micropiles of type c (Alnuaim et al.
Soil parameters 2016; Kyung and Lee 2018). The most critical parameter
that affects the shaft resistance of the micropiles is the
The Mohr-Coulomb model was chosen for simulating the lateral earth pressure coefficient K s. It depends on soil
behavior of the soil in the FE analyses. Table 4 summa- conditions, the pile geometry and material, and the pile
rizes input parameters used in the FEM for different soil construction method (Bowles 1996). Kim et al. (2018)
layers. Bowles (1996) stated that the field values range of stated that Ks could be in the range of 4–7 for sandy soils
modulus of elasticity of soft clays and dense sands varies (the passive stress state). Olgun et al. (2019) stated that K s
between 5000 and 25,000 kPa and between 50,000 and could be between at rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) and
passive earth pressure coefficient (Kp ). Therefore, choos-
ing the proper Ks value for the soil layers in the current
study is quite challenging due to the construction method
of Type C micropiles. The validation process results of
the FEM were utilized to choose the optimum value of Ks
for sand and was taken 3.0 (see “Case -1: field axial load-
ing test of a vertical micropile group Type C”). In case
of the upper soft clay layer, Ks value was expected to be
lower than that of sand. According to the (FHWA 2005),
the shaft resistance of Type C micropiles in clay could
reach 1.7 times the shaft resistance of Type A micropiles.
This could indicate that K s in case of Type C micropiles
in clay could reach 1.7 ­Ko. A value of 1.2 was adopted by
Alnuaim et al. (2018) who studied micropiles of Type B
in soft clay. Hence, a value of 1.4 is selected throughout
this study which adopts micropiles of Type C.

Fig. 7  Layout of micropiles

Table 3  Parametric study Vertical loading Number of inclined micropiles Inclination angle Reinforcement
magnitude

Fv =   0 Group 1 = 12 micropiles 0°, ­15°, ­30°, ­45° Bar group

Fv = 2298 kN Group 1, 2 = 24 micropiles Bar group with casing
Fv = 4595 kN Group 1, 2, 3 = 36 micropiles Bar group with casing
Fv = 6893 kN

13
81328 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

Applied vertical loads 100

Maximum vertical settlement (mm)

90 Fv= 2298 kN
80 Fv= 4595 kN
The loads of 16 columns of a multi-story building were 70 Fv= 6893 kN
considered in the study. The columns’ loads were evaluated 60
according to the tributary area of each column. Thus, every 50

internal column will transfer a vertical load of Fv to the raft, 40

30
and every edge column will transfer 0.5 Fv, whereas every
20
corner column will transfer 0.25 Fv. The vertical perfor- 10
mance of micropiled rafts was analyzed after applying verti- 0
0 15 30 45
cal loads and prior to applying the lateral load. In this stage,
Inclination angle (°)
the performance-based design method was used. In this
method, a tolerable settlement that will induce a function-
Fig. 9  Maximum vertical settlement of micropiled rafts at various
ality problem or maintenance issue for the building under values of Fv
working loads is specified. Then, the foundation system is
designed such that the applied working loads cause settle-
ment within the tolerable value (Roberts et al. 2011). In the the maximum settlement which does not exceed 4% when
current study, the maximum tolerable settlement was taken θ increases from 0 to 15° for all values of Fv. However, the
7.5 cm, since the maximum overall settlement of piled rafts maximum settlement tended to increase when θ increases
reported for several case histories was found to be between from 15 to 30°. This increase is 11% for Fv = 6893 kN,
60 and 100 mm (Alnuaim et al. 2016). Figure 8 shows the 7.5% for Fv = 4595 kN, and 7% for Fv = 2298 kN. When θ
layout of the raft and columns. increases from 30° to 45°, the maximum settlement continu-
ously increases and still, the rate of increase is the highest
for Fv = 6893 kN compared to lower vertical loads. The
Analysis of results maximum settlement of the raft at θ = 45° and Fv = 6893
kN is 9.13 cm which does not satisfy the assumed tolerable
Pure vertical loads on micropiled raft foundation settlement (7.5 cm). These findings confirm that micropiled
rafts offer the highest resistance to vertical loads at θ = 15°
All the studied cases were tested first under pure vertical followed by a gradual decrease in the resistance with further
loading to assess the vertical performance. Figure 9 shows increase of θ. The same trend was stated by Kyung et al.
the maximum actual vertical settlement of the raft compared (2017).
to the assumed tolerable settlement of 7.5 cm, where all
micropiles were installed inclined with steel casing around Evaluation of lateral response of micropiled raft
bar group. It can be seen that there is a slight decrease in
It is significant to specify a reasonable displacement level
that corresponds to lateral load capacity due to the small
diameter characteristics of micropiles. By considering a
number of previous studies, it was found that Abd Elaziz
and El Naggar (2015) selected displacement levels of 6.25,
12 mm, and 5% of micropile diameter to define the lateral
load capacity of micropiles. Kyung and Lee (2018) specified
the lateral load capacity of micropiles and micropiled rafts
at a lateral displacement of 0.1 of the micropile diameter.
Throughout the current study, the lateral load capacity is
specified at 0.1 d lateral displacement which agrees with
the trends of previous studies and is often used in practice.

Effect of magnitude of vertical loading

Figure 10 presents the variation of the lateral performance

of micropiled rafts at different values of vertical loading,
where all 36 micropiles were installed inclined with steel
casing around steel bar group. It can be seen that increas-
Fig. 8  Layout of the columns on top of the raft ing vertical loads, causes continuous decrease in the lateral

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336 81329

9000 10000
8000 9000
7000 8000
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

6000 7000
6000
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000 Fv= 0 Fv= 0
3000
Fv= 2298 kN Fv= 2298 kN
2000 2000
Fv= 4595 kN Fv= 4595 kN
1000 1000
Fv= 6893 kN Fv= 6893 kN
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d) Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d)
(a) (b)
14000 18000

12000 16000
14000

Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

10000
12000
8000 10000
6000 8000
Fv= 0 6000 Fv= 0
4000
Fv= 2298 kN 4000 Fv= 2298 kN
2000 Fv= 4595 kN Fv= 4595 kN
2000
Fv= 6893 kN Fv= 6893 kN
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d) Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d)

(c) (d)

Fig. 10  Lateral load displacement response of micropiled raft at various Fv values a 0° b 15° c 30° d 45°

load capacity of micropiled rafts. The maximum lateral Effect of type of micropile reinforcement
load decreases by about 19%, 15%, 22%, and 40% in the
case of Fv = 6893 kN compared to the case of pure lateral The effect of micropile reinforcement type on the lateral
loading at θ = 0°, 15°, 30°, and 45° respectively. When response of micropiled raft systems was studied using either
considering the behavior of inclined micropiled rafts under steel bar group reinforcement or steel bar group surrounded
vertical loads in “Pure vertical loads on micropiled raft by a steel casing. This was done in the FEA by changing
foundation”, the case of θ = 45° seemed to obtain the high- the micropile modulus of elasticity (see Table 2). Moreover,
est increase rate of vertical displacement with increasing a single theoretical case was studied with adopting micro-
vertical loads. Still here, the case of θ = 45° has the high- pile elastic modulus of 30 × ­106 kPa to represent micropiles
est rate of decrease in the lateral capacity with the increase which hardly have any reinforcement. Figure 11 presents
of vertical loads compared to other values of θ. the variation in the lateral performance of the micropiled
The lateral capacity reduction with increasing vertical raft with the change in the micropile reinforcement at Fv =
loads may be attributed to the early failure of the micro- 4595 kN where all 36 micropiles were installed vertically.
pile-soil interface in the upper soft clay layer under the The lateral load capacity increases by only 5% when a cas-
vertical load action. In this case, the further lateral defor- ing is placed around the bar group. The lateral response is
mation in the micropile group will not cause increased little dependent on the reinforcement type of the installed
lateral soil resistance. Hence, this will result in a consid- micropiles. Figure 12 shows the variation in the maximum
erable decrease in the lateral load capacity. This trend is lateral load carried by the micropiled raft with the change
similar to that presented by Rajagopal and Karthigeyan in the micropile reinforcement at Fv = 4595 kN where all 36
(2008) and Hazzar et al. (2017). micropiles were installed inclined at θ = 30°. It is observed

13
81330 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

8000

Maximum lateral load (kN)

14000
7000
12000
Lateral load (kN)

6000
10000
5000
4000 8000
lile reinforcement 6000 Group 1 inclined
3000
2000 Steel bar group only 4000 Group 1,2 inclined
1000 Steel bar group and casing 2000 Group 1,2,3
0 inclined
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0 15 30 45
Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d) Inclination angle (°)

Fig. 11  Lateral load displacement response of micropiled raft with Fig. 13  Maximum lateral load taken by micropiled raft with different
reinforcement type of vertical micropiles micropile inclination angles

14000
Group 1 inclined
lateral load–carrying capacity of micropiles (Kyung and Lee
2018). Figure 14 shows the soil-resisting zones along the
Maximum lateral load (kN)

12000 Group 1,2 inclined

10000
Group 1,2,3 inclined micropiles of row 3 (see Fig. 7) from the FEA at 0.1 d lateral
displacement and Fv = 4595 kN. The green color indicates
8000
the resisting zones in which the ratio of shear stress to shear
6000 strength ranges from 0.96 to unity. A larger green-colored
4000 area should mean a larger resisting soil area and longer slip
2000 surfaces and, hence, greater lateral load–carrying capacity.
It is observed from the figure that most soil-resisting zones
0
Steel bar group bar group with casing were located in the upper soil. Furthermore, the resisting
zone for θ = ­45° in Fig. 14b was greater than that for θ = ­0°
Fig. 12  Maximum lateral load taken by micropiled raft with different in Fig. 14a by about 40–50%.
micropiles reinforcement
Effect of number of inclined micropiles

from the figure that the maximum lateral load increased by The effect of number of inclined micropiles on the lateral
about 7% in the case of using a permanent casing around the response of micropiled raft systems was investigated. Fig-
steel bar group compared to the case of steel bar group only. ure 15 presents the variation of the lateral response of micro-
This slight increase can be attributed to increasing the per- piled rafts at different numbers of 30° inclined micropiles
centage of steel reinforcement by placing an additional steel and Fv = 4595 kN, in which the micropiles were reinforced
casing which leads to a higher micropile stiffness. Hence, with steel bar group only. It can be observed that installing
the lateral load capacity is enhanced. more micropiles in an inclined condition enhances the lat-
eral capacity of the micropiled raft. When all the micropiles
Effect of inclination angle installed are inclined, the lateral load capacity is 50% higher
than the case of no inclined micropiles, 18% higher than the
The inclination angle of micropiles, θ, represents a signifi- case of installing inclined micropiles of group 1 only, and
cant factor when considering the lateral behavior of micro- 12% higher than the case of installing inclined micropiles of
piled raft. Figure 13 presents the variation of the lateral load groups 1 and 2. A similar trend of variation can be also seen
capacity of micropiled rafts at different inclination angles when the micropiles contain steel casing around the steel bar
in case of using steel case around the steel bar group and group as shown in Fig. 16.
Fv = 4595 kN. The figure depicts that the maximum lateral
load increases continuously with the increase of θ. When all Evaluation of the lateral load carried by each
micropiles are inclined, the maximum lateral load increases micropile in a micropiled raft
by about 16%, 52%, and 70% at θ = 15°, 30°, and 45°,
respectively, compared to the case of θ = 0°. The reason for When a micropiled group is subjected to combined loads,
that behavior can be attributed to the increase of the passive the micropiles will offer different load capacity depending
resisting zone and skin friction along the micropile surface upon their position and the lateral loading direction. In this
which both represent the main resisting components for the study, 36 micropiles were divided in 6 rows with 6 piles in

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336 81331

Fig. 14  Soil-resisting zones for

a θ = ­0° and b θ = ­45°

(a)

(b)

12000
each row. The micropiles on the left-hand side were inclined
10000 negatively, whereas the micropiles on the right-hand side
Lateral load (kN)

8000 were inclined positively (see Fig. 3).

6000
In order to discuss the lateral load distribution among
No inclined micropiles
individual micropiles at 0.1 d lateral displacement, the
4000
Group 1 inclined ratios of the lateral load of each micropile in the row relative
2000 Group 1,2 inclined to the total lateral load carried by micropiles are plotted in
Group 1,2,3 inclined
0 Fig. 17. The previous analysis was conducted for the case
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 of installing all the micropiles inclined at θ = 45°, Fv =
Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d) 2298 kN and steel casing around the steel bar group. The
figure depicted that the lateral loads carried by micropiles
Fig. 15  Lateral load displacement response of micropiled raft in case subsequently increases from row 1 to row 3, i.e., the row
of steel bar group only reinforcement

12000 0.12
Lateral load/total load on

10000 0.1
Lateral load (kN)

8000 0.08
micropiles

6000 0.06
No inclined micropiles
4000 0.04
Group 1 inclined Row 3
2000 Group 1,2 inclined 0.02 Row 2
Group 1,2,3 inclined Row 1
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 1 2 3 4 5 6
Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d) Pile n

Fig. 16  Lateral load displacement response of micropiled raft in case Fig. 17  Ratio of lateral load of a micropile to total lateral load carried
of steel case around the steel bar group reinforcement by micropiles at θ = 45°, Fv = 2298 kN

13
81332 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

1 takes the least part of loads while the row 3 carries Evaluation of load sharing ratio between micropiles
the largest amount of loads. Furthermore, the positively and raft
inclined micropiles (micropiles 4, 5, 6) in the three rows
carry much more lateral loads than the negatively inclined Applied loads are shared by both the raft and micropiles
micropiles (micropiles 1, 2, 3). The same variation of results connected to the raft. A part of the load is carried by the raft
has been seen at θ = 15°, 30°, and 45°. Comparing all the and rest of the load is carried by the micropiles. Installing
configurations, it is observed that the positively inclined micropiles with inclined condition would lead to a further
ones carry almost 79–86% of the total lateral load carried complicated sharing behavior. According to the current
by micropiles, whereas the negatively inclined ones carry design practice of conventional pile foundations, piles are
14–21%. This dramatic behavior can be attributed to the designed assuming that they take completely the total value
micropile inclination direction with respect to the lateral of both applied vertical loads and horizontal loads leading
load direction. The micropile position plays an important to a high number of piles and a very safe foundation system
role as well. It is well known that the leading piles carry but very expensive. Therefore, there is a need to assess this
more lateral loads than that carried by trailing ones in complex load sharing nature by evaluating the load sharing
conventional piled rafts subjected to lateral loads. However, ratio between the micropiles and the raft leading to more
relatively different trend was observed at θ = 0° as shown in economical foundation system design.
Fig. 18. The load distribution among the vertical micropiles The lateral load sharing ratio (αh) can be defined as the
tends to be more uniform compared to the inclined cases proportion of the lateral load taken by the micropiles to the
and the most trailing micropile seems to carry the highest total lateral load taken by the micropiled raft while the verti-
lateral load in row 2 and row 1. This different behavior can cal load sharing ratio (αv) can be defined as the proportion of
be attributed to the absence of micropile inclination and the the vertical load taken by the micropiles to the total vertical
presence of vertical loading which may help redistribute the load taken by the micropiled raft.
lateral loads among the micropiles compared to the case Figure 20 shows the proportion of the lateral load car-
of pure lateral loading. These findings are similar to that ried by the inclined micropiles with normalized horizontal
presented by Hazzar et al. (2017). displacement (y/d) at different values of θ, Fv = 2298 kN
In order to discuss the effect of micropile inclination and steel casing around the steel bar group. It can be seen
angle on the load distribution among individual micropiles that there is a nonlinear relationship between αh and y/d.
at 0.1 d lateral displacement, the absolute values of lateral The value of αh tends to be displacement-dependent and
loads taken by the inclined micropiles are plotted in Fig. 19 slightly increase with the increase of lateral displacement,
at different values of θ, Fv = 2298 kN and steel casing as the raft transfers the load to the micropiles. The case of
around the steel bar group. It can be observed that the θ = 15° shows the highest rate of load increase, where αh
lateral load carried by each individual micropile increases increases from 59 to 74% when y/d increases from 0.004
with the increase of θ, which of course helps to improve the to 0.1. On the other hand, the case of θ = 45° shows the
lateral resistance of micropiled rafts when θ is increased as lowest rate of load increase, where αh increases by only
discussed in “Effect of inclination angle.” 2% when y/d increases from 0.004 to 0.1.
The impact of both micropile inclination angle and mag-
nitude of vertical loading in controlling αh and αv ratios was
checked. Figure 21 presents the values of αh with differ-
ent values of micropile inclination angle, whereas Fig. 22
0.1 presents the values of αv with different values of micropile
Lateral load/total load on

0.09 inclination angle, where all the micropiles were installed

0.08
0.07
inclined with a steel case around the steel bar group. The
micropiles

0.06 figure depicts that αh and αv are dependent on the micropile

0.05 inclination angle to a great extent. Inclined micropiles offer
0.04
Row 3
greater αh than that of vertical ones, largest at θ = 45°. For
0.03
0.02 Row 2 example, at Fv = 2298 kN, αh increases from 68 to 88%
0.01 Row 1 when θ is changed from 0 to 45°. However, an opposite trend
0 takes place when considering αv which seems to increase
1 2 3 4 5 6
initially when θ increases from 0 to 15°, then it decreases
Pile n
continuously with increasing θ. This variation trend of αv
with θ is consistent with the results by Kim et al. (2018) who
Fig. 18  Ratio of lateral load of a micropile to total lateral load carried
by micropiles at θ = 0°, Fv = 2298 kN confirmed that the maximum αv value of inclined micropiled
rafts is obtained at θ = 15°.

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336 81333

Fig. 19  Lateral load value 800 700

carried by each individual 700 600
micropile at various θ values, Fv 600

Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

= 2298 kN (a) row 3 (b) row 2 500
500
(c) row 1 400
400
300
300
15° 200
200 15°
30°
100 100 30°
45° 45°
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pile n Pile n
(a) (b)
600

500

Lateral load (kN)

400

300

200
15°
100 30°
45°
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pile n
(c)

1 1
Proportion of lateral load
Proportion of lateral load

0.9
carried by micropiles
carried by micropiles

0.9 0.8
0.7
0.8 0.6
0.5
0.7 0.4
0.3
0°
30° 0.2
0.6
45° 0.1
15° 0
0.5 Fv=0 Fv=2298 kN Fv=4595 kN Fv=6893 kN
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0° 15° 30° 45°
Normalized Horizontal displacement (y/d)

Fig. 21  Lateral load proportion carried by micropiles at 0.1 d lateral

Fig. 20  Load sharing ratio of micropiled rafts with lateral displace-
displacement at different θ values
ment at various values of θ

The magnitude of vertical loading has a little effect on αh.

The highest variation in αh is at θ = 15°, where it decreases Percentage of increase in lateral load capacity
by only 3.6% when Fv increases from 0 to 6893 kN. How-
ever, Fv has a relatively higher impact on the values of αv. In order to check the influence of installing inclined micro-
For vertical micropiles, αv increases from 66% to 76% when piles against using additional steel casing on the lateral
Fv increases from 2298 kN to 6893 kN. For θ = 15°, αv response of micropiled rafts, the percentage of increase in
increases from 70 to 78% when Fv increases from 2298 kN the lateral load capacity was evaluated. The percentage of
to 6893 kN. A less increase in αv is observed with increas- increase can be defined as
ing Fv at θ = 30°, 45°. Comparing all the configurations,
it is observed that the raft carries 24–60% of vertical load, Lwi − Lni
IL = ∗ 100 (3)
whereas the micropiles carry 40–76%. Regarding the applied Lni
lateral load, the load carried by the raft varies between 12
where IL, percentage of increase in lateral load capacity with
and 32% of the total lateral load, while the micropiles carry
inclined micropiles; L
­ wi, lateral load capacity with inclined
68–88%.

13
81334 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

Proportion of vertical load 1 load capacity for different inclination angles of micropiles at
carried by micropiles 0.9 various reinforcement types and Fv = 4595 kN. The figures
0.8
0.7 depict that values of IL increase with the increase of inclina-
0.6 tion angle of installed micropiles, i.e., the inclination angle
0.5 has a positive impact on IL. Furthermore, IL also increases
0.4
0.3 with increasing the number of inclined micropiles. However,
0.2 it is observed that the effect of micropiles reinforcement on
0.1 IL is low compared to that of micropile inclination angle.
0
Fv=2298 kN Fv=4595 kN Fv=6893 kN This finding is similar to that presented by El Kamash and
0° 15° 30° 45° Han (2017) who stated that the performance of floating
micropiles under vertical loads seemed to be little affected
Fig. 22  Vertical load proportion carried by micropiles at 0.1 d lateral by the micropile elastic modulus.
displacement at different θ values

Conclusions
micropiles (kPa); ­Lni, lateral load capacity with vertical
micropiles (kPa). The performance of micropiled rafts installed with inclined
Figure 23 presents the percent increase in the lateral load condition under combined loading has been studied using
capacity for different inclination angles of micropiles at a series of 3D finite element numerical analyses. The main
various number of inclined micropiles and Fv = 4595 kN, conclusions drawn from the numerical results are listed
whereas Fig. 24 presents the percent increase in the lateral below:

1. Inclined micropiled rafts offer the highest resistance to

80 vertical loads at θ = 15° followed by a gradual decrease
Micropiles have steel casing around steel bar group
70 in the resistance with further increase of θ.
60 Group 1 inclined 2. Increasing vertical loads causes continuous decrease in
Group 1,2 iclined
50 the lateral load capacity of micropiled rafts, with the
IL (%)

40 Group 1,2,3 inclined

highest rate of decrease at the case of θ = 45° com-
30
pared to other values of θ.
20
3. The reinforcement of the micropiles supporting the
10
micropiled raft has a relatively little effect on its lateral
0
15 30 45 response. The lateral load capacity increases slightly
Inclination angle (°) with placing a permanent steel casing around the steel
bar(s) reinforcement.
Fig. 23  Percent increase in the lateral load capacity for different incli- 4. The lateral load capacity is much dependent on the
nation angles of micropiles at various number of inclined micropiles micropile inclination angle and increases continuously
and Fv = 4595 kN with the increase of θ up to θ = ­45°. This can be attrib-
uted to the increase of the passive resisting zone and
skin friction along the micropile surface.
80 5. Increasing the number of inclined micropiles enhances
All 36 micropiles are inclined the lateral performance.
70
Steel bar group
60 6. For the studied micropiled raft, when all micropiles
50 Steel bar group with installed are inclined, the positively inclined micro-
casing
IL (%)

40 piles carry 79–86% of the total lateral load carried by

30 micropiles, whereas the negatively inclined ones carry
20 14–21%. This can be attributed to the micropile incli-
10 nation direction with respect to the lateral load direc-
0 tion. The micropile position plays an important role as
15 30 45
well. However, relatively different trend was observed
Inclina on angle (°)
at θ = 0°. The lateral load distribution among the verti-
cal micropiles tends to be more uniform compared to
Fig. 24  Percent increase in the lateral load capacity for different incli-
nation angles of micropiles at various reinforcement types and Fv = the inclined cases.
4595 kN

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336 81335

7. There is a nonlinear relationship between lateral load adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
sharing ratio and lateral displacement. The value of as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
αh is displacement-dependent and slightly increases if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
with the increase of lateral displacement, as the raft article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless
transfers the load to the micropiles. The case of θ = indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
15° shows the highest rate of micropile load increase included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
with lateral displacement. use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
8. The lateral and vertical load sharing ratios at 0.1 d holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​
lateral displacement greatly depend on the inclination org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
angle of micropiles. Inclined micropiles offer greater
αh than that of vertical ones, largest at θ = 45°. How-
ever, an opposite trend takes place when considering
αv which seems to increase initially when θ increases References
from 0 to 15°, then it decreases continuously with
increasing θ. Abd Elaziz AY, El Naggar MH (2015) Performance of hollow bar
micropiles under monotonic and cyclic lateral loads. J Geotech
9. The percentage of increase in the lateral load capac- Geoenviron 141(5):04015010. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​gt.​
ity is evaluated. The inclination angle has a positive 1943-​5606.​00012​79
impact on IL. Furthermore, IL also increases with Alnuaim AM, El Naggar MH, El Naggar H (2016) Numerical investiga-
increasing the number of inclined micropiles. How- tion of the performance of micropiled rafts in sand. Comput Geo-
tech 77:91–105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2016.​04.​002
ever, it has been observed that the effect of micropile Alnuaim AM, El Naggar MH, El Naggar H (2018) Performance of
reinforcement on IL is low compared to the effect of micropiled rafts in clay: numerical investigation. Comput Geotech
micropile inclination angle. 99:42–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2018.​02.​020
10. Considering the findings of this paper, design engi- Borthakur N, Dey AK (2018) Experimental investigation on load carry-
ing capacity of micropiles in soft clay. Arab J Sci Eng 43(4):1969–
neers are encouraged to install combined inclined and 1981. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13369-​017-​2894-3
vertical micropiles under the same raft, which could Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. The
help optimize the design of micropiled rafts in terms McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York
of both vertical and lateral performance. Deb P, Pal SK (2019) Numerical analysis of piled raft foundation under
combined vertical and lateral loading. Ocean Eng 190:106431.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2019.​106431
El Kamash W, Han J (2017) Numerical analysis of existing founda-
Acknowledgements Ahmed Elsawwaf is greatly thankful to his father, tions underpinned by micropiles. Int J Geomech 17(6):04016126.
Prof. Dr. Mostafa El sawwaf, for his continuous help, encouragement, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​gm.​1943-​5622.​00008​33
and endless support. El Kamash W, El Naggar H, To P, Sivakugan N (2022) The effect of
long-term consolidation on foundations underpinned by micro-
Author contribution All authors contributed to the study conception piles in soft clay. Ain Shams Eng J 13(1):101487. https://​doi.​org/​
and design. Data collection and numerical analyses were performed by 10.​1016/j.​asej.​2021.​05.​002
Ahmed Elsawwaf. The manuscript was written by Ahmed Elsawwaf. Farouk A (2009) Behavior of micropiles under vertical tension and
Prof. Dr. Ashraf Nazir and Prof. Dr. Waseim Azzam helped to develop compression loads. Proceedings of the 17th international confer-
the idea and reviewed the manuscript. ence on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. The Aca-
demia and Practice of Geotechnical Engineering 2:1243–1246.
Funding Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & https://​doi.​org/​10.​3233/​978-1-​60750-​031-5-​1243
Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyp- FHWA (2005) Micropile design and construction guidelines, imple-
tian Knowledge Bank (EKB). mentation manual.National Highway Institute
Han J, Ye SL (2006) A field study on the behavior of a foundation
underpinned by micropiles. Can Geotech J 43(1):30–42. https://​
Data availability All data, models, and code generated or used during doi.​org/​10.​1139/​t05-​087
the study appear in the submitted article. Hazzar L, Hussien MN, Karray M (2017) On the behaviour of pile
groups under combined lateral and vertical loading. Ocean Eng
Declarations 131:174–185. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2017.​01.​006
Hwang TH, Kim KH, Shin JH (2017) Effective installation of micro-
Ethical approval and consent to participate Not applicable. piles to enhance bearing capacity of micropiled raft. Soils Found
57(1):36–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​sandf.​2017.​01.​003
Consent for publication Not applicable. Jeon SS, Kulhawy FH (2001) Evaluation of axial compression behav-
ior of micropiles. In: Foundations and ground improvement, pp
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. 460–471. ASCE
Juran I, Weinstein G, Sourisseau L (2008) FOREVER: Synthesis of
the results and recommendations of the french national project
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons on micropiles—English translation. International Association of
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Foundation Drilling, Dallas

13
81336 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:81321–81336

Kim D, Kim G, Kim I, Lee J (2018) Assessment of load sharing Rao SN, Ramakrishna VGST, Rao MB (1998) Influence of rigidity on
behavior for micropiled rafts installed with inclined condition. laterally loaded pile groups in marine clay. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng Struct 172:780–788. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ ngstr​ uct.2​ 018.​ 124(6):542–549. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​1090-​0241(1998)​
06.​058 124:​6(542)
Kyung D, Lee J (2018) Interpretative analysis of lateral load–carrying Roberts LA, Fick D, Misra A (2011) Performance-based design of
behavior and design model for inclined single and group micro- drilled shaft bridge foundations. J Bridg Eng 16(6):749–758.
piles. J Geotech Geoenviron 144(1):04017105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​be.​1943-​5592.​00002​22
1061/​(asce)​gt.​1943-​5606.​00018​10 Sharma B, Hussain Z (2019) Behaviour of batter micropiles subjected
Kyung D, Kim G, Kim D, Lee J (2017) Vertical load-carrying behavior to vertical and lateral loading conditions. J Geosci Environ Protect
and design models for micropiles considering foundation configu- 07(02):206. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4236/​gep.​2019.​72014
ration conditions. Can Geotech J 54(2):234–247. https://​doi.​org/​ Subanantharaj Palammal J, Senthilkumar PK (2018) Behavioural
10.​1139/​cgj-​2015-​0472 analysis of vertical and batter pile groups under vertical and lat-
Malik BA, Shah MY, Sawant VA (2021) Influence of micro- eral loading in sand. Arab J Geosci 11(22):1–7. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
pile parameters on bearing capacity of footings. Environ Sci 1007/​s12517-​018-​4032-2
Pollut Res 28(35):48274–48283. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​ Teerawut J (2002) Effect of Diameter on The behaviour of laterally
s11356-​021-​14062-7 loaded piles in weakly cemented sand. Ph.D. Dissertation. Uni-
Olgun M, Fidan B, Yenginar Y (2019) Model studies of lateral versity of California, San Diego
soil pressure on drilling piles in dry and saturated sands. Soil Tsukada Y, Miura K, Tsubokawa Y, Otani Y, You GL (2006) Mechanism
Mech Found Eng 56(4):280–286. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​ of bearing capacity of spread footings reinforced with micropiles.
s11204-​019-​09603-9 Soils Found 46(3):367–376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3208/​sandf.​46.​367
Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and design. Wang C, Han J-T, Kim S (2021) A field study on the load sharing
Wiley, New York behavior of a micropiled raft underpinned by a waveform micro-
Rajagopal K, Karthigeyan S (2008) Influence of combined vertical and pile. Can Geotech J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​cgj-​2020-​0547
lateral loading on the lateral response of piles. In: International Zormpa TE, Comodromos EM (2018) Numerical evaluation of pile
association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics response under combined lateral and axial loading. Geotech Geol
(IACMAG), pp 3272–3282 Eng 36(2):793–811. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​017-​0354-1
Randolph MF (1994) Design methods for piled groups and piled rafts.
In: In Proceeding of the 13th ICSMFE. New Delhi, India, pp 61–82 Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13