DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC RETROFITTING TECHNOLOGIES

FOR EXISTING FOUNDATIONS

Masahiro NISHITANI1, Takeshi UMEBARA2 and Jiro FUKUI3

Abstract
Seismic retrofitting and liquefaction prevention measures on an existing
bridge foundation are performed under severe execution conditions. For example, in
cities, they are done close to other structures and in narrow spaces under girders.
Model experiments, analyses and trial executions have been carried out to develop
seismic retrofitting technologies that are economical and can be used easily under
such severe conditions. As a result, the authors have developed five rational seismic
retrofitting technologies with superior execution properties under severe conditions.
Introduction
Since the Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges were revised
after the Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake of 1995, the need for seismic retrofitting of
existing structures has been increasing. For bridge piers, reinforcement methods
using steel plate lining and so on had been established, but it is necessary to retrofit
bridge foundations in order to improve the seismic performance of a whole bridge.
When an existing foundation is retrofitted, it is difficult to obtain sufficient working
space, because of restrictions by under-girder space and nearby structures.
Consequently, it is difficult to apply usual methods such as increasing additional
piles or ground improvement. For three years since 1999, Public Works Research
Institute has, with 13 private companies, carried out the joint research to develop
seismic retrofitting methods and liquefaction prevention measures that are not
restricted by site conditions, even when executed directly below an existing bridge.
As a result, the authors have developed five rational seismic retrofitting
technologies with superior execution properties under severe execution conditions.
This report introduces these five seismic retrofitting technologies that were
established by the joint research.
Outline of Seismic Retrofitting Technologies for Existing Foundations
Through the joint research, design and execution methods for three methods,
micropile methods, Small Pipe Drain method and SSP method, were developed as
seismic retrofitting technologies for use in places with severe execution conditions.
1
2
3

Senior Research Engineer, Foundation Engineering Team, PWRI

Research Engineer, Foundation Engineering Team, PWRI
Team Leader, Foundation Engineering Team, PWRI

The micropile methods includes High Capacity Micropile, ST Micropile and

Multi-Helix Micropile methods.
Micropile Methods
A micropile is a pile with steel pipes that has a diameter of 300 mm or less.
Figure 1 shows an image of retrofitting for an existing foundation by a micropile
method. The followings are the features of the micropile methods developed by the
joint research.
1) Because the methods are executed by gradually lengthening the piles by
connecting short steel pipes with threaded joints, they can be executed in a location
with under-girder height of only 3.5 m.
2) Because the execution machinery is small and can be moved easily, the
methods can be executed in a space with the width of a single vehicle lane ( about
3 m).
3) The methods produce little noise and vibration during execution.
4) The piles can be driven at an angle up to about 15 degrees.
5) The methods can be applied in liquefied ground.
6) Because of the pressure injection of grout, using ground improvement together
or blades, the methods can guarantee large bearing capacity regardless of a small
diameter.
7) Because the piles have a small diameter, the methods can minimize the
expansion of a footing width.
The followings are the outlines of three micropile methods.
(1) High Capacity Micropile
High Capacity Micropile method can be counted on to provide high skin
friction capacity because deformed bars and high strength steel pipes are used, and
grout is pressure injected into bearing layer. This method can be applied to various
kinds of the ground including soft ground, gravel ground and rock ground. Figure 2
is the outline of High Capacity Micropile. High Capacity Micropile is used in
United State as a retrofitting method for existing foundations.
(2) ST Micropile
"ST" stands for "Strong and Tube-fix". ST Micropile method is executed by
improving ground by pressure injecting and agitating cement milk, boring a new
hole in the center of the improved ground, inserting steel pipes into the hole, and
finally injecting cement milk into the space of the hole. This method does not
disrupt the natural ground, because it is preceded by ground improvement. Figure 3
shows the outline of ST Micropile.
(3) Multi-Helix Micropile

Multi-Helix Micropile method is executed by attaching four blades of

differing diameters in a tapered pattern to the tip of a steel pipe at a interval, then
rotating the steel pipe to insert it directly into the ground. Because this method uses
rotating thrust to insert the steel pipe, it can be executed without removing surplus
soil. Figure 4 shows the outline of Multi-Helix Micropile.
Screen Pipe Drain Method
Screen Pipe Drain method is a method of preventing liquefaction by
dispersing excess porewater pressure generated during an earthquake. This method
is executed by using a small machinery, and placing small diameter steel pipes ( 50
to 100 mm diameters) with water drainage functions (Screen Pipe, Figure 5) at
intervals between 500 and 1,500 mm in saturated sandy ground. But depending on
the level of seismic force, it is necessary to use additional piles together. The
followings are the strong points of the method.
1) The method can be executed at a height of about 3 m under girders.
2) Because the execution machinery is small and easily moved, the method can be
used in a space with a width of 2 m.
3) The execution can be performed little noise or vibration.
4) Screen Pipe can be inserted at any angle from vertical to horizontal.
5) The method can be executed without removing any soil.
6) Screen Pipe has high drainage performance and can be counted on to provide
countermeasure effects equal or superior to those of a gravel drain method.
SSP Method
"SSP" stands for "Super Strengthening Pile Bents". SSP method is a method
of retrofitting existing pile bent foundations. This method is executed by placing
new steel plates around an existing pile and continuously pressure inserting them to
the stipulated position, then injecting grout between the existing pile and new steel
plates. Figure 6 shows the outline of this method. The followings are the strong
points of the method.
1) The method can be executed if, when executed over water, the height from the
bottom of girders to water surface is 2 m, and when executed over land, there is
approximately 2.5 m of a space under girders.
2) The execution generates little noise or vibration because of just inserting steel
plates.
3) The method can be applied in liquefied ground.
4) The method hardly obstructs the cross section area of a river.
Results of Experiments and Design Method for Micropile
This part presents the results of experiments and analyses performed to
develop micropile methods, and a design method proposed based on these results.

Static Horizontal Loading Tests on Models of Group Piles

(1) Outline of Loading Tests
To retrofit an existing foundation with micropiles, many micropiles are
installed around existing piles and linked to a footing. But the seismic retrofitting
effects of a pile foundation that is retrofitted by micropiles are not fully confirmed.
So to clarify the behavior of a group piles with differing diameter piles, static
horizontal loading tests on models of group piles had been performed. And
simulation analyses based on the ductility design method had been performed to
develop a design method that can be used to rationally perform retrofitting design
of a pile foundation retrofitted by micropiles.
The model used for the loading tests is approximately 1/5 of the size of an
actual pile foundation. The diameter and thickness of a steel pipe used to represent
an existing pile were 114.3 mm and 3.5 mm respectively, and the diameter and
thickness of that used to represent a micropile were 34.0 mm and 2.3 mm
respectively. Strain gauges were attached to the surface of each pile to measure its
strain. The top of each pile was rigidly connected to a steel footing. And the tips of
the model piles were fixed to the bottom of the test pit. The loading tests were
done for seven cases shown in Table 1. Figure 7 shows the loading test for Case-3.
The test ground was prepared by firstly setting models, then inserting sand into the
test pit by a grab bucket every 300 mm of thickness and compacting the sand by a
tamper. The loading tests, which were carried out by a multi-cycle load control
method, were performed by pulling a PC steel bar fixed to the footing with a center
hole jack.
(2) Results of Loading Tests
Figure 8 shows the load and displacement curves for every case. Comparing
the results of Case-4 to Case-6 with the result of Case-3 with no micropiles, it is
confirmed that the micropiles provide retrofitting effects. A comparison of the
results of Case-4 and Case-5, which were performed under the differing intervals
between the existing piles and micropiles, reveals no any marked difference in the
retrofitting effects by the pile interval. Case-6 was a case that the micropiles were
installed incliningly. By comparing the result of Case-6 with the results of Case-4
or Case-5, it is confirmed that the retrofitting effects by the micropiles in Case-6
are clearly greater than those in Case-4 or Case-5.
The simulation analyses were performed based on the ductility design method
stipulated in the Design Specifications for Highway Bridges. In the analyses,
compensation factors were set to account for the effects of group piles as the test
results were reproduced. Figure 9 compares the load and displacement curves of the
test results with those of the analytical results for Case-3 to Case-6. As shown in
Figure 9, by appropriately setting the compensation factors in Case-3, the load and
displacement curve were reproduced with good precision. It was also reproduced in

Case-4 to Case-6, but not as closely as in Case-3. In all cases, the analytical results
were evaluated on the safe side for the test results. And as same as the test results,
there was almost no difference between the analytical results for Case-4 and Case-5
that were used different intervals of between the existing piles and micropiles. It is
therefore, assumed that enlarging the interval of between existing piles and
micropiles has very little effect on retrofitting.
Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the test results and analytical results for the
bending moment distribution and shearing force distribution of the existing pile in
Case-3, and the existing pile and micropile in Case-4. These figures are in the state
of the loading immediately before reaching yielding on the existing pile and
micropile respectively. As shown in Figure 10, in every case, the distribution of the
bending moment and the location where the maximum bending moment occurred in
the analytical results were closely reproduced for the test results. As shown in
Figure 11, in every case, the shearing forces of the pile heads were almost identical
in the analytical results and test results.
Figure 12 shows the subgrade reaction and displacement relationship in the
existing pile in Case-4. Figure 12 also shows the elasto-plastic model of the ground
set for the analysis. The elasto-plastic models of the ground were set as the load
and displacement curve obtained from the loading tests were reproduced. In the rear
existing pile, the model used in the analysis conformed closely with the test result.
But in the front existing pile, there was some discrepancy between the model and
test result.
By the loading tests, it was confirmed that retrofitting effects were obtained
by using micropiles to retrofit a pile foundation. It was also confirmed that the
retrofitting effects were increased by installing micropiles incliningly, and that a
group pile with differing diameter piles had group pile effects almost equal to those
on a group pile with identical diameter piles.
By the simulation analyses, it was confirmed that by correcting the ductility
design method, to perform design that appropriately reflects retrofitting effects by
micropiles was possible.
Dynamic Loading Tests on Models of Group Piles by Shaking Table
(1) Outline of Shaking Table Tests
To clarify the dynamic behavior during an earthquake of a pile foundation
retrofitted by micropiles, shaking table tests on models of group piles had been
performed. The shaking table tests were performed in a gravity field using a shear
test pit. Figure 13 shows the outline of the shaking table test. As shown in Figure
14, the shaking table tests were performed for an existing model ( Case-A), a
retrofitted model with vertical micropiles ( Case-B) and a retrofitted model with
inclined (15 degrees) micropiles (Case-C). The model ground, its relative density

was about 60 %, was prepared by dropping sand into the shear test pit. A stainless
steel plate with a width of 30 mm and thickness of 5 mm was used as a model of
an existing pile, and a stainless steel plate with a width of 10 mm and thickness of
2 mm as a micropile. The existing model was made by rigidly connecting four
existing piles to a footing and connecting the tips of the piles to the bottom of the
shear test pit by a pin connection. The retrofitted models were prepared by
arranging a total of 10 micropiles in two groups of five outside of the existing
piles. The input acceleration was a sine wave with a frequency of 10 Hz and a
maximum acceleration of 300 gal, because the natural frequency of the model
ground is equivalent to 0.104 seconds.
(2) Results of Shaking Table Tests
Figure 15 shows the acceleration response obtained by the shaking table tests.
The left side of Figure 15 shows the results for the model without the weight of a
superstructure and the right side the results for the model with the weight of a
superstructure. The acceleration response of the bridge pier was almost identical
trends in Case-A and Case-B. But in Case-C, the test result was smaller than the
test results of other models, probably for the following reason. As the horizontal
displacement of the ground increased, the pier displaced in the direction opposite to
the displacement of the ground, because the front micropiles rose while the rear
micropiles sunk into the ground.
Figure 16 shows the displacement of the existing pile and pier at the time of
the maximum bending moment induced in the existing pile. The displacement of
the pier in Case-B is greater than that in Case-A. The difference is a result of the
fact that in Case-B the footing was enlarged by the arrangement of the micropiles,
and its inertial force increased. While the weight of the entire model after
retrofitting was about 2.8 times before retrofitting ( in case of no superstructure) ,
the displacement of the pile heads was 1.4 times. Therefore, the retrofitting effects
by installing micropiles vertically were confirmed.
By the shaking table tests, it was confirmed, qualitatively, that the dynamic
response characteristics of a pile foundation retrofitted by micropiles did not cause
behavior that would result in any problems. It was also confirmed that retrofitting
by micropiles was effective, and that the response of a retrofitted pile foundation
could be reduced even further by installing micropiles incliningly.
Design Method for Seismic Retrofitting
The ductility design method stipulated in the Design Specifications for
Highway Bridges will be applied to retrofitting design of existing pile foundations
with micropiles. In case of the ductility design method, the resistance properties at
right angles to the axis of piles are modeled on an elasto-plastic with the upper
limit value of the horizontal subgrade reaction pHU and the coefficient of horizontal
subgrade reaction kHE as the initial gradient. In case of group piles with identical

diameter piles, the effects of group piles are considered by correcting the values of
kHE and pHU. By the results of the static loading tests, it was confirmed that even in
case of pile foundations made of differing diameter piles, the effects of group piles
are almost identical to those in group piles with identical diameter piles. And by
the simulation analyses for the static loading tests, the test results were precisely
reproduced by correcting the values of kHE and pHU, even though the values differed
from those of the ductility design method. Consequently, it is possible to design a
pile foundation retrofitted by micropiles accounting appropriately for retrofitting
effects by modeling as shown below.
1) The analytical model is a rigid frame structure in which a footing is a rigid
body and the heads of micropiles and existing piles are rigidly connected to the
footing.
2) The resistance properties in the axis direction of micropiles and existing piles
are modeled on an elasto-plastic with the upper limit of push-in and pull-out
bearing capacity, and with the spring constant in the axial direction of micropiles
and existing piles as the initial gradient.
3) The resistance properties in the direction at right angles to the axis of
micropiles and existing piles are modeled on an elasto-plastic with the upper limit
of horizontal subgrade reaction pHU and the coefficient of horizontal subgrade
reaction kHE as the initial gradient. The values of pHU is compensated by the ratio of
a pile diameter and pile interval in the direction at a right angle to the loading. In
sandy ground, the value of pHU is furthermore compensated based on the ratio
shown in Table 2.
4) The bending moment and curvature relationships of micropiles and existing
piles are modeled on an elasto-plastic accounting for the reduction in the bending
stiffness of the piles according to the axial force and bending moment acting on the
piles.
Conclusion
The authors have established the design and execution methods for the five
seismic retrofitting technologies.
At this time, these methods have not been executed very often. But it has
been confirmed that they have superior execution properties under severe
conditions. The design and execution manuals for the five methods have been
prepared and will be used for seismic retrofitting of existing bridge foundations
under severe execution conditions.
References
Japan Road Association. ( 2002. 3). "Design Specifications for Highway Bridges,
Part 4: Substructures"

Public Works Research Institute et al. ( 2000. 5). "A Cooperative Research Report
on Developments of Seismic Retrofitting Methods for Existing Foundations Part 1 -" (in Japanese)
Public Works Research Institute et al. ( 2001. 12). "A Cooperative Research
Report on Developments of Seismic Retrofitting Methods for Existing
Foundationa - Part 2 -" ( in Japanese)
Public Works Research Institute et al. ( 2002. 9). "A Cooperative Research Report
on Developments of Seismic Retrofitting Methods for Existing Foundations Part 3 -" (in Japanese)
Nishitani, M. et al. (2000. 9). "Study on Load Sharing of Group Piles Consisting
of Different Diameter Piles" ( in Japanese), Proc. of the 55th Annual
Conference of Japan Society of Civil Engineers
Nishitani, M. et al. (2000. 10). "Study on Retrofitting of Existing Bridge
Foundations with Micropiles", Proc. of the 16th U.S.-Japan Bridge
Engineering Workshop
Umebara, T. et al. ( 2001. 10). "Development of Seismic Retrofitting Methods for
Existing Foundations - Outline of Horizontal Loading Tests on Group Piles
Consisting of Different Diameter Piles -" ( in Japanese), Proc. of the 56th
Annual Conference of Japan Society of Civil Engineers
Watanabe, T. et al. ( 2001. 10). "Development of Seismic Retrofitting Methods for
Existing Foundations - Study of Horizontal Loading Tests on Group Piles
Consisting of Different Diameter Piles -" ( in Japanese), Proc. of the 56th
Annual Conference of Japan Society of Civil Engineers
Nishitani, M. et al. (2001. 10). "Development of Seismic Retrofitting Methods for
Existing Foundations - Study on Design Method of Group Piles Consisting of
Different Diameter Piles -" ( in Japanese), Proc. of the 56th Annual
Conference of Japan Society of Civil Engineers
Nishitani, M. et al. (2001. 10). "Horizontal Loading Tests on Model Foundations
Retrofitted by Micropiles", Proc. of the 5th International Workshop on
Micropiles

Micropiles

Additional piles

Micropile
Additional footing

Additional pile

Figure 1 Image of Retrofitting by Micropiles

Pile head

Rotary
penetration

Steel pipe

Steel pile
Deformed bar

Anchoring
by grout

Steel pipe

Bearing
layer

Figure 2
High Capacity Micropile

Soil-cement
column

Blades

Figure 3
ST Micropile

Figure 4
Multu-Helix Micropile

Figure 5 Screen Pipe

Setting steel plate

Inserting steel plate

Steel plate
Inserting
Welding

River

Ground

Bearing layer

Figure 6 SSP Method

Table 1 Cases of Static Horizontal Loading Tests
Case

Number of Piles

Spacing between
Existing Piles Center Inclination Angle of
and Micropiles Center Micropiles
mm

Loading Method

Single Existing Pile

One Direction

Single Micropile

One Direction

4 Existing Piles

One Direction

4 Existing Piles and 6 Micropiles

200

Cyclic

4 Existing Piles and 6 Micropiles

400

One Direction

4 Existing Piles and 6 Micropiles

200

10

One Direction

4 Existing Piles and 6 Micropiles

200

20

One Direction

Figure 7 Loading Test for Case-3

210
180

LoadkN

150
120
Case1
Case2
Case3
Case4
Case5
Case6
Case7

90
60
30
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Displacement of footingmm

Figure 8 Load and Displacement Curves of Loading Test Results

210
180

Load kN

150
Case3
Case3
Case4
Case4
Case5
Case5
Case6
Case6

120
90
60
30

Test
Analysis
Test
Analysis
Test
Analysis
Test
Analysis

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

Displacement of Footing mm

Figure 9 Comparison Loading Test Results with Analytical Results

160

100

Bending Moment kNm

-10

-5

Bending MomentkNm

Bending MomentkNm

10

-15

-10

-5

-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2

10

30

30

30

-30

-30

-60

-60

-60

-90

-90

-90

-120

-120

-120

-150
-180
-210

Ground Level (cm)

0
-30

Ground Level(cm)

Ground Level (cm)

-15

-150
-180
-210
-240

-240
-270

Test Result
on Front Pile

-270

-300

Test Result
on Rear Pile

-300

-330

Analysis Result
on Front Pile

-330

-360

Analysis Result
on Rear Pile

-360

0.2

-150
-180
-210
-240

Test Result
on Front Pile
Test Result
on Rear Pile
Analysis Result
on Front Pile
Analysis Result
on Rear Pile

-390

-390

0.0

-270

Test Result
on Front Pile

-300

Test Result
on Rear Pile

-330

Analysis Result
on Front Pile

-360

Analysis Result
on Rear Pile

-390

Existing Pile
Existing Pile
Micropile
Case-3
Case-4
Figure 10 Bending Moment in Loading Tests and Analysis

Shearing ForcekN
-30

-20

-10

Shearing ForcekN

10

-30

-10

Shearing ForcekN
10

-3.0

30
0

-30

-30

-60

-60

-60

-90

-90

-90

-120

-120

-120

-180
-210

-300
-330
-360
-390

-150
-180
-210

Test Result
on Front Pile
Test Result
on Rear Pile
Analysis Result
on Front Pile
Analysis Result
on Rear Pile

-270
-300
-330
-360
-390

-1.0

0.0

-150
-180
-210
-240

-240

-240
-270

Ground Level(cm)

-150

-2.0

30

-30

Ground Level(cm)

Ground Level(cm)

30

-20

Test Result
on Front Pile
Test Result
on Rear Pile
Analysis Result
on Front Pile
Analysis Result
on Rear Pile

-270
-300
-330
-360

Test Result
on Front Pile
Test Result
on Rear Pile
Analysis Result
on Front Pile
Analysis Result
on Rear Pile

-390

Existing Pile
Existing Pile
Micropile
Case-3
Case-4
Figure 11 Shearing Force in Loading Tests and Analysis

1.0

0.4

Horizontal Ground Reaction kN/m 2

300

Test Result on Front Pile

250

Test Result on Rear Pile

200

Model on Front Pile Used

in Analysis
Model on Rear Pile Used
in Analysis

150
DepthG.L.-0.57m

100
50
0
0.0

0.5
1.0
Displacement of Pile cm

1.5

Figure 12 Subgrade Reaction and Displacement Relationship in Case-4

A3

L8

A12

L3

A4
A5

A12

A14

L6

A8

A13
200

A7

1000

A13

L5

200

A6

L4

A14
375.5

A9

L7

A11

1000

L2

A11

200

L9

22

A2
L1

A10
A15
A1
420

180

Laser taransducer
1
Accelerometer
800

64ch

Strain gauge

(mm)
(mm)

Figure 13 Shaking Table Tests

Case-B

Case-C

40

40

20

20

-20

-20

Depth(cm)

Depth(cm)

Case-A

-40

-60

-60

Case A
Case B

Case A
Case B
Case C

-80

Case C

-80

-40

-100

-100
0

500
1000
Acceleration(gal)

1500

500
1000
Acceleration(gal)

1500

40

40

20

20

-20

-20

Height(cm)

Height(cm)

Figure 14 Cases of Shaking Table Tests

With a superstructure
Without a superstructure
Figure 15 Acceleration Response

-40

-60

-40

-60

Case A

Case A

Case B
-80

Case B

-80

Case C

Case C
-100

-100
-2

2
4
6
Displacement(mm)

-2

2
4
6
Displacement(mm)

With a superstructure
Without a superstructure
Figure 16 Displacement Response
Table 2 Compensation Factor of pHU in Sandy Ground
Micropile

Sand Layer

Exsiting Pile

Front Pile

Others

1.00

0.50

Front Pil
1.00

Others
0.50