See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228344913

Classification of Micropile Underpinning

Methods Exemplified by Projects in Turku
Article in Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering January 2010

CITATION

READS

62

2 authors:
Jouko Lehtonen

Ville-Veikko Hyypp

Turun ammattikorkeakoulu

Turun ammattikorkeakoulu

4 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Jouko Lehtonen

Retrieved on: 21 August 2016

Classification of Micropile
Underpinning Methods Exemplified by
Projects in Turku
Jouko Lehtonen
Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland
Email: jouko.lehtonen@turkuamk.fi

Ville-Veikko Hyypp
Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland
Email: ville.hyyppa@turkuamk.fi

ABSTRACT
The most common among the many reasons for foundation underpinning are seismic retrofit and
prevention of harmful settlement. Micropiles are typically used for underpinning, whereby a separate
load transfer structure is often provided between the micropiles and the existing superstructure. The
present article introduces a classification of the various kinds of load transfer structures. In addition,
the article proposes a new way of modeling underpinning using an adapted UML (Unified Modeling
LanguageTM) sequence diagram. The adaptation of UML modeling allows the linking of the
installation process and its various stages with the structural descriptions of, e.g., structural members
and force diagrams. The classification can be used to support planning decisions, or to estimate costs
or duration from the owners point of view.

KEYWORDS:

underpinning, micropile, jet grouting, load transfer structure, seismic

retrofit, UML modeling

INTRODUCTION
Major renovation measures, such as foundation underpinning, are usually taken either at the
end of the life cycle of the structural components or in connection with major amendment work
(Wong 2000). Aikivuori (1994) lists five reasons for refurbishment: (i) failure in the building due
to deterioration, (ii) change in use, (iii) optimization of economic factors, (iv) subjective features
of decision maker, and (v) change of circumstances.
Renovation measures can result in visible changes or, on the other hand, the results can be
invisible (Chau et al. 2003). Renovation projects at the end of a buildings life cycle are
unavoidable if the building is to continue being used for at least one more life cycle. Most
renovation projects (those relating to the building services or the facade, for example) are of a
nature that concerns all buildings. Typically, underpinning is only necessary in buildings where
the foundation is supported by wood piles or wood rafts (Hartikainen, 2000). The need for
foundation underpinning arises as the underground wooden structures rot or when it is desirable

- 295 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

296

to reduce the settlement of structures, e.g. when existing foundations are disturbed by
underground construction, such as tunneling (Han and Ye, 2006a; Han and Ye, 2006b). Also, the
load-bearing capacity of foundations may require enhancement because of increased loads due to,
for instance, the construction of an additional floor (Han and Ye, 2006a; Han and Ye, 2006b,
Lehtonen, 2009). In addition, in seismic zones the safety of foundations is improved by using
micropiles to provide additional foundation support (Bromenschenkel, 1997; Herbst, 1997;
Mason, 1997; Miura, 1997; Okahara, 1997; Okahara et al., 1997; Schlosser and Frank, 1997;
Tatsuta et al., 1997; Tsukada and Ichimuda, 1997; Misra et al., 1999; Okumatsu, 1999; Armour,
2002; Fukui, 2006). However, foundations are frequently underpinned only when the uneven
settlement or cracks have reached harmful proportions (Lizzi, 1982; Thorburn, 1993).
During different periods, various underpinning techniques have been applied (Mason and
Kulhawy, 1999; Thornburn, 1993). Until the 1980s, the methods used included, in particular,
foundation extension by deepening and broadening, different kinds of pile work, soil nailing, and
chemical grouting (Bradbury, 1993; Bruce, 1993; Cole, 1993; Hutchison, 1993; Littlejohn, 1993;
Lizzi, 1982; Pryke, 1993; Thorburn, 1993; Gould et al., 2002; Perko, 2005). Micropiles and jet
grouting have been common underpinning methods since the 1980s (Eronen, 1997; Schlosser and
Frank, 1997; Klosinski, 2000; Fross, 2006; Nicholson and Pinyot, 2006). The steel-structured
micropiles are installed by drilling, driving, jacking, or screwing, depending on the circumstances
and the installation equipment available (Lizzi, 1982; Lizzi, 1993; Korkeakoski et al., 2000;
Ruben et al., 2000; Lehtonen, 2001; Pienpaalutusohje, PPO 2007).
In underpinning, the existing superstructure is structurally integrated with new piles (Bruce,
1989) or, for example, jet grouted columns. Tawast (1993) has suggested a specific classification
of the so called load transfer structures, based on a force diagram separately depicting the
occurrence of compression and tension forces (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.). Lizzi (1982) describes
foundation underpinning without pile preloading, i.e., following Tawasts Cases 1 and 2. On the
other hand, pile preloading by means of hydraulic jacks is also common following Cases 3 and 4,
Fig. 2 (Gupte, 1989; ONeill and Pierry, 1989; Bradbury, 1993; Cole, 1993; Hutchison, 1993;
Vehmas, 2000). Preloading has also been applied in foundation deepening (Pryke, 1993) and piles
have been installed by jacking, whereby the installation even produces preloading (Bradbury
1993). Preloading has further been implemented by mounting a tendon inside the micropile and
by grouting it to the tip of the pile. By pulling at the tendon and using the pile head as support,
elastic contraction of the pile is achieved (Bruce et al., 1990; Hayward Baker, 2005). In addition
to pile installation and preloading, jacks have been used to straighten or lift the superstructure
(Vehmas, 2000; Smith, 2003; Perl, 2009; Vunneli 2009).

FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING IN TURKU

Underpinning is particularly common in Turku, Finland. At the moment, the total number and
extent of projects in Turku is exceptionally great even internationally speaking. A database
containing about 200 different parameters from some 100 underpinning projects has been
compiled (DATU 2008). This database, called DATU, is one of the most extensive of its kind in
the world. The data has been gathered from the property owners, the project planners, and from
the building supervision authority in Turku.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

Figure 1: Load transfer cases 1 and 2 in underpinning (Tawast, 1993)

297

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

Figure 2: Load transfer cases 35 in underpinning (Tawast, 1993)

298

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

299

Figure 3: Load transfer cases 6 and 7 in underpinning (Tawast, 1993)

The user interface can be accessed by a web browser and it is possible to work in the database
over the world wide web system. Both Finnish- and English-language versions of the user
interface are available.
In Turku, the thickness of the soft clay layer (Fig. 4) varies from a couple of meters to as
much as 60 m (Korkeakoski et al., 2000). If the thickness of the soft soil layers under a building
in Turku exceeds 15 m, micropiles are usually used, whereas in areas with soft layers of less than
15 m in thickness, either micropiles or jet grouting is used. The costs of underpinning usually
amount to 150...450 /net m2 (Lehtonen, 2008).

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

300

Figure 4: Soil profile in Turku city centre.

Before the 1940s, floating piles or cohesive piles, were commonly used. Foundations
underpinned in this manner tend to sink if the soil layers consist of very soft clay (su < 15 kN/m2),
as they do in Turku. Attempts have been made to even out the settlement by piling, but buildings
underpinned with cohesive piles have suffered uneven settlement of harmful proportions.
Wooden cohesive piling may remain unaffected by rot for a great length of time unless the
groundwater table sinks to a level below that of the foundation. The characteristic tendency of a
construction supported by cohesive piling to settle renders the supportive piling safer through two
mechanisms: (i) the settlement partly reduces the effect of groundwater recession, and (ii) no
cavity is formed under the foundation, as is easily the case with supportive piling. From the 1950s
and until the end of the 1960s, supporting piles were used in Turku, with tips extending to the
bearing stratum or bedrock. Wooden foundations with supporting piles are especially exposed to
decay by rotting due to drops in the groundwater level and when, in addition, a void is created
under the foundation as a result of soil layer consolidation. Damage in buildings with wooden
piling may also be due to other reasons such as vibration caused by traffic, leaking sewerage, and
additional loads on the superstructure (Lehtonen, 2009).

LOAD TRANSFER STRUCTURES IN UNDERPINNING

UML modeling
In this study, the new method applied comprises an adapted UML (Unified Modeling
LanguageTM) modeling sequence diagram to illustrate the transfer of forces (in the manner of a
force diagram) parallel with the timing of the various construction steps. The UML sequence
diagram shows how a group of objects interact in a given example (object source). The modified
UML sequence diagram allows the combination of the process flowchart and the force diagram.
In this case, the horizontal axis represents time and the forces are depicted vertically, compression
as a downward arrow and tension as an upward one. The different steps are depicted in
chronological order. An underpinning step such as the installation of a new pile is depicted as an

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

301

object in the model, symbolized by a rectangle over the effective time of the step. An object may
cease to exist, whereby the completion of the measure is indicated by a cross. (Bell 2010)

Load transfer cases

The classification by Tawast was primarily based on the use of force diagrams. Various kinds
of load transfer structures are estimated to have an effect on the costs and duration of
underpinning (Tawast 1993).
Cases 1 through 7 (Figs. 1, 2 and 3) were originally introduced by Tawast, while Cases 8
through 12 (Figs. 5 and 6) were identified in Turku underpinning projects. In addition, research
literature has reported Case 10 (Richards and Kartofilis, 2006) and Case 13, Fig. 6 (Bruce, 1990;
Hayward Baker, 2005). All the cases are analyzed considering existing wood piles and potential
interaction between the foundation and soil has not covered. In the classification, credit has been
given to the following factors which may be deemed to influence the costs or duration of the
construction project:
i.
ii.
iii.

Transfer of forces in the form of compression and tension

Use of separate structures to transfer forces from the superstructure to the new piles
Eventual pile preloading, i.e., the use of a hydraulic jack.

Table 1 shows the occurrence of load transfer cases in underpinning projects saved in the
DATU database. The load transfer cases can be divided into two main groups: firstly, methods
where the foundation suffers small settlement (typically 10 to 30 mm) due to the elastic
contraction of the new piles, and secondly, methods where there is no post-settlement (typical
target <10 mm). Cases 113 can be classified as Categories AD, Table 2, for further analyses
on the costs (Table 3) and duration of underpinning (Fig. 7).
The load transfer structure in Category A includes minimum consumption of steel and
concrete. An additional beam or enlargement of existing columns have been used in Categories B
and D causing increase of steel and concrete consumption (Table 3). Category C reflects to
Category A in material consumption. Jacking is an additional cost for Categories C and D.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

302

Table 1: Underpinning, load transfer cases in the DATU database (DATU 2008)
Number of

Small settlement

No movement of

Superstructure

piles in the

in the

superstructure

rests on new

DATU

superstructure

after

pile directly or

database

after underpinning

underpinning

over minor load

(totally 58

(no jacking during

(installation with

transfer

sites)

installation)

jacking)

structure

1475

3025

642

696

12

707

938

119

10

197

11

55

12

216

13

unknown

511

totally

8598

Case No.

Separate load
transfer structure
between
superstructure
and pile

x
x

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

303

Table 2: Categories of load transfer structures in underpinning

Category covering cases of load transfer structures
Direct support or minor load

Separate load transfer structure

transfer structure
Small settlement of

A: 1, 8

B: 2

C: 9, 10, 13

D: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12

superstructure after underpinning

(no jacking during installation)
No movement of superstructure
after underpinning (installation
with jacking)

Table 3: Costs of load transfer structures can vary widely depending on the categories of load
transfer structures (Lehtonen and Kiiras, 2010)
Task or resource

Load Transfer Categories

A

Demolition

300

300

300

300

Load-bearing

kg

50

200

100

200

steel components

100

400

200

400

Concrete

0.5

structures

100

400

200

400

Jacking

500

500

Total

1,200

1,600

500

1,100

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

Figure 5: Load transfer cases 810

304

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

Figure 6: Load transfer cases 11, 12 and Case 13 (preloading using a tendon inside the
micropile.)

305

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

306

Duration of underpinning by length of piles

16,000 m

14,000 m

Length of piles (meters)

12,000 m

Load Transfer Category-A

LTC-B
LTC-C
LTC-D
Linear (LTC-A)
Linear (LTC-B)
Linear (LTC-C)
Linear (LTC-D)

10,000 m

8,000 m

6,000 m

4,000 m

2,000 m

0m
0d

50 d

100 d

150 d

200 d

250 d

300 d

350 d

400 d

450 d

500 d

Duration (days)

Figure 7: Duration of underpinning in Turku by consumption of piles (underpinning site number

N = 49) grouped by Load Transfer Category (Lehtonen and Hattara, 2009).

SUMMARY
Foundations are underpinned mainly to prevent harmful settlement, to enhance bearing
capacity, or for seismic retrofit. In many cases, the need for repair work on foundations is due to
rot in wooden piles. Many methods are available for foundation underpinning, micropiles and jet
grouting having been common in recent times. A new micropile or a jet grouted column is
attached to the existing superstructure, often by means of an even highly complex load transfer
structure. The aim is often to mobilize the elastic transformation of the micropile already during
the installation phase by using jacks.
The article puts forward a classification of underpinning methods and a new modeling system
based on adapting the UML sequence diagram. The classification is scrutinized more thoroughly
through underpinning projects in Turku.
Developers can use the classification presented in this article as a tool in selecting planning
solutions, and in cost and duration estimation.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

307

CONCLUSIONS
This study introduces a comprehensive classification of underpinning methods, resulting in
13 different main cases of load transfer structures. The main cases can be grouped into four main
categories, whereby the aim is to apply these main categories in further research to predict the
cost of underpinning and the duration of repair work on a foundation.
The article proposes a new method based on the UML sequence diagram for the classification
of underpinning projects. In UML modeling, the underpinning process can be combined with
force diagrams previously described in research literature. Force diagrams have thus far ignored
the process aspect of the matter: an underpinning project often consists of an initial state, the
preloading of piles, and the implementation of the final load transfer structure. The underpinning
process, then, as construction processes in general, is in research literature usually described in
the form of a flowchart, often combined with a time factor. Such timetable charts, however, lack a
force diagram depicting how demanding the underpinning project is and at the same time
probably also indicating the magnitude of costs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge a number of researchers who have worked in the DATU
database project, including E. Lehtonen, S. Lehti-Koivunen, A. Nyrhinen and J. Hattara.

REFERENCES
1. Aikivuori, A. (1994) Classification of demand for refurbishment projects. Acta Universitas
Ouluensis C77
2. Ansari, N. and Bruce, J. (2003) Credit Valley Hospital Pre-loaded Micropiles for Vertical
Expansion of Parking Garage. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Micropiles,
Seattle.
3. Armour, T.A. (2002) Hewlett Packard Building 5, seismic upgrade. Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Micropiles, Venice.
4. Bell, D. (2010) UML basics: The sequence diagram. [referred 17.2.2010] Available http://
www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/3101.html.
5. Bradbury, H. (1993) The Bullivant system. In Underpinning and Retention (ed. Thorburn, S.
and Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
6. Bromenschenkel (1997) Use of micropiles for seismic retrofit. International Workshop on
Micropiles, Seattle.
7. Bruce, D.A. (1989) American developments in the use of small diameter inserts as piles and
insitu reinforcement. Proceedings of the International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Lontoo.
8. Bruce, D.A., Pearlman, S.L. and Clark, J.H. (1990) Foundation rehabilitation of the
Pocomoke River Bridge, MD using high capacity preloaded Pin Pilessm. Proceedings of the
7th International Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

308

9. Bruce, D.A. (1993) In-situ earth reinforcing by soil nailing. In Underpinning and Retention
(ed. Thorburn, S. and Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
10. Bruce, D.A. and Juran, I. (1997) Drilled and grouted micropiles. US. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration reports No. FHWA-RD-96-01619.
11. Chau, K.W., Leung, A.Y.T, Iyu, C.Y. and Wong, S.K. (2003) Estimating the value
enhancement effects of refurbishment. Facilities Vol. 21 No. 1/2, s. 13-19.
12. Cole, K.W. (1993) Conventional piles in underpinning. In Underpinning and Retention (ed.
Thorburn, S. and Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
13. DATU (2008) Database on Turku Underpinning Projects, Turun ammattikorkeakoulun
tietokanta
Turun
perustustenvahvistuksista.
[referred
16.5.2008]
Available
http://www.datu.info/.
14. Dietz, K. and Schurman, A. (2006) Foundation improvement of historical buildings by
micropiles: Museum Island Berlin, St. Kolumba Cologne. Proceedings of the 7th
International Workshop on Micropiles, Schrobenhausen.
15. Eronen, S. (1997) Drilled piles in Scandinavia. Tampere University of Technology,
Geotechnics, Publication 40.
16. Fross, M. (2006) 35 years of application of micropiles in Austria. Proceedings of the 7th
International Workshop on Micropiles, Schrobenhausen.
17. Fukui, J. (2006) Performance of seismic retrofits with high capacity micropiles. Lizzi Lecture
2006, Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Micropiles, Schrobenhausen.
18. Gould, R.A., Bedell, P.R. and Muckle, J.G. (2002) Construction over organic soils in an
urban environment: four case histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39, p. 345-356.
19. Gupte, A.A. (1989) Design, construction and applications of auger piling system for earth
retention and underpinning of structures. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Piling and Deep Foundations, Lontoo.
20. Han, J and Ye, S.-L. (2006a) A field study on the behavior of micropiles in clay under
compression or tension. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 43, p. 19-29.
21. Han, J. and Ye, S.-L. (2006b) A field study on the behavior of a foundation underpinned by
micropiles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 43, p. 30-42.
22. Harris, J.S. (1993) Ground freezing. In Underpinning and Retention (ed. Thorburn, S. and
Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
23. Hartikainen, J. (2000) Why wooden piles in Turku are decaying? The 3rd International
Workshop on Micropiles, Turku.
24. Hayward Baker Inc. (2005) Post-tensioned micropile detail, Biloxi, MS. Design sheet SK-01.
25. Herbst, T. (1997) Micropiles steel reinforcement. International Workshop on Micropiles,
Seattle.
26. Hutchison, J.F. (1993) Traditional methods of support. In Underpinning and Retention (ed.
Thorburn, S. and Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
27. Klosinski, B. (2000) Micropiles in Poland. The 3rd International Workshop on Micropiles,
Turku.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

309

28. Korkeakoski, P., Lehtonen J. and Heikinheimo, R. (2000) Underpinning with steel pipe piles.
Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting and 8th International DFI Conference.
29. Lehtonen, J. (2001) Shaft bearing micropiles. Tampere University of Technology. Postgraduate thesis.
30. Lehtonen, J. (2008) Real estate value impacts caused by major refurbishment projects
(available only in Finnish: Suuren korjaushankkeen vaikutus kiinteistn arvoon).
Maanmittaus 83:2.
31. Lehtonen, J. Ed. (2009) Underpinning Nordic practice. Course material from Turku
University of Applied Sciences 46.
32. Lehtonen, J. and Hattara, J. (2009) Duration of the micropile underpinning projects in Turku.
Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Micropiles, London.
33. Lehtonen J. and Kiiras J. (2010) Cost modelling in underpinning projects. Manuscript for
Construction Management and Economics, a peer-reviewed publication.
34. Littlejohn, G.S. (1993) Underpinning by chemical grouting. In Underpinning and Retention
(ed. Thorburn, S. and Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
35. Lizzi, F. (1982) The static restoration of monuments. International Society for Micropiles &
The International Association of Foundation Drilling.
36. Lizzi, F. (1993) Pali radice structures. In Underpinning and Retention (ed. Thorburn, S. and
Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
37. Mason, J.A. (1997) Seismic design concepts and issues for reticulated micropile foundation
systems. International Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
38. Mason, J.A. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1999) Notes on improvement and underpinning of
foundations of historic structures with reticulated micropiles. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Workshop on Micropiles, Ube.
39. Misra, A., Oberoi, R. and Kleiber, A. (1999) Micropiles for seismic retrofitting of highway
interchange foundation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Micropiles, Ube.
40. Miura, F. (1997) Lessons from the damage caused by past earthquakes. International
Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
41. Nicholson, P.J. and Pinyot, D.E. (2006) The evolution of micropiles in America. Proceedings
of the 7th International Workshop on Micropiles, Schrobenhausen.
42. Okahara, M. (1997) Outline of the 1996 seismic design criteria of highway bridges in Japan.
International Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
43. Okahara, M., Fukui, J. and Kimura, Y. (1997) Damage to bridge foundations during the
Hanshin earthquake. International Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
44. Okumatsu, T. (1999) Micropile projects in United States. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Workshop on Micropiles, Ube.
45. ONeill, M.W and Pierry, R.F. (1989) Behavior of mini-piles in foundation underpinning in
Beaumont Clay, Houston, Texas, USA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Piling
and Deep Foundations, Lontoo.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. C

310

46. Perko, H.A. (2005) Underpinning and shoring for underground MRI Research Facility at
Ohio State University. Proceedings of the Spec. Sem. Underground Construction in Urban
Environments ASCE Metropolitan Section Geotechnical Group, Geo-Institute of ASCE.
47. Perl A. (2009) Structural engineering for underpinning. In Underpinning Nordic practice.
(ed. Lehtonen, J.). Course material from Turku University of Applied Sciences 46.
48. Pienpaaluohje PPO (2007) Micropiles Standard. RIL 230-2007. (available only in Finnish:
Terksiset lynti-, pora- ja puristuspaalut)
49. Pryke, J.F.S. (1993) The Pynford underpinning method. In Underpinning and Retention (ed.
Thorburn, S. and Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
50. Richards, T.D. and Kartofilis, D. (2006) Micropile underpinning of the Mandalay Bay Hotel
& Casino. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference, University
of Minnesota.
51. Ruben, T., Mets, M. and Eskel, U. (2000) Micropiles. Proceedings of the 9th Baltic
Geotechnical Conference, Tallinn.
52. Samchek, G. (2003) Western Canada micropiles. Proceedings of the 5th International
Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
53. Schlosser, F. and Frank, R. (1997) Review of French FOREVER project. International
Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
54. Siel, B.D. (2006) Micropiles and the FHWA 30 years of implementation. Proceedings of the
7th International Workshop on Micropiles, Schrobenhausen.
55. Smith, G. (2003) Rehabilitation of a sinking townhome. Proceedings of the 5th International
Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
56. Tatsuta, M, Shioi, Y., Kimura, M., Shimazu, A., Yoshida, E. and Takano, K. (1997).
Experimental study on ultimate behavior of steel pipe pile group. International Workshop on
Micropiles, Seattle.
57. Tawast, I. (1993) Underpinning (in Finnish: Perustusten vahvistusmenetelmt
korjausrakentamisessa) Laboratory of Foundation and Earth Structures, Report 26. Tampere
University of Technology.
58. Thorburn, S. (1993) Introduction. In Underpinning and Retention (ed. Thorburn, S. and
Littlejohn, G.S.) Blackie Academic & Professional.
59. Tsukada, Y. and Ichimura, Y. (1997) Micropiles in Japan: present status and future prospects.
International Workshop on Micropiles, Seattle.
60. Vehmas, H. (2000) The city hall of Porvoo the reinforcing of the foundation and leveling of
the building. The 3rd International Workshop on Micropiles, Turku.
61. Vunneli, J. (2009) Underpinning methods. In Underpinning Nordic practice. (ed. Lehtonen,
J.). Course material from Turku University of Applied Sciences 46.
62. Wong, K.C. (2000) Valuing the refurbishment cycle. Property Managementt Vol. 18 No. 1, s.
16-24.

2010 ejge