Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-019-0206-3

TECHNICAL PAPER

Micropile group behaviour subjected to lateral loading

Zakir Hussain1 · Binu Sharma1   · Takiur Rahman1

Received: 22 November 2018 / Accepted: 13 March 2019

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
Micropiles are suitable for underpinning and seismic retrofitting of structures. It is specially suitable for low head room area
and can easily access congested areas where it is difficult to construct conventional piles. Its two basic functions are structural
support and soil reinforcement. Literature review showed contradictory group effects on micropile behaviour subjected to
vertical and lateral loading. This study is to investigate the response of micropile groups subjected to lateral load installed
in loose sand (relative density 30%), in medium dense sand (relative density 50%) and in dense sand (relative density 80%).
The group behaviour is found to be a function of the state of the sand, spacing of the micropile groups and length-to-diameter
(L/D) ratio. Ultimate lateral resistances of micropile groups are maximum at 2D spacing in loose sand and in medium dense
sand. In dense sand, maximum lateral resistance is observed in 6D spacing. Overall, it was observed that groups with higher
L/D ratio had positive group effects. Modes of failure of the micropile groups are found to be a function of the length-to-
diameter ratio and relative density of the sand.

Keywords  Micropiles · Length-to-diameter ratio · Spacing of piles · Relative density of sand

Introduction conventional bearing capacity theory. The pressure injec-

Micropiles are small diameter piles having diameter less
than 250 mm. The pile consists of central steel reinforce-
ment having diameter 16–32 mm, and it is grouted by pres-
sure grouting technique by pumping concrete or mortar that
fastens the pile with the soil. The high pressure grouting
(pressure grouting above 0.8 Mpa to 1 Mpa) causes the fluid
part of the cement mix to penetrate into the interstices of
the surrounding soil forming a composite block to resist the
applied loads. This leads to the development of a strong
grout/ground bond along the micropile periphery resulting in
high skin friction between the soil and the micropile. There-
fore, the main interaction between soil and the pile is skin
friction. Due to high skin friction, load carrying capacity of
micropiles is higher than the anticipated capacity based on
* Binu Sharma
binusharma78@gmail.com
Zakir Hussain
zakirhussain.ray@gmail.com
Takiur Rahman
takiur777@gmail.com
1
Civil Engineering Department, Assam Engineering College,
Assam, India
tion of grout leads to surrounding ground improvement, and
together with specially designed reinforcement, the method
can guarantee large bearing capacity regardless of a small
diameter.
Most qualifying characteristic of micropiles as underpin-
ning is its ‘quick response’ to the slightest movement of the
structure. Micropiles exhibit settlement of a few mm even for
load value up to crushing strength of concrete. In metropoli-
tan cities having difficult soil problem where pile foundation
is must, the engineer has to face some constrains like low
headroom and congested working area and has to complete
the work without causing noise nuisance and vibration to
the surrounding. One of the most important advantages of
the micropiles is its use in very difficult and problematic
ground location and geologies and having limited headroom
access. Due to its small diameter, it can be constructed at any
ground condition with equipments generally smaller than
that required for conventional piles. With respect to the seis-
mic behaviour, micropile system exhibits flexible type of
behaviour under dynamic loading. Another important feature
of micropile is that retrofitting methods that uses micropiles
can be used in soils susceptible to liquefaction.
In this investigation, a model experimental study
has been undertaken on micropile groups of different

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 22   Page 2 of 9
length-to-diameter (L/D) ratios and different centre-to-centre
spacings, installed in sand beds of relative densities of 30, 50
and 80%. The piles and the pile groups were subjected to lat-
eral loading condition. The object was to study the response
of the pile group due to the relative density of the sand,
spacing of the piles and L/D ratio of the piles.
Brief literature review
Several researchers such as Bruce [2], FOREVER [5],
Kershaw and Luna [6], Lizzi [7], O’Neill and Pierry [8],
Plumelle [9], Schlosser and Juran [10] and Soliman and
Munkofh [11] have reported on micropile technology,
application and soil micropile interaction in the literature.
However, group efects of both laboratory and field tests as
reported by these research workers are different and contra-
dictory. This is mainly because the group effects are mainly
reported in different density states of the soil.
Lizzi [7] reported model test results of group efficiency
of micropile on coarse sand. Benslimane et al. [3] describe
response of micropile groups subjected to earthquake loads
through a series of centrifuge test. The soil selected for the
study was loose-to-medium dry sand. To represent the cen-
trifugal model test, computer programmes were used in a
pseudo-static analysis approach. However, in these two stud-
ies, no separate behaviour was given for loose, medium and
dense sand.
Turan et al. [14] studied lateral micropile group behaviour
under static and dynamic loads. The effect of flexibility of
the pile cap, casing termination and the existence of sur-
charge loads on the soil surface on the lateral response of
the micropile groups by numerical analysis was investigated.
Castelli et al. [4] investigated through numerical analysis
the behaviour of micropiles subjected to horizontal loads
and compared its findings with the results of a full-scale
investigation on two bored micropiles employed for the
strengthening of the foundations of masonry buildings. The
comparison indicates that numerical analysis was able to
obtain representative values of the limiting horizontal loads
and horizontal displacements of the micropiles subjected to
additional seismic loads. Different micropile lengths and soil
states were not considered in the above two studies.
Sharma [12] reported about study of group micropiles
subjected to lateral loading and oblique pull. Sharma and
Buragohain [13] reported about the behaviour of micropile
groups under oblique pull-out loads in sand. These two stud-
ies consider mode of failure of the micropiles and micropile
groups only under one relative density.
Experimental results of laboratory testing and full-scale
field testing of micropile group behaviour as reported in the
literature give contradictory group effects. This is because
the density of the sand is different in different works. Moreo-
ver, in previous works, mode of failure of micropiles and
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22
micropile groups subjected to lateral loading is not reported.
This work is a parametric study of micropile group behav-
iour placed in sand of three different relative densities sub-
jected to lateral loading. Identification of short pile and long
pile through model testing is also attempted in this study.
Experimental model
Sand properties
A model tank of size 1.7 m × 1.5 m × 0.93 m was used for the
study. The physical properties of the sand used in the model
tank are shown in Table 1. To achieve uniform relative den-
sity throughout the tank, rainfall technique was applied.
Sand was allowed to fall freely through a strainer from a
fixed height of 30, 50 and 90, respectively, to obtain relative
densities of 30, 50 and 80%, respectively. The density of the
sand at the three relative densities is 1.37 gm/cc, 1.55 gm/cc
and 1.83 gm/cc and angle of internal friction (Φ) is 34°, 36°
and 38°. Micropiles of different L/D ratios were installed in
sand bed inside the tank.
Construction of micropiles
An aluminium pipe of external diameter 12 mm and internal
diameter 10 mm was used to cast the micropiles. The alu-
minium casing pipe is attached with a 60° conical wooden
shoe at the bottom end of the pile to obstruct sand from
entering into the casing during installation. A 1.5-mm mild
steel rod was used as a reinforcement. The casing pipe
together with the reinforcement was pushed manually into
the sand bed vertically. Grouting was then performed with
Table 1  Properties of sand
Sl. no. Properties Value
1 Effective grain size (mm)
 (i) D10 0.22
 (ii) D30 0.32
 (iii) D60 0.46
2 Uniformity coefficient, Cu 2.08
3 Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.98
4 Specific gravity of soil, Gs 2.67
5 Maximum voids ratio, emax 0.88
6 Minimum voids ratio, emin 0.68
7 Density under relative density 30% (gm/cc) 1.37
8 Density under relative density 50% (gm/cc) 1.55
9 Density under relative density 80% (gm/cc) 1.83
10 Angle of internal friction for relative density 30% 34°
11 Angle of internal friction for relative density 50% 36°
12 Angle of internal friction for relative density 80% 43.5°
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22 Page 3 of 9  22

cement slurry of water/cement ratio of 0.6 under a constant (a) Load (N)
gravity head of 100 cm. The pile caps were reinforced with 0 100 200 300 400 500
steel wire mesh and casted in concrete. 0

5
Loading arrangement L/D=24, Spacing=2D

Lateral deflection (mm)

L/D=60, Spacing=2D
10 L/D=24, Spacing=4D
A mechanical jack with a proving ring system was used to L/D=60, Spacing=4D
apply load to the pile cap. It is a force load control machine. 15 L/D=24, Spacing=6D
Lateral displacement was measured with the help of a dial L/D=60, Spacing=6D
gauge as shown in Fig. 1. The mechanical jack was fixed to a 20

horizontal cross-beam with nuts and bolts in such a way that 25

it is convenient to slide when necessary. An adjustable collar
was used to connect one end of the tip of the lever arm of 30 Relative density=30%
mechanical jack, and the other end was connected with one
end of the proving ring. The proving ring, having a constant Load (N)
of 0.99 kg (approximately 9.8 N)/div, was fixed to the collar (b)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
with the help of a bolt. The other end of the proving ring was 0
fixed with a ball and socket arrangement for the application
of the lateral loads to the pile cap. 5
L/D=24, Spacing=2D

Lateral deflection (mm)

10 L/D=60, Spacing=2D
L/D=24, Spacing=4D
Experimental results 15 L/D=60, Spacing=4D
L/D=24, Spacing=6D
In total, 64 model micropiles were installed in the tank. Sin- 20 L/D=60, Spacing=6D
gle micropiles and group micropiles were casted for L/D
25
ratios of 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60 and 80. The micropile
groups were in a square grid pattern of four piles per group, 30 Relative density=50%
with a centre-to-centre spacing of 2D, 4D and 6D, respec-
tively. Both single and group micropiles were installed in
Load (N)
sand bed having relative density of 30, 50 and 80%. (c)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
The single and group micropiles were laterally loaded 0
up to failure. The lateral load versus lateral deflection 5
plot for group piles for L/D ratio of 24 and 60 at the three 10 L/D=24, Spacing=2D
Lateral deflection (mm)

different spacings and at relative densities of 30, 50 and 15 L/D=60, Spacing=2D

80% is shown in Fig. 2a–c. It is clear from the plots that 20 L/D=24, Spacing=4D
25 L/D=60, Spacing=4D
30 L/D=24, Spacing=6D
35 L/D=60, Spacing=6D
40
45
50
55 Relative density=80%

Extension Rod
Fig. 2  a–c Lateral load versus lateral deflection plot for L/D ratio 24
and L/D ratio 60
Mechanical Jack

Proving Ring
the relation between lateral load and lateral deflection is
Ball & Socket Dial Gauge nonlinear. For the purpose of this experiment, ultimate
Pile Cap
resistance of the single piles and pile groups under lateral
load has been taken as the point on the lateral load ver-
sus lateral displacement curve at which the curve main-
tains a continuous displacement increase with no further
Fig. 1  Lateral loading set-up increase in lateral load. Similarly, the lateral load versus

13
 22   Page 4 of 9 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22

lateral deflection plot for all the L/D ratios at 30% and Effect of length/diameter ratio
80% relative density at 2D, 4D and 6D spacing is shown
in Fig. 3a–f. The relation between ultimate lateral load and length-to-
diameter (L/D) ratio of single micropiles is shown in Fig. 4.
The ultimate lateral resistance increases at a high rate up to
L/D ratio of 48 for 30% and 50% relative density and up to

Load (N) Load (N)

(a) (d)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5 5
10 L/D=12
L/D=12 10
Lateral deflection (mm)

Lateral deflection (mm)

L/D=18
15 L/D=18 15 L/D=24
20 L/D=24 20 L/D=30
L/D=30 L/D=36
25 L/D=36 25 L/D=48
30 L/D=48 30 L/D=60
L/D=60 L/D=80
35 35
L/D=80
40 40
45 45
50 50
Spacing=2D, Relative density=30% Spacing=2D, Relative density=80%

Load (N) Load (N)

(b) (e)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0
5 5
10 L/D=12 L/D=12
Lateral deflection (mm)

10
Lateral Deflection (mm)

15 L/D=18 L/D=18
20 15 L/D=24
L/D=24
25 L/D=30
L/D=30 20 L/D=36
30 L/D=36
35
25 L/D=48
L/D=48 L/D=60
40 L/D=60 30
L/D=80
45 L/D=80 35
50
40
55
60 Spacing=4D, Relative density=30% 45
50 Spacing=4D, Relative density=80%

Load (N)
(c) Load (N) (f)
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 0
L/D=12 5
5 L/D=12
L/D=18 10
Lateral deflection (mm)

L/D=18
Lateral deflection (mm)

L/D=24
10 15 L/D=24
L/D=30
L/D=36 20 L/D=30
15 L/D=36
L/D=48 25
L/D=60 L/D=48
20 30 L/D=60
L/D=80
35 L/D=80
25
40
30 45
50
35 Spacing=2D, Relative density=30%
55 Spacing=6D, Relative density=80%

Fig. 3  a–f Lateral load versus lateral deflection plots for 30% and 80% relative density

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22 Page 5 of 9  22

200 (a) 600

Relative density=30%
Single pile
500

Ultimate load (N)

400
Ultimate load (N)

300 Spacing=2D
100
Relative Spacing=4D
density=30% 200
Spacing=6D
Relative
density=50% 100
Relative
density=80% 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 L/D ratio
L/D ratio
(b) Relative density=50%
600
Fig. 4  Ultimate load versus L/D ratio for the single piles
500

Ultimate Load (N)

L/D ratio of 60 for 80% relative density, and after that, the 400
increase is not significant.
300 Spacing=2D
Graphs of the ultimate lateral load versus L/D ratio for the
Spacing=4D
micropile groups at relative densities of 30, 50 and 80% and
200 Spacing=6D
at the three different spacings are shown in Fig. 5a–c. For the
micropile groups placed in loose sand bed having 30% rela- 100
tive density, the ultimate lateral resistance increases rapidly
with a high rate up to L/D ratio of 36 and from L/D ratio of 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
48 to L/D ratio of 80, the rate of increase is insignificant.
L/D ratio
Similar is the trend with medium dense sand having 50%
relative density. For the micropile groups placed in dense (c) Relative density=80%
700
sand bed having 80% relative density, the ultimate lateral
resistance increases rapidly with a high rate up to L/D ratio 600
of 48 and from L/D ratio of 56 to L/D ratio of 80, the rate of
500
Ultimate load (N)

increase is insignificant. This is in agreement with the find-

ings of laterally loaded piles that increasing the pile length 400
beyond a particular length is not necessary. The L/D ratio Spacing=2D
300
of the micropile groups at which the increase in ultimate Spacing=4D
200
load becomes constant is not clear from the experimental Spacing=6D
study. L/D ratio of the micropile groups could not be fur- 100
ther increased due to the limited depth of the tank which is
0
0.93 m. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D ratio
Effect of relative density of sand and spacing
of the micropile groups Fig. 5  a–c Ultimate load versus L/D ratio for the pile groups at the
three relative densities
The effect of relative density of the sand on the ultimate
lateral resistance has to be seen together with the spacing
of the micropile groups. The effect of spacing at the three 50 and 80% relative density. Loose sand at relative density
relative densities is seen from Fig. 5a–c. At 30% and 50% 30% behaves as contractive sand. When the aluminium cas-
relative density, lateral load is maximum at 2D spacing and ing is inserted into the loose sand, the sand within the block
minimum at 6D spacing, whereas at 80% relative density, contracts. Again during the grouting process at a gravity
lateral load is maximum at 6D spacing and minimum at head, there is penetration of the fluid part of the mix into
2D spacing. In Fig. 6, it is seen that for 2D spacing, group the surrounding soil which leads to a strong composite pile
capacity is high at 80% relative density for L/D ratio up to group block formation at 2D spacing. This results in high
30. For L/D ratio 40 to 80, group capacity is same for 30, group capacity at 2D spacing for all the L/D ratios at 30%

13
 22   Page 6 of 9
600
500
Ultimate load (N)
400
300
200
100 Spacing=2D
Spacing=4D
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D ratio
Fig. 6  Ultimate load versus L/D ratio for the three different spacings
relative density compared to the group capacity at 4D and
6D spacing. Again dense sand at relative density of 80% is
dilative sand and on insertion of the aluminium casing at
2D spacing, the sand around the block dilates. On penetra-
tion of the grout into the surrounding soil, the same strong
composite pile group block formation occurs at 2D spacing.
Hence, piles having L/D ratio of 36 to 80 placed in sand
bed having 30, 50 and 80% relative density show the same
ultimate lateral resistance at 2D spacing. It is observed that
these piles actually fail under structural failure. Piles having
L/D ratio of 12 to 30 fail by soil failure which occurs due
to passive resistance of the soil being exceeded. A small
increase is seen in ultimate lateral resistance for these L/D
ratios at 80% relative density compared to 30% and 50%
relative density since passive resistance of the soil is high at
80% relative density. At 4D spacing, ultimate lateral load is
observed to be nearly same at 30% and 50% relative density
and found to increase at 80% relative density. At 6D spacing,
effect of relative density is observed. Ultimate lateral load
at 80% relative density is greatest followed by 50% and 30%
relative density.
At 80% relative density, ultimate lateral resistance is high
at 6D spacing. Side resistance of a pile is dependent upon
the normal stress on the interface between pile and sand and
the critical state strength of the sand. The normal stress of
the interface is dependent upon the state of the sand when
it is subjected to shearing. Dense sand would expand under
shearing and loose sand would contract. Volume changes in
sand would result in a variation of normal stress along the
surface. Dilative sand would result in an increase in normal
stress along the surface and contractive sand would result in
a decrease in normal stress. Stress overlapping phenomenon
is another parameter which influences group capacity. Again
the grouting of the piles results in a strong grout to ground
bond around the periphery of the piles. Which parameters
have actually contributed more to give a high value of ulti-
mate lateral resistance at 6D spacing at 80% relative density
cannot be ascertained at this stage. Further investigations are
needed in this direction.
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22
Relative
Density=30%
Relative
Density=50%
Relative
Density=80%
Spacing=6D
Mode of failure of the micropile groups
According to Broms [1], piles installed in cohesionless
soil subjected to lateral load undergo two modes of failure.
In the first type of failure, failure occurs in the soil pile
system subjected to lateral load by soil failure. In the sec-
ond type, failure occurs by fracture of piles by formation
of plastic hinges. Soil failure is observed by a short pile.
Failure occurs at the toes when passive resistance at the
head and toe is exceeded. The second category of failure
is observed by a long pile. A long pile cannot rotate due to
high cumulative passive resistance developed at the lower
part of the pile, and structural failure occurs at the point
of maximum bending moment.
Pile groups from L/D 12 to L/D 30 placed in sand bed
having relative density of 30% and 50% failed by soil
failure and the pile groups from L/D 36 to L/D 80 failed
by structural failure. Pile groups from L/D 12 to L/D 24
placed in sand bed having relative density of 80% failed
by soil failure and the pile groups from L/D 30 to L/D
80 failed by structural failure at 4D and 6D spacing. At
2D spacing, the failure mode is same as at 30% and 50%
relative density. Overall, it can be said the spacing of
micropile groups had no effect on the mode of failure of
the pile groups (Fig. 7). Similarly, for single piles, it was
found that the piles beyond L/D ratio of 18 failed by struc-
tural failure at 30% and 50% relative density and beyond
L/D ratio of 24 failed by structural failure at 80% relative
density. From the lateral load deflection plots shown in
Fig. 3a–f, it is observed that piles undergoing soil failure
undergo more deflection than piles undergoing structural
failure. It can therefore be said that relative density of
the sand and length/diameter (L/D) ratio are two major
influencing factors in the mode of failure of free head sin-
gle micropiles and micropile groups. A typical structural
failure is shown in Fig. 8. In this study, structural failure
was observed by development of cracks at the pile body
at positions of 0.2 to 0.4 times the pile depth. This further
gives indication of the depth of fixity of the pile groups.
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22 Page 7 of 9  22

8 (a) 1.4
Relative density=80% Relative density=30%
6
1.2
4

2 1

Efficiency (%)
0 0.8
8 Spacing=2D
Relative density=50% 0.6
Spacing (cm)

6 Spacing=4D
Soil failure 0.4
4 Transition Spacing=6D

2
Structural failure 0.2

0 0
8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Relative density=30% L/D ratio
6

4 (b)
1.2 Relative density=50%
2
1
0

Efficiency (%)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0.8

L/D ratio 0.6 Spacing=2D

Spacing=4D
0.4
Fig. 7  Mode of failure of the pile groups at the three different densi- Spacing=6D
ties 0.2

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D Ratio

(c) 1.4 Relative density=80%

1.2

1
Efficiency (%)

0.8
Spacing=2D
0.6 Spacing=4D
0.4 Spacing=6D

0.2

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D ratio

Fig. 9  a–c Efficiency versus L/D ratio for the three different relative
densities

Fig. 8  Structural failure of laterally loaded pile group (L/D 80) at rel-
ative density 30%
Unrestrained short piles upon application of horizontal
loads fail by rotation as a rigid body about a centre of rota-
tion. Hence, short micropiles are to be governed by geotech-
nical load carrying capacity. Long piles, both unrestrained
and restrained piles, behave as an elastic member as the
lower end cannot rotate, but is fixed in position. Failure in
long micropiles, as observed, is by fracture of the pile at
the point of maximum moment or by shear. Hence, design
of long micropiles is to be governed by structural carrying
capacity of the piles.
Group efficiency
A lot of research work has been carried out regarding the
group efficiency of micropiles. However, the results have not
been consistent so far. Efficiency of micropile groups in this

13
 22   Page 8 of 9 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22

1.3
1.2 Relative density=30% Relative density=50% Relative density=80%
1.1
Efficiency (%) 1
0.9 L/D=12
0.8 L/D=18
L/D=24
0.7 L/D=30
0.6 L/D=36
0.5 L/D=48
L/D=60
0.4 L/D=80
0.3
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
Spacing/Diameter ratio

Fig. 10  Efficiency versus spacing/diameter ratio at the three different relative densities

study has been defined in the same way as for conventional
piles as given in Eq. (1).
Qg
𝜂=
nQs
where η = efficiency of the pile group, Qg  = the group capac-
ity, Qs = capacity of a reference pile that is identical to a
group pile but is isolated from the group and n = the number
of micropiles in the group.
For the present study, single micropiles of the same L/D
ratio as micropile groups were tested.
The variation of efficiency with L/D ratio for 2D, 4D
and 6D spacing with pile groups placed in sand bed having
30, 50 and 80% relative density is illustrated in Fig. 9a–c,
where it is seen that in case of micropile groups, efficiency
increases with increase in L/D ratio initially. However,
beyond a certain L/D ratio, the increase in efficiency comes
out to be insignificant. Maximum efficiency is observed at
2D spacing, followed by 4D and 6D spacing for 30% and
50% relative density. Similar observation is also reported
by Lizzi [7], where it has been shown that in case of lateral
loading, micropile groups showed positive group effect at
2D spacing; moreover, the efficiency came out to be high at
this spacing compared to other spacing. However, the state
of the sand was not mentioned in the work.
The efficiency is highest for 6D spacing, followed by 4D
(1) and 2D spacing for 80% relative density. The effect of spac-
ing with respect to relative density on the efficiency is fur-
ther shown in Fig. 10. At 2D spacing, efficiency is more at
30% and 50% relative density than at 80% relative density,
whereas at 6D spacing, efficiency is more at 80% relative
density than at 30% and 50% relative density. The effect
of spacing on efficiency is further illustrated in Fig. 11. At
2D spacing for 30% relative density and at 6D spacing for
80% relative, positive group effect is observed. Positive
group effect is also observed by a few piles of higher L/D
ratio at 4D spacing at the three relative densities. Overall,
the experimental results show that at L/D ratio greater than
around 50, efficiency comes out to be greater than 1 for all
the three different spacings and for all the three different
relative densities. So it can be concluded that positive group
effect will be obtained in case of micropile groups subjected
to lateral loading for high slenderness ratio greater than 50.

1.2
1.1
1
0.9 L/D=12
Efficiency (%)

0.8 L/D=18
0.7 L/D=24
L/D=30
0.6 L/D=36
0.5 L/D=48
0.4 L/D=60
0.3 L/D=80
Spacing=2D Spacing=4D Spacing=6D
0.2
30 50 70 90 30 50 70 90 30 50 70 90
Relative density (%)

Fig. 11  Efficiency versus relative density at the three different spacings

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2019) 4:22 Page 9 of 9  22
Conclusions
A parametric study was conducted to assess the main
parameters influencing the group behaviour of laterally
loaded piles. The length-to-diameter ratio of the piles,
relative density of the sand and spacing of the pile groups
are important parameters which influence the pile group
behaviour. For laterally loaded piles, increasing the pile
length beyond a particular length is not necessary. For
micropile groups in sand bed of 30% and 50% relative
density, it is seen that the group capacity is high at 2D
spacing, whereas for 80% relative density, it is seen that
the group capacity is high at 6D spacing. At 2D spac-
ing for 30% relative density and at 6D spacing for 80%
relative, positive group effect is observed. Positive group
effect is also observed by a few piles of higher L/D ratio
at 4D spacing at the three relative densities. For length-
to-diameter ratio greater than around 50, efficiency comes
out to be greater than 1 for all the three different spacings
and for all the three different relative densities. Mode of
failure of the micropile groups is affected by the length-to-
diameter ratio of the piles and the relative density of sand.
There is no effect of spacing of the piles in the mode of
failure of the pile groups.
References
1. Broms B (1964) Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soil.
J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 90(3):123–156
2. Bruce DA (1995) Small-diameter cast-in-place elements for
load-bearing and in situ earth reinforcement. In: Xanthakos PP,
Abramson LW, Bruce DA (eds) Ground control and improve-
ment, vol 6. Wiley, New York, pp 406–492
3. Benslimane A, Juran I, Hanna S, Drabkin S (1998) Seismic
behaviour of micropile system. In: Proceedings of sessions of
geo-congress 98, October 18–21, 1998, Boston, MA
4. Castelli F, Grasso1 S, Maugeri M (2014) Non linear behaviour
of small diameter bored piles under horizontal loads. In: 12th
European conference on earthquake engineering. Paper Refer-
ence 501, Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
5. FOREVER (2002) Synthesis of the results of the national pro-
ject on micropiles. Research report, IREX
6. Kershaw K, Luna R (2018) Scale model investigation of the
effect of vertical load on the lateral response of micropiles in
sand. DFI J 12(1):3–15
7. Lizzi F (1983) The “Reticolo di Pali Radice” (Reticulated Root
pile) for the improvement of soil resistance physical aspects and
design approaches. In: VIII ECSMFE, Helsinki, pp 521–524
8. O’Neil MW, Pierry RF (1989) Behaviour of minigrouted piles
used in foundation underpinning in Beaumont Clay, Houston,
Texas, USA. In: Proceeding of the international conference pil-
ing and deep foundation, London/15, 1 May, pp. 101–109
9. Plumelle C (1984) Improvement of the bearing capacity of soil
by insertion of Group and Reticulated micropiles. In: Proceed-
ings, international conference on in situ soil and rock reinforce-
ment, Paris, France, pp 83–89
10. Schlosser F, Juran I (1979) Design parameters of artificially
improved soils. In: ECSMFE, Brighton, vol 5, pp 197–225
11. Soliman N, Munkofh G (1988) Foundation on drilled and
grouted minipiles—a case history. In: Proceeding 1st interna-
tional geotechnical seminar on deep foundations on bored and
auger piles, GHENT/7–9 June, pp 363–369
12. Sharma B (2011) A model study of micropiles subjected to lat-
eral loading and oblique pull. Indian Geotech J 41(4):196–205
13. Sharma B, Buragohain P (2013) Behaviour of micropile groups
under oblique pull out loads in sand. Indian Geotech J. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s4009​8-013-0091-1
14. Turan A, El Naggar MH, Hinchberger S (2008) Lateral behav-
iour of micro-pile groups under static and dynamic loads. In:
Proceedings of the 4th Canadian conference on geohazards:
from causes to management, p 594
13