## 4 MP Modeling by Experimental and Numerical Methods

Table 3: Comparison between the proposed details for combining MPs with BIS [1; 20; 32; 33]. further. The authors consider that the synthesis provided in Table 4 can be very useful for readers interested in one or the other aspects already treated in the cited literature. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **Scope** & **Main Method** & **Remarks** \\ \hline
[6,14] & Dynamic behavior of MPs with different & Full scale experimental method (field study) & Grouting pressure has direct influence on the dynamic behavior (kinematic interaction) \\ \hline
[7] & Dynamic behavior of MPs in loose sand & Scaled experimental method (shaking table test) & Soil densification phenomenon; Effect on the kinematic and inertial interactions \\ \hline
[11] & Seismic performance of soil-MPs–superstructure & Numerical analysis (MC criterion) & Validated by a single-degree of freedom shaking table test; Parametric study with results illustrating the aspects of kinematic and inertial interaction \\ \hline
[12] & The influence of MP-to-structure connection & Numerical analysis (linear elastic) & Ficity condition influencing the dynamic amplification factor (inertial interaction) \\ \hline
[14] & Seismic performance of inclined MPs & Numerical analysis (MC criterion) & Not explicitly calibrated; Energy dissipation phenomenon (inertial interaction) \\ \hline
[15] & Effects of grouting technology on MPs behavior & Full scale experimental method (field study) & Grouting technology can enhance materials consumption, leading to stiffer MPs due to the reduction in the lost materials; Influence on both kinematic and inertial interactions \\ \hline
[16] & Load sharing between MPs and raft & Numerical analysis (MC criterion) & Influence on the inertial interaction \\ \hline
[35] & Soil plasticity influence in the analysis & Numerical analysis (MC criterion) & Influence on the inertial interaction \\ \hline
[36] & Performance of MPed rafts in sand & Scaled experimental method (centrifuge test) & Simulation of MPed raft behavior in sand with MC criterion; Calibrated with centrifuge test Influence on the inertial interaction. \\ \hline
[37] & Performance of MPed rafts in clay & Scaled experimental method (centrifuge test) & Simulation of MPed raft behavior in clay with MC criterion; Calibrated with centrifuge test; Influence on the inertial interaction \\ \hline
[38] & Installation methods influence on the failure mechanism & Scaled experimental method (model test) & MP confinement effect as a function of inclination angle; Influence on the kinematic interaction \\ \hline
[39] & Axial behavior of MPs & Full scale experimental method (field study) & Self-drilling MPs (type E) are the element of the study; Discusses the bond strength of this type of MP; Results can be used for calibration of numerical models; Inertial interaction \\ \hline
[40] & Influence of MPs stiffness on underpinning applications & Scaled experimental method (model test) & Compression of load sharing between waveform MPs and type-A MPs; Grouting pressure influencing the stiffness and MP behavior; Influence on the inertial interaction \\ \hline
[41] & Uplift capacity of MPs embedded in rocks & Scaled experimental method (model test) & Simulation of MPs behavior in rocks with MC criterion; Calibrated with model test; Influence on both kinematic and inertial interactions \\ \hline
[42] & Long-term consolidation & Numerical analysis (MCC criterion) & Calibrated with model test; MP efficiency in terms of long-term consolidation \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Summary of selected papers concerning MP seismic behavior. Some of the aspects reflected in the analyzed papers concerning the behavior of MPs are presented below, in which MC criterion was used for the numerical models, some being validated and calibrated (both numerical and experimental tests had been performed).