See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225868356

Micropile technique to control upward movement of lightweight structures

over expansive soils

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · March 2004

DOI: 10.1023/B:GEGE.0000013999.42592.56

CITATIONS READS

12 180

2 authors:

Osama Kh. Nusier Ahmed shlash Alawneh

Jordan University of Science and Technology Jordan University of Science and Technology
37 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   255 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flood management View project

Earthquake risk assessment of Greater Amman Municipality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Osama Kh. Nusier on 10 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 22: 89–104, 2004. 89
# 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Micropile technique to control upward movement

of lightweight structures over expansive soils

OSAMA K. NUSIER and AHMED SHLASH ALAWNEH

Civil Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 3030,
Irbid 22110-Jordan. E-mail: nosama@just.edu.jo

(Received 15 November 2001; revised 23 October 2002; accepted 20 February 2003)

Abstract. A simplified analytical formulation is presented for the mechanism by which micro-
piles surrounded by compacted sand control the upward movement of lightweight buildings
over expansive soils. This formulation identifies the significant variables influencing the perfor-
mance of micropile reinforcement. A design methodology for micropile reinforcement utilizing
the resulting formulation is proposed and illustrated by a hypothetical example.
Key words. expansive clay, micropiles, swell percent, swell pressure

Symbols
A ¼ parameter in Equations (1-a, b)
a ¼ inner radius of interface (micropile outer radius)
Af ¼ foundation plan area
As ¼ lateral surface area of micropile
B ¼ width of footing
b ¼ outer radius of interface ðb ¼ a þ tÞ
D ¼ micropile diameter
Dr ¼ sand relative density
D50 ¼ effective grain size of sand
E ¼ assumed modulus related to expansion and compression of soil particles
G ¼ shear modulus of sand
H ¼ thickness of expansive clay beneath footing and within the active zone
k ¼ constant of proportionality
K0 ¼ ratio of lateral to vertical swelling pressure
K0 ¼ at-rest earth pressure coefficient
L ¼ embedded depth of micropile
N ¼ number of micropiles
P ¼ the effective stress at depth z below the ground surface plus the increase
in vertical stress DP due to any applied dead load pressure on the footing.
Pa ¼ atmospheric pressure (101 kPa)
Pave ¼ average overburden and dead load pressure at H=2 beneath footing
Pb ¼ boundary stress
90 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

Pdl ¼ footing dead load pressure

Po ¼ overburden pressure at depth z below ground surface
Psl ¼ lateral swelling pressure
Psv ¼ vertical swelling pressure
R ¼ total downward frictional resistance offered by N micropiles
r ¼ micropile radius
Rcal ¼ center-line average roughness
RH ¼ percent reduction in heave
t ¼ interface thickness
z ¼ depth below ground surface
DH01 ¼ upward movement occurring within zone of micropile reinforcement
DH001 ¼ upward movement occurring outside zone of micropile reinforcement
ðsv Þave ¼ average effective overburden pressure at H=2 below footing
dcv ¼ constant-volume interface friction angle
df ¼ interface friction angle at ultimate uplift
DH1 ¼ upward movement of footing with micropile reinforcement
DH0 ¼ upward movement of footing without micropile reinforcement
DP ¼ vertical pressure at depth z below ground surface due to footing dead
load pressure
Dsr ¼ change in radial stress due to sand dilation
f ¼ friction angle of sand
fcv ¼ constant-volume friction angle of sand
g ¼ unit weight
gd ¼ dry unit weight of sand
gmax ¼ maximum dry unit weight of sand
gmin ¼ minimum dry unit weight of sand
gs ¼ induced shear strain in the sand adjacent to the microplile
r ¼ area ratio ðAs =Af Þ
rb ¼ balanced area ratio
rmax ¼ maximum area ratio
sc ¼ confining pressure
sh ¼ horizontal stress
sv ¼ vertical stress
u ¼ Poisson’s ratio of the sand
sh0 ¼ initial horizontal stress
OCR ¼ over consolidation ratio

Introduction
It is well recognized that swelling of expansive soils may cause significant distress and
severe damage to overlying structures. Documented evidence of extensive damage
caused by soil expansion is available from different countries in the world. In some
locations, the estimated damage cost attributed to soil expansion exceeds the cost of
LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS 91

damages from natural disasters such as floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earth-
quakes (Chen, 1975).
For a given expansive clay with known initial conditions, structural uplift due to
soil expansion and the extent of the induced damage decrease with increasing sus-
tained structure load. In order to minimize the dead load pressure required to con-
trol the uplift movement of lightweight structures over expansive soils, a certain
amount of uplift movement is generally allowed for. This amount of permissible
uplift movement can be tolerated in a similar fashion as settlement is tolerated for
most structures. For reinforced concrete buildings with strip and/or isolated foot-
ings, a differential uplift movement of 2 cm is generally considered to be tolerable
(Chen, 1975). If the actual overburden or footing pressure is small compared to
the estimated vertical swelling pressure, the resulting expansion will be greater than
the tolerable value. In this case, micropile reinforcement can be used to compensate
for the decreased overburden or footing pressure so that expansion is within
tolerance.

Mechanism of micropiles for heave control

The micropile technique is based on inserting small-diameter steel piles (75 to
250 mm in diameter) in pre-drilled holes of larger diameter in an expansive soil
which are then filled with compacted sand to improve the frictional resistance of
the micropiles. The top section of each micropile is fastened to the foundation. Upon
water absorption by the underlying clay, the generated lateral swelling pressure is
added to the initial horizontal normal stress at the micropile surface. The induced
vertical swelling pressure tends to push the foundation upwards and to pull the
micropiles upwards with respect to the surrounding compacted sand. Small pullout
displacement, in the range of 5 to 15 mm, is enough to fully mobilize the frictional
resistance of the micropiles with respect to the sand. The magnitude of mobilized
frictional resistance decreases with lateral distance away from the interface and
therefore may be sufficient for some minimum thickness of compacted sand around
the micropiles. In a reinforced-earth experimental study, Sridharam et al. (1989)
found that with low-frictional-strength soil (clay) as a bulk material, a 15-mm thick-
ness of sand around the reinforcement (steel strips) is sufficient to increase the
interfacial shearing resistance to that of sand as the bulk material.
During micropile uplift loading (i.e., heave), the sand adjacent to the interface
tends to dilate. This dilation is not free to occur, and a horizontal boundary normal
stress develops to resist partially this dilation. The magnitude of this horizontal
boundary stress (Pb ) is added to the initial horizontal stress and to the generated lat-
eral swelling pressure, and thus sufficient anchorage force is developed to counteract
the effect of the induced vertical swelling pressure. This mechanism controls the
upward movement of lightweight structures, for which a simplified analytical formu-
lation is presented in this paper. The contribution of sand dilation to this mechanism
is explained in the following section.
92 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

Effect of sand dilation

For piles supported in sand, both the interface thickness and the displacement
required to mobilize fully the frictional resistance appear to be size-independent,
and changes in stresses and volumetric strain occur within the interface thickness
(Turner and Kulhawy, 1994). This leads to a significant scale effect in uplift load-
ing, especially for micropiles. During micropile uplift loading (i.e., heave), the
sand within the interface thickness tends to dilate. This dilation is not free to
occur and a horizontal boundary normal stress develops to resist partially this
dilation. The boundary stress (Pb ) required to prevent sand dilation completely
during uplift loading is indicated by Equation (1-a), assuming elastic plain strain
conditions and assuming that the interface acts as a thick-wall cylinder (Ugural
and Fenster, 1981):

Pb ¼ Ekgs A ð1-aÞ

where

2
b
1
a
A¼
2 ð1-bÞ
b
1þ ð1 þ 2uÞ
a

and where E is an assumed modulus related to the expansion of sand particles, k is a

constant of proportionality, gs is the induced shear strain in the sand adjacent to the
micropile, u is Poisson’s ratio for the sand, a is the inner radius of the interface (outer
radius of the micropile), and b is the outer radius of the interface (b ¼ a þ t, where
t is the interface thickness).
The interface thickness (t) is relatively small; for drilled shafts, Turner and
Kulhawy (1994) found that on average t equals 7.5 mm. However, for typical steel
piles the interface thickness is less than this value. Figure 1 shows the variation of
the parameter A in Equation (1-a) for assumed interface thicknesses of 2.5 mm
and 1 mm. The results in Figure 1 are qualitatively useful and indicate the following:

1. For a given interface thickness, the parameter A in Equation (1-a) increases with
decreasing pile diameter. This implies that the horizontal boundary stress Pb ,
increases with decreasing pile diameter, an effect that becomes significant for pile
diameter less than 250 mm (i.e., for micropiles).
2. For a given pile diameter, the parameter A in Equation (1-a) increases with
increasing interface thickness. The interface thickness, which is apparently inde-
pendent of pile size (Turner and Kulhawy, 1994), is smallest for smooth piles and
largest for very rough piles. (This implies that the boundary stress increases with
increasing pile surface roughness).
LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS 93

Figure 1. Variation of parameter (A) with pile diameter

The behavior of sand adjacent to micropiles during loading deviates from elastic
behavior and thus Equations (1-a, b) should be evaluated qualitatively just to inves-
tigate the effect of sand dilation as a function of micropile diameter on a relative
scale. However, for typical sand-supported steel piles of radius r and surface rough-
ness Rcal , (i.e., center-line average roughness), the contribution of sand dilation to
the effective radial stress, Dsr , can be predicted from the following equation, which
was developed from simple cavity expansion theory and laboratory test data (Jardine
et al., 1998);

4GRcal
Dsr ¼ ð2Þ
r
where G is the shear modulus of sand, that can be correlated with the relative density
of the sand and the effective confining stress.
Lo Presti (1987) has suggested the following correlation for G, which originates
from small strain testing:

0 n
G s
¼ S expðcDr Þ c ð3Þ
Pa Pa
In which Pa is the atmospheric pressure (101 kPa), Dr is the relative density of the
sand, and s0c is the effective confining stress. Randolph et al. (1994) suggested that
constant values of S ¼ 400, c ¼ 0:7, and n ¼ 0:5 be adopted for a clean silica sand.
94 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

Lower values for the parameter S are suggested by Randolph et al. (1994) if the silt
content is greater than 5%.
It should be emphasized that the use of Equation (3) to estimate the small-strain
shear modulus of sand is limited by real soil behavior, for which the shear mod-
ulus of soil is dependent on the strain level. Moreover, the lateral stiffness of the
clay surrounding the sand annulus may affect the computation of a representative
value of the operational small-strain shear modulus for the sand surrounding the
micropile.

Analytical formulation
DOWNWARD FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE OFFERED BY MICROPILES
Figure 2 shows a steel micropile of outer diameter D inserted to a depth L in a pre-
drilled hole of larger diameter in expansive clay. The clearance between the outside
surface of the micropile and the expansive clay is filled with compacted dense sand.
The upper section of the micropile is embedded in a rigid foundation with a contact
area Af bearing directly on the expansive clay. Upon clay wetting, a vertical-swelling
pressure Psv is developed which tends to push the foundation upward and therefore
tends to retract the micropiles from the surrounding sand.
As shown in Figure 2, the downward frictional resistance offered by the micropile
has three components:

1. The lateral (horizontal) stress sho due to the overburden pressure plus the effect
of sand compaction around the micropile. This component is given by

Figure 2. Mechanism of micropiles for heave control

LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS 95

sh0 ¼ K0 gz ð4Þ

where K0 is the initial earth pressure coefficient, taking into account the effect of
sand compaction, g is the unit weight, and z represents the depth below ground
level. An estimate for K0 can be obtained from (Sherif et al., 1984)
 
gd
K0 ¼ ð1  sin fÞ þ 5:5 1 ð5Þ
gd min

where gd is the dry unit weight of the compacted sand and gd min is the minimum
dry unit weight of the sand.
2. The lateral (horizontal) swelling pressure Psl acting normal to the outside surface
of micropile.
3. The increase in lateral horizontal stress Dsr due to sand dilation induced by clay
wetting. A reasonably accurate estimate for this component can be obtained from
Equation (2).

Combining these components of the pullout capacity of micropiles in sand, the

downward frictional resistance R offered by N micropiles, each of embedded length
L and diameter D, is given by:
Z L
R¼ ðK0 gz þ Psl þ Dsr Þ tan df pDN dz ð6Þ
0

where df is the friction angle at the sand-micropile interface at failure. Assuming

constant values of df ; K0 ; Psl , and Dsr for the given depth, the above integration
reduces to


4GRcal
R ¼ K0 ðsv Þave þ Psl þ tan df As ð7Þ
r

where ðsv Þave is the average effective overburden pressure evaluated at the mid-length
of the micropiles and As is the total lateral surface area of N micropiles of embedded
length L and diameter D.
The interface friction angle df at failure is independent of the initial relative density
of the sand (Vesic, 1977; Lehane et al., 1993; Jardine et al., 1992). The magnitude of
df developed in the field was found to equal the constant-volume interface friction
angle dcv , which is mainly controlled by pile surface roughness and the effective grain
size of sand (D50 ). This angle is best determined in the laboratory by conducting an
appropriate shear test. However, the magnitude of df was also found to be a slightly
lower than the constant-volume friction angle of sand fcv and for practical purposes,
df can be determined from (Randolph et al., 1994):

df ¼ fcv  4 ð8Þ
96 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

PARTIAL AND COMPLETE CONTROL OF HEAVE

During clay swelling, a reduction in the effective stress occurs, accompanied by an
increase in the void ratio. The amount of heave DH0 experienced by a footing of area
Af resting directly on expansive clay without the use of micropile reinforcement can
be expressed as

Z H
ðPsv  PÞ
DH0 ¼ dz; ð9Þ
0 E

where: Psv is the vertical swelling pressure at depth z, P is the effective stress at depth
z below the ground surface plus the increase in vertical stress DP due to any applied
dead load pressure on the footing; E is an assumed modulus related to both the
expansion and compression of soil particles (this parameter is introduced only for
the purpose of calculating the percent reduction in heave due to micropile reinforce-
ment); and H is the thickness of the swelling clay below the base of the footing and
within the active zone (i.e., the zone of seasonal variation of moisture content below
the footing).
The amount of heave DH1 exhibited by a footing of area Af resting directly on an
expansive clay reinforced with micropiles consists of two components and may be
expressed as

DH1 ¼ DH01 þ DH001 ; ð10Þ

where DH01 is the total upward movement occurring in the zone of reinforcement
along the embedded depth L of the micropiles, and where DH001 is the total
upward movement of the swelling clay occurring outside the zone of the rein-
forced clay (i.e., along H  L). These two components can similarly be expressed
as follows:

Z L
ðPsv Af  PAf  RÞ
DH01 ¼ dz ð11-aÞ
0 EAf
Z H
ðPsv  PÞ
DH001 ¼ dz ð11-bÞ
L E

The percent reduction in foundation heave RH due to soil reinforcement with

micropiles may then be written as:

DH0  DH1
RH ¼ ð12Þ
DH0

Assuming a constant value of Psv for a given depth, and Equations (9) and (10)
may be substituted into Equation (12), with R taken from Equation (7), to obtain:
LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS 97

" #
r L
RH ¼ RH ð13-aÞ
rb H  1
P dz
Psv 0

1
rb ¼ h

 i ð13-bÞ
K0 ðsPv Þsvave: þ K0 þ 4 PGsv Rrcal tan df

where r ¼ As =Af (referred to as the ‘area ratio’ in this paper), rb is a property of the
particular clay-compacted sand-micropiles system (henceforth referred to as the
‘balanced area ratio’), and K0 is the ratio of lateral to vertical swelling pressure, with
the remaining symbols as defined previously. The integration in Equation (13-a) can
be replaced by Pave H, where Pave is an equivalent average distribution of Po þ DP
along H. The resulting expression for RH is given by
2 3



r L 66 1 7;
7 Pave
RH ¼ 4 < 1; ð14-aÞ
rb H Pave 5 Psv
1
Psv

which may be rearranged to give

 
r RH Pave Pave
¼ 1 ; 41 ð14-bÞ
rb L=H Psv Psv

For a square footing (with a plan area of B2 ) and an assumed vertical stress dis-
tribution of 2:1 due to the dead load pressure Pdl the following simple equation may
be used to estimate Pave :
Pdl
Pave ¼ ðsv Þave þ ð15Þ
1þH B

Figure 3 shows a graphical interpretation of Equation (14-b). A sliding triangle

with a base equal to unity and a height equal to 1  Pave =Psv describes Equation
(14-b). Figure 3, can be used to find the magnitude of r for a prescribed percent
reduction in heave and a given Pave =Psv ratio.
The ‘area ratio’ required for complete control of uplift movement will be designa-
ted rmax (‘maximum area ratio’) and can be obtained by substituting RH ¼ 1 in
Equation (14-b):

 
1 Pave Pave
rmax ¼ rb 1 ; 41 ð16Þ
L=H Psv Psv
This equation reveals that for the case where L ¼ H, the maximum area ratio rmax
in Equation (16) varies between zero and rb depending on the magnitude of Pave =Psv .
It should be noted that for a given expansive clay and given sand properties, the
smaller the diameter of the micropiles, the smaller the area ratio required to control
98 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

Figure 3. Design chart for micropile reinforcement for heave control

(completely and partially) the uplift movement. Figure 4 shows the variation of rb
with diameter for steel micropiles embedded in dense sand and highly desiccated
(over consolidated) swelling clay. The decrease in rb with decreasing micropile dia-
meter is attributed to the contribution of sand dilation to the downward frictional
resistance exerted by the micropiles during swelling; this contribution is a function
of micropile diameter. This leads to the conclusion that a larger number of micro-
piles of smaller diameter is better than a smaller number of micropiles of larger dia-
meter for a given lateral surface area As . Figure 5 shows that for a given As , the
percent reduction in heave increases as micropile diameter decreases. Note that
Figure 5 resembles Figure 1 and reflects the effect of sand dilation, which is a func-
tion of micropile diameter.
The previous formulation presumes that the dead load pressure is trans-
mitted directly from the footing to the soil and not carried by the micropiles then
LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS 99

Figure 4. Variation of balanced area ratio with pile diameter

Figure 5. Variation of percent reduction in heave with micropile diameter

100 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

transferred to the surrounding soil (in a similar fashion to piles). The micropiles are
assumed to act only as anchors to the footing.

Estimation of lateral and vertical swelling pressures

Both lateral and vertical swelling pressures are important parameters in the design
of micropile reinforcements. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the order of mag-
nitude of these pressures by testing clay samples at initial conditions similar to
those expected in the field. Swelling pressure tests similar to those described by
Komornica and Zeitlen (1965) can be made in special odometers or swelling pres-
sure rings, fitted with instruments to quantify the magnitude of the lateral swelling
pressures associated with particular values of vertical pressure. Typical data are
shown in Figure 6. If the data shown in Figure 6 become available, it will be pos-
sible to estimate the vertical and lateral pressures which would be exerted by the
clay upon wetting for various amounts of vertical swelling (Komornica and Zei-
tlen, 1965).

Figure 6. Typical functions of percent swell for specimens tested under various vertical pressure in
odometer (Komornica and Zeitlen, 1965)
LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS 101

Design methodology
The work presented in this paper suggests a design methodology for micropile rein-
forcement to control the upward movement of lightweight structures supported
upon expansive soils. The proposed design methodology is illustrated by the follow-
ing hypothetical example:
Consider the square footing in Figure 7, which supports the load of a one-story
structure. A plan area of 2 m2 m was calculated for the foundation based on a pre-
sumptive allowable soil pressure of 200 kPa and assuming that the footing is
designed to support a structural load of four stories in the future. Because of the
large plan area of the footing, the applied dead load pressure from a single story
is small (about 25 kPa). The embedded depth of the footing is 2 m below ground
level. Basic soil tests yield the average soil properties shown in Figure 7, and it is
assumed that the data shown in Figure 6 are applicable.
The proposed design methodology consists of the following steps:

1. Estimate the expansion under the applied dead load and overburden pressure
(without micropile reinforcement). From Equation (15), Pave ¼ 73 kPa. The
initial conditions of the clay below the footing is similar to those for the clay spe-
cimens in Figure 6. From Figure 6, the swell percent corresponding to
sv ¼ Pave ¼ 73 kPa is about 5.1%. This average swell percent amounts to
10.2 cm total heave [(5.1/100)(200 cm)=10.2 cm].
2. Estimate the required reduction in heave (RH). For a tolerable uplift movement
of 2 cm [average tolerable percent swell=(2/200)(100%)=1%], the estimated
RH ¼ ½ð10:2  2Þ=10:2
ð100%Þ ¼ 80:4%. This required reduction in heave may

Figure 7. Soil profile and basic soil properties (design example)

102 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

be provided by micropiles surrounded by compacted sand. In this example, a

sand commercially known as ‘Suwayleh Sand’ is used with the following proper-
ties: gd min ¼ 14:5 kN=m3 , gd max ¼ 17:6 kN=m3 . At a relative compaction density
of 80% and stress level of 50–100 kPa, the friction angle f is 40 and the constant
volume friction angle fcv is 33 . The interface friction angle df can be taken to be
29 ½df ¼ fcv  4
.
3. Estimate the vertical and lateral swell pressures associated with a tolerable expan-
sion of 2 cm (1% tolerable swell). From Figure 6, the values of vertical and lat-
eral pressures for 1% swell are 245 kPa and 216 kPa, respectively.
4. Estimate the balanced area ratio rb from Equation (13-b) using the following
input parameters:

K0 ¼ 0:83 as estimated from Equation (5)

G ¼ 79 MPa (from Equation (3) with S ¼ 400 for clean silica sand)
Vertical swell pressure ¼ 245 kPa, at 2 cm heave (1% swell)
Lateral swell pressure ¼ 216 kPa, at 2 cm heave (1% swell)
K0 ¼ 216=245 ¼ 0:88
Rcal ¼ 15 mm (typical value for steel piles)
The above calculations give rb ¼ 1:34, assuming a micropile diameter of
15 cm.

5. From Equation (14-b) or Figure 3, the calculated area ratio r required to reduce
heave by 80.4% is r ¼ ð0:56rb Þ ¼ 0:76.
6. The total lateral area As of the micropiles required to reduce foundation heave by
80.4% with safety factor of 1.25 is As ¼ ð1:25Þð0:76Þð2  2Þ ¼ 3:8 m2 . With an

Figure 8. Micropile reinforcement to control foundation heave (design example)

LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS 103

embedded length L ¼ H ¼ 2 m and a diameter of 15 cm for the micropiles, the

required number of micropiles is 4. Figure 8, shows the final design.

Conclusions
In this study, micropiles consisting of small diameter steel rods embedded in compac-
ted sand is introduced as a technique to control the upward movement of lightweight
structures founded on expansive soils.
Although the presented analytical formulation utilizes basic concepts from the
theory of elasticity, it still provides a physically sound basis for delineating the role
of the significant factors influencing the performance of micropiles in heave control.
For a given expansive soil, the amount of reduction in foundation heave was found
to increase with:

– Increasing normalized area ratio ðr=rb Þ,

– Increasing sustained load ratio (Pave =Psv ), and
– Increasing normalized embedded depth of micropiles with respect to the thick-
ness of the swelling clay below the base of the footing and within the active zone
(i.e., L=H).

The balanced area ratio (rb ) of a given clay-sand-micropile system was found to
decrease with decreasing micropile diameter. The dependency of rb on micropile dia-
meter suggests that for a given embedded depth and given total lateral surface area
of the micropiles used for reinforcement, a larger number of micropiles of smaller
diameter is better than a smaller number of micropiles of larger diameter.

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for critically reviewing the manu-
script, and improving the clarity of this paper.

References
Chen, F. H. (1975), Foundations on Expansive Soils, 1st ed., Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Jardine, R. J., Everton, S. J., and Lehane, B. M. (1992), Friction Coefficients for Piles in Cohe-
sionless Soils, Proc. SUT International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and
Foundation Behavior, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 661–680.
Jardine, R. J., Overy, R. F., and Chow, F. C. (1998), Axial Capacity of Offshore Piles in Dense
North Sea Sands, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
124(2), 171–178.
Komornica, A., and Zeitlen, J. G. (1965), An Apparatus for Measuring Lateral Swelling Pres-
sure in the Laboratory, Proc. 6th International Conference on SMFE, Montreal, vol. 2,
pp. 278–281.
 104 O. K. NUSIER AND A. S. ALAWNEH

Lehane, B. M., Jardine, R. J., Bond, A. J., and Frank, R. (1993), Mechanisms of Shaft Fric-
tion in Sand from Instrumented Pile Tests, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(1),
19–35.
Lo Presti, D. (1987), Mechanical Behavior of Ticino Sand from Resonant Column Tests, Ph.D.
thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
Randolph, M. F., Dolwin, J., and Beck, R. (1994), Design of Driven Piles in Sand,
Geotechnique, 44(3), 427–448.
Sherif, M. A., Fang, Y. S., and Sherif, R. I. (1984), Ka and K0 behind Rotating and Non-yield-
ing Walls, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 110, GT1, 41–56.
Sridharam, A., Srinivasa Murthy, B. R., Bindumadhava, and Revanasiddappa, K. (1989),
Technique for Using Fine-grained Soil in Reinforced Earth, Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering Division, 117(8), 1174–1190.
Turner, J. P., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1994), Physical Modeling of Drilled Shaft Side Resistance
in Sand, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, 17(3), 282–290.
Ugural, A. C., and Fenster, S. K. (1981), Advanced Strength and Applied Elasticity, Elsevier
North Holland, New York, New York.
Vesic, A. S. (1977), Design of Pile Foundation, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice no. 42, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D. C.

View publication stats