Nonlinear Analysis of Lateral Stability of Micropiles Subject to Axial Load

Jess Gmez1, Helen Robinson2, Allen Cadden3

ABSTRACT
Micropiles used for structural foundations are often designed to significant axial load. This is
particularly true for micropiles bonded to rock, where the design capacity of the micropiles is typically
controlled by their structural capacity. In some cases, these elements are installed through soft materials
and bonded into hard rock.
There are few reported cases of failure of slender foundation elements in soft soils due to
buckling under static load. However, buckling of micropiles in soft soils seems to be a common concern
among designers. About a decade ago, the International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC)
published a report by Allen Cadden and Dr. Jess Gmez entitled Buckling of Micropiles. A Review of
Historic Research and Recent Experiences. This report contained a review of the theory of buckling of
columns and of slender foundation elements. It also contained a simplified procedure to assess the
potential for buckling of a micropile installed in certain soil conditions. The procedure considered a linearelastic response of the soil and of the micropile. If the micropile, or any other deep foundation element,
was found to be susceptible to buckling, the designer should perform more sophisticated, nonlinear
analyses or load testing. The procedure presented in that report was incorporated in the current Micropile
Design and Construction Reference Manual by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2005). Still,
there seems to be considerable concern among engineers for the potential for buckling of micropiles,
especially by those practicing in areas outside the United States and not familiar with FHWA publications.
This was evidenced during the 10th International Society for Micropiles (ISM) Workshop in Washington,
DC, where a significant number of questions from the audience were related to lateral stability concerns.
The purpose of this paper is to review the Cadden and Gmez simplified buckling assessment
procedure included in the FHWA manual, and to assess its validity by applying it to a limited number of
previous experiences in buckling of deep foundation elements. Most importantly, this paper includes a
description of nonlinear analyses to determine the buckling or critical load of micropiles installed in soft
soils. The combination of the simplified buckling assessment and these nonlinear analyses would
constitute the complete evaluation of buckling of micropiles for any project.
INTRODUCTION
Because micropiles are frequently installed to or into hard rock, their capacity is often dictated by
the structural strength of the element, rather than by the geotechnical bond between the micropile grout
and rock. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that, where very soft soils or voids overly the bearing
strata, buckling may potentially control the load-carrying capacity of a micropile. This is the case for
micropiles installed through very soft sedimentary deposits or karstic formations.

Principal, Schnabel Engineering, West Chester, PA, USA, 610-696-6066, jgomez@schnabel-eng.com

Project Engineer, Schnabel Engineering, West Chester, PA, USA, 610-696-6066, hrobinson@schnabel-eng.com
3
Principal, Schnabel Engineering, West Chester, PA, USA, 610-696-6066, acadden@schnabel-eng.com
2

Buckling of piles has been a long-standing issue that has been discussed by several investigators
(Mandel 1936, Cummings 1938, Glick 1948, Bjerrum 1957, Davisson 1963, Vogt et al. 2009). To address
concerns regarding buckling under static loads of steel piles driven to rock, Bjerrum (1957) published
results of load tests performed on piles with a variety of sections, including bars, rails, and H sections. He
concluded that even very soft soils could provide enough lateral restraint to prevent buckling of most pile
sections. Mascardi (1970), Mascardi (1982), and Gouvenot (1975) support Bjerrums conclusions in that
buckling is likely to occur only in soils with very poor mechanical properties such as peat and soft clay.
Recent experimental research carried out by CALTRANS on high capacity micropiles installed through a
very thick (110 ft) deposit of San Francisco Bay Mud, and case histories of rock-socketed micropiles
through karst, have further shown that micropiles can be successfully applied in a variety of subsurface
environments.
It cannot be inferred, however, that buckling in micropiles will never happen. Buckling of piles is a
complex soil-pile interaction problem that involves the pile section and elastic properties, soil strength and
stiffness, and the eccentricity of the applied load. Buckling of single-bar micropiles in relatively soft soils
has occurred (see Figure 1); therefore, the designer must consider the potential for buckling seriously.
This paper summarizes some important theoretical aspects of the problem of buckling, and
compares the results of various experiences in the context of the buckling assessment procedure
developed by Cadden and Gmez, which was adopted by FHWA (2005). The paper also describes a
more thorough, nonlinear approach for determination of the critical buckling load of a slender, deep
foundation element installed through soft soils. This approach is based on the use of a finite difference
formulation available in a variety of commercial computer programs.

Figure 1. Single bar micropile in soft soil failed in buckling

PRELIMINARY BUCKLING ASSESSMENT

Bjerrum (1957) used the following theoretical equation for the determination of the critical load,
Pcr, of a pile:

Pcr =

2 EI
l

Esl 2

(1)

where E is the modulus of elasticity of the pile material, I is the minimum moment of inertia of the pile
section, l is the unsupported length of the pile, and Es is the modulus of lateral reaction of the soil. The
term unsupported refers to the portion of the pile that is only subject to the lateral restraint provided by
the soil.
The first term of Equation (1) corresponds to Eulers equation for buckling in columns. The
second term reflects the contribution of the lateral restraint provided by the soil. For piles in soil, Equation
(1) reaches several minima. For design, we consider the absolute minimum, or minimum minimorum of
Pcr that corresponds to a value of l given by the following equation:

lo = 4

EI
Es

(2)

The minimum value of Pcr is obtained by substituting Equation (2) into Equation (1):

Pcr = 2 Es E I

(3)

Equations (1) through (3) assume that the soil follows a linear load-displacement relationship and
that the lateral reaction modulus is constant with depth, which is not true for most soft soils. It does not
address cases in which the micropile is not initially straight, the micropile section is variable, the load is
eccentric, the soil type varies with depth, etc. Furthermore, it is important to note that the modulus of
lateral reaction of the soil is not an inherent soil property. Its value depends on the soil stiffness to lateral
loading, on the level of strain of the soil mass, and on the geometrical properties of the pile.
If we consider only the contribution of the steel to the capacity of a micropile, buckling should only
be a concern if the compression load that produces yielding of the pile material exceeds the value of Pcr:

Pcr f y A

(4)

where fy is the yield stress of the steel and A is the cross sectional area of the steel section of the pile.
After some simple mathematical manipulations, Cadden and Gmez (2002) developed the following
condition for development of buckling in a deep foundation element.

Es

4 I E
A 2 f y 2

(5)

The first of the two terms inside the bracket represents the geometric properties of the pile, while
the second term represents its material properties. The combination of these two terms is referred to as
the Pile Buckling Factor (PBF) in this paper and is given in units of [stress-1].
The value of the term on the right side of the inequality can be defined as the critical or limiting
lateral reaction modulus. If the critical reaction modulus value is less than the actual soil reaction
modulus, Es, then the geotechnical and structural strength of the pile will control the pile capacity.
Otherwise, buckling should be evaluated further.
Equation (5) is represented graphically in Figure 2. The pile factor and modulus of lateral reaction
of the soil are represented logarithmically in the coordinate and ordinate axes, respectively. Any given
combination of micropile and soil can be represented by a point in the diagram. An undamaged pile
represented by a point located to the right of the line will fail under compression before it buckles. A pile
represented by a point to the left of the line may buckle before it fails in compression. The line in Figure 2
can thus be used to determine whether or not checking for buckling of a given pile is necessary.
In this procedure, it is assumed that the soil behaves linearly and does not fail. Because neither
of these two assumptions is true, it is necessary that the lateral reaction modulus be selected according
to the expected range of soil-pile displacement and based on the strength of the soil.
Figure 3 illustrates the type of response to lateral loading of the soil in contact with a pile. The
coordinate axis represents the lateral displacement at a given point of the pile. The ordinate axis
represents the corresponding lateral soil reaction given in units of [force/length]. The dashed line
represents the secant lateral reaction modulus, Es, at any point during loading. For very small
displacements of the pile, the soil may behave linearly. As the displacement increases, the lateral
reaction modulus decreases until the soil yields. Such a curve is usually referred to as a p-y curve. A
variety of procedures is available to predict the shape of p-y curves (Reese et al. 2000), which are based
both on theoretical considerations and on experimental data.

10
CaddenandGomezBucklingAssessmentLine
Vogt'sSmall ScaleTests 22and20mmcasing
Vogt'sFieldTest 32mmbar
Vogt'sLargeScaleTest 28mm bar
Vogt'sLargeScaleTest Aluminumsection
Figure1 50mmhollowbar

LateralReactionModulus,Es (ksi)

UseFyfordesign

0.1

0.01

Checkbucklingcapacity

0.001
0.1

10
PileBucklingFactor(in2/kip)

100

1000

Lateralreaction,p

Figure 2. Chart for preliminary assessment of buckling potential of deep steel foundations subject to
centered loads

pycurve

Es
1
p max = 9 c b

Lateraldisplacement,y

Figure 3. Hypothetical p-y curve

For simple analyses of the type described in the previous section, Cadden and Gmez (2002)
suggested that the secant value of Es for soft clays can be approximated using the following equation:

Es 100 s

(6)

where s is the shear strength of the soil. Equation (4) assumes that 50 percent of the ultimate capacity of
the soil to resist lateral loading is mobilized after a strain of 2 percent. It also assumes that most of the
soil deformation occurs within a zone extending twice the width of the pile ahead of the leading edge of
the pile, and that the overburden thickness is at least 10 times the diameter of the pile. Therefore,
Equation (6) should be used only if these assumptions are generally applicable to the particular problem
under analysis, and may require modification in certain cases.
The value of s to be used in the equation depends on a variety of factors. For undrained loading
of a pile in a soft clay, it would correspond to the value of undrained shear strength, Su. In drained
loading, it would be necessary to determine the shear strength of the soil based on the friction angle and
effective stresses with depth. In reality, drained loading would only take place if there is an initial tendency
for lateral deflection of the pile under axial load. In drained loading, the strength and stiffness of the soil
will increase as the soil deforms. However, as the pile deflects, internal bending moments increase and
so does the tendency for lateral instability. Consequently, determining whether the analysis should be
drained or undrained is not an obvious conclusion in many cases.
If lateral pile displacements are much smaller than 0.04 times the width, b, of the pile, the secant
lateral reaction modulus, Es may become much larger than that estimated by the equation. Similarly, if
pile displacements are much larger than 0.04b, the modulus may become much lower. It is thus
necessary to use a value of lateral reaction modulus that is consistent with the lateral deformation of the
pile. Equation (6) is not applicable for sensitive clays, stiff clays, granular soils, or rock.
It must be emphasized that in this simplified assessment, the contribution of the grout to the pile
axial and buckling capacity is disregarded, and the pile and soil are assumed to behave as linear elastic
materials. Figure 2 may be used for an approximate determination of whether or not buckling might occur
in a micropile before its ultimate structural axial capacity is reached. If, according to Figure 2, a particular
combination of soil and micropile type may be susceptible to buckling, then further analyses should be
performed to determine the factor of safety against buckling for the actual design load of the micropile.
The analyses should consider nonlinearity of the pile and the soil, and it might be necessary to consider
the effect of the grout.
The presence of grout in a micropile has several effects on the potential for buckling. The grout,
whether located within the casing or included as the bond material around the perimeter of the steel, will
add to the structural stiffness of the element. Furthermore, when the grout is used as a drilling fluid, or
where it is pressurized during grout installation, it may improve the mechanical properties of the
surrounding soil. The contribution of the grout to the buckling capacity may be particularly significant for
bar and injection bore micropiles. In a hollow core bar, the grout body may have a diameter much larger
than that of the bar. Therefore, the ability of the soil to provide lateral restraint would be increased.

COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY BUCKLING ASSESSMENT TO EXPERIMENTS AND FIELD

EXPERIENCES
Vogt et al. (2009) present a summary table that contains previous work in buckling of deep
foundations. They also carried out several experimental studies of buckling that contain important
information on this phenomenon and describe various experiments where they induced buckling of single
bar micropiles in soft soils. In their small scale tests, the authors installed a thin shell, small diameter steel
insert within a tank of limited dimensions. The micropile insert was a small diameter (less than one inch),
thin shell tube. They placed clay slurry around the insert and consolidated it until reaching a given value
of shear strength, which they measured using a vane shear device.
The thin shell tubes were tested to failure for various levels of shear strength of the surrounding
clay. The authors found that the tubes buckled at values of shear strength larger than anticipated in
European codes. It must be noted that many of the conditions of these experiments differ greatly from
what is found in practice. The clay used was normally consolidated around the pile inserts and tests
appear to have been performed immediately thereafter. Natural soft clays have some degree of
preconsolidation due to creep or other factors that were not incorporated in the experiments. Also,
deposition and consolidation of the clay around the micropile insert may have caused local zones of lower
than average strength around the micropile that might have promoted initiation of buckling. Micropiles are
much larger than the one-inch diameter, thin shells, which are susceptible to local plastic buckling of the
shell. Local buckling would immediately promote elastic buckling of the entire micropile, and would not
take place in correctly designed micropile reinforcement.
Vogt et al. (2009) also performed a field load test on an actual single-bar micropile installed
through soft organic soils and into granular material. The micropile failed in buckling before reaching its
ultimate axial capacity. They also performed large scale tests where they consolidated clay slurry around
two different types of bars. As in the small scale tests, the authors tested the micropile models for various
strength values of the clay and provided an interesting relationship between failure load and shear
strength of the soil. One important finding was that the grout surrounding a single-thread bar had a very
inconsistent contribution to the bending capacity of the composite section.
The results of the Vogt et al. tests are plotted in Figure 2 and compared to the Cadden and
Gmez preliminary buckling assessment line. The data for each test is represented as a vertical segment
that corresponds to an estimated range of modulus of lateral reaction values (Es) of 60 to 100 percent of
the value obtained using Equation (6). This reflects the observation by various authors that the value
given by Equation (6) may not be conservative enough for certain soils.
It is noted that most of the tests where buckling occurred plot on, or to the left of the line. Thus, in
a real-life scenario, a designer would have assessed the potential for buckling as real and either
performed a more sophisticated analysis and field testing, or simply increased the stiffness of the
micropile. Thus, with the exception of the small-scale tests, the results of these experiments seem to
support the use of the Cadden and Gmez simplified buckling assessment and the use of Equation (6) for
preliminary estimates of the modulus of lateral reaction (Es) in natural clays.
The small scale tests on thin-walled tubes did not plot to the left of the line. As discussed earlier,
it is questionable whether these tests are truly representative of a micropile installed in a naturally
occurring clay deposit. However, these small scale tests do serve to remind us that we must use

adequate correlations to estimate the strength and the lateral reaction modulus and that, in case of doubt,
it is always better to test or to increase the micropile stiffness across soft layers where buckling might
occur.
NONLINEAR NUMERICAL ANALYSES OF BUCKLING OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS
It is clear that final determination of whether buckling can or cannot occur is through actual field
testing of the deep foundation elements. However, in large projects where it is important to reduce
construction costs and where testing will only occur during actual construction, it is convenient and costeffective to perform an accurate determination of the potential for buckling of deep foundations.
There are a number of computer programs that allow analysis of deep foundations subjected to
combined lateral and axial loads. The soils are modeled as a nonlinear, plastic material, while the pile can
be modeled as a linear or nonlinear element. The soil is modeled as a series of nonlinear springs, each of
which is represented by a p-y curve as depicted in Figure 3. The p-y curve relates the lateral
displacement of the pile to the soil reaction. These p-y curves are developed by the computer program for
each depth based on soil properties input by the user, or the p-y curves can be input manually by the
user. The pile is divided into segments: each attached to one nonlinear spring and its specific p-y curve.
The problem of a pile subjected to lateral and axial load is equivalent to solving the general differential
equation for a beam over elastic foundation subjected to axial loading:

EI

d4y
dx

+P

d2y
dx

+ Es y = 0

(7)

where P is the axial load, and x is the coordinate along the axis of the pile. The first term of the equation
corresponds to the equation for beams subjected to transverse loading. The second term represents the
effect of the axial load. The third term represents the effect of the reaction from the soil.
The computer programs for lateral loading of piles solve a system of equations developed by
applying Equation (7) to each segment and considering the known boundary conditions. The system of
equations is typically solved using finite differences as outlined by Reese et al. (2000). The computer
programs allow introduction of soil and pile properties that vary with depth, and can be used
advantageously for design of micropiles subjected to centered or eccentric loads.
Such computer programs can also be used for analysis of buckling of deep foundations. Lets
consider the hypothetical case of a micropile, reinforced with a 7-inch diameter casing with a nominal
yield strength, Fy, equal to 80 ksi, as depicted in Figure 4a. The micropile is embedded into hard rock
present at the ground surface, and the pile extends 30 ft above the ground surface as a column. The top
of the pile is free to rotate and translate. The level of restriction to rotation and translation at the toe of the
pile is given by the properties of the rock.


eccentricity

eccentricity

SoftClay

=105pcf
Su=250psf
30ft

HardRock

50=0.01

HardRock
10ft

7inchODsteelcasing,t=0.5inch

(a) Flapole condition

(b) Micropile in soft clay

Figure 4. Hypothetical micropiles used for numerical analysis

The buckling load of this micropile can be calculated using Eulers theory assuming a column
fixed at the bottom and free at the top. The theoretical buckling load is represented in Figure 5 by a
horizontal dashed line.

35
Euler's Theoretical Buckling Limit

30

AxialLoad(kip)

25

20
0.01"Eccentricity
0.1incheccentricity

15

0.2incheccentricity
1incheccentricity

10

2incheccentricity

0
0.0

5.0

10.0
15.0
20.0
LateralHeadDeflection(in)

25.0

30.0

Figure 5. Results of numerical, nonlinear buckling analyses of 7-inch casing with a flagpole condition
We can also calculate the theoretical buckling load numerically using the computer program
LPILE, or another similar computer program such as COM624, etc. The theoretical, elastic buckling load
can be estimated by analyzing the pile subjected to a relatively small, eccentric axial load to the pile. The
magnitude of the eccentricity used for this analysis should be very small. Once the numerical analysis of
the pile is completed, the resulting lateral deflection of the pile head is noted and successive analyses
with progressively increasing axial loads are also performed. The small magnitude of eccentricity of the
axial load is maintained in all the analyses. The calculated value of lateral deflection for the corresponding
axial load in each analysis is also noted. If the pile is stable under the eccentric axial load, the numerical
analysis will produce a result. Once the pile becomes unstable under the critical buckling load, the
analysis will not converge. By plotting the values of axial load versus lateral deflection, it is possible to
determine the limiting, or critical buckling load of the pile.
It is important to note that numerical convergence may not be reached for a variety of reasons
and that, in some cases, loads in excess of the critical buckling load can produce a solution that will not
be real. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed with caution and refine the search using small load
increments as needed.

Figure 5 includes the results of numerical buckling analyses performed using LPILE for the
example depicted in Figure 4a. The pile was assumed to be linear elastic, without limiting yield strength.
This is an appropriate assumption when trying to determine the buckling load of a pile subjected to
centered load, where buckling is initiated by an imperfection of the pile or a very small eccentricity. The
buckling load calculated for an eccentricity of 0.01 inch is roughly 27.5 kip, which is very similar to the
theoretical Eulers buckling load of 30 kip. The numerical estimate will always be lower than Eulers
buckling load; however, it is possible to increase the accuracy of the analysis by decreasing the
eccentricity even further.
The data in the figure also contains the results of several analyses using larger eccentricity
values of up to 2 inches. The load in each analysis was increased until the analysis ceased to converge.
These analyses naturally produce progressively lower buckling loads as the eccentricity increases as
shown in the figure. However, it is important to note that the critical load for the larger eccentricity values
is likely unconservative because the pile was assumed linear elastic. Therefore, the yield strength of the
steel may be reached in the pile section before elastic buckling takes place.
Figure 6 contains the results of the LPILE numerical buckling analysis performed on an identical
pile confined by soil as depicted in Figure 4b. The pile was assumed to behave as a linear elastic material
and never reach yielding. Again, this assumption is appropriate when focusing on the determination of the
elastic buckling load for a pile subjected to a centered axial load. Note that the scales of both axes in
Figure 6 are different than those in Figure 5. The analyses illustrate the significant increase in buckling
load due to the confinement provided by the soft clay. The buckling load estimated from the analyses is
roughly 1,000 kip for an eccentricity of 0.01 inch, as given by the solid triangle data plot. The actual
centered elastic buckling load is likely larger than this value. The load at yield of the steel casing section
is roughly 800 kip. Therefore, the nonlinear analysis suggests that buckling is not an issue.
The figure also includes a range of the critical buckling load calculated using Equation (3). This
range of values is based on values of Es calculated as 60 to 100 percent of the value given by Equation
(6). The range of critical buckling load thus calculated also suggests that buckling is not an issue, even for
the lower end of the range of lateral reaction modulus values.
Figure 7 reinforces the information presented in Figure 6 in terms of the preliminary buckling
assessment chart. The data points for the estimated range of lateral reaction modulus values fall to the
right of the Cadden and Gmez assessment line; thus, there is no potential for buckling.
Because the results of the simplified buckling analysis and those from the nonlinear analysis are
consistent, it may be concluded that the lateral reaction modulus value given by Equation (6) is consistent
with the estimated nonlinear p-y curves in the numerical analysis.

1200

1000

Pcr from Equation (3) for Es = 60 to 100Su

AxialLoad(kip)

800

Ultimate Axial
Capacity of Steel
Section

600

Eccentricity=.01"

400

Eccentricity=0.1"
Eccentricity=0.5"
Eccentricity=1.0"

200

Eccentricity=2.0"

0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

LateralHeadDeflection(in)

Figure 6. Nonlinear numerical analyses of 7-inch casing in soft clay

Figure 6 also illustrates the dramatic reduction of the buckling load magnitude when the load is
applied with an actual, finite eccentricity. The buckling load decreased from 1,000 kip for an eccentricity of
0.01 inch to 200 kip at an eccentricity of 2 inches. This latter value is possibly unconservative as the
analysis did not consider the yield strength of the pile material. This reduction of buckling load with
eccentricity has significant implications on practical design that cannot be overlooked.
Each micropile in a group of micropiles supporting a stiff pile cap for the foundation of a structure
is not likely to be subject to eccentric loading due to the stiffness of the pile cap and the combined action
of all the micropiles in the group. However, single micropiles or two-micropile groups may be installed
eccentrically with respect to the point of load application. In these cases, typical specified tolerances of 2
inches in their plan location may not be sufficient in soft soils due to the potential for buckling. Even in
stiffer soils, the potential for bending failure is also significant unless the micropile is reinforced with a
casing section larger than 7 inches.

10

CaddenandGomezBucklingAssessmentLine
7inchcasinginnonlinearanalysisexample

LateralReactionModulus,Es (ksi)

UseFyfordesign

0.1

0.01

Checkbucklingcapacity

0.001
0.1

10
PileBucklingFactor(in2 /kip)

100

1000

Figure 7. Buckling assessment of 7-inch casing in soft clay

CLOSING
There are few reported cases of buckling of micropiles under static loading. In this paper, we
used some cases reported in the literature and a previous experience by the authors to evaluate the
usefulness of the Cadden and Gmez (2002) simplified buckling assessment chart. We found that the
chart correctly indicated the potential for buckling in most cases where buckling occurred during testing.
Only two small scale tests performed on relatively thin shells that did buckle during testing were not
correctly recognized by the chart. However, there are questions as to whether the tested elements were
truly representative of real life micropiles.
The paper also discussed a convenient and more thorough procedure to estimate the buckling
load of any deep foundation element using numerical analyses. The numerical analyses allow modeling
the nonlinearity of the soil-pile system, which seems to be of significant concern to some authors.
Additional research on buckling of deep foundations would be required to fully understand all the
aspects related to this phenomenon, and especially to fully validate the procedures proposed in this
paper. However, it is also necessary to recognize that no matter how well developed a design process

may be, it is always necessary to perform field tests to verify the geotechnical and structural capacity of
the piles and include engineering judgment in the interpretation of analysis or modeling results.
The preliminary buckling assessment chart was meant to quickly identify cases where buckling
might be an issue. In these cases, a reasonable designer may increase the bending stiffness of the
micropile section as needed to eliminate the buckling issue altogether. If the additional cost of increasing
the micropile section warrants it, the designer will perform nonlinear numerical analyses to verify the
conclusions from the preliminary buckling assessment. Ultimately, field testing of the micropiles will
validate the adopted design.
Micropiles subject to eccentric loading require careful consideration as their buckling load may be
considerably reduced with respect to that of micropiles subjected to centered loads. In these cases, the
designer shall not rely on simple buckling checks of the micropile, but instead perform numerical,
nonlinear analyses of the soil-pile system.
One important issue that requires additional research is whether buckling analyses of deep
foundations in soft soils should be performed using undrained or drained parameters. If the pile starts
deflecting laterally under axial load due to an initial small defect, the clay surrounding the pile will
compress. As it compresses, the strength and stiffness of the clay will increase, thus offering larger
resistance to lateral deflection of the foundation. However, as the pile deflects, the bending moment and,
thus, the tendency for bending of the pile will increase. The net combined effect is difficult to predict and
should not be attempted theoretically. The authors recommend that additional research be performed on
this issue through experimental testing of actual micropiles in natural clay deposits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Schnabel Engineering for their support of the authors during
development of this analysis and paper as well as their continued support of our involvement in the
International Society for Micropiles and other professional societies so that we may share and learn from
each other to improve our product and make our communities better places to live.
REFERENCES
Bjerrum, L. (1957). Norwegian experiences with steel piles to rock, Geotechnique, Vol. 7, pp.
73-96.
Brittsan, D., and Speer, D. (1993). Pile load test results for Highway 280 pile uplift test site,
CALTRANS pile load test results at a deep Bay Mud site using various pile types, Deep Foundations
Institute and CALTRANS Specialty Seminar, September 9 and 10.
Cadden, A.W., Bruce, D.A., and Ciampitti, L.M. (2001). Micropiles in karst: a case history of
difficulties and success, Foundations and Ground Improvement, Proceedings of a Specialty Conference,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Blacksburg, VA, June 9-13, Geotechnical Special Publication No.
113, pp. 204-215.

Cadden, A.W. and Gmez, J.E. (2002). Buckling of Micropiles, A Review of Historic Research
and Recent Experiences, ADSC Technical Library.
Cummings, A.E. (1938). The stability of foundation piles against buckling under axial load,
Proceedings of Highway Research Board, 18(2), pp. 112-119.
Davisson, M.T. (1963). Estimating buckling loads for piles, Proceedings 2nd Pan-American
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, Vol. I, pp. 351-371.
FHWA. (2005). Micropile Design and Construction, Reference Manual. Publication No. FHWA
NHI-05-039, December.
Glick, G.W. (1948). Influence of soft ground on the design of long piles, Proceedings 2nd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Rotterdam, Vol. 4, pp. 84-88.
Gmez, J.E., Cadden, A.W., Bruce, D.A. (2003). Micropiles in Rock. Development and Evolution
of Bond Stresses under Repeated Loading, 12th Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Cambridge, MA, June.
Gmez, J.E., Rodrguez, C.J., Robinson, H.D., Mikitka, J., Keough, L. (2007). Installation and
Testing of 260 Hollow Core Bar Micropiles. 32nd Annual Conference on Deep Foundations, Colorado
Springs, CO.
Gmez, J.E., Rodrguez, C.J., Robinson, H.D., Keough, L. (2007). Hollow Core Bar Micropiles
Design Parameters Interpreted from 260 Load Tests. 32nd Annual Conference on Deep Foundations,
Colorado Springs, CO.
Gouvenot, D. (1975). Essais de chargement et de flambement de pieux aiguilles, Annales de
lInstitute Technique du Btiment et des Travaux Publics, Comit Franais de la Mcanique des Sols et
des Fondations, No. 334, December.
Mandel, J. (1936). Flambement au sein dun milieu inelastique, Annales des Ponts et
Chausses, Deuxieme Seminaire, pp. 295-335.
Mascardi, C.A. (1970). Il comportamento dei micropali sottoposti a sforzo assiale. Momento
flettante e taglio, Verlag Leeman. Zurich.
Mascardi, C.A. (1982). Design criteria and performance of micropiles, Symposium on Soil and
Rock Improvement Techniques including Geotextiles. Reinforced Earth and Modern Piling Methods,
Bangkok, paper D-3.
Matlock, H. (1970), "Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay," Proceedings of
Second Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, pp. 577-594.
Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T., Isenhower, W.M., Arellaga, J.A. (2000). Computer program LPILE
Plus. Version 4.0. Technical Manual, Ensoft, Inc., Austin, TX.
Vogt, N., Vogt, S., Kellner, C. (2009). Buckling of slender piles in soft soils, Bautechnik Special
Issue 2009, Vol. 86, WILEY-VCH.