SEISMIC RESPONSE OF GROUP OF MICROPILES CONSIDERING PILE-CAP

CONNECTIVITY CONDITIONS
Dahlia Hafez1, Alper Turan2, Hesham El Naggar3, Tony Sangiuliano4
ABSTRACT
Micropiles are widely used in seismically active areas, where they are expected to resist
significant lateral loads. The pile-cap connectivity condition and the characteristics of
the supported superstructure can have a significant effect on the lateral response of
micropile supported foundations. Evaluating these factors and their impact on the lateral
response should be an important design consideration. This paper includes the results
of a numerical study investigating the soil-micropile-structure interaction with an
emphasis on the pile-cap connectivity condition and the dynamic characteristics of
superstructure. A 3D non-linear finite element model is developed using the commercial
software package ABAQUS and is used in the analysis of the seismic soil-micropilestructure interaction problem. The Ricker Wavelets were used in the analysis. Nonlinear soil behavior was modeled using a Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model and constant
Rayleigh damping. The results indicated that the dynamic characteristics of the
superstructure have a significant impact on the bending moments of micropiles. The
results also indicated that the use of hinged-head connectivity resulted in significant
reductions in the maximum bending moments. Such assumption also resulted in a
uniform distribution of bending moments among the micropiles within the group.
1.

INTRODUCTION

Micropiles are bored and grouted small diameter piles used in a wide range of
applications, including foundation rehabilitation, slope stabilization, retaining structures,
vibration reduction, etc. They are particularly suited for situations with difficult access,
restricted clearance and poor ground conditions, where minimal disturbance to the
existing structure is permissible (FHWA 1997). Micropiles have been used for retrofitting
and rehabilitating existing foundations due to their ease of installation (e.g. Taylor et al.
1998; Zelenko et al. 1998; and Misra et al., 1999). Micropiles have also been used to
increase the overall resistance and to reduce deflections of existing foundations
subjected to compression and uplift forces (Mascardi 1982; Laefer, 1999; Bruce et al.,
1997; and IWM99 1999).
Micropiles can be advantageous for construction in seismic areas, mainly due to
their flexibility, ductility and ability to withstand uplift forces. Micropiles are used to
support foundations of both new and existing structures (Pearlman et al., 1993; Juran et
1

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt, 01145111166,

dahliahafez@gmail.com
2
Foundation Engineer, Material Engineering Research Office, Ontario Ministry of Transportation,
Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 4162354333, alper.turan@ontario.ca
3
Professor, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada,
5196614219, helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca
4
Foundation Engineer, Material Engineering Research Office, Ontario Ministry of Transportation,
Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 4162355267, tony.sangiuliano@ontario.ca

al., 2001; and Shahrour and Juran, 2004). Most studies on dynamic soil-micropilefoundation interaction have been numerical simulations. Kishishita et al. (2000)
performed 2-D finite element simulations of micropiles considering different input
motions and pile types using a linear elastic model and various nonlinear models for the
soil and pile. Shahrour et al. (2001) conducted a 3-D FEM analysis of a single micropile
and a micropile group supporting a superstructure assuming a square micropile crosssection and elastic material with Rayleigh damping. Ousta and Shahrour (2001)
analyzed a single micropile and group of micropiles in saturated soils using a cyclic
elastic-plastic constitutive model. Sadek and Shahrour (2004) investigated the influence
of pile inclination on the seismic behaviour of a micropile group. Wong (2004)
investigated the seismic behaviour of micropiles using different levels of soil nonlinearity, load intensities and frequency contents and pile inclinations. Lastly, the
influence of pile head and tip connections on the dynamic response of micropile
supported foundations was studied by, Sadek and Shahrour (2006) using a 3D finite
element scheme and considering both vertical and inclined pile.
A number of reduced scale and full-scale micropile tests have been reported in
the literature. Yamane et al. (2000) conducted lateral and vertical load tests on various
full scale micropiles. Yang et al. (2000) tested a single reduced scale micropile installed
in dry sand on a shaking table. Juran et al. (2001) tested a single reduced scale
micropile, micropile groups, and micropile networks in the centrifuge. The lateral
performance of micropile groups and micropile networks was assessed in the field by
Geosystems, L.P. (2002). Each of the preceding studies has considered various
micropile inclinations, pile numbers, and load types.
Although micropiles have been investigated extensively, there are some factors
that may affect the long-term performance of micropiles and that warrant further study.
In this paper, a series of 3D time domain dynamic analyses and some pseudo-static
analyses of micropile groups have been performed. A linear elastic material model has
been established for the piles and pile cap along. The modeling of the soil behaviour is
performed using simple Mohr-Columb plasticity. Verification of the finite element model,
details of numerical model, influence of various aspects such as the dynamic
characteristics of superstructure and influence of pile-cap connectivity conditions have
been investigated considering soil-pile interface non-linearity. Finally, the results are
discussed and conclusions have been provided.
2.

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Problem Geometry

The problem investigated in this study is the seismic response of a 9-group of
micropiles constructed in a 25m deep homogeneous soil deposit. The 9 micropiles were
15m long and 0.25m in diameter, and were connected to a 3m 3m 0.3 m thick
reinforced concrete pile cap. A single degree of freedom system was connected to the
top of the pile cap as shown in Figure 1 and discussed below.
Each micropile was assumed to comprise a 0.09m diameter concentric steel
reinforcement bar extending from the pile head to toe, and pressure grouted. A series
of dynamic analyses were carried out to study the effect of pile to cap connectivity

condition on the bending moments on the micropiles with various superstructure

considerations. In addition, the influence of the micropile location within the group on its
seismic response was studied.

Figure 1. Schematic of problem geometry.

2.2

Numerical Modeling

A finite element model was used to investigate the behavior of the soil-pilestructure system depicted in Figure 1. The micropile supported foundation and soil layer
were modeled using mainly 8-noded linear hexahedron elements with three degrees of
freedom per node (see Figure 2). Since the higher frequency components of input
motion are difficult to transmit if the element size is too large, the maximum element
size used was between 1/6th and 1/8th of the minimum Rayleigh wavelength in
accordance with Kramer (1996). The problem boundaries are modeled using infinite
elements (Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer, 1969). A mesh sensitivity analysis was performed
to verify the validity of mesh density.
The initial step in each analysis involved a geostatic analysis, which was carried
out to establish the initial geostatic equilibrium. The seismic loading was simulated by
applying acceleration time histories at the base of the model. Two simplified
superstructures were investigated which were modeled as single degree of freedom
oscillators comprising a concentrated mass and a column. The superstructure was
composed of a concentrated mass of 40 tons. The fixed base fundamental frequency of
short and tall structures (SDOF-S and SDOF-T) system were calculated as 1.36 Hz and
0.4Hz.
2.3

Validation of Numerical Model

The 3D finite element model used in the analysis was verified using field load test
data presented by Richard and Rothbauer (2004). Their load testing program involved
lateral load tests conducted on 20 micropiles with length to diameter (L/D) ratio greater

than 20 and had a steel casing along the entire micropile length. The micropile
considered in the verification of the numerical model was micropile C1, which was
244mm in diameter with bending stiffness, EI, equal to 1.914 E+10 KNmm2 (see
Richard and Rothbauer, 2004). The pile length was not specified, thus it was taken as 8
m long which satisfies the length to diameter ratio criterion.
The micropile was embedded in a soil layer classified as sandy or silty clay with
shear strength, cu = 86 kPa and unit weight, = 18.9kN/m3. The soil was modeled using
the Mohr-Columb Plasticity model. The elastic modulus and Poissons ratio where not
given. Therefore, they were back calculated using typical values to match the field
results. The elastic modulus, E, was taken as 23.7 MPa while Poissons ratio was taken
as 0.3, which gave the best fit to the measured field results. The lateral boundaries were
rigid boundaries placed at a distance 100m from the center of the pile. The model base
was constrained using rough-rigid boundary conditions. Due to the symmetry of the
problem, only half of the problem was modeled. A good agreement was achieved with
the lateral load test results and finite element simulations. Thus, the same micropile and
soil characteristics are utilized for other analyses performed in this study.
2.4

Applied Seismic Load

The seismic load was applied in the form of a Ricker wavelet (Gazetas, 2001).
The horizontal accelerations with peak amplitude of 0.3g with a predominant period of
0.16s was applied to the model base. The duration of the Ricker wavelet was two
seconds. The analyses, however, were continued for four seconds. The Ricker wavelet
input time history used is given as:
a (t ) A.

1 2[ . f .dt .( t t 0 )] 2

[1]

exp[[ . f .dt .( t t 0 )] 2 ]

where, a(t) is the acceleration time history, t is the time, dt is the sampling interval, t0 is
the duration of interest, A is the maximum acceleration, and f is the predominant
frequency of the motion.
3.

RESULTS

The results for three cases were studied. The first case was a foundation
supporting no structure (No-STR case), which reflected the kinematic behaviour of the
micropile group. The second and third cases were for the foundations supporting a short
(SDOF-S case) and a tall (SDOF-T case) superstructure, respectively. For each of the
three cases, a hinged and a fixed micropile head fixity conditions between the micropile
group and the cap were considered.
3.1.

Effect of Dynamic Characteristics of Superstructure and Pile Head Fixity

The distribution of the maximum bending moment along the central pile P5
considering a superstructure with different characteristics are presented in Figures 3
and 4 for the fixed-head and hinged-head conditions, respectively.

For fixed-head conditions, it was observed that the superstructure had a

significant influence on the bending moments. SDOF-T case resulted in higher bending
moments relative to SDOF-S case and No-STR cases. Maximum values of bending
moments were near the pile-cap connection. For hinged-head conditions, the maximum
value of bending moments occured at around 10 m depth (see Fig 4). The difference in
the magnitudes of maximum bending moments remained insignificant for No-STR,
SDOF-S and SDOF-T cases. Thus, influence of superstructure on the bending
moments of hinged-head micropiles were negligable.
It can be seen from Figures 3 and 4 that the kinematic interaction influences the
seismically induced bending moments in micropiles where hinged-head conditions are
assumed. However, the maximum bending moments increase drastically with the
consideration of inertial effect of the superstructure when fixed-head conditions are
assumed. It was observed that the assumption of hinged-head connectivity resulted in
significant reduction in the maximum bending moments. Such reductions were more
pronounced for SDOF-T. For N0-STR, the fixity of the pile-cap connection has almost
no influence on maximum bending moment. Table 1 summarizes the maximum lateral
pile head deflections. The results shown in Table 1 indicate that the maximum lateral
deformations were between 3.5 mm and 4 mm. Thus, the lateral pile head deflections
were almost insensitive to both pile-cap connectivity and supported superstructure.

Figure 2. Model mesh composed of hexahedron and wedge element.

Table 1. Maximum lateral pile head deflections.
Lateral Deflection of Pile Head (m)
Hinged-Head
Fixed-Head
No structure
0.00374
0.00369
Short
0.00364
0.00399
tall
0.00378
0.00363

3.2.

Effect of Pile Location within Group

Figures 5 and 6 depict the variation of maximum bending moments for a corner
pile (P1), an edge pile (P4) and a center pile (P5) for fixed-head and hinged-head
conditions (SDOF-T). The results show that the connectivity condition between the
micropile and the pile cap has a significant impact on the distribution of bending
moments. Results in Figure 5 showed that the maximum bending moment occurred at
the center pile (P5) for fixed-head condition. The edge pile (P4) and corner pile (P1)
experienced smaller bending moments. The maximum bending moment at the center
pile (P5) was calculated to be five times larger than that of corner pile (P1).
The results shown in Figure 6 indicate that the hinged-head pile cap connectivity
assumption had two important effects: significant reduction in the maximum bending
moments and uniform distribution of bending moments among the piles located at
different locations within the group. The reduction of maximum bending moment due to
hinged-head assumption were 94% for P5, 87% for P4 and 70% for P1. The bending
moment distribution in P1, P4 and P5 were almost identical, when hinged-head
assumption was adopted.

Depth(m)

BM(kNm)
2 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

10

20

30

P5fixedtall

Figure 3. Maximum bending moment for centre pile (fixed-head)

BM(kNm)

5
0

0.5

1.5

Depth(m)

0
5
10

P5hinged
tall

15
20

Figure 4. Maximum bending moment for centre pile (hinged-head)

Depth(m)

BM(kNm)
2 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

10

20

30

P5fixed
tall
P1fixed
tall

Figure 5. The variation of bending moments for P1, P4 and P5 (fixed-head conditions).
BM(kNm)

5
0

0.5

1.5

Depth(m)

0
5
10
15

P5hinged
tall

20

Figure 6. The variation of bending moments for P1, P4 and P5 (hinged-head

conditions).

4.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented the results of a series of seismic analyses of a micropile
group. The primary objectives of the analyses were to investigate the effect of the pilecap connectivity conditions on the seismic system response. In addition, the influence
of the superstructure characteristics and location of pile within the group were
investigated. The following is the summary of the results and conclusions arising from
this study.

The results showed that the existance and characteristics of superstructure had a
significant influence on the pile bending moments for fixed pile-cap connection.
SDOF-T case resulted in higher bending moments relative to SDOF-S and NoSTR cases. Maximum bending moments occured near the pile-cap connection
for fixed-head cases.
7

5.

The assumption of hinged-head conditions resulted in significant reductions in

maximum bending moments relative to fixed-head assumption. The maximum
value of bending moments occured at around 10 m depth when hinged-head
condition was assumed. The difference in the magnitudes of maximum bending
moments remained insignificant among No-STR, SDOF-S and SDOF-T cases.
Thus, the influence of the superstructure on the bending moments were
negligible when hinged-pile assumption was made.
The connectivity condition between the micropile and the pile cap was observed
to have a significant impact on the distribution of bending moments of the piles of
different locations within the group. The maximum bending moment from the
highest to lowest occured at the center pile (P5), edge pile (P4) and corner pile
(P1) for fixed-head condition. The maximum bending moment at the center pile
(P5) was calculated to be five times larger than that of corner pile (P1).
Hinged-head assumption had two important effects; the significant reduction in
the maximum bending moments and a uniformizing effect on the bending
moments distribution among the piles located at different locations within the
group. The reduction of maximum bending moment due to hinged-head
assumption were 94% for the center pile (P5), 87% for the edge pile (P4) and
70% for the corner pile (P1). The bending moment distribution in P1, P4 and P5
were almost identical, when hinged-head assumption was adopted.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research reported in this paper has been partially supported by the Ontario Ministry
of Transportation and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC).
6.

REFERENCES

Bruce, D. A., Bruce, M. E. C. and Traylor, R. P. (1999). High capacity micropiles

Basic principles and case histories, in Geo-Engineering for Underground
Facilities, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 90, (edited by G. Fernandez and
R.A. Bauer). ASCE, Reston, Virginia. pp. 188199.
FHWA (1997). Drilled and Grouted Micropiles: State-of-Practice Review Volume
I-IV, in Report No. FHWA-RD-96016, 017, 018, 019, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, McLean, Virginia.
Gazetas, G. (2001). The 1999 Parnitha (Athens) Earthquake: soil effects on
distribution of damage. XV ICSMGE TC4 Satellite Conference on "Lessons
Learned from Recent Strong Earthquakes", Istanbul, Turkey.
Geosystem, L.P. (2002). Description of full scale tests conducted and data
obtained in the three phases of tests conducted for the U.S. Military in Baltimore,
M.D.
Federal
Highway
Administration,
Order
DTFH61-02-P-00162,
Requisition/Reference No. 41-08-2011.
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen (1996), ABAQUS/Standard Users Manual,
Version 5.6, Hibbitt, Providence, Rhode Island.

IWM99 (1999). Proceedings of Second InternationalWorkshop on Micropiles,

Yamaguchi University, Ube City, Japan.
Juran, I., Benslimane, A. and Hanna, S. (2001). Engineering analysis of the
dynamic behavior of micropile systems, transportation research record, Paper
No. 01-2936; p. 91106.
Kishishita, T., Saito, E. and Miura, F. (2000). Dynamic-response characteristics
of structures with micropile foundation system. 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 1-8.
Laefer, D. F. (1999). Geotechnical procedures for at-risk and in-distress
structures, In: L. B. Sickels-Taves (eds.). The Use of and Need for Preservation
Standards in ArchitecturalConservation, ASTM STP 1355, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA. pp. 211225.
Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1969). Finite dynamic model for infinite media.
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 95(4): 859-877.
Mascardi, C. A. (1982). Design criteria and performance of micropiles, In: Recent
Developments in Ground Improvement Techniques, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
pp. 439450.
Misra, A., Oberoi, R. and Kleiber, A. (1999). Micropiles for Seismic Retrofitting of
Highway Interchange Foundation, In: IWM99, Proceedings of Second
InternationalWorkshop on Micropiles, Yamaguchi University, Ube City, Japan.
pp. 215223.
Ousta, R. and Shahrour, I. (2001). Three-dimensional analysis of the seismic
behavior of micropiles used in the reinforcement of saturated soil. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 25: 183-196.
Pearlman, S.L. and Wolosick, J.R.(1993). Pinpiles for seismic rehabilitation of
bridges. Proceedings of the 10th international bridge conference, Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania.
Richards, T.D. and Rothbauer, M.J. (2004). Lateral Loads on Pin Piles.
Proceedings of GeoSupport Conference 2004.
Sadek, M. and Shahrour, I. (2004). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of
the seismic behaviour of inclined micropiles. Soil Dyn Earth. Eng. 24: 47385.
Sadek, M. and Shahrour, I. (2006). Influence of the head and tip connection on
the seismic performance of micropiles. Soil Dyn. Earth. Eng. 26: 461468.
Shahrour, I. and Juran, I. (2004). Seismic behavior of micropile systems. Ground
Improv J [in press].
Shahrour, I., Sadek, M. and Ousta, R. (2001). Seismic behavior of micropiles
used as foundation support elements: three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Transportation Research Record No. 1772. Soil Mech, 8491.
Taylor, G. E., Gularte, F. B., and Gularte, G. G. (1998). Seismic retrofit of Fourth
Street & Riverside viaducts with micropiles, In: A. Maher and D. S. Yang (eds.).
Soil Improvement for Big Digs, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 81, ASCE,
Reston, Virginia. pp. 313325.

Wong, J. C. (2004). The Seismic Behavior of Micropiles.,Master Thesis.

Washington State University. WA. USA.
Yamane, T., Nakata, Y. and Otani, Y. (2000). Efficiency of micropile for seismic
retrofit of foundation system. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand, 1-8.
Yang, J.X., McManus, K.J and Berrill, J.B. (2000). Kinematic soil-micropile
interaction. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, 1-8.
Zelenko, B. H., Bruce, D. A., Schoenwolf, D. A. and Traylor, R. P. (1998).
Micropile applications for seismic retrofit preserves historic structure in old San
Juan, Puerto Rico, In: L. Johnsen and D. Berry (eds.). Grouts and Grouting,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 80, ASCE, Reston, Virginia. pp. 4362.

10