TECHNICAL NOTES

Buckling of Micropiles
David R. Shields, P.E., M.ASCE1

Abstract: Building codes and common design practices generally assume that the lateral support provided by the soil is sufficient to
prevent buckling of fully embedded piles. As small diameter grouted piles 共micropiles兲 have evolved from relatively low capacity friction
piles to current applications that include high capacity elements, there is a need to revisit the issue of potential buckling of these very
slender piles when embedded in soft soils. Pile buckling loads obtained from a semiempirical relationship are compared to the allowable
loads permitted by current and proposed codes and design guidelines. It is concluded that buckling is generally not a concern for the most
common types of micropile design, but there are some designs permitted under the codes and design guidelines for which buckling may
be a controlling design factor.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2007兲133:3共334兲
CE Database subject headings: Micro piles; Buckling; Piles; Building codes.

Introduction guidelines contain a similar but higher limitation of 600 MPa

Small diameter grouted piles 共also known as micropiles, minip-
iles, pin piles, and root piles兲 have evolved from a niche product
used for retrofit work to an accepted foundation alternative with a
wide range of applications. These piles were originally developed
in Italy in the 1950s where they were called “pali radice” 共root
piles兲. Initially they consisted of a steel reinforcing bar grouted in
a drilled hole, as shown in Fig. 1共a兲, with design pile capacities
generally less than 445 kN 共50 t兲. Current applications have
evolved to include high capacity piles of over 1,780 kN 共200 t兲
with heavy steel pipe reinforcing socketed into bedrock, as shown
in Fig. 1共b兲.
The rapidly growing use of these piles in the Boston area in
the 1980s led to development of building code provisions that
were adopted by the Massachusetts Building Code in 1989. About
ten years later, the Federal Highway Administration 共FHwA兲 is-
sued a manual 共FHwA 2000兲 providing design and construction
guidelines for use of these piles in the transportation sector. Re-
cently, building code provisions based on the Massachusetts
Building Code with some additional input from the FHwA guide-
lines have been proposed for adoption by the International Build-
ing Code 共Johnsen and Gallagher 2005兲.
The original Massachusetts Building Code provisions limited
the maximum usable strength of the reinforcing steel to 414 MPa
共60 ksi兲. This was done primarily to prevent compression failure
of the grout prior to mobilizing the compressive strength of the
steel 共strain compatibility at ultimate strength兲. The FHwA design
共87 ksi兲, which is based on a maximum concrete strain of 0.003.
For the original type of pile section shown in Fig. 1共a兲, the grout
carries a significant portion of the compression load and is con-
fined only by the surrounding soil. The potential for premature
failure of the grout due to strain incompatibility is an important
issue for this design. As micropiles evolved to include the high
capacity piles shown in Fig. 2共b兲, there was a need to modify the
limitation on the usable steel strength. For the pile shown in Fig.
2共b兲, most of the compression load is carried by the steel, and the
confinement of the grout by the pipe section and bedrock socket
prevents premature grout failure. For this type of pile design, the
limitation on the usable steel strength becomes needlessly restric-
tive. A proposed revision to the Massachusetts Building Code will
remove the steel strength limitation for this type of pile design.
Although the limitation on the usable steel strength was
adopted primarily to address concerns about strain compatibility,
it also addressed a secondary concern about the potential for
buckling failure when these slender piles are embedded in very
soft soils. Building codes and common design practices generally
assume that the lateral support provided by the soil is sufficient to
prevent buckling of fully embedded piles. For example, the Inter-
national Building Code states that “Any soil other than fluid soil
shall be deemed to afford sufficient lateral support to the pier or
pile to prevent buckling . . . .” With the ongoing trend toward use
of higher design steel strengths in micropiles, this assumption
may not be valid for micropiles and the potential for buckling in
soft soils needs to be revisited.

1
Senior Consultant, GEI Consultants, Inc., 1021 Main Street,
Winchester, MA 01890. E-mail: dshields@geiconsultants.com Evaluation of Buckling Load
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2007. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
Theoretical solutions for elastic buckling of piles using beam-on-
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review
elastic foundation 共subgrade modulus兲 models were derived in the
and possible publication on May 26, 2006; approved on October 3, 2006. 1920s and subsequently extended by various authors to include
This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi- refinements such as the effects of different end-restraint condi-
ronmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 3, March 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN tions, subgrade modulus varying with depth, soil yield, and initial
1090-0241/2007/3-334–337/$25.00. misalignment of the pile 共Bjerrum 1957; Davisson 1963兲. The

334 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007

Fig. 1. 共a兲 Original micropile; 共b兲 high capacity rock-socketed mi-
cropile
early theoretical analyses and practical experience indicated that
piles embedded in soil will not buckle. However, in the 1950s
there was a resurgence of interest in buckling of piles due to the
occurrence of actual buckling failures in very slender steel pile
sections 共steel bars and rails兲 driven through soft Norwegian clays
to end bearing on rock. Several investigators published empirical
data from full scale load tests on slender steel pile sections and
from model tests using various materials for the model piles
共Bjerrum 1957; Bergfelt 1957, Brandtzaeg and Harboe 1957;
Golder and Skipp 1957兲. Combining this empirical data with the
relationship derived from the theoretical solution yields a simple
semiempirical equation for the critical buckling load.
For the ideal case of a perfectly straight column with pinned
ends embedded in a linear-elastic soil 共uniform soil profile with
constant subgrade modulus, no misalignment or initial stresses,
no plastic yield兲 the theoretical buckling load given by the beam-
on-elastic foundation solution is 共Bjerrum 1957兲
Fig. 2. Comparison of Bergfelt’s equation with buckling data for
steel bars in soft clay
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007 / 335
Fig. 3. Comparison of buckling load with allowable design loads for
a conventional bar-reinforced micropile
Pcr = 2冑kbEI 共1兲
where Pcr = critical pile buckling load; k = horizontal subgrade
modulus 共force/ length3兲; b = pile width; and EI= flexural stiffness
of the pile cross section. The semiempirical p-y relationship de-
veloped by Reese et al. 共2000兲 can be used to obtain an approxi-
mate relationship between subgrade modulus k and the undrained
shear strength su for soft cohesive soils. From the p-y relationship
presented in Reese et al. 共2000兲 for soft clay
p50 = 0.5共9sub兲
y 50 = 2.5共␧50兲b
with ␧50 = 0.020 for soft clay. This yields the following relation-
ship for the subgrade modulus:
p50
kb = = 90su 共2兲
y 50
Substituting Eq. 共2兲 in Eq. 共1兲 yields the following simple equa-
tion for the buckling load:
Pcr = 19冑suEI 共3兲
This equation is for an idealized case which neglects the effects of
initial eccentricity due to misalignment of the pile, nonuniformi-
ties in the soil and pile cross section and initial stresses in the pile.
These effects tend to reduce the buckling load, and thus, this
equation is expected to overestimate the actual buckling load.
Using data from model tests and full scale load tests, Bergfelt
共1957兲 developed the following semiempirical relationship, which
is similar in form to Eq. 共3兲:
Pcr = 共8 – 10兲冑suEI 共4兲
As shown in Fig. 2, Bergfelts’s equation provides a good fit with
published test data for buckling of steel bars in soft clay 共see
Bergfelt 1957; Brandtzaeg and Harboe 1957; Golder and Skipp
1957兲. Most of this data are from laboratory scale model tests,
but it also includes data from several full scale field load tests
and covers a range of diameters from 3 to 40 mm 共from 0.125 to
1.5 in.兲. Bergfelt’s semiempirical relationship includes the effects
Fig. 4. Comparison of buckling load with allowable design loads for
a pipe-reinforced micropile Fig. 5. Comparison of buckling load with allowable design loads for
a heavy reinforcing bar with minimal grout cover
of imperfect alignment, nonuniformities, and initial stresses
which are not included in the equation derived for the idealized
• Proposed International Building Code 共IBC兲 provisions; and
case. Comparison of Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 indicates that, on average,
• FHwA design guidelines.
the combined effect of these factors reduces the buckling load by
The allowable design stresses permitted by these codes and de-
about one-half.
sign guidelines are summarized in Table 1. For the examples in
The buckling load is also affected by the end-restraint con-
Figs. 3–5, the unconfined compressive strength of the grout is
ditions. Davisson points out that the theoretical buckling loads for
assumed to be 34.5 MPa 共5 ksi兲. A maximum available steel
pinned-head and fixed-head conditions are the same for
strength of 1,034 MPa 共150 ksi兲 is assumed for bar reinforcing,
long piles embedded in soil with uniform subgrade modulus, but
and a maximum available strength of 552 MPa 共80 ksi兲 is as-
fixity at the pile head can significantly increase the resistance to
sumed for pipe reinforcing. These maximum available steel
buckling under other conditions 共Davissson 1963兲. Thus, Eq. 共4兲
strengths are limited to different maximum usable values by the
represents a conservative bound for piles with fixity at the pile
different codes and design guidelines. With the proposed revi-
head.
sions to the MBC, a designer could avoid the limitation on usable
steel strength for strain compatibility of the grout by neglecting
the contribution of the unconfined grout outside the steel reinforc-
Application to Micropile Design
ing. Allowable loads are shown for a design that includes the
unconfined grout, labeled MBC 共1兲, and a design that neglects the
Bergfelt’s equation can be used to generate plots of buckling load
unconfined grout, labeled MBC 共2兲.
versus soil undrained shear strength to assess the buckling poten-
For the conventional bar-reinforced cross section 共Fig. 3兲 and
tial of different pile cross sections. The plots shown in Figs. 3–5
the pipe-reinforced cross section 共Fig. 4兲, the code provisions
illustrate the buckling potential for three different cases:
generally provide reasonable protection against buckling, al-
• A “conventional” pile with a 35.8 mm 共#11兲 reinforcing bar
though buckling could become a design issue in very soft soils for
and 152 mm 共6 in.兲 grout diameter;
designs based on the more aggressive FHwA guidelines. For the
• A pile with 102 mm 共4 in.兲 outer diameter ⫻9.5 mm 共3 / 8 in.兲
pile section consisting of a heavy steel bar with minimal grout
wall pipe reinforcing and 152 mm 共6 in.兲 grout diameter; and
cover 共Fig. 5兲, buckling needs to be considered for designs based
• A pile consisting of a heavy 57.3 mm 共#18兲 reinforcing bar
with minimum 2.5 mm 共1 in.兲 grout cover.
The flexural stiffness of the pile cross sections are computed
Table 1. Allowable Stresses Permitted by Building Codes and Design
using Young’s modulus values of 207,000 MPa 共30,000 ksi兲
Guidelines
for the steel and 20,700 MPa 共3,000 ksi兲 for the grout. The buck-
ling load curves assume elastic behavior that is not limited by Code/guideline Steel stress Grout stress
the material strengths or strain incompatibility. Below an un- MBC 共revised兲 0.4 f y 0.33 f c⬘
drained shear strength of 10 kPa 共209 psf兲, the curves are shown Max. f y = 413 MPa Max. f c⬘ = 33.1 MPa
as dashed lines, because this represents an extremely soft soil 共Max. f y = 60 ksi兲a 共Max. f c⬘ = 4.8 ksi兲
condition that is unlikely to be encountered at sites located on IBC 共proposed兲 0.4 f y 0.33 f c⬘
land. Max. f y = 551 MPa
The buckling load is compared to the maximum allowable 共Max. f y = 80 ksi兲
axial loads permitted by the following current and proposed codes FHwA guidelines 0.47 f y 0.4 f c⬘
and design guidelines: Max. f y = 599 MPa
• Massachusetts Building Code 共MBC兲 with the currently pro- 共Max. f y = 87 ksi兲
a
posed revisions; Applies when grout is not confined by steel or sound bedrock.

336 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007

on all of the codes and design guidelines. Evaluations of this type
suggest that the codes and design guidelines should include some
restriction on the ratio of bar diameter to grout diameter when
micropiles with solid bar reinforcing are embedded in soft soil. A
restriction of this nature is currently being considered for the
MBC.
Conclusions
Comparison of estimated buckling loads for different micro-
pile cross sections with the allowable loads permitted by current
and proposed codes and design guidelines indicates that buckling
could control the design of fully embedded piles in some cases.
With the ongoing evolution of micropile applications to include
higher pile capacities using higher allowable steel stresses,
the common assumption that buckling does not have to be con-
sidered for fully embedded piles is no longer valid. The semi-
empirical relationship developed by Bergfelt 共1957兲 关Eq. 共4兲兴,
combined with an appropriate safety factor, provides a practical
method for evaluating the buckling potential for a proposed mi-
cropile design.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this technical note:
E ⫽ Young’s modulus of pile;
b ⫽ pile width;
fy ⫽ yield strength of steel;
f ⬘c ⫽ compressive strength of grout;
k ⫽ horizontal subgrade modulus of soil;
Pcr ⫽ critical pile buckling load;
p50 ⫽ lateral force on pile at 50% of ultimate lateral soil
resistance;
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007 / 337
su ⫽ undrained shear strength of soil;
y 50 ⫽ lateral pile deflection at 50% of ultimate lateral soil
resistance; and
␧50 ⫽ soil strain at 50% of compressive strength.
References
Bergfelt, A. 共1957兲. “The axial and lateral load bearing capacity and
failure by buckling of piles in soft clay.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Butterworths Scien-
tific Publications, London, 8–13.
Bjerrum, L. 共1957兲. “Norwegian experiences with steel piles to rock.”
Geotechnique, 7共2兲, 73–96.
Brandtzaeg, A., and Harboe, E. 共1957兲. “Buckling tests of slender steel
piles in soft, quick clay.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Butterworths Scientific Publications,
London, 19–23.
Davisson, M. T. 共1963兲. “Estimating buckling loads for piles.” Proc., 2nd
Pan American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 1, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 351–369.
Federal Highway Administration 共FHwA兲. 共2000兲. “Micropile design and
construction guidelines—Implementation manual.” Publication No.
FHWA-SA-97-070, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C.
Golder, H. Q., and Skipp, B. O. 共1957兲. “The buckling of piles in
soft clay.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, Butterworths Scientific Publications, London,
35–39.
Johnsen, L. F., and Gallagher, M. J. 共2005兲. “Proposed micropile section
for the 2006 IB.” Proc., 30th Annual Conf. on Deep Foundations,
Deep Foundations Institute, Hawthorne, N.J., 183–190.
Reese, L. C., Wang, S. T., Isenhower, W. M., Arrellaga, J. A., and
Hendrix, J. 共2000兲. LPILE plus version 4.0 technical manual, Ensoft
Inc., Austin, Tex.