Response of micropiles in different seismic conditions

  • Elham Dehghan Haddad
  • Asskar Janalizadeh ChoobbastiEmail author
Short Communication


In recent years, due to the growth of the world population, suitable lands for construction and building are being reduced, gradually; hence, researchers have continuously sought to increase the bearing capacity and resistance of soil and improve its properties. One of the effective methods for improvement of the soil bearing capacity and reduction in foundation settlement is the implementation of micropiles below them. In this study, the seismic response of micropiles under real seismic loading was performed using finite element software. The stabilized soil behavior was modeled as elastoplastic along with Rayleigh damping, and micropiles were modeled as elastic beam elements by considering the interaction between soil and structure. The parametric study aims to focus on how to connect micropiles with foundation and effect of earthquake intensity. The results of the analysis show that decreased stiffness of the micropiles foundation system against the applied forces affects the values of lateral displacement and bending moment. Also, it is found that the Arias intensity of an earthquake is important parameter in characterizing of an earthquake nature influence on pile performance in soil.


Micropile Seismic response Bending moment Lateral displacement Support conditions 


  1. 1.
    Kishishita T, Saito E, Miura F (2000) Dynamic-response characteristics of structures with micropile foundation system. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    FHWA (2000) Micropile design and construction guidelines. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Priority Technologies Program, Implementational, manual, publication no. FHWA-SA-97-070Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sivakumar Babu GL, Srivastava A, Kumar P (2012) Stability analysis of 18 m deep excavation using micro piles. In: Indian geotechnical conference, Delhi, No. F 603Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shu S (2005) Sand state and performance analysis of micropiles. PhD thesis, Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsukada Y, Ichimura Y (1997) Micropiles in Japan: present status and future prospects. In: International workshop on micropiles, vol 199, pp 266–278Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mashhoud HJ, Yin JH, Panah AK, Leung YF (2018) Shaking table test study on dynamic behavior of micropiles in loose sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 110:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    GuhaRay A, Mohammed Y, Harisankar S, Gowre MS (2017) Effect of micropiles on liquefaction of cohesionless soil using shake table tests. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2(1):13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tyszer M, Tomaszewska B (2018) Evaluation of the possibility of use geothermal energy micropiles TITAN 73/53 to obtain low-temperature heat energy accumulated in the near-surface layers of the ground in Poland area. In: Renewable energy sources: engineering, technology, innovation. Springer, Cham, pp 287–295Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang Z, Mei G, Cai G, Yu X (2009) Dynamic finite element analysis of micropile foundation in subgrade. Geotechnical special publication no 192, ASCE, pp 139–144Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang Z, Mei G (2012) Numerical analysis of seismic performance of embankment supported by micropiles. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 30(1):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noorzad R, Saghaee GR (2009) Seismic analysis of inclined micropiles using numerical method. Contemporary Topics in Deep Foundations, ASCE, pp 406–413Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sadek M, Shahrour I (2004) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the seismic behavior of inclined micropiles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(6):473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sadek M, Shahrour I (2006) Influence of the head and tip connection on the seismic performance of micropiles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alsaleh H, Shahrour I (2009) Influence of plasticity on the seismic soil–micropiles–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(3):574–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang JX, McManus KJ, Berrill JB (2000) Kinematic soil–micropile interaction. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abdollahi K, Mortezaei A (2015) A new expression for determining the bending stiffness of circular micropile groups. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:58–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kostadinov MV, Towhata I (2002) Assessment of liquefaction-inducing peak ground velocity and frequency of horizontal ground shaking at onset of phenomenon. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(4):309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liyanapathirana DS, Poulos HG (2005) Seismic lateral response of piles in liquefying soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(12):1466–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghorbani A, Hasanzadehshooiili H, Ghamari E, Medzvieckas J (2014) Comprehensive three dimensional finite element analysis, parametric study and sensitivity analysis on the seismic performance of soil–micropile–superstructure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 58:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA (2009) Intensity measures for the seismic response of pile foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(6):1046–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carvajal JC, Taboada-Urtuzuástegui VM, Romo MP (2002) Influence of earthquake frequency content on soil dynamic properties at CAO site. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(4):297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sivakumar Babu GL, Srinivasa Murthy BR, Murthy DSN, Nataraj MS (2004) Bearing capacity improvement using micropiles: a case study. In: GeoSupport: drilled shafts, micropiling, deep mixing, remedial methods, and specialty foundation systems, pp 692–699Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson DW, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL (2000) Observed seismic lateral resistance of liquefying sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 126(10):898–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Varun (2010) A non-linear dynamic macroelement for soil structure interaction analyses of piles in liquefiable soil. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zahmatkesh A, Choobbasti AJ (2012) Settlement evaluation of soft clay reinforced with stone columns using the equivalent secant modulus. Arab J Geosci 5(1):103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lysmer J, Kuhlmeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div 95(4):859–878Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Itasca Consulting Group Inc (2005) Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC) (version 5.0). MinncapolisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Juran I, Benslimane A, Hanna S (2001) Engineering analysis of dynamic behavior of micropile systems. Transp Res Record: J Transp Res Board 1772:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elham Dehghan Haddad
    • 1
  • Asskar Janalizadeh Choobbasti
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringBabol Noshirvani University of TechnologyBabolIran

Personalised recommendations