CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
This review is aimed at providing the latest state-of the art and state of practice for construction of a new foundation type strengthening technique. The main object of this review is to present the recent researches and the technical background of micropiling. Design aspects and design methods of this new type foundation and the practical and theoretical applications of micropiles throughout the world are presented. Strengthening weak soil using other materials, reinforcing material as micropiles, minipiles, needle piles, soil nails, soil anchors ...etc. Micropiling is a new foundation type strengthening technique. Micropiles have been installed on many projects in many parts of the world. Micropiles or minipiles were first installed in Italy in the 1950s and were conceived as a method to underpin historic buildings and monuments. In the 1970s, this new technique was introduced in the United States of America (USA). The rapid growth in applications did not begin until the late 1980s when the method gained acceptance as a means to underpin existing structures. Micropiles were installed in Egypt (for the first time) in 1993 for underpinning Sultan El-Ghory Mosque in Cairo. Micropiles are used for underpinning many other historic buildings. Micropiles can be used under restricted access conditions. Moreover, micropiles can provide not only an excellent structural support but also a system that minimizes settlements. Furthermore, micropiles can be constructed under virtually every ground condition with minimal disturbance of the structure being underpinned. The micropiles are used in: (1) Structural support as foundation underpinning, upgrading of foundation capacity, repair of existing foundations, arresting of foundation movement,...etc, (2) In-situ soil reinforcement as landslide stabilization, soil strengthening, settlement reduction,...etc, and (3) Soil excavation support, resisting uplift and dynamic loads, reticulated pile walls,...etc. Micropiles are defined as small diameter less than 300 mm and normally between 125 and 250 mm, drilled, cast-in-place, and grouted piles. They have the capability of sustaining high loads. The drilling equipment and methods allow micropiles to be drilled through virtually every ground conditions, natural and artificial, with minimal vibration, disturbance and noise, at any angle below

10
both vertical and sloping and can be up to 10-15m in length. The technology of micropiles making in the punched holes consists of the following operations. (1) With the help of compressed air the puncher is immersed in the fixed point through the guiding device to the project depth, and, is then extracted out of the formed hole, which is afterwards filled with the corresponding portion of concrete mixture. (2) The repeated immersion presses the mixture to the bottom and the walls of the hole. This results in the compacted zone dimension increase down the hole. (3) If necessary, the armature is put down in the newly built hole and the concrete mixture is laid with bed-after-bed compaction by a depth vibrator. 2.5.1 F H W A Classification o f Micropiles Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classification of micropiles was accepted and recommended by the technical committee No. 17 of the International Society of Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering (1SSMFETC- 17). The relationship between micropile application, design concept, and construction type is summarized in Table (2.2), ISSMFE-TC-17, (1999). Burce-et al, 1995, mentioned that, micropiles are classified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) based on two basic criteria as the following: (A) Behavior philosophy ofloading The manner and type ofloading on micropiles and minipiles are defined as philosophy of micropile behaviour. H i e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify the micropiles according to the manner of loading into two cases as follows: ** Case 1: Micropiles are directly loaded. The most common case is when micropiles serve as conventional pile systems (axially loaded). They can serve as in-situ reinforcement for slope stabilization (laterally loaded), see Fig. (2.7). In case of axial or lateral loading, the most applications in North America and 90% of the international applications are of this class. * ** Case 2: Micropiles are not directly loaded. They are constructed to form a three dimensional network of reticulated piles. Consequently, they work with the soil as composite, constituting a zone of reinforced confined material. These types of micropiles, called reticulated micropiles or reticulated root piles. An early load

11
test on the milan subway, conducted in 1957, is shown in Fig. (2.8). (B) Method of grouting The method of grouting has been proved by experience to be the construction parameter that has the most influence on the grout-soil bond capacity. Micropiles can be divided in four types based on this criterion, as shown in Fig. (2.9). Type A: Grout is placed under gravity head only. Type B: Grout is injected into the hole as the temporary steel casing is removed. Common pressures range from 0.3 to 1.0 MPa. Root piles fall in this category. Type C: Grout is placed as in type A, but after 15 to 25 minutes (before significant hardening of this primary grout) more grout is injected through a replaced sleeved pipe. Pressures of 1.0 MPa or more are applied and they seem to be in common practice only in France. Type D: Grout is placed as in type A, but after a few hours (after hardening of this primary grout) more grout is injected through the replaced sleeved pipe. A packer is used inside the sleeved pipe. So, the different zones can be injected as required. Pressures commonly vary from 2 to 8 MPa. Tubfix and Gewi piles fall in this category. They are commonly used worldwide.

2.5.2 G r o u t i n g Procedure Classification of Micropiles Bustamante&Doix (1985) and Alan (2004), describe a micropile as a steel reinforcement (a pipe, a rebar or a group of rebars) placed into a small diameter hole and sealed to the ground by grout injections under relatively high pressure. This particular definition excludes micropiles that are not grouted under pressure. For micropiles grouted under pressure, there are two types commonly used in France: (1) "Injection Repetitive et Selective" (repetitive and selective injection) or IRS, and (2) "Injection Globalc Unitaire" (global unitary injection) or IGU. (A) Injection Repetitive et Selective (IRS) IRS piles includes micropiles grouted through a pipe with a double packer so that injection can be done in specific zones (selective), and it is possible to reinject grout at different zones (repetitive). The sleeved pipe used for this type of injection is called "tube a manchettes". Tubfix and Gewi micropiles fall in this category. The same is for micropiles injected under high pressures, l-2MPa, (Egyptian Code 1995, El-Kasaby 2001).

12
(B) Injection Globale Unitaire (IGU) IGU piles include micropiles grouted with one packer or by applying the pressure as the casing is being removed. With this procedure the grout is injected in one step, and even if a "tube a manchettes" is used, it is very difficult to inject a second time by having the pressure applied from the top of the casing (Schwarz et al, 2003, Maleki&Cermes, 1997).

Table (2.2) Micropile application, design concept, and construction type (ISSMFE-TC-17) 1999. Application Structural Support
* Underpinning of existing foundation *New foundation * Seismic retrofitting * Slope stabilization * Excavation support Case 1 & Case 2 "Type A (Case 1&2) "Type B (Case 1) in soil

In-Situ Reinforcement

Subapplication

*Soil strengthening

* Settlement reduction

* Structural stability

Design Concept

Case 1 *Type A (bond zones in rock or stiff clay) Type B &D in soil T y p e C (only in France) Probably 95% of total world application

Case 2 with minor Case 1

Case 2

Case 2

Construction Type

Type A&B in soil

Type A in soil

Type A in soil

Estimate of relative application

0 to 5%

Less than 1 %

Less than 1%

IJ

Construction steps of micropiles

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Fig. (2.1): Connection phases of high pressure grouted micropilc (1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Drilling
Placing of the steel reinforcement Sheath grouting Bulb grouting (step by step basis) Finished micropile

15

Fig. (2.4): Gradation of sand for compaction grouting

Fig. (2.5): Gewi pile

16

After casting the pile shaft

Fig. (2.6): Root pile with expanded base

VartSoJ Wcropilw lorikKftlMrft

LaiaraJ
Micropftw Drifed ihafl

S M soil ' U*
Dotting
stratum

Extant of oJ-pfo Interaction It' ' li T uttein axial loads o To sustain baxalkjodt

Extent of lotaraction A tlopv ttsbUiiy or earth retention (lo rmist IctetaJ toad)

Fig. (2.7): Case 1, Directly loaded micropiles

17

Ballast

R.C. wall

R.C. wall Afea to be excavaloC Bottom

Afca (o be excavated Bottom ol the excavation

Reticulated

pali rncfice

excav^t.on_

Fig. (2.8): Case 2, Indirectly loaded micropiles

P
: i \-.i v I"f. ; Cm'. f

P
*.'

P P
1 ".* I v * * V* *." *

.t :

-".r-'.r-'.r-'.r^'.f-'.fi r-.r-: .: v-:

:

:..;!.,. .V. . / . f. f.,\f..\

Type A (gravity)

TypeB (pressure through " casing) _ 0.3-1.0 MPa

TypeC (singlo, . global . postgroirt) i >1.0 MPa LegeixJ ' HI Packer ( / ) Pressure guage

Type 0 (multiple, repealablo

poslgroul)

2-8 MPa

Fig. (2.9): FHWA grouting method of micropiles

CHAPTER 3
DESIGN ASPECTS FOR MICROPILES
3.1 Introduction
Mascardi (1982) and Northwestern Univ. (1998) mentioned that the micropiles can be connected to the structure in two different ways as follows: (1) Micropiles can be directly connected to the structure. In this case many micropiles are needed and a high factor of safety is required. (2) Micropiles can be prestressed before connecting them to the structure. In this case a few micropiles are used and the factor of safety against bearing failure is lower. In most cases the first option is chosen due to its simplicity. However, in some cases, it is necessary to use the second option to have an acceptable solution. These cases include when one must limit settlements to very small magnitudes, have a partial rebound from previous settlements, or determine the micropile reaction on the superstructure.

3.2 Ultimate Capacity of Micropile

The ultimate load can be supported by a single micropile is defined by: (1) structural shaft resistance, (2) buckling load, or (3) failure of the grout/soil bond. Therefore, the allowable load used is the ultimate load divided by a factor of safety. However, a lower load may be specified due to limitations of stresses and/or settlements that can be accepted by the structure being underpinned, (Ellis, 1990 and Northwestern Univ., 1998). Fig. (3.1) schematically shows the design parameters affecting the ultimate capacity of micropiles. 3.2.1 Structural shaft resistance The reinforcement steel is the element that carries most of the load. However, the load resisted by the steel and grout. It is important to take into account this composite action to optimize the internal pile design. The use of steel pipe or casing as reinforcement elements has become more popular, especially when requiring minimal deflections or supporting lateral loads. The grout commonly consists of cement and water, with water-cement ratios between 0.40 and 0.55. The minimum ratio is set by the requirement that the grout should be fluid enough to allow efficient pumping and injection. The

l\ maximum ratio is imposed results because an excessive amount of water would cause bleeding, low strength, increased shrinkage and poor durability. For micropiles grout strength commonly is 250 kg/cm" (Egyptian Code 1995). Fine sands can be added to the grouting mix to reduce costs. Sand-cement ratios are limited to 3, but they rarely exceed 1.5. Admixtures are added to modify grout properties. The additives are used to: (a) Prevent shrinkage., (b) Reduce water content, and yet maintain pumpability, (c) Accelerate or retard setting, and, (d) Prevent bleeding. 3.2.2 Buckling Load Mascardi (1982) describes how buckling can be checked by an Eulerian analysis and shows that micropile capacity is not limited by buckling for most cases. An analysis may be required if the piles are installed through a very soft peaty soil. Another case, when soil is Fissured or weathered rock containing empty cavities or cavities filled with fines, Fig. (3.2), as it was the case in Mallorca (Spain), Uriel etal (1989). If the possibility diameter of the piles 1994, & Uriel et al, excavation, buckling connected horizontally of buckling exists it can be eliminated by increasing the or by leaving a permanent casing where required (Bruce 1989). When a portion of the piles has to be exposed by an should be considered and the piles may need to be (Northwestern Univ. 1998).

3.2.3 Grout/Soil Bond The factors affecting the static response of the pile-soil system for conventional piles was analyzed by numerous researches. Two cases of these researches are given as follows; Case 1: Bazaraa et al, 1994, stated that, a closed form solution for the problem of a single end-bearing pile embedded in nonhomogeneous soil medium is derived by using elastic continuum approach. So, the effects on the static response of the pile-soil system of slenderness ratio (L/D), relative rigidity of the pile to the soil (K), soil Poisson's ratio (v s ) and nonhomogeneity index (p) were investigated. It was concluded that: (a) The proportion of the load transferred to the rigid stratum (Pb /P) decreases as slenderness ratio (L/D) increases and as K decreases. For a very

22
slender compressible pile, the load transmitted to the rigid bearing stratum is of negligible which means that the pile actually acts as friction pile. (b) Pile head displacement increases as L/D increases and as K decreases. For a very stiff and short pile, the head displacement nearly equals the elastic displacement of the same pile when acting as a simple column. (c) The load being transferred along the pile increases as K increases. (d) As nonhomogeneity index (p) decreases (i.e. the soil becomes less homogeneous) i y P increases, head displacement increases and the load being transferred along the pile increases. (e) Poisson's ratio of the medium soil has a little effect on the pile-soil system behavior. Case 2: Abdel Rahman et al, (1994) presented the results of an experimental study on the behavior of an axially loaded single pile embedded in sand deposit. Tests were performed to predict the distribution of axial stresses along the pile shaft, settlement of pile after installation and the ratio between shaft skin friction and its bearing resistance. The length to the diameter ratio of the pile (1/d) as well as the relative density of the surrounding and the supporting soil were among the studied parameters. The maximum shaft skin friction was found to vary between 25% to 33% of the ultimate load depending upon the (1/d) ratio. The value of the skin friction mobilized at a settlement of about 0.5% to 1.0% of the shaft diameter. Therefore, the development of researches for shaft grouting of bored piles is mentioned herein according to pile diameter as follows: (A) For large diameter bored piles Troughton & Stocke (1996) presented the results of an extensive research programme undertaken in 1979 comprising 12 trial piles to investigate the effect of different construction techniques. Piles with base grouting, with shaft grouting, with combined shaft and base grouting, and without any post grouting were tested. A 100% increase in ultimate load capacity.was recorded for piles with combined shaft and base grouting. Vuillier & Kingwell (1998) had examined the design and construction of a piled foundation for Hot Briquetted Iron Plant in Australia. Large diameter (750 mm) concrete injected piles were constructed and tested under compression and tension. They recorded that the measured displacement of

23
the pile under the working load (3235 kN) was 1.83 mm and the test load reached 8500 kN and the corresponding settlement was 8 mm. Jin-li et al, (1997) had demonstrated the technology and application of postgrouting for slurry bored piles (600-1000 mm) in China. The post-grouting at the bottom and on the side for slurry bored pile can not only solidify bottom slime and shaft mudcake, but also strengthen the soil around pile bottom and side, playing the roles of improving pile foundation quality, reducing settlement, increasing bearing capacity and saving costs.

(13) For small diameter piles (Micropiles) The load transfer mechanism of micropiles is skin friction. Consequently, the movements required to mobilize the axial capacity of the micropile are small when compared with the ones to mobilize an end-bearing pile. The movements needed to mobilize lateral frictional resistance are of 20 to 40 times less than those needed to mobilize end bearing (Bruce 1994). Northwestern University (1998) mentioned that, the side friction depends on the grout-soil bond which is highly influenced by the construction techniques and quality. The side friction is improved mainly by three factors as a result of pressure grouting. These factors are: (1) The increase in the diameter, (2) The increase in the lateral pressure around the pile and (3) The increase of the soil strength. For micropiles grouted through a temporary casing, only a minor fraction of the grouting pressure is transmitted to the grout/soil interface. For grouting done in stages the increase in diameter and in lateral pressure can be significantly higher. Gouvenot (1973) gave a range of computed skin resistance based on the normal stress (a 0 ) of 1.5 kg/cm". Fie divided the soil conditions in three types based on friction angle ($)) and cohesion (C u ). Then, the different equation is used to find the skin friction for each soil type as mentioned in Table (3.1). Calculated values of skin friction are closer to those obtained for anchors and micropiles grouted without pressure. His results also show that the skin resistance is increased with higher grouting pressures. Deshmukh and Ganpule (1994) reported that the allowable shaft resistance (S r ) MPa, can be taken as proportion of grout ultimate strength, f c MPa, according to the following formula: S,= bx(fc)1/2 Where, b = 0.25 - 0.30 (Hovarth & Kenney 1979).
(3.1)

24
Table (3.1): Skin friction for soil conditions Soil type Sand & Gravel Fine, loose, silty sand & sandy clay CI ayes & marls Angle, <j) 35 - 4 5 20-30 0.0 Cohesion, C u , (kg/cm 2 ) 0.0 0.1-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 Skin friction, f , (kg/cm 2 ) f= a 0 tancj) F= G0 tan(j) + Cucos(j) f=cu f= 1.0

3.3 Design of Micropiles To calculate the ultimate capacity (Q u ) of a micropile, many design parameters are considered, see Fig. (3.1). The design methods are intended to provide an axial capacity for initial design which should be checked with results of load tests. These methods are mentioned herein as Follows: 3.3.1 Empirical method (A) Anchor system Based on field experience, Littlejohn (1993) proposed a design method for anchors grouted under pressures of less than 1.0 MPa. This method can be used to calculate the capacity of the micropile, Q u , obtained by side friction. Qu=Lxnxtanf (kN) (3.2)

Where, L (m) is the pile bond length. (J)' (in degrees) is the effective angle of shearing resistance. n (kN/m) is a factor which is affected by the drilling technique, depth of overburden pressure in the range 30 to 1000 kPa, in situ stress field, and dilation characteristics of the soil. Based on field experience, the values of the factor (n) can be selected from the following range of values for a given soil type as shown in Table (3.2). The n values were obtained for normally consolidated materials for borehole anchor diameters of approximately 0.1 m. If the drilling diameter changes significantly, n should be proportionally modified.

25

Table (3.2): Values of n factor (kN/m) Soil type Gravel & Coarse sand Medium to fine sand Range of permeability (in/sec.) > lb4 10~4 to 10"6 Range of n (kN/m) 400 to 600 130 to 165

(13) Lizzi s proposal Based on experience, Lizzi (1985, 1993) proposed a simple empirical formula to evaluate the ultimate load of the micropile, Q U | t .:

Quit. = D x L x K x I

(kg)

(3.3)

where: D (cm) is the nominal diameter of the micropile (drilling diameter). L (cm) is the length of the pile. K (kg/cm ) is a coefficient that represents the average interaction between the micropile and the soil for the whole length (pile-soil adherence), Table (3.3). I is a dimensionless coefficient that depends on the nominal diameter of the micropile (drilling diameter), Table (3.4).

(C) Pressuremeter test results This method of empirical design method, which is based on pressuremeter results, applies to micropiles that are constructed by injection of grout under relatively high pressures, and not by placing it under gravity head. When the grout is injected under high pressure it expands into the soil adjacent to the borehole walls, Fig. (3.3). In a similar way, the pressuremeter test measures deformation at the borehole walls while expanding a cell with a known pressure. For that reason, pressuremeter test results can provide a good basis for the design of micropiles grouted under high pressures. The micropiles constructed* at Northwestern University were grouted under pressures up to 9 MPa. Tthis method is applicable to compute the ultimate capacity of these piles.

26
Table (3.3): Values of K coefficient Soil type Soft soil Loose soil Soil of average compactness Very stiff soil, gravels, sands K (kg/cm 2 ) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Table (3.4): Values of I coefficient Pile diameter 10 15 20 25 cm cm cm cm I 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.80

This design method is based on the limit pressure of the soil, pi, found with the Menard pressuremeter test. The first step in the design is to choose the pressure of injection. This pressure is measured at the top of the casing and not at the contact between the grout being injected and the soil. For this reason high pressures do not mean necessarily that the grout-soil bond is of high quality. For IGU ("Injection Globale Unitaire") micropiles, the grouting pressure is lower than pI? and as a general rule their resistance is higher than for gravity grouted micropiles but lower than for IRS micropiles, (refer to section 2.5.3). Bustamante & Doix (1985) proposed to choose the grouting pressure, pi, as: (1) for IRS: Pi > pi , and (2) for IGU: 0.5p, < pj < p, So, the ultimate load capacity, Q u , for a micropile under the compression load is estimated from the following formula:
QU=QPL+QSL (3.4)

where, Q P l is the limit point bearing capacity. Q S l is the limit side resistance.

27
For a micropile, the limit side resistance (QS L ) is given by the following equation:
Q S L = n x Ds x Ls x qs (3.5)

where: D s is the average diameter of sealing bulb D s = a x D d , and a is a magnification coefficient given in Table (3.5), depending on the type of soil, and micropile type. L s is the sealing length. q s is the lateral friction which depend on pi and on the soil type.Its values can be obtained from graphs of q s vs pi given in Fig. (3.4).

However, there are still many uncertainties related to variations in construction procedures, and load tests remain the best alternative to determine a final design capacity. So, the point resistance is given by: QP, = S p X k p x p , Where: S p is the area at bottom of the pile based on a diameter D s , if the construction procedure guarantees that there will be an increase in diameter. kp is the coefficient for point bearing which depends on soil type as shown in Table (3.6). pi is the limit pressure of soil at the bottom of the pile measured with Menard pressuremeter. The point capacity does not exceed 15 to 2 0 % of the side resistance, and consequently, a simplified approximation for the point capacity can be given by: QPL=0.15xQSL (3.7) (3.6)

Bustamante and Doix (1985) recommended that the factor of safety should vary between 1.8 and 2.2 depending on the purpose of the micropile.They suggested a factor of safety of 2.0 for permanent micropiles loaded under compression, Table (3.7).

28
Table (3.5): Values of a coefficient Soil type IRS Gravel Sandy gravel Gravely sand Coarse sand Medium sand Fine sand Silly sand Silt Clay 1.8 1.6 to 1.5 to 1.4 to 1.4 to 1.4 to 1.4 to 1.4 to 1.8 to Marl (Greensand) j 1.8 Calcareous marl 1.8 Altered (fragmented) chalk 1.8 Altered (fragmented) rock 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.0 a coefficient IGU to 1.4 to 1.4 to 1.3 to 1.2 to 1.2 to 1.2 to 1.2 to 1.2 The used curve in Fig. (3.5) IRS IGU

1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 to 1.2 1.1 to 1.2 1.1 to 1.2 1.1

SG.l

SG.2

AL.l MC.l > R.l

AL.2 MC.2 > R.2

Note: (1) for IRS : pj > p, , and (2) for IGU : 0.5p, < pj < p,

Table (3.6): Values of k p coefficient Soil type Gravel and sand Clays Clays and silts Fragmented rock kD 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.5

lable (3.7): Safety factors for micropiles & anchorages Tension Temporary Permanent 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.2 Compression Temporary Permanent

- -

Foundation type Micropiles Anchorages

1.8

2.0

29
3.3.2 Conventional design m e t h o d Northwestern Univ. (1998) depending upon the proposal suggested by Vesic (1977), presented a conventional design method for driven piles. The ultimate load (Q u ) of a pile is separated into two components for design purposes: (1) shaft or skin load (Q s ), and (2) base or point load (Q p ). Qu = Qp+ Qs = q0 Ap + f s A s where: A p is the bearing base area expressed in area units. A s is the bearing shaft area expressed in area units. qtJ is the unit base resistance expressed in stress units. fs is the unit shaft resistance expressed in stress units. (3.8)

(A) Base or Point resistance The base or point resistance can be found using the following expression: q0=cNc* + a0NGr (3.9)

where: N c * and N oy are dimensionless bearing capacity factors. c is the cohesion of soil. a 0 is the mean normal effective ground stress related to the effective vertical stress (q v ) by the expression: Co = 1/3 (1 + 2K C ) qv where, K 0 is the coefficient at-rest lateral pressure, Table (3.8). (B) Skin resistance The skin resistance is assumed to consist in two parts, adhesion and friction between soil particles and the materials of pile surface. The following formula is the main equation for estimating skin resistance of piles: ' f s = C a + q s x tan 5 where: . (3.11) (3.10)

30
C a is the adhesion between pile and soil. q s is the normal stress acting on the foundation shaft which is conventionally related to the effective vertical stress (q v ) by a coefficient of skin pressure (K s ). So, the normal stress can be calculated as, q s = K s x q v . tan 8 is the coefficient of friction between soil and shaft. The skin friction given by Equation (3.11) can be rewritten as: fs = -K s x tan <|) x qv (3.12)

Table (3.8): The values of lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest (K 0 ) Soil type Loose sand Dense sand Clay Estimation o f K 0 1- sin < > |
( 1 - s i n <t>) + 5 . 5 ( Y d / Y d m i n - 1 . 0 )

0.95 - sin (J)7

Average value of K 0 0.6 0.4 0.5 to 0.95

Where: - ytl is the in-situ unit weight of sand. minimum unit weight of sand. - <j) is the effective internal friction angle of clay soil.
-

Ydminthe

It is generally known that, the coefficient K s depends mainly on the initial ground conditions and the method of placement of the piles; however it is also affected by the pile shape and length. Vesic (1977) recommends magnitudes of K s for the different pile types by comparing it with K 0 and with the coefficient of passive earth pressure (K p = tan 2 (45+(j>/2)). So, it is recommended that: (1) (2) (3) (4) For For For For bored or jetted piles: K s < K 0 . low displacement driven piles (steel H- or open pipes): K() < K s < 1.5. short, driven, high displacement piles in sand: K s can be as high as K p . piles driven into normally consolidated soft-to-firm clays: K s > K 0 .

For a cohesionless soil with a friction angle (())') higher than 30 degrees and K = 1 -sin (((>), the relation between the failure radial stress (a,) and the initial vertical stress (a v o ') can be found based on the Mohr failure envelope:
a r = {2 (l-sin(|))(0.5+sin(|))/(l+sin(t))}. CT v o '

(3.13)

31

In this case, the unit side resistance is given by: Fs = crr x tan (j) (3.14)

3.3.3 Design of micropiles grouted u n d e r gravity head Methods for design of micropiles grouted under gravity head have been reported by Bruce (1994) and Northwestern University (1998). It is important to note that grouting pressure influences skin friction significantly. Where rocks are very soft the ultimate shearing resistance at the interface, x u u, can be related to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count values (N). For ultimate bond values in weathered granite. Suzuki et al. (1972) proposed: t u I i = 0.007 xN + 0.12 (MPa) (3.15)

For chalk, it is suggested another formula as: xuii = 0.01 xN (MPa) (3.16)

Equation (3.16) should not be considered if E groul /E rock is less than 10. Pressure grouting can be included in this case. When the bond zone of the pile is in rock, the ultimate skin friction of the rock can be used to determine the working load of the pile if it is assumed that the stresses are uniformly distributed over the entire interface. WL = 7i x D x L x xu|t / FS where: ** W L is the working load of pile. ** D is the diameter of pile. ** L is the active length of pile. ** xu|t is the ultimate skin friction. ** FS is the safety factor. Bruce 1994, mentioned that, for micropiles in cohesive soils, the undrained shear strength, C u , can be used to estimate the capacity of the pile as follows: W L = 7i x D x L x C u x a (3.18) (3.17)

32
where: W L is the working load of pile. D is the pile diameter. L is the active length of pile. C u is the average untrained shear strength over the bond length. a is the adhesion factor. Its values of 0.6 and 0.8 for micropile design. 3.3.4 Design of micropiles using p n e u m a t i c p u n c h e r s Micropile construction using this method is reviewed in section (2.5.E). For the formation of the solid compacted area the distance between the axes of the vertical holes in the plan must equal 0.866 D, (Lapshin & Konusevich 1994). where D is the diameter of the compacted zone around the hole, determined by the formula (Lapshin, 1994): D = d . { ( a + c.cot <|>)/(c + c . c o t ^ ( ' ^ " ^ s i n * Where: d is the hole diameter. c, (|) are the soil cohesion and its angle of internal friction. The compacting pressure is calculated by: <j = cj/ + CT2 - 2c x cos <j)/(l-sin <|>) (3.20) (3.19)

Where, gi is the maximum value of the radial tensions and can be estimated from the following formula: a, = {E/[4a p (l-v 2 ) -2a 0 (2-v)]} s i n < | ) / ( , + s i n ( j ) ) x (cp+c.cot<|>)-c.cot<|> (3.21)

where: a Q = v.y.h/(l-v). ap = a 0 ( 1 +sinc())+c.cos (|). y = unit weight of soil. E, v are the deformation modulus of soil and the Poisson ratio respectively.

In the other hand, Lapshin (1986) reported that, the additional soil deformation in the "IV depth takes place due to the hole widening in the "u" radius value while laying soil, broken stone or concrete with compaction under the action of horizontal stress. So, he mentioned the following formula for estimating the pressure as:

33
a 2 = {[2Eu(d-u)/d 2 ] / [ 4 o p ( l - v 2 ) - 2 a 0 ( 2 - v ) ] } s i n W 1 + s i n ^ x (ap+c.cot(|))-c.cot(|)
V

(3.22)

The pitch of the reinforced concrete piles along the length of a building is determined out of the necessity of soil compaction. While, designing the base reinforcement of bearing walls of a four-story building, there were made vertical piles of reinforced concrete, 150 mm in diameter and 4.4 m in length. Clayey soil had the characteristics as y=16.8 k N / m 3 , <j)= 2 2 , C= 30 kPa , v= 0.35, E= 5.2 MPa. In keeping with formula (3.19), the diameter of the compacted zone equals 0.994 m ~ 1.0 m. I lence, the pile pitch along the building length is taken for 1.0 m. The piles bearing capacity was determined according to (Laipshin, 1986) as: Qu = Qs + Qp Side surface resistance of a pile: Q s = Tc.d Hi (api.cot(|>i + q) (3.24) (3.23)

Where, lj is the length of a pile section no longer than 1.0 m, within limits of "i" soil layer. Moreover, resistance under the lower tip of a pile is calculated from the following formula: Q p = d 2 ( a + n 2 .C 0 )/n, where: a is calculated by formula (3.20). C 0 is the cohesion of soil under the piles edge. ii|, n 2 are the coefficients, Table (3.9). (3.25)

Table (3.9): Coefficients n, & n 2 (Lapshin 1986) ni 0.53 0.48 0.41 0.35 .30 n2 0.94 0.88 0.83 0.78 .73 f 24 28 32 36 40 ni 0.24 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.06 n2 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.58 0.54

4 8 12 16 20

34

3.4 Composite Foundation with Post-Grouting Piles

Composite foundation with post-grouting piles is a new type foundation strengthening technique. The construction practice in recent years has shown that it is a safe and reliable measure with lower cost, especially suitable for foundation treatment of middle and high buildings in China (Zuomei & Renwu, 1997 and Jin-liet al, 1997). Zuomei & Renuwu (1997) presented a brief explanation of this method. They mentioned that, a new type of composite foundation with post-grouting piles has been developed in order to improve the stress condition and the function of composite foundation. It is characterized by follows: (a) The strength of pile materiel is more than 15 MPa. At high strength rigid piles, the pile-soil stress ratio is easy to regulate by increasing the pile length and the pile skin friction. Thus, the bearing capacity of composite foundation effectively. (b) After the piles are installed in the foundation, grout is injected into the interface of the piles and surrounding soils under pressure Fig. (3.5.a & b). The pile skin friction can be increased by more than 30/o-50/o after the grout is set completely. (c) The natural soil stratum under the base plate of building foundation, i.e. raft foundation, needs to be treated with compaction grouting beside the round pile grouting. This procedure may increase the density of subsoil, cause thes skin friction of upper and lower layers become homogeneous and improve the bond between base plate and subsoil. So, the piles and the subsoil will support the loads together at the beginning, Fig. (3.5.c). (d) The relatively weak subsoil will be consolidated to some extent by set grouts penetrated into the soil layers with both fracturing and permeation mechanisms during the grouting processes. The steps of micropile design are as follows: 1- The bearing area around the pile is shown in Fig. (3.7.c). 2- Design load applied to each area, P, (P = F|. q). Where, Fi is the test area and q is the design load of building. 3- Theoretical bearing capacity of this test area of composite foundation, R. the following formula is used to calculate R: R = Bp + Bs x (F| - F p ) Where: (3.27)

35
Bp is the allowable pile capacity. Bs is the allowable bearing capacity of soils between piles. F p is the cross sectional area of each pile.

3.5 Micropile Loading Tests and a Comparative Analysis

Northwestern University (1998) was done a comparative study by conducting micropile load tests. Its result was compared with the empirical design methods, previously explained in section (3.3.1). Eleven compacted grouted micropiles constructed at the micropile test section, the National Geotechnical experimentation site at Northwestern University. The piles were 13 to 16 ft long and were formed entirely in the sand fill. The measurements of the geometry of the micropiles showed that it would be very difficult to predict their actual shape based on the grout injected at specific depths, and/or on the measured grouting pressures. Seven were load tested and subsequently exposed. Four of the tested piles were constaicted as Multiple Expanded Tip (MET) piles and three were constructed as Wedge Compaction Grouted (WCG) piles. It was noticed that changing the composition of the grout to a more viscous consistency for the WCG piles did not result in hydro fracture of the soil, as was expected. The WCG piles with the grouts used were not clearly distinguishable from MET piles. The data of these piles are summarized in Table (3.9). Also, this table contains the ultimate capacities of micropiles.

Table (3.9): Ultimate load capacity of micropiles based on hyperbolic graphs from compression tests Micropile No. T-l T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 T-7 Q u from load test (kips) 99
-

140 94
-

138

Q u from hyperbolic graphs (kips) 100 116 139 152 108 137 125

Axial capacity of micropile (kips) 99 116 139 140 94 137 138

36
The empirical design method, based on experience with anchors, yields reasonable agreement between the observed and computed capacities. For the piles with larger capacities, the values obtained based on this method were lower than the actual values because the point capacity is not taken into account in this technique. The empirical design method, based on pressuremeter results, yields reasonable agreement between the observed and computed capacities. When the point capacity was calculated, based on the point bearing area, the computed capacities were higher than the served ones in some cases. Conversely, when the point capacity was assumed to be 15/o of the side friction, as recommended in this method, the computed capacities were lower than the observed capacities. The empirical design method proposed by Lizzi, developed for root piles with relatively low grouting pressures, yielded very low computed capacities compared to the observed capacities, showing that this method is not appropriate for compaction grouted piles. The design method for driven piles based on work by Vesic yield computed capacities closer to the observed results than did Lizzi's method. However, the computed capacities for the seven piles exhibited such a large scatter that the approach is not suitable to use to design compaction grouted micropiles. Based on the results of the micropile test section at the NGES; preliminary estimates of the capacities M E T micropiles can be made using either the anchor methodology proposed by Littlejohn or the test pressuremeter approach proposed by Bustamante and Doix (1998), Fig. (3.6). Prudent practice dictates that field load test results are used to verify the capacities of these pile types.

3.6 Group Effect in Micropile Practice

The group of 18 piles has an axial capacity more than six times that of the group of three piles. Fig. (3.8) shows the increase in capacity of the group of 18 piles is even larger (Northwestern University, 1998). Facing the difficulties in evaluating the group and network effects for different types of micropiles, soils and site conditions. In the absence of sufficient field data, no specifications have yet been established to take into account the group and network effects which are commonly neglected in micropile design practice. Benslimane et al (1997), presented the available analysis approaches and evaluated through comparisons with experimental data obtained by different

37
investigators on the engineering behavior of micropile group systems and reticulated micropile networks under different loading condition. The broad conclusion to be drawn from this study is that the group efficiency factor in micropile systems is highly dependent on a variety of factors. Some experimental test results for investigating micropile group behavior to improve: (1) The loading capacity, (2) The shear resistance and (3) The movement response are mentioned herein as follows: Benslimane et al (1997) analyzed results of full-scale pull-out loading tests on isolated and groups of instrumented (type A) gravity grouted micropiles embedded in chalk and illustrated that, in this case, a positive "group effect" could develop reducing the movement of the micropile group as compared to that of the single micropile under the same load as the average load per pile in the group. The group effect in gravity grouted micropile systems can significantly increase pile movement while pile inclination will significantly reduce the group effect on pile movement. The behaviour of vertical and battered micropiles groups of four and eight piles was investigated by Tarek (2001), using model test to evaluate the micropile carrying capacity. These tests were carried out to study the effect of using micropiles for strengthening of an existing pile foundation. Based on the results of the carrying tests as shown in Figs. (3.12), the following conclusions could be drawn: (1) Using four and eight micropiles of cross-sectional areas represented 0.01 to 0.02 of that the footing, had increased the carrying capacity of the footing by 2.2 to 3.2 times at settlement/footing width (S/B) = 10%. While, at S/B = 20%, the increase in the carrying capacity was about 2.6 to5.2 times that of the footing, see Fig. (3.12). (2) Using eight micropiles indicated that, vertical micropiles increased the carrying capacity of the footing pile model by about 150% to 300%, while, the increase due to the batterted micropiles was about 200% to 340%. Till ratio of S/B less than 0.2, the increase of carrying capacity due to insertion of batter micropiles was greater than that of vertical micropiles. (3) At the values of S/B = 12% to 18% , the carrying capacity of the battered micropiles group systems were greater than those of the vertical micropiles groups. While, with the increase of S/B the inverse trend could be observed. (4) The inclination of micropiles leads to a neywork effect that may significantly increase the ultimate axial loading capacity and decrease the movement of micropile group.

38

Micropile - Design Poroneters <X> (D rN hp I I

Sh

q.i. iji

c o p

C <e)loyp<- I

HTTP.

T
!

<3>

0 Loyer 2 (J) Layer 3 (o) Depth treated (b) Bond Zone (c) Water Level (d) Surcharge

*]<s>_

J
(e) Layer <i>-cSoil type. PN, Cohesion, Gonna) ( f ) Pile Hianeter Ground Cone-litio^S <Soil "type taplov s t r u c t u r e ) (R) Horizontal spacing

Fig. (3.1): Design parameters of micropiles and minipiles

STEEL ROD STEEL TUBE

O S R E CAyjTY BE V D DTCE W IS E E T D HL T DSILLIW9 P C CASING V ALCNQ D T C E EE TD ^ CAVJTIE5 CEMENT-FILLED CAVITY.WiT DETECTED WHILST
Oft J L L I N S }

PRESUfCD C VT A IY Fig. (3.2): Micropile cross-section in weathered rock containing cavities

41
Wt^jwui;
s h e l l of g r o u t

2* sl?l tube for grouting groining round pile

Its

l | n ) Veins o f

go t ru

sel Qn.i/t bore hole wt o ih diarnwiwofaooriw,

boul iScrnloform
end blockage steel lube pvslied

p e lor mod by O

77jr/7777?r
(a): Scheme of completed post grouting micropile (b): The friction pile formed by displacement grouting

Post-grout

hotes

300mm

preirislafted groui holes 60mm

(c): The arrangement of post grouting piles and preinstalled grout holes

Fig. (3.5): Composite foundation with post grouting micropiles

42

Fig. (3.6): Comparison of micropile capacities based on load test with other design methods

Scltlement/Footing width (S/Q) %

Fig. (3.7): The behavior comparison between battered and vertical group micropiles

43

Test No. i

Test No. 2

(18 vertical piles) (18 Reticulated Piles)

yiTPV^

i^rtw

i
3 *! 3

Vf M

i
a > a o > 3 < L > oo
a

Fig. (3.8): Group and network effect on micropile capacities

CHAPTER 4
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF MICROPILING
4.1 Introduction
Micropiles are usually designed to transfer structural loads to more competent or stable strata. These micropiles act as substitutes or alternatives for other conventional pile systems. At underpinning, the total load is distributed between the old foundation and the new one. It is necessary to determine how much of the old load can be taken by old shallow foundation to decide what should be the allowable bearing capacity of micropile group. The original foundation will be supporting the load until new settlement occurs. The method of load transfer from strengthened element to micropiles depends upon the size, construction method, element structural state, soil under element and the connection between pile cap and strengthened element (El-Kasaby 2001).

4.2 Numerical Analysis for Underpinning Rigid Strip Footing

In Australia, Makarchian & Poulos (1994) presented a research to study simplified problem involving underpinning of a rigid strip foundation by piles. In order to study the mechanisms and effects of load transfer from the strip footing to the piles. The work is aimed ultimately at developing a more reliable means of designing piles for underpinning work. To understand the load transfer phenomenon, a numerical study has been carried out of a simple idealised problem of a rigid strip foundation (plane strain condition) underpinned by a single row of piles at the center, Fig. (4.1). The piles are assumed to be sufficiently closely- spaced that they can be represented by a simple plane strain embedded "wall". The Young's modulus of the soil was assumed to increase linearly with depth to represent a soil similar to a normally consolidated clay (Schwarz et al, 2004 and Kevin et al, 2004). The finite element method AFENA4 programs, (Carter & Balaam, f990; Balaam & Carter, 1991), with higher order elements (isoparametric elements with 8 nodes), has been used for this analysis. The soil was treated as a twophase elasto-plastic soil, so that soil failure and consolidation can be considered. This was necessary to more closely model real soil behavior and also because some plastic zones are created due to local failure of the soil mass. Therefore, in

45
the AFENA4 program, the soil was modeled by elasto-plastic elements which allowed for the analysis of Biot type consolidation under conditions of plane strain. The soil skeleton was linear, isotropic elastic until yielding. It is determined by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. Plastic deformation of the solid skeleton was governed by a non-associated flow rule (Carter & Balaam, 1990). The installation of the pile row was simulated by changing the material properties of the appropriate elements from those of the soil to those of concrete at the time step representing the time of installation of the piles. Four different lengths of pile (2.8, 3.6, 4.4 and 6 m), and four times of pile installation (0, 3, 6 and 12 months after commencement of loading of the footing) were considered in the analysis. The analysis of the strip foundation alone indicated that the undrained bearing capacity was 80 kPa, while the drained bearing capacity was 217 kPa. In the analysis, pressures between 50 and 80 kPa were applied to the foundation. So that, the corresponding factors of safety against undrained bearing capacity failure were 1.6 and 1.0 respectively. For the rate of which the loading was applied in the analysis, the ultimate bearing capacity was found to be 130 kPa. Thus, giving a factor of safety of 2.6 and 1.6 for applied pressure of 50 and 80 kPa respectively. From the analysis of foundation-pile interaction undertaken, the following conclusions can be drawn Figs. (4.2) and (4.3). (1) In any analysis of underpinning of foundation on clay the time-dependent behavior of the problem should be considered. Pile installation during the earlier stages of loading can have a significant effect on settlement reduction; the earlier the piles are installed, the less is the final settlement. (2) Pile length has an important influence on settlement reduction and transfer of the applied load from the existing foundation. It is found that the effect of the length of the pile becomes more significant as the applied load increases, especially for earlier times of pile installation. (3) The main factors affecting the load transfer from the existing foundation to the installed pile, are pile installation time, applied load, and pile length. (4) The results presented in this study, demonstrate that a rational analysis of underpinning with piles can be carried out using a finite element analysis. It incorporates both consolidation and non-linear soil behavior. Nondimensional results such as those shown in Figs. (4.2) and (4.3) can provide valuable guidance for designers of underpinning systems.

46

4.3 Numerical Analysis Underpinning a Raft Foundations

In Egypt, El-Kadi & Abdel-Fattah (1998) discussed simplified numerical techniques needed to simulate the problem resulted from tilting of a multistorey-frame structure built on a horizontally- non homogeneous-compressible soils, Fig. (4.4). Computing the differential settlement it was found to be 52 cm. Non-linearity of soil beneath the raft foundation is considered using simplified technique that depends on data from field tests, traditional laboratory tests and the conventional consolidation settlement calculations. These are incorporated into the widespread. Winkler model to represent the soil stiffness. The P-Delta effect is considered through negative properties of fictitious columns and a simplified analogy for the in filled-frame technique when modeling the super-structure. Also, analysis and details of construction of the micropiles designed and installed to support the building were represented. The suggested remedial solution that was implemented can be summarized in changing the foundation system from a raft foundation into a piled-raft foundation using micropiles, each consisting of 10 cm pipe diameter, and 20 cm outer diameter, and 20 m length. Fig. (4.5) illustrates the distribution of the installed micropiles within the raft. In loading the structure with the additional vertical live loads while simulating the micropiles using springs with stiffness deducted from the micropile load test, Fig. (4.6). It has to be noted that the stiffness deducted from the pile load test in this case can be considered rational due to the extended distances between the micropiles, thus, no interaction can be considered. It was found that the maximum pile load in this case reaches 18 tons which is much less than the pile capacity (52 tons) deducted from the pile load test. The results obtained from the numerical simulation proved to be in a very good agreement with the in-situ measured values.

4.4 Numerical Analysis for Slope Reinforcement

In Japan, Kamon (1994) introduced an example of the counter measure for the slope failure, which took place during cutting a slope for the backyard of an express highway bridge pier. A micropiling reinforced soil method was adopted. By comparing the in situ measured data and the numerical analyzed results, the ground confining effect by the micropiling reinforced soil method was examined.

47

4.4.1 Object Site and Geotcchnical Conditions

Japan Highway Public Corporation has constructed 27 km express highway at south of Kyoto Prefecture. In the mountainous area of this highway route, an elevated bridge was designed and the slopes were cut. The geological condition of this site consists of the sedimentary rock at the upper strata (N-value varies from 20 to 60) and slate at the lower strata (N- value around 60). Since, they were affected by tectonic forces, many cracks in the fracture zone and the part of argillization by the weathering were observed. The bearing capacity of the ground was enough for the bridge foundation. However, some risk for the slope failure existed. This bridge pier site had very limited area, Fig. (4.7) as the abutment foundation was planned closely on the excavated slope for the pier. Immediately after slope excavation for the bridge pier was carried out and slope failure took place. Because the reduction of slope angle was not possible due to the limited area condition, (1) the part of the excavated volume was buried, and (2) micropile reinforcement as the remedial work was adopted to stabilize the slide. The layout plan and the cross sectional diagram of the slope stability work, see (4.7). After the completion of the upper half of the reinforced slope, slope excavation was resumed. The micropiles were installed immediately after each step of the excavation.

4.4.2 Finite Element Method of Reinforced Slope

The reinforced slope is modeled as composed of continuum media made up of finite number of triangular elements. The reinforcing steel bars as inclusions were treated as one-dimensional bar element, and the capping beams as beam elements. The Finite element mesh is shown in Fig. (4.8). The bar and beam elements were assumed to follow the linear stress-strain relationship. The face between the micropiles and soils were characterized as perfectly rough with no possibility of slippage was considered. Tensile force acting on the micropiles was sustained by the reinforcing steel bar. The initial stress of slope was established by the gravity loading applied to all elements. This numerical analysis was conducted under a very limited condition. Nevertheless, calculated results-coincided with the measured values. The applicability of the micropiling reinforced soil method to the natural slope stability was considered as follows: 1. High confining effect of micropile had brought the stable steep slope. 2. Light weight machines were suitable to access to the slope. 3. Even rough and bumpy surface of in situ slope was acceptable.

48

nmnim

!J0 n <= . 4

c' = 1 kPa 0 E'~3000 + 700z kPa k=l x 109 m/s

w=10 m

'=25*

- ^ ^ / / / ;
v

.._

y y / /

Fig. (4.1): Rigid strip footing problem definition

q=80 IcPa
Without Pile

L=2.8 m
L=3.6 m L=4.4 m L=6 m Time at Which Pile Installed I, (Months) Fig. (4.2): Effect of pile length on settlement versus pile installation time

to

Fig. (4.3): Effect of pile length and pile installation time on load transfer to the pile

Fig. (4.4): Titling idealization for the building has differential settlement 52 cm

50

Araft = 350 m 2 No. of micropiles = 74

Fig. (4.5): Distribution of micropiles beneath the raft foundation

Appluihatf (Ton)

Fig. (4.6): Results of pile loading test

CHAPTER 5
MICROPILING APPLICATIONS
5.1 Introduction
Micropiling is a new foundation type strengthening technique. Therefore, many practical applications of micropiles have small diameter, less than 300 mm and normally between 125 to 250 mm, are spreading throughout the world. Micropiles are used in many basic applications as: (1) structural foundation support, (2) in situ soil reinforcement, and (3) other soil strengthening technique. Some of micropiling applications as follow: (1) Applications for structural foundation support as: a. Underpinning of existing foundation. b. Repair / replacement of existing foundations. c. Upgrading of foundation capacity. d. Arresting / Prevention of movement. e. Foundation for new structures. f. Seismic retrofitting. g. Arresting structural settlement. (2) Applications for soil reinforcement as: a. Embankment, slope and landslide stabilization. b. Soil strengthening and protection. c. Settlement reduction. d. Structural stability. (3) Applications for soil strengthening technique as: a. Supporting new loads in congested areas. b. Excavations support in confined areas. c. Resisting uplift and dynamic loads. d. Reticulated pile wall.

5.2 Existing Foundations Underpining

When underpinning, the total load is distributed between the old foundation and the new one. It is necessary to determine how much of the total load can be taken by old shallow foundation to decide what should be the allowable bearing capacity of the micropile group (Mascardi 1982; Ellis 1990). The original

54
foundation will be supporting the load until new settlement occurs, and only at that moment will the micropiles take part of the load (Ellis 1990). Brief notes about some micropiling works used for underpinning of existing foundations in different countries are given in the following items. 5.2.1 Strengthening of Historic Buildings in Egypt Lutly (1998) mentioned that, The structural elements of Al-Azhar Mosque building were constructed of masonry (bricks & stones) and clay-lime mortar. These elements are walls, arches and strip footings. Soil at site containing nonhomogenuos fill to depth of 3-7 m. Wide and deep cracks spread in arches and walls. Observed inclination was noticed for many columns. To restore and preserve the building in a good form, the following steps are made: (1) Masonry elements, for walls and columns were repaired by jet grouting under low pressure of 0.1 MPa. (2) Foundations were underpinned using micropiles (Yosef, 1998). Micropiles used were 15 cm diameter, 12-15m depth, reinforcement is high tensile steel tube of 9 cm outer diameter and 1.0 cm thick. Grouting was carried out using cement grout under pressure (low pressure of 0.2 - 0.5 MPa & high pressure of 1-2 MPa). (3) Micropiles were connected together with a continuous beam and the beam with the masonry foundation by means of shear connectors. Figs.(5.1) and (5.2) illustrate the method of underpinning masonry foundation of two columns. Additionally, El-Kasaby (2001) mentioned that, up to 2001, micropiles have been used to strengthen 12 Egyptian historic buildings, 11 in Cairo and one in Upper Egypt. According to the properties of micropiles used in Egyptian historic buildings, it is evident that: (1) Vertical micropiles were used in twelve buildings and inclined micropiles were used in four buildings. (2) Working load of micropiles ranged between 15 to 45 tons and reached to 80 tones in El-Gohri's minaret. (3) Diameters of micropiles ranged between 14 to 20 cm. (4) Lengths of micropiles ranged between 12 to 23.5 m. (5) Outer steel diameters of micropiles ranged between 88.9 to 127 mm. (6) Both high and low pressures were used. Micropiles caps arc performed from reinforced concrete longitudinally, laterally or crossed longitudinally-laterally. Caps are carried out in the same level under the level of floors on the sides of walls or columns, Fig. (5.3) to (5.5). Caps may carry out at two different levels beside wall. Parts of wall

55
located upper the level of pile cap must be strong or strengthened by grouting Fig. (5.4). The connection between caps and walls or columns is very important to transfer the loads from strengthened element to micropiles. Generally, the connection may be laterally concrete beams, laterally steel beams, Fig. (5.5), partially or fully steel anchors, steel dowels, and partially buried cap in strengthened element. In Egyptian historic buildings, the type of longitudinal caps, connections showed in Figs. (5.4) and (5.3) were used. 5.2.2 Repair and R e p l a c e m e n t of Existing F o u n d a t i o n s In USA, many cases of repair (replacement) of existing foundations using micropiles were successfully carried out in USA. Herein are some examples of these cases. (1) Future Metro tunnel construction in Blatimore endangered the foundation of old concrete buildings which were built in 1910. Dewatering could have 10 deterioration of the timber piles that support these old buildings. To stabilize one of these buildings, 6 story, the original foundation was replaced with pin piles, Fig. (5.6), (Morschauser & Davis 1990). (2) On a tight, urban site around Chicago's historic Orchestra Flail. The engineers were used high-capacity micropiles as an alternative to handdug caissons, Fig. (5.7). To improve the hall's acoustics, Turner built a specially shaped ceiling reshaped sidewalls and pushed the rear wall of the stage back. Mechanical equipment will be moved to the new eight-storey support building that has an independent structure and foundation system. The use of drilled micropiles at design loads of 210 kips is a new application for Chicago. Micropiles are under 10-in. diameter and are installed using rotary drilling and grouting techniques (Scherer et al, 1996). The construction started by the execution of the vertical ties and continued with the footing excavation. During this excavation a karat was noticed which meant that the loads supported by the footing could not be transmitted directly to the ground. So a deep foundation solution had to be envisaged. It was then decided to use 12 micropiles that would work, simultaneously as deep foundations and as vertical ties. The 12 micropiles were located in the intervals between the 12 vertical ties initially executed.
*

5.2.3 Underpinning Foundations of Ancient Buildings In Russia, the technique of pneumatic punchers for constructing micropiles is used in Russia. Punching of a hole is accompanicd by forcing out of soil and compaction of surrounding soil. These micropiles were used for underpinning foundations of ancient buildings. The design method was illustrated in Chapter,

56
3 item 3.3.4, (Lapshin & Knousevieh, 1994 and Babu et al 2004). The underpinning was accomplished after the schemes (a) & (c) of Fig. (5.8). The hole was carried out with pneumatic punchers, their working organ 150 mm in diameter. The micropiles were made by multitudal filling of the punchholes with concrete mixture. The formation around the piles of the compacted zones 6-7 hole diameters was stated. The physical and mechanical soil characteristics in the compacted zone had improved as unit weight of 1.2 times, cohesion of 1.7 times. The performed testing of soil, both natural and reinforced with micropiles ^ m by stamps with base square A 3136 m has shown that the deformation modulus has increased in the second case of 2.8 times. The soil becomes medium compacted. Both in this and all other cases the deformation development has ceased after carrying out the works in foundation reinforcement with micropiles. During restoration of a four-storey building in Voronezh, there was carried out the base reinforcement of highly compressible clayey soil with micropiles 150 mm in diameter. 1065 piles were produced, their pitch from 500 up 1000 mm. The scheme of their arrangement depended on the width of the foundation foot, its deepening in regard to the soil surface and the marks of the basement lloor, as well as to the value of base deformation in the described plot. The results of the experimental determination of the soil characteristics change at different distances of the pile as shown in Fig. (5.9). Where, y is the unit weight 3 3 (kN/nr), y d is the dry unit weight (kN/nr), e is the void ratio and E is the deformation modulus (MPa) of soil..

5.3 Composite Foundations with Post-Grouting Piles for New Buildings

In China, Zuomei & Renwu (1997) presented an application of this technique for Shao Yao Ju residential building in Beijing. 5.3.1 Characteristics of the Project The Shao Yao Ju project involves two residential buildings with 24 stories over ground and two stories under ground. The construction area of each building is about 20000 m and the area of base plate of each building is 870 m . The design load is 380 kPa. The sequence of soil layers from surface is artificial random fill, sandy clay, silty clay, sandy silt and medium-fine sand. These soil layers not satisfied

57
to bear the design load, especially the upper artificial random fill with a thickness of 2.8-13.2 m comprising with stone, garbage and humus. It is unfavorable for the structure if it has not treated. In original design, a pile foundation alternative was adopted for these buildings. The construction cost was 4.5-5 million yuen. The alternative of composite foundation with postgrouting piles solved the problem successfully and reduced the cost to 2.4 million yuen. 5.3.2 Design P a r a m e t e r s As above-mentioned, composite foundation with post-grouting piles includes piling, round pile grouting and compaction grouting under the base plate. Since, there are about 3 meters thick of artificial random fill leafed under the base plate. The main design problems are how to determine pile diameter, pile spacing, pile length, allowable skin friction (after pile grouting), allowable pile capacity, pile material strength, strength of set grout, maximum grouting pressure, grouting depth in artificial random fill, etc. Table (5.1) lists the parameters adopted for this project. Table (5.1): The design parameters of foundation treatment measures for Sao Yao Ju project Parameter Diameter of friction piles Speicing between piles Length of pile Allowable skin friction of pile (after round pile grouting) Allowable pile capacity (after round pile grouting) Strength of pile material Grouting depth in the random fill Max. pressure of round pile grouting Max. pressure of compaction grouting under base plate Max. pressure of grouting for random fill 5.3.3 Loading Test of C o m p o s i t e F o u n d a t i o n Two sets of loading test were carried out in site to examine the conformability of theoretical and actual condition. One of the tests is located in the placc with random fill, and another is located in the place without random fill. The area of every test composite foundation is 1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56 m involving value 300 mm 1.6 m 14 m 40-45 kPa | 560 kN 15-20 Mpa 30-50 cm 1-1.5 Mpa 0.5-0.7 Mpa 0.7-1.0 MPa

58
one post-grouting pile. The allowable pile capacity is 560kN as mentioned in Table (5.1). The parameters of the loading test are as follows: (1) Design load applied to each test area, P, where: P = F| x q F| is the test area, 2.56 m q is the design load of building, 380 kPa. P =2.56 x 380 = 973 kN

(5.1)

(5.2)

(2) Theoretical bearing capacity of this test area of composite foundation R: R= Bp + Bs (F| - F p ) (5.3)

Bp is the allowable pile capacity, 560 kN. Bs is the allowable bearing capacity of soils between piles, 170 kPa. Fp - cross sectional area of each pile, 0.07m. R = 560 + 170 (2.56-0.07) = 980 kN (5.4)

(3)Total load used in load test Q=2.2 times the theoretical bearing capacity R: Q = 2.2 R = 2.2 x 980 =2200 kN (5.5)

The test results are shown in Fig. (5.10). The settlement reached 16 mm & 8 mm in the two tests respectively at load 2200 kN. The total settlement was observed and varied between 6-11 mm when the building reached to 75% - 95% of the design load.

5.4 Micropiles for Seismic Retrofitting

In Canada, weathered sandstone was encountered beneath the shallow soils at varying depth, with occasional large boulders near the contact. The production minipiles have a diameter of about 130 mm, a length of 13m and central threaded steel bar with nominal diameter of 57 mm. Tremie placement of grout under gravity was adopted for the production minipiles. The selected load amplitudes were 535 kN (the design load), 625 kN, 710 kN and 960 kN. The axial displacements measured at the pile top during compression and tension loading are shown in Fig. (5.11). This figure shows the displacements at max. tension (quarter cycle), zero load just after tension (i.e. half-cycle), maximum compression (three-quarter cycle) and just after compression (full cycle). Tension produced more residual displacement than compression. Fig.

59
(5.12). This figure shows residual displacement of 0.5 mm to 5 mm existed after the tension half-cycle. This residual displacement was cancelled to a large extent when undergoing the following half-cycle of compression, for load amplitudes at 710 kN or less. The amount of creep was of the order of 0.1 mm after 30 minutes even at a high load level of 960 kN, and was considered negligible.

5.5 Root-Piles for Slope Stabilization

In Japan, the Circum-Pacific Volcanic Belt and Seismic Zone is existed. They have a lot of rain. Hills and mountains form 76.5% of Japanese land. So, Japanese constructions are mainly carried out on the hillside, which is much undulating and whose geology is much complicated. The surface of the hillside has been weathered and fractured. When the whole slope of the hillside loosens, even if solid gravity structure is constructed at toe of slope, it can not protect the upper zone of the slope from the landslide. Root-piles method is a good slope protection method, because the whole slope is consolidated by concrete facing, grouting, anchoring,...etc. Moreover, its cost is cheaper and easier to work than other general construction work, (lwabuchi, 1979 and Johnsen, et al 2003). Iwabuchi (1979) introduced four examples of practical application of root piles for slope stabilization in Japan. Slope stabilization for tower of transmission line in Yamaguchi is one of these cases. Design conditions are: 1) Subject: stability of hillside slope. 2) Cause of disaster: landslip. 5) Geology: clay ( montmorillonite ), weathered porphyrite. 4) Max. rain fall/day: 436.1 mm. 5) Horizontal seismic coefficient: 0.2. 6) Angle of internal friction: 8 degrees. 7) Cohesion: 2.0 t/m. This transmission line was across the channel, because this tower constructed on the hill of the beach. This area was landslip zone. But this place could not be changed for other places from unavoidable circumstances. According to three-dimensional analysis, the force of landslip was 20,000 tons. The force of resistance of Root-piles was 4,000 tons. The face of the slope was protected by R.C. grillage girder. R.C. anchors were arranged by the necessary zone of the slope that forms solid truss. The loosened mass inside of the slope was consolidated by grouting. This consolidated mass was firmly anchorage by the same steel member and high pressure grouting. The under ground water was drained by drain wells and pipes.

60

Columns

Holes for foundation jet grouting

Old masonry foundation R.C. beam

Shear connectors Micropile >-

Fig. (5.1): Underpinning foundations of Al-Azhar mosque, in Cairo

61

S E R C N E TO ' HA O N C I N

Micropile Characteristics
- (Low Pressure Injection) - Admissible capacity 20 t. - Boring dia. .> 140 mm. - Effective Length 15.0 m. - Reinforcement Two bars 32 inin dia. (Alternative: Steel Pipe O.D =60.3 mm I.D =40.3 mm).

Fig. (5.2): Underpinning masonry walls of Al-Azhar mosque, in Cairo

62

Fig. (5.3): Pile cap at same levels under the level of floors

Fig. (5.4): Pile cap at different levels under the variant level of floors

63

Fig. (5.5): Connection between pile caps and bearing walls by steel lateral beams

Fig. (5.6): Replacement of old timber piles with pin piles in USA

64

Fig. (5.7): Underpinning foundations of Chicago's Historic Orchestra Hall in USA

mw
o'o on o <> O-O o-o-t 0-0

Fig. (5.8): The schemes of foundation reinforcement in Russia

65
120 , 60
y

f|2 tW e!

s> s id

t? ir> o Q > o o
!

F i r - V - 3

Fig. (5.9): Soil characteristics after micropiling

toed. Q 1 0 0 kN

? ? \0 ** )*

r r rTT,

V,?

Fig. (5.10): Loading test results of composite foundation

0"C CYClC. THIN ItNS/O* 10 I

C UR N 10 1 O P O

Fig. (5.11): Cyclic displacement at pile top

66

Pin Top (MetcfftfH (mm)

Fig. (5.12): Displacement of last cycle at each load

(1) R.C. grillage girder (2) R.C. anchor (T-50t) (3) inferred sliding-plane (4) tower of transmission line (5) drain well

(6) drain pipe

Fig. (5.13): Example of slope stabilization by root piles

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This article review gave an attention for micropiling. Also, It discussed in detail the using of micropiles in many underpinning applications. Moreover, the types, design methods, construction methods of micropiles are discussed. According to the available researches and information about micropiling, the following conclusions and recommendations may be drawn: 1- Micropiling is a one of the new foundation types strengthening technique. Rapid growth in the applications of micropiling did not begin until the late 1980s when the method gained acceptance as a means to underpin existing foundations. 2- Considerable researches were carried out in the underpinning field covering most factors concerning with micropiling. But more research work is still needed to standardize the micropiling technique and improve the design aspects and methods. 3- Micropiles are small diameter piles, less than 300 mm. Most micropiles are 100-250 mm in diameter, 20-30 m long, and 300-1000 kN in compressive or tensile applied load. They are drilled, cast-in-place, and grouted piles. They have the capability of sustaining high loads with the greater depths and higher grouting pressure. 4- The drilling equipment used in construction allows micropiles to be drilled through virtually every ground conditions, natural or artificial. The drilling is performed with minimal vibration, disturbance and noise. Also, micropiles can be drilled at any angle below horizontal. The equipment is small machines can used inside building and in small areas. It can be further adopted to operate in locations with low headroom and severely restricted access. 5- The resistance provided by the grout /soil bond of a micropile frequently governs its overall design. This resistance depends on the grouting technique (machines, materials, grout pressure, measuring instruments). On the other hand a fraction only of the applied grout pressure reaches to grout/soil interface. So, the final pressure at the pile/soil interface should be measured to state accurately the frictional resistance. 6- Grout injection should be carried out with pressure not more than the limiting pressure of each soil layer and not a specified pressure overall the pile length. 5Installation of micropiles, specially for underpinning may require unequal spacing between piles. This factor has to be analyzed separately.

68
6- Empirical design methods of a micropile are based on the anchor methodology and the pressuremeter approach. Moreover, the empirical factors and coefficients depending on micropile construction technique and soil type. So, much study work is needed to generalize these factors and coefficients. 7- In the composite foundation with post-grouting piles design method, the soil between micropiles is strengthened by grout injection after the construction of post-grouting piles. Both micropiles and soil in between are considered supporting the loads, since the properties of the surrounding soil are already improved. The design method, in this case, should be improved taking into consideration the different modulus of deformations of micropile and soil in the area loaded. 8Load tests for micropiles are highly recommended to check their actual capacity. These tests do not provide good information to predict future settlements because they cannot simulate the behavior of a pile group. For cohesive soil, the duration of the test is not long enough for development of settlement. Consequently, a single pile test cannot model the long-term effects of a pile group in clay in different environments as compressive / tensile loads and static/dynamic loads.

9- To account the group and network effects on micropiles, specifications should be established. Many researches are still required to study this effect taking into consideration many factors as: (a) Types of micropile and soil, (b) Site conditions, (c) Inclination of micropiles (d) Spacing between micropiles, and (e) Loading conditions as direct / indirect loads, static / dynamic loads, and compressive / tensile loads. 10- Response of micropile group and network should be studied numerically and checked by means of load tests. 11- Seismic response of micropile and micropile groups should be analyzed. The ability of the pile/pile cap connection to transfer the load to the micropiles without failure would have to be confirmed by a test program or earthquake performance data. 12- It is still required more studies, numerical modeling, laboratory testing (centrifuge) and full scale field testing. The studies must be allowed promote the use of micropiles in all fields as: (a) Deep foundations of new buildings and structures, (b) Stabilization of slopes and embankments, (c) underpinning of existing foundations, and (d) seismic retrofitting of retaining walls and shallow foundations. 13- Costs of micropiling can be saved in case of prestressing micropiles before their connection to the structure. Thus, a few micropiles are used and the factor of safety against bearing failure is lower.

REFERENCES
1Abdel-Rahman, M.M., Kurkur, M.M., Amer, M.I. and EI-Atriby, M.A., "Failure Mechanism of Axially Loaded Single Shaft: Experimental Study", 2ik! Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo University, pp. 266-283, (1994).

2- Abdrabbo, P.M. & EI-Hany, R.M., "New Application of Soil Reinforcement", 2 ,,J Alexandria Conference On Structural & Geotech. Eng., Alexandria, Egypt, Vol. I, pp. 227-290, (1994). 3. Alan, J.L., "Low Energy Compacted Concrete Grout Micropiles " Journal of Geotechnical & Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 4, pp. 266-277, (2004). 4- Anagnosti, P., "General Report : Grouting and Other Forms of Ground Improvement", 12th ICSMFE, Rio de Janeiro, Vol.4, pp. 2649-2655, (1989). 5- Azevedo, N., "Load Transfer in Bored Pile in Residual Soil", 9<h Panamerican Conf. On Soil Mech. and Found Eng., Vol.2, pp. 569-575, (199i). 6- Babu, G.L.S; Murthy, B.S.; Murthy, D.S.N.; and Nataraj, M.S., "Bearing Capacity Improvement Using Micropiles: A Case Study " Civil Engineering Journal, ASCE, Vol. 73, No. 10, pp. 92-99, (2004). 7- Balakrishnan, E.G.; Balasubramaniam, A.S.; and Phien-wej, N., "Load Deformation Analysis of Bored Piles in Residual Weathered Formation", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , ASCE, Vol. 125, No.2, pp. 122-131,(1995). 8- Bazaraa, A.R., Nassar, M., Mahnioud, A. and Taha, M., "A Mathematical Model for A Single End-Bearing Pile Embedded in Nonhomogeneous Soils", 2 nd Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo University, pp. 196209,(1994). 9- Benslimane, A., Juran, I. and Bruce, D.A.," Group and Network Effect in Micropile Design Practice", 14th ICSMFE, Hamburg, Vol. 2, pp. 767-770, (1997). 10- Briaud, J.L. & Tucker, LM. "Measured and Predicted Axial Response of 98 Piles", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 9, pp. 984-1001,(1988). 1 1- Brown, J.L., "Winning Combination: Seismically rotrofitting Toll Bridges Civil -Engineering Journal, ASCE, Vol. 72, No. 5, pp. 68-73, (2002). 12- Bruce, D.A., Dimillio, A.F. and .Juran, 1.,"A Primer on Micropiles", Civil Engineering Journal, ASCE, Vol.65, No. 12, pp. 51-54, (1995).

70
13- Cacoilo, D.; Araua, A.; and Tamaro, G., "Underpinning of an Operating Subway Tunnel with High capacity Small Diameter Pipe Piles", 7th International Conf. & Exibition on Piling and Deep Foundations (DPI), Austria, pp. 591-597,(1998). 14- Costanzo, D. & Lancellotta, R., "A Note on Pile Interaction Factors", Japanese Geotechnical Society: Soils and Foundations Journal, Vol. 38, No, No. 4, pp. 251-253,(1998). 15- Daniel, D.; Uranowski, P.E.; Scott, D.; and Scott, S.P.E.; "Micropiles in Karstic Dolomite Similarities and Differences of Two Case Histories ", Civil Engineering Journal, ASCE, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 74-81, (2004). 16- Deshmukh, A.M. and Ganpule, V.T., "Design and Construction of Mini Grouted Piles in Bombay Region", Pile Talk International '90, Jakarta, Indonesia, pp. 17-22,(1990). 17- DiMaggio, J.A., and Hussein, M.H., "Current Practices and Future Trends in Deep Foundations ", Geotechnical special Publication, pp. 475-481, June, (2004). 18- Egyptian Code of Practice for Soil Mechanics and Design and Construction of Foundations, Vol. 4: Deep Foundations, (1995). 19- El-Kadi, F.l. & Adel-Fattah, T.T., "Structural and Geotechnical Studies for Retrofitting the Inclination of a Structure Built on Non-Homogeneous Soil", Arab Conference on Restoration and Rehabilitation of structures, Vol. I, pp. 365-387,(1998). 20- El-Kadi, F.I., "Pile Foundations Between Theory & Practice", Keynote Lecture, 7th Inter. Colloquium on Structural & Geotechnical Eng., AinShams University, Cairo, Vol. I, pp. 113- 146, (1997). 21- El-Kasaby, E.A.A., "Using Micropiles for Restoration and Strengthening Egyptian Archaeological Buildings 5 th International Conference on Deep Foundation Practice, Singapore, pp. 191-199, (2001). 22- Elsakhawy, N.R.,"Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis for Factors Affecting Pile Shaft Resistance", 2 nd Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo University, pp. 180- 194, (1994). 23- Fleming, W.G.K.,"v4 New Method for Single Pile Settlement. Prediction and Analysis", Geotechnique 42, No. 3, pp. 411-425, (1992). 24- Gilbert, C.M., "A New Simplified Approach for Soil-Structure Interaction", rd 3 International Conf. On Ground Improvement Geosystems, London, pp. 225-231,(1997). 25- I!o, C.L., Coyne, A.G and Canou, J., "Model Tests of Micropiles Networks Applied to Slope Stabilization", 14th ICSMFE, Hamburg, Vol. 2, pp. 12231226,(1997).

71 26- ISSMFE- T C I 7 (19991 "Micropiles", Report ofTechnical Commettie No. 17-International. Soc. of Soil Mech. & Found. Engineering, pp. 1-7, (1998). 27- Iwabuchi, S., "Root-Piles for Slope Stabilization", International Conference on Soil Reinforcement, Paris, Vol.2, pp. 301-303, (1979). 28- Jean, B. & Alan, J. Lantenegger, "National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites ", Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, No. 93, pp. 397, (2000). 29- Jiu-li, L., Cheng, Z. & Yan, Z., "The Technology Application of PostGrouting for Slimy Bored Piles", 14th CSM Hamburg, Vol.2, pp. 831-834, (1997). 30- Johnsen, Treatment (2003). L.F.; Bruse, D.A.; and Byle, M.J., "Grouting and Ground Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, No. 120, pp. 163-178,

31- Kamon, M., " Case studies of Reinforced Ground with Micropiling and other Improvement Technique", Symposium Prediction versus Performance in Geotechnical Engineer, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 115-125, (1992). 32- Kevin, J.M., Charton, Ci., and John, P.T., " E f f e c t of Micropiles On Seismic Shear Strain ", Geotechnique 53, No. 2, pp. 105-117,* (2004). 33- Korkeakoski, P., "Jacked Steel Pipe Piles Underpinning", 7 th International Conference & Exhibition on Piling & Deep Foundations (DFI), Austria, pp. 4.7.1-4.7.4,(1998). 34- Lapshin, F.K. and Konusevich, V.I., "Pneumatic Paunchers Usage for Reinforcement with Micropiles", 13,h ICSMFE, New Delhi, India, Vol.4,pp. 1471-1474,(1994). 35- Leroueil, S., Roy, M. &Martel,G., "Evaluation of Shaft Friction in Sensitive Clays from Piezocone Tests", 14th ICSMFE, Hamburg, Vol. 1, pp. 147-150, . (1997). 36- Lion, D.D. & Penzien, J., "Mathematical Modeling of Piled Foundations", The Institution of Civil Engineers Conf., London, UK, pp. 69-74, (1979). 37- Littlechild, B.D. ,Plumbridge,G.D. and Free, M.W., "Shaft Grouted Piles in
it

Sand and Clay in Bangkok", 1 Inter. Conf. & Exhibition on Piling & Deep Foundations (DFI), Austria, pp. 1.7.1-1.7.8, (1998). 38- Makarchian, M. & Poulos, 1I.G., "Underpinning by Piles: A Numerical Study", 13tn International Conf. Of Soil Mech. & Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, India, Vol. 4, pp. 1467-1470, (1994). ' 39- Maleki, K. & Frank, R., "An Approach for the Analysis of Axially Loaded Micropile Groups " 14th ICSMFE, Hambrug, Vol.2, pp. 1107-1110* (1997). 40- Morschauser, G.B. & Davis, J.E.B., "Replacing an Urban Foundation", Civil Engineering Journal, ASCE, pp. 58-60, (2003) 41- Northwestern Univ. USA, "Evaluation of Compaction Grouted Minipiles",

72
the Northwestern University National Geotechnical Experimentation Site, pp. 1-62,(1998). 42- Polous, II.G. & Davis, E.H., "Pile Foundation Analysis and Design", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., (1980) 43- Polous, H.G., "The influence of Shaft Length on Pile load Capacity in Clays", Geotechnique 32, No.2, pp. 145-148, (1982). 44- Scherer, S.D., Walton, W.H. & Johnson, R., "Chicago's Micropile Debut", Civil Engineering Journal, ASCE, Vol. 66, No. 8, pp.51-53, (1996). 45Schwarz, H.; Dietz, K.; Horst, K. and Tomas, G., "'Special Use of Micropiles And Permanent Anchors " Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 11, pp. 945-957, (2003).

46- Ses'kov, V.E. & Lyakh, V.N., "Foundations with Micropiles in Tamped Trenches on Construction Projects in Belarus", Soil Mech. And Found. Eng. Journal, Russia, Vol. 32, No.5, pp. 153-158, (1995). 47- Sherif, M.M., Sherif, G.B. & Hammarn, A.H., "Influence of Pile Dimensions on Bearing Capacity and Settlement", Al-Azhar Engineering 3 ld International Conf., Cairo, Vol .3, pp. 69-82, (1993). 48- Silva, J.M. & iMachado, F., "Micropilcs Foundation for a Big Outdoor Panel", 7 th International Conf. & Exibition on Piling and Deep Foundations (DFI), Austria, pp. 5.25.1-5.25.2, (1998). 49- Solymar, Z.V., Samsudin & Osellame, J., "Ground Improvement by Compaction Piling", Jour, of Geotechnical Eng., ASCE,Vol. 112, No. 12, pp. 1069-1083,(1986). 50- Sowers, G.F., "Introductory? Soil Mechanics & Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering", 4lh Edition, Chapter 11, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, USA, (1979). 51- Tejchman, A. & Gwizdala, K., "Polish Piling Code in the Light of Earocode", 7 ,h International Conf. & Exhibition on Piling & Deep Foundations (DFI), Austria, pp. 2.5.1-2.5.8, (1998). 52- Timothy, H.; Bedenis, P.E.; Michael, J.; Thelen, P.E.; and Steve, M.; "High Capacity Micro-Piles Utility Retrofit: A Case History at D.E. Karn Power Plant in Bay City, Michigan " Civil Engineering Journal, ASCE, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 62-73, (2004). 53- To, P. & Watts, B.D., " Tension/Compression Load Testing of a Minipjle", th 13 1CSMFE, New Delhi, India, Vol. 3, pp. 1219-1222, (1994). 54- Togrol , E.," Ground improvement and Piling", 14th ICSMFE, Hamburg, V o l . 2 , pp. 907-910,(1997). 55Uriel,' A.O., Ortuno, L. & Puebia, F.J., "Micropiles for Building Foundations on Karstic Areas ", 12th ICSMFE, Rio de Janeir o, Vol. 2, pp.

73
1039-1042, (1989). 56- Vuillier, C.P. & Kingwell, W., "BLIP Direct Reduced Iron, Hot Briquetted Iron Process Plant, Concrete Injected Piled Foundation-Port Hedland, th Australia", 7 Inter. Conf. & Exhibition on Piling & Deep Foundations (DPI), Austria, pp. 4.2.1-4.2.16, (1998). 57- Wong, K.S. & Teh, C.I., "Negative Skin Friction on Piles in Layered Soil Deposits", Journal ofGeotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 6, pp. 457-465,(1995). 58Wrench, B.P., Heinz, W. & Salerno, C., "Underpinning a Multi Story Building Using Micropiles", 12lh ICSMFE, Rio de Janerio, Vol. 2, pp. 10431047,(1989).

59- Yasuluku, N., Ochiai, H. & Maeda, Y., "Geotechnical Analysis of Skin Friction of Cast- in-Place Piles", 14 lh ICSMFE, Hamburg, Vol. 2, pp. 921924,(1997). 60- Zuomei, Z. & Renwn, W., "Composite Foundations with Post-Grouting Piles", 14th ICSMFE, Hamburg, Vol. 2, pp. 929-932, (1997). http://www.>eo-support 2004.com/ed.cfm http://www.eprints.iisc.ernet.in/archive/00000275/01/microfinal.pdf
IUtp:/Av\vw.pubs.asce.ors.

http://.xil.com/baseisolat/3-1 .html

ujLilVl J

ftC-i

jA jj\

JJ yjjlji OJ2J' icJuujJ

Alkali AiC. 6 1

1998 4 19~1 CjUs.n "ill

A\\

(j^ljlibcil I&JjZ,

J 4 c^jlAil Sjli C

L-JJJ-ij]!

COjAIUI tCiUalJI (J^b S^lc-j J ^lxja! ^gJ^Jtll j^oJj^ai! I"CjLuuUujVI jO-^-ii" t^j^kli J-olr. - 62

1998 c 1472-1461 cAaJLua

^Uaj ^ ^ . . l " c^u^iVil r-liail^c. -63

- (0

t^ AA ^ O^ j^ i *

tAjutfJj^l Ajl^ IAJSAISJ jAaJI j 4_ijUajVI A ^O'lg \\ ^ijJill 2001 J i J * E20GE07)