(Livro) Helical Pile Engineering Handbook PDF

Engineered
Foundation solutions
Industrial | Commercial | Residential
Transmission Project Designed by Tom Bradka M.Eng, P.Eng
www.helicalpiersystems.com
Helical Pile Engineering Handbook

Toll Free: 1-866-497-8175 or 1-877-547-1017
Copyright © 7th Edition, January 2010
The purpose of this manual is to briefly discuss helical pile design. It is our goal to
make this manual as user friendly as possible and will continue to make changes
and updates. If there are sections that need further explanation, or if there is
additional information you would like included in a future version, please feel
free to contact Helical Pier Systems, HPS.
This manual is available online at www.helicalpiersystems.com
Head Office:
Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Phone: 877-547-1017
780-992-0007
Fax: 780-992-4907
Canadian Offices
Fort St. John, BC Grande Prairie, AB Kaleden, BC
Phone: 250-785-4491 Phone: 780-538-8975 hone:
P 866-497-8175
Fax: 250-787-0575 250-497-8175
Fax: 866-668-9920
European Offices
Screwpile Ireland Ltd Helical Pier Systems UK Ltd
Nore House 9 The Drive, Shoreham-by-Sea
3
Bessboro Road West Sussex, BN43 5GD
Blackrock Phone: 01273 441220
Cork Mick’s Mobile: 07816 8650742
Ireland Ray’s Mobile: 07976 848616
Phone: 353 21 4515573
Fax: 353 21 4350004
Mobile: 353 86 6083677
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Donal Murphy
2 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Table of Contents
Introduction to Helical Piles............................................................................................ 4
History of Helical Piles.................................................................................................... 10
Helical Pile Uses............................................................................................................... 10
Part 1 Soil Mechanics................................................................................................... 16
Part 2 Bearing and Uplift Capacity.............................................................................. 20
Multi-Helix Helical Pile..................................................................................... 20
Single Helix Helical Pile..................................................................................... 27
Torque Installation Method for Predicting Capacity....................................... 28
Part 3 Calculating the Ultimate Resistance to Lateral Loads..................................... 29
Lateral Ultimate Resistance of Piles................................................................. 31
Deflection of Vertical Piles Carrying Lateral Loads......................................... 33
Part 4 Moments and Deflections (CFEM 1992)......................................................... 35
Part 5 Buckling of Piles................................................................................................ 38
Part 6 Use of Helical Piles as Tiebacks........................................................................ 40
Part 7 Selection of Helical Pile..................................................................................... 43
Part A Standards, Specifications and Information..................................................... 45
Part 8 Hot-Dip Galvanizing for Corrosion Protection................................................ 46
Part B References.......................................................................................................... 51
www.helicalpiersystems.com 3
Introduction to Helical Piles
A helical piling is a circular, hollow, steel pipe section (shaft) with one or more tapered steel plates (helixes)
welded to the shaft. The plates are shaped as a helix with a carefully controlled pitch, which allows the pile
to be inserted into the ground with minimal soil disruption. The central shaft is used to transmit torque
during installation and to transfer axial loads to the helical plates upon foundation loading. The central shaft
also provides a major component of the resistance to lateral loading. The pile is directed toward the soil and
mechanically rotated with constant downward pressure, advancing the pile into the soil. Once installed, the
pile has bearing capacity in both tension and compression in the subsurface by transferring the structures
load to the bearing stratum. The pile installation angle can range from vertical to nearly horizontal.
Helical pile foundations are also referred to as anchors, screw anchors, and/or torque piles. For this manual,
screw anchors will assume to be in tension and helical piles in compression.
Figure AA shows a typical 2 ⅞" pile configuration with a single helix. Figure BB shows a typical pier
configuration with a double helix.
Pile Specifications:
2" 4 ½”
All holes are 15/16" Diameter
2" NOTES:
Shaft: 2 ⅞" or 3 ½" Diameter, pipe will meet or exceed ASTM structural
grade pipe standards with 4a ½”
minimum yield strength of 70 KSI and
minimum 2"tensile strength of 85 KSI.
2"
Shaft: 4 ½" Diameter, pipe will meet or exceed ASTM structural grade
pipe standards with a minimum yield strength of 90 KSI and minimum
2 7/8" tensile strength of 105 KSI.
(0.217" w.t.)
Helix: Structural quality steel to conform per latest CSA Standards

W40.21, ASTM A36)
2 7/8"
Welding: performed by shop qualified to CSA Standard W47.1.
(0.217" w.t.)
W320/W321 If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: per latest CSA standard

5/16" G164-M and ASTM A153.
L
A W320/W321
5/16"
L
A
Hx – Helix Diameter:
8" 6" – 42"

A 8"
Typically Helix '2' diameter P – Pitch of Helix
3/8" or 1/2"
3" A
3/8'1'.
" or 1/2"
is greater
3"
than Helix 3" or 6"
T T: Helix Thickness: Distance between helixes
3" T
3"
⅜", ½", or ¾" is 3 helix diameters
Note: More than two helixes may be used, spaced at 3 helix diameters
apart
45 ° Cut 45 ° Cut
Figure AA Single Helix Screw Pier/Pile

Helical Piles can be manufactured using almost any pipe size. Typical pipe sizes range from 2 ⅞" to 12 ¾" O.D.,
although pipe in excess of 42" has been used. Helix sizes and thickness are dependent on the shaft diameter,
soil conditions and applied loads, ranging from 6" to larger than 60" in diameter and usually from ⅜" to 1"
thickness. The length of the helical pile is generally limited to the available reach of the installation equipment
(in most cases, 20 feet or less). Installation depth is limited by or controlled by the available torque and depth
of favorable soil. To increase the depth of a pile, additional lengths can be welded or bolted on and installed to
a deeper depth.
HPS' helical piles typically consist of a round steel shaft and one or more helical plates. Spacing between any
two helixes is usually 3 times the diameter. Helix size and quantity will depend upon the required capacity of
the pile and the soil properties and conditions.
2"
2" NOTES:
minimum 2"tensile strength of 85 KSI.
2"
pipe standards with a minimum yield strength of 90 KSI and minimum
2 7/8" (0.217" w.t.) tensile strength of 105 KSI.

5/16" W40.21, ASTM A36)
2 7/8"
5/16" Welding: performed by shop qualified to CSA Standard W47.1.
(0.217" w.t.)
A If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: per latest CSA standard

Various G164-M and ASTM A153.
Lengths 10" W320/W321
5/16"
A L
A
24"
8" 6" – 42"
A 8"
P A
is greater 3/8'1'.
than Helix " or 1/2"
3" or 6"
3"
T T: Helix Thickness: Distance between helixes
3" 3"
T
Note: More than two helixes may be used, spaced at 3 helix diameters
apart
45 ° Cut 45 ° Cut
Figure BB Double Helix Screw Pier/Pile
2"
2"
NOTES:
Various 2 7/8" (0.217" w.t.) minimum 2"tensile strength of 85 KSI.
Lengths 2"
12" pipe standards with a minimum yield strength of 90 KSI and minimum
tensile strength of 105 KSI.

W40.21, ASTM A36)
T 2 7/8"
30" Welding: performed by shop qualified to CSA Standard W47.1.
(0.217" w.t.)
10" If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: per latest CSA standard

G164-M and ASTM A153.
W320/W321
5/16"
T L
24" A
8"
A
P 6" – 42"
8"
T A
3" is greater
3"
3/8" or 1/2"
than Helix '1'. 3" or 6"
5/16" T: Helix Thickness: Distance between helixes
W320/W321 T
3"
45 ° Cut A Note: More than two helixes may be used, spaced at 3 helix diameters
apart
45 ° Cut
Figure CC Triple Helix Screw Pier/Pile

1 ½” 1 ½”
1 ½”, 1 ¾”, 2"

Bar Typical
1 ½”, 1 ¾”, 2"

L
Bar Typical
5/16"
W320/W321
5/16" A
W320/W321
Hx2
A A
T
Hx1
A Hx1
3 x Hx1
P
A
P
T
T
3"
3"
Single Square Helix Screw Pier/Pile Double Square Helix Screw Pier/Pile
Notes: Notes:
Shaft: meets or exceeds ASTM Structural Grade Bar Standards Shaft: meets or exceeds ASTM Structural Grade Bar Standards
with minimum yield strength of 95 KSI and a minimum tensile with minimum yield strength of 95 KSI and a minimum tensile
strength of 120 KSI. strength of 120 KSI.
Helix: Structual quality plate to conform for latest CSA Helix: Structual quality plate to conform for latest CSA Standard
Standard G 40.21 minimum grade CSA 44W. G 40.21 minimum grade CSA 44W.
Welding: Welding performed by a shop qualified to CSA Welding: Welding performed by a shop qualified to CSA
Standard W47.1 and in adherance to CSA Standard W59. Standard W47.1 and in adherance to CSA Standard W59.
If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: as per latest CSA If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: as per latest CSA
Standard G164-M and ASTM A153, on request. Standard G164-M and ASTM A153, on request.
Hx - Helix Diameter 6" to 18" Hx - Helix Diameter 6" to 18"
T - Thickness of Helix ⅜" or ½" T - Thickness of Helix ⅜" or ½"
P - Pitch of Helix 3" or 6" P - Pitch of Helix 3" or 6"
L - Length of pile 2' to 10' L - Length of pile 2' to 10'
1 ½”
1 ½”
1 ½”, 1 ¾”, 2"
Bar Typical
1½”,
5/16"
W320/W321 1¾”, or
L 2" Bar
A
Hx3
T
L
Hx2 3 x Hx2
A
Hx1
3 x Hx1
A A
P
T
3"
6"
1 ½”
Triple Square Helix Screw Pier/Pile Square Shaft Extension
Notes:
Shaft: meets or exceeds ASTM Structural Grade Bar Standards with minimum yield strength
of 95 KSI and a minimum tensile strength of 120 KSI.
Helix: Structual quality plate to conform for latest CSA Standard G 40.21 minimum grade
CSA 44W.
Welding: Welding performed by a shop qualified to CSA Standard W47.1 and in adherance to
CSA Standard W59.
If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: as per latest CSA Standard G164-M and ASTM A153,
on request.
Hx - Helix Diameter 6" to 18"
T - Thickness of Helix ⅜" or ½"
P - Pitch of Helix 3" or 6"
L - Length of pile 2' to 10'

Design Criteria:
American Society of Civil Engineers defines “Bearing Capacity” as that load which can be sustained by a pile
foundation without producing objectionable settlement or material movement—initial or progressive—
resulting in damage to the structure or interfering with its use.
Bearing Capacity Depends On:

1. Type and properties of the soil
2. Surface and/or groundwater conditions
3. Geometry of the pile (pipe size, helix size, number of helixes, material thickness)
4. Pile material (new steel only)
5. Size of pile (cross-section, length)
6. Embedment depth of pile
7. Position of pile (vertical, horizontal or battered)
8. Spacing between piles (interaction of piles, group effect)
9. Installation torque
10. Type of loading (alternating, step-loading, static and others)
Installation:
For piles subjected to uplift (and/or frost jacking) the embedment depth of the uppermost helix shall be at
least 5 helix diameters or deeper than the maximum frost penetration depth that is in the area.
The leading edge on the helical plates are rounded back and sharpened to facilitate ease in installation and
minimize disturbance of the soil during installation.
The lead ends of the piles are cut to a 45 to aid in targeting of the pile during installation.
Helixes are cut from plate steel and formed using matching metal dies. The dies are set to provide the helix
with the required pitch, typically 3.00" or 6.00". The helical shape is a “true flight”, the helical plate shall be
normal to the central shaft (within 3 degrees) over its entire length. The helix is shaped so that it threads into
the soil much like a wood screw going into a piece of wood.
Piles are installed through the use of rotary hydraulics attached to a variety of equipment: boom mounted
power utility trucks, skid steers, mini and large excavators, nodwells and many other types of equipment,
even handheld units are used.
Torque will be continuously monitored and recorded throughout the installation of each helical piling.
Continuous recording chart recorders are used, by measuring the hydraulic pressure that is used to drive
in the piling. For small shaft piers there is a direct relationship between installation torque and helical pier
capacity. Continuous monitoring of torque during installation will provide the installer with a profile of the
underlying soil conditions.
History of Helical Piles
Helical piles were first used as foundations for buildings and bridges built over weak or wet soil. They had
limited use for much of the 19th and early 20th century as the installation was difficult without mechanical
assistance. During the 1960’s, hydraulic torque motors became readily available and the installation process
became much easier. Helical piles were first used primarily for their resistance to tensile forces. Utility
companies frequently used helical piles as tie-downs for transmission towers and utility poles. Recent years
have seen helical piles being used in many different applications. The piles strong resistance to both uplift
and bearing pressure allowed them to be used in situations where resistance to combinations of these forces
was required. Many advantages over traditional pilings, such as speed of installation and immediate loading
capability have made helical piles the ideal foundation for many mainstream construction projects. Many
different types of equipment are used to install helical piles, excavators, skid steers, truck mounted, etc. The
hydraulic torque motors have improved significantly over the past 10 years, from the small 5,000 ft./lb., hand
held torque motors to the large 150,000 ft./lb. truck or excavator mounted units. With the new advances
in equipment technology it is possible to install one piece piles up to 50’ in length. Although most piles are
installed in short segments either bolted or welded together.
Helical Pile Uses

HPS products have been used on a wide variety of projects in Alberta, Canada, the United States and
throughout the world. Uses for helical piles include, but are not limited to foundations for commercial and
residential buildings, temporary structures, light standards, oil and gas industry structures, bank retention,
retaining wall tie-backs and power utility industry structures. A helical pile can be used in almost any
situation and where driven or cast in place piles are currently used. HPS manufactures, installs and supplies
our network of installers helical piles for many industries, including:
New Construction Foundation

Helical piles are well suited for new construction foundations. The piles are incorporated into the footing or
structural grade beam. The piles will terminate with a pier cap that will be embedded into the concrete footer
or grade beam. Pile size and spacing will be determined by the load of the structure and soil bearing capacity
Fast and economical helical piles can be installed and incorporated into the grade beam.

Foundation Repair
HPS manufactures a round shaft pile and lift bracket systems that are hydraulically screwed in along side of
the foundation to provide additional support and prevent further settlement.
With HPS patented Dura-Lift foundation support bracket, the concrete foundation can be lifted back to a
level position. Our lift system has been designed to fit under the concrete foundation to lift the structure. The
Dura-Lift brackets are available in various sizes and load capacities for lifting both residential and commercial
structures.
Oil and Gas Industry
Helical piles are ideal for many applications within the oil and gas industry. The piles are rugged, low
maintenance, and mobile, which makes them ideal for use in the field. With a strong resistance to vibration
and/or cyclical loading, helical piles can be placed under pump-jacks and compressor stations. Other possible
applications include: pipe-racking, skid buildings, flare stacks, tanks, dehydrators, separators, etc. Our
installation trucks are fully capable of installing piles in all climates and conditions, and our field crew is
properly trained to perform in-situ modifications, if they have access to the design engineer.
Temporary Buildings and Modular Structures

Helical piles are well suited for use under mobile or temporary buildings. They can be installed in all weather
and terrain conditions, limited only by the mobility of the installation equipment. Helical piles are removable
and reusable, making them as mobile as the building. With no curing time, the building can be placed and
welded immediately after installation. Varying shaft lengths allows the building to be installed on uneven
or sloping ground. Because helical pilings are placed well below the frost line, winter heaving and surface
erosion have little effect on the pilings strength. Optional leveling pile caps ensure the building remains level,
regardless of the soil situation.

General Foundations
Because of the ability of a helical pile to deal with various loadings, the helical pile can be used in many load
bearing situations. Included are the aforementioned and the following:
• Static loads (e.g. under buildings)
• Alternating loads (e.g. under pumps jacks)
• Vibratory loads (e.g. under compressors)
• Loads with high moment of overturn (e.g. communication towers)
• Grade beams (e.g. in conventional buildings)
• Structural floor slabs
HPS’ contractors are capable of completing projects of almost any size, ranging from less than a dozen piles to
major industrial projects in excess of 500 piles. All piles are individually designed to meet customer’s needs.
Slope and Bank Stabilization

HPS' piles can be used in a variety of situations, including slope restoration/stabilization. Once the fault
line has been found, piles can be screwed in almost horizontally into more stable soil. Once installed, an
appropriate retaining wall is attached to help maintain the slope integrity.
Figure E Retaining Wall Tie-Backs
Street Light Bases
Our street light bases are custom constructed to meet individual needs. Cap thickness and size, slot or hole
size, cable-way position and size, shaft size and length, and helix diameter are all variables in the street light
base design. The street light bases are designed for resistance to bending moments, shearing forces, uplift
loads and bearing loads.
They have many advantages over concrete pilings; quick installation reducing traffic disruption, installation
in almost any type of weather, little to no ground disturbance making clean up easy, no spoils to remove, and
one stop installation pole can be set on immediately after install. The pile can be easily removed and reused,
allowing quick and easy relocation of standards. To increase product life expectancy the base is often hot
dipped galvanized for extra protection. The environmentally friendly installation is vibration free and quiet,
allowing placement in sensitive areas.
Typical applications for the street light base include: light poles for: residential lighting, parking lots, and
street and highway lighting, one or two mast arms, street signage, flag poles, building signage, bumper posts
and column supports.

Part 1 Soil Mechanics
During loading, the force applied to the pile is transferred to the surrounding soil. Thus, the ultimate capacity
of the pile is dependent upon the strength of the soil. In general, there are two types of soils; cohesive and
cohesionless. Cohesive soils are defined as soils whose internal friction angle is approximately zero (φ=0)
while cohesionless soils are those whose internal friction angle is greater than zero (φ>0). Soils are also
grouped according to strength. The chart below, Table 1.1, outlines common soil classification.
Soil Class Description of Soil

1 Rock
2 Dense Sand
3 Compact Clay and Gravel Mixed
4 Compacted Sand
5 Loose Sand, Gravel and Clay
6 Clay Loam and Damp Clay
7 Silt Loam and Wet Clay
8 Swamp and Peat
Table 1.1 Soil Classifications
In nature, soil is rarely homogeneous. It tends to develop in layers or stratum, each with individual strengths
and weaknesses. Figure 1.1 illustrates this stratification. As the pile is driven into the ground, it will pass
through different stratum. Because each layer has different characteristics, different torque values will
be observed as the pile passes through each layer. During an ideal installation, the torque values will be
constantly increasing, indicating that the pile is being inserted into more dense soil. If a drop in torque is
recorded, it is most likely that a soft layer (such as soft clay) was found. The pile must continue to be inserted
past the soft layer until a more dense soil (i.e. higher torque) is found.
The two types of soil, cohesive and cohesionless, behave very differently when exposed to stress. As the name
implies, the particles of sand in cohesionless soils act independently of each other. This gives such soils many
fluid-like characteristics. When placed under stress, cohesionless soils tend to reorganize into a more compact
configuration. Cohesive soils, in contrast, have more
rigid behavior. Stiff clays behave almost like rock,
remaining solid and inelastic until failure. Soft clays
have more putty like characteristics, bending and
remoulding when under stress.
During tensile loading conditions, the upward force
pulls on the entire pile. In wet to moderately wet
soils, a suction force develops, helping to counteract
the tension. The water in the soil exerts a small force,
known as pore pressure, on the surrounding soil.
When an upward force is applied, a low pressure area
is created directly beneath the helix. This low pressure
area causes inward pressure, or suction, and pulls down
Figure 1.1 Soil Stratum
the helix.

This phenomenon is more pronounced in clays, where the soil is
unable to move to fill the void. Figure 1.2 illustrates this further.
Soils derive their strength and ultimately their load capacity from
several characteristics. The internal friction angle, φ, the adhesion
factor, α, the unit weight of the soil, γ’, the undrained shear
strength of soil, Cu, and the lateral earth pressure coefficient, K
are all factors that affect the holding capacity of soils. Although
many of these variables are related, they are dependent on the
type, moisture content, and location of soils.
During installation, the surrounding soil is displaced by the
rotary action of the pile. This creates a zone of compacted soil
immediately adjacent to the pile, as shown in Figure 1.3. This
compacted soil places pressure on the pile surface, effectively
increasing the holding capacity of the pile. Figure 1.2 Suction Forces under Tension
The pressure placed on the pile also helps create a friction force
between the shaft and the soil. The shaft adhesion factor is
a measure of this friction force and generally varies with soil
type, density, and the soils internal friction angle. This friction
helps to resist the applied force, and is used in determining the
ultimate capacity of the pile. The displaced soil pressure also helps
to reconsolidate any soil disrupted during the installation. Soil
adhesion along the pile’s shaft significantly contributes to the
pile’s overall vertical capacity. Adams and Klym (1972) found that
adhesion provides a substantial resistance to piles installed in soft
clays with shaft diameter greater than 76.2 mm. The adhesion
between the pile shaft and the soil is taken as a function of the Figure 1.3 Soil Displacements
soil undrained shear strength.
The undrained shear strength of the soil is defined as the maximum value of shear stress that may be induced
before the soil yields or fails. This variable is only present in cohesive soils, and generally increases with soil
density (i.e. stiff clay > soft clay). Essentially, the greater the shear strength of the soil, Cu, the greater the
bearing capacity, see Table 1.2. The shear strength of the soil tends to increase with density and depth, the
inverse to the shaft adhesion factor. Figure 1.4 illustrates this soil behavior.
Undrained Shear Strength, Cu

Consistency
kPa (psf)
Very Soft <12 (<250)
Soft 12–25 (250–520)
Firm 25–50 (520–1045)
Stiff 50–100 (1045–2090)
Very Stiff 100–200 (2090–4180)
Hard >200 (>4180)
Table 1.2 Undrained Shear Strength of Soil (CFEM 1992)
1.00
Not
Applicable
α–Adhesion Factor 0.75
0.50
0.25
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Cu–Undrained Shear Strength, kPa
Figure 1.4 Reduction of Undrained Shear Strength for Pile Design (after CFEM, 1992)
Each soil, based on its composition and water content, has a unique density and weight. A common way to
classify soils it to determine the weight of a unit volume, known as the unit weight of the soil.
γ = W/V Eqn. 1.1

Where:
W = Weight of sample
V = Volume of sample
This variable is often used to describe the force or load the soil places on the pile. During tension, the soil
around the pile, especially the helix, acts like ballast and helps to resist motion. This is particularly important
in the case of tensile loading. A soil with a higher unit weight will place more downward pressure on the pile,
thereby increasing the uplift capacity.
During the installation process, soil disruption should be kept to a minimum to preserve the soils integrity. By
forming the helix, the pile tends to cut through the soil, causing relatively little soil disruption and preserving
the soils strength. Sufficient downward pressure (crowd) is maintained to ensure that for every revolution, the
pile travels one pitch distance downward. The use of an installation torque recorder allows for the verification
that the above is happening. The recorded torque values are also valuable as a quality control process and to
determine the capacity of the pile.
The above information is meant to introduce an individual to the field of soil mechanics and explain the terms
and ideas used to explain soil behavior. All facts and figures presented are for representational purposes and
are not meant to substitute for actual soil studies. A more in-depth discussion of soil mechanics is beyond
the scope of this manual and a qualified geotechnical engineer should be consulted. The Variables, Tables and
Figures contained in this manual are similar to those typically found in soil reports provided by a qualified
Engineer and/or geologist.

Additional Information:
Standard Angle of
Young’s Modulus
Soil Relative Penetration Internal
E
Description Density Resistance, N Friction, φ
(MPa) (ksf)
(blows/foot) (degrees)
Very Loose < 0.2 <4 < 30 < 10 (< 210)
Loose 0.2–0.4 4–10 30–35 10–20 (210–420)
Compact 0.4–0.6 10–30 35–40 20–50 (420–1045)
Dense 0.6–0.8 30–50 40–45 50–80 (1045–1670)
Very Dense > 0.8 > 50 > 45 > 80 (> 1670)
Table 1.3 Typical Soil Parameters—Cohesionless Soil
Young’s Modulus
Soil Undrained Shear Strength
E
Description kPa (psf)
(MPa) (ksf)
Very Soft < 10 (< 0.210) < 3 (< 65)
Soft 10–25 (210–520) 3–10 (65–210)
Firm 25–50 (520–1045) 10–25 (210–520)
Stiff 50–100 (1045–2090) 25–60 (520–1255)
Very Stiff 100–200 (2090–4180) 60–120 (1255–2505
Hard 200–300 (4180–6265) 120–360 (2505–3760)
Very Hard > 300 (> 6265) > 360 (> 3760)
Table 1.4 Typical Soil Parameters—Cohesive Soil
Part 2 Bearing and Uplift Capacity
Multi-Helix Helical Pile
When an axial compression or tension force is applied to a vertical pile, the load is partly supported by the
shaft friction, the shear resistance along a cylindrical surface connecting the top and bottom helices and either
bearing resistance below the bottom helix (compression loading), as shown in Figure 2.1 or bearing capacity
above the top helix (uplift loading), as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.1 Compression Loading Forces Act- Figure 2.2 Tension Loading Forces Acting on a
ing on a Multi-Helix Scew Pile Multi-Helix Helical Pile
1.Cohesive Soil
1.1 Compression Loading
Thus, in the case of compressive loading, the total failure resistance can be summarized as follows:
Qc = Qhelix + Qbearing + Qshaft Eqn. 2.1

Where:
Qc = ultimate pile compression capacity, (kN)
Qhelix = shearing resistance mobilized along the cylindrical failure surface, (kN)
Qbearing = bearing capacity of pile in compression, (kN)
Qshaft = resistance developed along steel shaft, (kN)

For a cohesive soil the ultimate compression capacity of the helical helical pile using a cylindrical shearing
method as proposed by Mooney (1985) is:
Qc = Sf (π D Lc ) Cu + AH Cu Nc + π d Heff α Cu Eqn. 2.2
Where:
D = diameter of helix, (m)
Lc = is the distance between top and bottom helical plates, (m)
Cu = undrained shear strength of soil, (kPa)
AH = area of the helix, (m2)
Nc = dimensionless bearing capacity factors (Tables 2.1 and 2.2)
d = diameter of the shaft, (m)
Heff = effective length of pile, Heff = H – D, (m)
α = adhesion factor (see Figure 1.4)
Sf = spacing ratio factor
Pile Toe Diameter (m) Nc

< 0.5 9
0.5–1.0 7
> 1.0 6
Table 2.1 Bearing Capacity Factor Nc Related to the Pile Diamter (after CFEM, 1992)
Helix Diameter Nc
< 0.50 m (< 20 in) 9.0
0.51 m (20 in) 8.33
0.56 m (22 in) 7.67
0.61 m (24 in) 7.33
0.76 m (30 in) 7.0
0.91 m (36 in) 6.67
0.97 m (38 in) 6.33
> 1.0 m (40 in) 6.0
Table 2.2 Bearing Capacity Factors, Nc for Cohesive Soils, and Modified for Helix Selection
Explanation of some of the terms:

The prediction of the bearing resistance developed from the bottom helix is independent of the embedment
depth. The bearing capacity factor Nc, proposed by Meyerhof (1976), provides reasonable predictions for
helical piles loaded in compression. Values of Nc are summarized in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2.
For estimation of the shaft adhesion, an effective shaft length Heff is used in the calculation, which the
effective shaft length is defined as the embedment length (H) minus the top helix diameter (D). The
adhesion developed along the steel shaft is considered in cases where sufficient installation depth (deep
pile) is provided. For shallow condition (i.e. embedment ratio H/D < 3), the shaft adhesion is considered as
insignificant, and thus, Qshaft is not included in the equation. Figure 1.4 describes the determination of the, α,
adhesion factor.
In the case where shaft resistance is considered negligible the compression capacity equation simplifies to:
Qc = Sf ( π D Lc ) Cu + AH Cu Nc Eqn. 2.3
1.2 Uplift Loading

For predicting the total uplift capacity, a cylindrical shear model is also adopted and the ultimate tension
capacity can be determined using the following equation (Mooney 1985):
Qt = Sf ( π D Lc ) Cu + AH (Cu Nu + γ’ H ) + π d Heff α Cu Eqn. 2.4
Where:
Qt = ultimate helical pile uplift capacity, (kN)
γ’ = effective unit weight of soil above water table or buoyant weight if below water
table, (kN/m3)
Nu = dimensionless uplift bearing capacity factor for cohesive soils
H = embedment depth, (m)
Sf = spacing ratio factor
For multi-helix helical piles loaded in tension, the ultimate capacity is dependent upon the embedment depth.
Generally there are two contributing factors to an increase in the total uplift capacity with increasing depth.
First, the shaft resistance increases with embedment depth and secondly, the bearing resistance developed
above the top helix is dependent on the depth that the helical pile was installed to. The uplift bearing capacity
factor, Nu increases with the embedment ratio (H/D) to a limiting value of approximately equal to 9.
Nu = 1.2 ( H / D ) ≤ 9 (Meyerhof 1973) Eqn. 2.5
Similar to the compression test, for short piles installed at a shallower depth, the term for predicting the shaft
adhesion can be neglected since the result is insignificant to the total uplift capacity. The equation can be
summarized to:
Qt = ( π D Lc ) Cu + AH ( Cu Nu + γ’ H ) Eqn. 2. 6

2. Cohesionless Soil
For a cohesionless soil the ultimate compression capacity of the helical pile using a cylindrical shearing
method (Where H/D >=5) as proposed by Mitsch and Clemence (1985) is:
Qc = Qhelix + Qbearing + Qshaft
Qhelix = 1/2 π Da γ’ ( H32 - H12 ) Ks tanφ Eqn. 2.7
Qbearing = γ’ H AH Nq Eqn. 2.8
Qshaft = 1/2 Ps Heff2 γ’ Ks tanφ Eqn. 2.9
Qc = γ’ H AH Nq 1/2 π Da γ’ ( H32 - H12 ) Ks tanφ + 1/2 Ps Heff2 γ’ Ks tanφ Eqn. 2.10
Where:
Qc = ultimate compression capacity, (kN)
γ’ = effective unit weight of soil, (kN/m3)
Ks = coefficient of lateral earth pressure in compression loading
φ = soil angle of internal friction, degree
AH = area of the bottom helix, (m2)
Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factor, Table 2.3.
D a = average helix diameter, (m)
H = the embedment depth of pile, (m)
D1 = diameter of top helix, (m)
Heff = effective shaft length, (m)
H1 = depth to top helix, (m)
H3 = depth to bottom helix, (m)
Ps = the perimeter of the helical pile shaft, (m)

Meyerhof (1963) suggested that the bearing capacity factor Nq, can be calculated using:
Nq = eπtanφ tan2 ( 45º + φ/2 ) Eqn. 2.11
Values of Nq are summarized in Table 2.3.
Internal
Friction 0º 5º 10º 15º 20º 22º 24º 26º 28º 30º 32º 34º 36º 38º 40º 42º 44º
Angle, φ
Nq 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 23 29 38 49 64 85 115
Table 2.3 Bearing Capacity Factor, Nq, for Cohesionless Soils
Ks, coefficient of lateral earth pressure in compression loading, which can be estimated by using the following
two tables (Table 2.4 and 2.5).
Installation Method Ks/Ko

Piles, Large Displacement (≥ Ø8–5/8" shaft) 1 to 2
Piles, Small Displacement (< Ø8–5/8" shaft) 0.75 to 1.25
Table 2.4 Values of the Coefficient of Horizontal Soil Stress, Ks (after Kulhawy, 1984)
Relative Density Ko
Loose 0.5
Medium-Dense 0.45
Dense 0.35
Table 2.5 Typical Values of Ko for Normally Consolidated Sand (after Kulhawy, 1984)
CFEM (1990) suggested that Ks is usually assumed to be equal to the coefficient of original earth pressure,
Ko, for bored piles, and twice the value of Ko for driven piles.
For the shallow condition (i.e H/D < 5), the ultimate compression capacity of a multi-helix helical pile in sand
can be predicted by summing the bearing capacity of the bottom helix and the frictional resistance along the
cylinder of soil between the helices without the shaft resistance. Therefore, Equation 2.10 can be expressed as
follows:
Qc = γ’ H AH Nq + 1/2 π Da γ’ ( H32 - H12 ) Ks tanφ Eqn. 2.12
2.2 Uplift Loading

For predicting the total uplift capacity, a cylindrical shear model proposed by Mitsch and Clemence (1985)
is suggested and the ultimate tension capacity can be determined. Zhang (1999) suggests that there are two
distinct failure mechanisms for helical piles loaded in tension in the cohesionless soil, namely the shallow
or the deep condition. The shallow condition describes the mechanism where a truncated pyramidal shaped
failure surface propagates for the top helix to the ground surface. The central angle of the truncated cone is
approximately equal to the soil friction angle, φ. A cylindrical failure surface is formed below the top helix.
For helical piles installed in a much deeper depth, a failure zone develops directly above the top helix. The
overburden pressure confines this failure surface, and therefore the failure zone does not propagate to the
ground surface. Meyerhof and Adam (1968)’s theory stated that there is a maximum embedment ratio
(H/D)cr, where the failure mode changes from shallow to deep and this maximum value increases with an
increase in the relative density (Dr), and the internal soil friction angle, φ of the sand. Das (1990) expressed
the ultimate bearing capacity proposed in Mitsch and Clemence’s theory in terms of breakout factor Fq for
shallow pile conditions and Fq* as follows:

For Multi-helix Helical Pile Installed in Shallow Condition H/D < (H/D)cr
Qt = γ’ H AH Fq + 1/2 π Da γ’ ( H32 - H12 ) Ku tanφ Eqn. 2.13
For Multi-helix Helical Pile Installed in Deep Condition H/D > (H/D)cr
Qt = γ’ H AH Fq* + 1/2 π Da γ’ ( H32 - H12 ) Ku tanφ + 1/2 Ps Heff2 γ’ Ku tanφ Eqn. 2.14
Where:
Qt = ultimate helical pile uplift capacity, (kN)
γ’ = effective unit weight of soil, (kN/m3)
φ = the soil angle of internal friction, degree
Ku = dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure in uplift for sands
H = embedment depth, (m)
AH = area of the bottom helix, (m2)
Da = average helix diameter, (m)
D1 = diameter of top helix, (m)
Heff = effective shaft length, Heff = H1 – D1, (m)
H1 = depth to top helix, (m)
H3 = depth to bottom helix, (m)
Ps = the perimeter of the helical pile shaft, (m)
Fq = breakout factor for shallow condition, see Figure 2.3
Fq* = breakout factor for deep condition, see Figure 2.4

Embedment ratio (H/D) is defined as the depth to the top helix, H divided by the top helix diameter, D.
Friction
20º 25º 30º 35º 40º 45º 48º
Angle, φ
Depth (H/D)cr 2.5 3 4 5 7 9 11
Table 2.6 Critical Embedment Ratio, (H/D)cr for Circular Pile (after Meyerhof and Adam, 1968)
This coefficient, Ku is used to empirically quantify the lateral stress acting on the failure surface as the helical
pile is pulled out from the soil. The lateral stress outside the cylindrical failure surface increases to a passive
state due to the screw action during the installation process. The magnitude of the increase is dependent upon
the amount of disturbance and the changes in stress level during the installation.
Soil Friction Meyerhof’s Coefficient for Recommended Coefficients

Angle, φ Foundation Uplift for Helical Piles
25º 1.20 0.70
30º 1.50 0.90
35º 2.50 1.50
40º 3.90 2.35
45º 5.30 3.20
Table 2.7 Recommended Uplift Coefficients, Ku for Helical Piles (after Mitsch and Clemence, 1985)
Figure 2.3 Variation of Breakout Factor with Embedment
Depth for Shallow Pile Condition based on Mitsch
and Clemence’s Theory (after Das, 1990)
Figure 2.4 Variation of Breakout Factor with Embedment

Depth for Deep Pile Condition Based on Mitsch
and Clemence’s Theory (after Das, 1990)

Single Helix Helical Pile
For a single helix helical pile, the cylindrical shearing resistance connecting the top and bottom helix for
multi-helix piles does not develop. Therefore, the total resistance is derived from shaft and bearing resistance
(see Figures 2.5 and 2.6). Equations used to obtain axial capacity for the multi-helix helical piles should be
adjusted to not include the cylindrical component.
1. Cohesive Soil
Qc = A Cu Nc + πd Heff α Cu Eqn. 2.15
1.2 Tension Loading

Qt = AH ( Cu Nu + γ’ H ) + π d Heff α Cu Eqn. 2.16
2. Cohesionless Soil
Qc = γ’ H A Nq + 1/2 Ps Heff2 γ’ Ks tanφ Eqn. 2.17
2.2 Tension Loading

For Single Helix Helical Piles Installed in Shallow Condition H/D < (H/D)cr
Qt = γ’ H AH Fq Eqn. 2.18
For Single Helix Helical Piles Installed in Deep Condition H/D > (H/D)cr
Qt = γ’ H AH Fq* + 1/2 Ps Heff2 γ’ Ku tanφ Eqn. 2.19
Figure 2.5 Compression Loading Forces Acting Figure 2.6 Tension Loading Forces Acting
on Single Helix Helical Pile on Single Helix Helical Pile
Because the actual theory behind soil mechanics is extremely complicated and beyond the scope of this
manual, the determination of the exact load capacity of each pile is impossible without actual load tests.
A load test should be performed at each site to verify the above information. The above formulas provide
guidelines that, when used with accurate soil data and appropriate safety factors, can be confidently used to
design a suitable helical pile.
Torque Installation Method for Predicting Capacity

An empirical method has been derived and used in the helical pile industry for many years. Installation torque
is used to calculate the ultimate capacity of the screw pile. The average torque achieved during the last 3 to 5
feet of installation is directly proportional to the ultimate axial capacity of the pier.
A pull out test to failure is preformed with the capacity achieved recorded as the ultimate capacity. Using
the ultimate capacity at the given installation torque an empirical torque factor can be calculated. (NOTE: A
tension test is often performed instead of a compression test because they are quicker to setup and perform
and the capacities are generally less than the compression tests—inherent factor of safety).
From the pullout test, an empirical torque factor, Kt can be calculated using the following:
Kt = Qt / T Eqn. 2.20
Where:
T = Average Installation Torque (Ft.Lbs)
Qt = Ultimate Pier Capacity (Lbs.) from load test
Kt = Empirical Torque Factor (1/ft.)
Typical values for Kt range from 2 to 20, with the majority of soils giving a Kt value of 7 to 10. Unless load
tests are preformed to provide a Kt value, a conservative Kt value should be selected when designing piles. It
is important to note that the value for Kt is a combination of soil and helical properties, primarily relating to
friction during installation. As an example, Kt for a dense dry sand would normally be less than for a hard wet
clay.
The factor for 3-½” pipe helical is recommended to be around 7 for most soils and the factor for 2-⅞” pipe is
usually in the 7 to 10 range for most soils.
Appropriate safety factors should then be applied (minimum S.F. = 2.0).
HPS recommends that an architect or engineer design every project. Projects that have sufficient soil, load
and/or historical data available allows for greater determination of the allowable design loads and minimum
acceptable safety factor that can be achieved for the pile design

Part 3 Calculating the Ultimate Resistance to Lateral Loads
Vertical piles resist lateral loads and moments by deflection until the necessary reaction in the surrounding
soil is mobilized. The behavior of the pile under such loading conditions depends on the stiffness of the pile
and the soil strength.
The horizontal load capacity of vertical piles is limited in three different ways:
• Soil capacity
• Excessive bending stresses in the pile material
• Pile deflection exceeds the superstructure maximum allowed.
All three methods of failure should be considered in the design.
All pile method will be used to estimate pile capacity for each case.
All pile has classified the piles’ behavior into two categories:
• Short pile failure where the lateral capacity of the soil adjacent to the pile is fully mobilized (CFEM,
1992)
• Long pile failure where the bending resistance of the pile is fully mobilized (CFEM, 1992).
Results are given for:
• Pile diameter, d
• Embedded length, L
• Lateral load capacity, HU
• Yield moment of pile, MYIELD
• Clay cohesion, CU
• Coefficient of passive sand resistance, KP
• Height of lateral load above ground, e
• Soil unit weight, γ
The first step is to determine whether the pile will behave as a short rigid pile or as an infinitely long flexible
member. Calculating the stiffness factors R and T for the particular combination of pile and soil does this.
The stiffness factors are governed by the stiffness (EI value) of the pile and the compressibility of the soil. The
latter is expressed in terms of a ‘soil modulus’, which is not constant for any soil type but depends on the
width of the pile and the depth of the particular loaded area of the soil being considered. The soil modulus
K has been related to Terzaghi’s concept of a modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction. In the case of stiff
over-consolidated clay, the soil modulus is generally assumed to be constant with depth. Tomlinson (1987)
identifies those factors as:
Stiffness factor R = 4√ (EI/K) (in units of length) Eqn. 3.1
Where: K ≈ khB ≈ 0.305k1/1.5B ≈ k1/5B Eqn. 3.2
Where: k1 is Terzaghi’s subgrade modulus as determined from load-deflection measurements on a
305mm square plate, and B is the width of the pile.
Elson has shown that k1 is related to the undrained shearing strength of the clay, as shown in Table 3.1.
Values of nh (After Terzaghi 1995) are shown in Table 3.2.
Consistency Stiff V. Stiff Hard
Undrained shear strength (Cu) kN/m2 50–100 100–200 >200

Range of k1 MN/m 3
15–30 30–60 >60
Soil modulus (K) MN/m2 3–6 6–12 >12
Table 3.1 Relationship of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k1) to

Undrained Shearing Strength of Stiff Overconsolidated Clay (After Elson)
For most normally consolidated clays and for granular soils the soil modulus is assumed to increase
linearly with depth, for which
Stiffness factor T = 5√ (EI/nh) (in units of length) Eqn. 3.3
Where: K = nh x x/B Eqn. 3.4
nh (Above nh (Below
Soil Compactness Condition Groundwater) Groundwater)
KN/m3 KN/m3
Loose 2200 1300
Compact 6600 4400
Dense 18000 11000
Table 3.2 Values of nh for Cohesionless Soils (Terzaghi, 1955)
Having calculated the stiffness factors R or T, the criteria for behavior as a short rigid pile or as a long
elastic pile are related to the embedded length L as follows in Table 3.3.
Soil Modulus
Pile Type
Linearly Increasing Constant
Rigid (free head) L ≤ 2T L ≤ 2R
Elastic (free head) L ≥ 4T L ≥ 3.5R
Table 3.2 Values of nh for Cohesionless Soils (Terzaghi, 1955)

HPS utilizes and recommends All Pile method to determine the ultimate lateral resistance for an HPS
helical type piling. These piles are most often classified as “Unrestrained or Free-Head short rigid piles”.
(See Broms (1964a) and Broms (1964b) in the References).

Lateral Ultimate Resistance of Piles
For uniform cohesionless soils, All Pile has established the graphical relationships for H/KpB3γ and M∪/
B4γ Kp shown in Figure 3.4 (For short piles) and Figure 3.5 (For long piles), from which the ultimate lateral
resistance Hu can be determined.
Figure 3.4 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Short Pile in Cohesionless Soil related to Embedded Length
Figure 3.5 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Long Pile in Cohesionless Soil Related to Embedded Length
For uniform cohesive soils, All Pile has established the graphical relationships for H/CuB2 and M∪/CuB3
Figure 3.6 (For short piles) and Figure 3.7 (For long piles), from which the ultimate lateral resistance Hu can
be determined.
Figure 3.6 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Short Pile in Cohesive Soil Related toEmbedded Length
Figure 3.7 Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Long Pile inCohesive Soil Related to Embedded Length

Deflection of Vertical Piles Carrying Lateral Loads
In cohesive soils the deflection behavior depends on the dimensionless length βL.
Where:
β =4√ (KB / 4 EI ) Eqn 3.5
Where Y0 is the pile head deflection for lateral load (H) in the dimensionless lateral deflection in Figure
3.8.
Figure 3.8 Lateral Deflection of Pile Head in Cohesive Soil (All Pile)
In cohesionless soils the deflection behavior depends on the dimensionless length ηL.
Where:
η =5√ ( ηh / EI ) Eqn 3.6
Where Y0 is the pile head deflection for lateral load (H) in the dimensionless lateral deflection
in Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9 Lateral Deflection of Pile Head in Cohesionless Soil (All Pile)

Part 4 Moments and Deflections (CFEM 1992)
Lateral Pile Deflections
For the subgrade reaction models, it is assumed that the soil around a pile can be simulated by a series of
horizontal springs, each spring representing the behavior of a layer of soil of unit height. When the pile is
forced against the soil under the action of the horizontal loads, the soil deforms and generates an elastic
reaction assumed to be identical to the force that would be generated by simulating spring subjected
to the same deformation. With the further assumption that the soil is homogenous, i.e., all springs are
identical, the soil’s behavior can be estimated if the equivalent spring constant is known. This spring
constant is called the coefficient of subgrade reactions ks (dimension: force/volume).
Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction may be estimated by the following method.
a) In cohesionless soil
ks = nh ( z / d ) Eqn. 4.1
Where:
ks = coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (force per volume)
z = depth
d = pile diameter
nh = coefficient related to soil density as given in Table 4.1
Soil Compactness nh (kN/m3)

Condition Above Groundwater Below Groundwater
Loose 2200 1300
Compact 6600 4400
Dense 18000 11000
Table 4.1 Values of nh for Cohesionless Soils
b) In cohesive soil

ks = 67 Cu / d Eqn. 4.2
Where:
ks = coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (force per volume)
Cu = undrained shear strength of the soil
d = pile diameter
Determination of Moments and Deflections

This section considers only the most common case of piles with a rigid cap at ground surface. (All Pile)
The distribution and magnitude of moments and deflections in a pile subjected to horizontal forces
are essentially a function of the relative stiffnesses, T, of the pile-soil system. For sand, T is given by the
following relation:
T = ( 4 E I / nh )1/5 Eqn. 4.3
and for overconsolidated clay
T = ( EI / ks d )1/4 Eqn. 4.4
Where:
E = elastic modulus of pile material
I = moment of interia of pile cross section
nh = a constant as given in Table 4.1, above
ks = coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
From the value of T, the moments, Mp, in the pile and the deflections, δp, of the pile cap may be computed
at any depth using the following formulae:
Mp = Fm ( P T ) Eqn. 4.5
δp = Fδ ( P T3 / E I ) Eqn. 4.6
Where:
Mp = moment at depth z
δp = deflection at depth z
Fm = moment coefficient at depth z, as given in Figure 4.2
Fδ = deflection coefficient at depth z, as given in Figure 4.1
P = applied horizontal load
T = relative stiffness
Figuire 4.1 Deflection Coefficients of Laterally Loaded Piles (All Pile)

Table 4.2 Moment Coefficients for Laterally Loaded Piles (All Pile)
Part 5 Buckling of Piles
Helical piles by design are long and slender, and although extremely rare, are susceptible to buckling when
placed under extreme compressive loading conditions. The buckling of piles can be caused by one of two
situations. Extreme compressive forces may cause the shaft to fold and buckle. This would occur in the upper
portion of the pile where the soil is weak. The more common buckling situation is when a pile is exposed
to lateral loading. A pile exposed to lateral loading behaves similar to any supporting member under lateral
loading. The lower part of the pile will remain stationary while the upper part will start to bend. A helical
pile will behave similar to that of slender deep pile with the helix supplying little lateral or bending moment
resistance, unless it is designed to supply resistance (i.e. shallow condition or shallow helix embedment).
Included in this section are varying methods for determining the structural capacity of the pipe shaft portion
of the helical pile. There are different ways to determine the ultimate piling shaft capacity subjected to axial
loading; and we have selected Poulos and Davis (1980) method to estimate the ultimate vertical capacity (Pr)
the pile can take before starts buckling.
Poulos and Davis (1980) suggested the following:
During loading, a partly embedded vertical pile subjected to a vertical load. The stiffness factors R and T as
calculated from Eqn. 3.1 and 3.3 and have been used to obtain the equivalent length of a freestanding pile
with a fixed base, from which the factor of safety against failure due to buckling can be calculated using
conventional structural design methods.
For a partly embedded pile carrying a vertical load P, the equivalent height Le, of the fixed-base pile is shown
in Figure 5.1b.
For soil with a constant modulus:
Depth to a point of fixity zf = 1.4 R Eqn. 5.1
For soils having a linearly-increasing modulus:
zf = 1.8 T Eqn. 5.2
The relationships of equations 5.1 and 5.2 are only approximate, but they are valid for structural design
purposes provided that lmax, which is equal to L/R, is greater than 4 for soils having a constant modulus and
provided that zmax, which is equal to L/T, is greater than 4 for soils having a linearly-increasing modulus. From
Eqn. 5.1 and 5.2 the equivalent length Le of the fixed-base pile (or column) is equal to e + zf and the critical load
for buckling is:
Pcr = ∏2 EI For free-headed conditions Eqn. 5.3
4R2 ( SR + ZR )2
Pcr = ∏2 EI For fixed- (and translating-) Eqn. 5.4
R2 ( SR + ZR )2 headed conditions

Where:
SR = LS / R Eqn. 5.5
JR = LU / R Eqn. 5.6
LS = Equivalent free length of embedded portion of pile (Figure 5.1)

LU = Unsupported pile length
Figure 5.1 Partially Embedded Piles (after Poulos and Davis 1980)
Part 6 Use of Helical Piles as Tiebacks
HPS has been manufacturing multi-helix helical piles since 1977. These piles have established a consistent
record of performance through extensive use in tieback applications for the electric utility and oil and gas
industry. Construction application for helical piles in retaining wall tie backs continue to grow.
Compared to a grouted anchor a helical pile’s advantage is how it removes the performance uncertainties
and costs associated with a grouted anchor when used in loose sandy soils or in low shear strength clay soils.
When placed in the soil, the helical pile acts as a bearing device. This is a fundamental difference compared to
a grouted anchor formed in the soil and reliant on friction between soil and grout. Collapse of a prepared hole
can change a grouted anchor’s dimensions. There is little opportunity to assess the problem’s magnitude and
exact location because it is in the hole, out of sight. Protecting grout from such an occurrence adds the extra
costs of installing casing. A helical pile averts these drawbacks by requiring neither an open hole nor a casing.
Helical piles can be designed to hold large capacities.
Advantages of using HPS helical piles as tiebacks include:
• Competitive installing costs
• Immediate proof testing and loading- no waiting time for grout to cure
• Installs in any weather
• Speeds excavation and construction
• Removable and Reusable
• No spoil to remove
Estimating the lateral loads (Figure 6.1) acting against retaining walls as exerted by the soil requires
knowledge of:
• Soil type and conditions
• Structural dimensions of the retaining structure
• Ground water table
Every wall tieback situation is unique, but there are some aspects that merit attention. The placement of
the pile is influenced by the height of the soil backfill against the wall. Figure 6.2 shows this condition and a
guideline for setting the location of the tieback pile. Experience indicated that the tieback should be located
close to the point of maximum wall bulge and/or close to the most severe transverse crack. In many cases the
tieback placement location must be selected on a case-by-case basis.
Another factor to consider is the height of soil cover over the helical pile. Figure 6.2 also indicates that the
minimum height of the cover is 6 times the diameter of the largest helical plate. Finally, the helical pile must
be installed a sufficient distance away from the wall in order that the helical plate(s) can develop an anchoring
capacity by passive pressure. This requires the length of installation to be related to the height of soil backfill.
From all the above information we can figure out the soil active pressure and the water pressure against
the wall. Upon preliminary design of pile rows depth, the load on each row/ Meter width of the wall can be
calculated. With HPS previous experience with helical piles, we can decide the horizontal spacing between
piles and accordingly the load on each helical pile can be determined.

Figure 6.1 Earth and Water Pressure Distribution Behind Retaining Wall
Figure 6.2 Typical Installation Depth and Length for Helical Tiebacks
Depending on the spacing between Helices (S) / Helix diameter (D) ratio, the design method of the helical
piles will be either:
1. Individual Plate Method

Adam and Klym (1971) stated that at S/D ≥ 2, each helix plate can be assumed to behave independently of the
other. HPS extensive tests showed that this method can be used if S/D ≥ 3.
The individual bearing method assumes that bearing failure occurs above each individual helix. The total uplift
resistance is the sum of the individual capacities.
Qt = Qshaft + ∑ Q I (bearing) Eqn 6.1
Where:
Qt = ultimate uplift capacity
Qshaft = adhesion developed along the steel shaft (Part 2)
∑ Q I (bearing) = sum of the bearing capacity of each individual helix (Part 2)
2. Cylindrical Shear Method

Please refer back to Part 2 for the design.

Part 7 Selection of Helical Pile
HPS helical pile shaft sizes range from 2-⅞” to 36” in diameter with varying wall thicknesses. Table 7.1
lists the most common and readily available pipe shaft sizes. The small diameter shafts are mainly used for
compression and tension loads where lateral loads are minimal. Larger diameter shafts are used when the
helical piling is subjected to large compressive loads and/or lateral loads and/or moments of overturn. There
are many determining factors that lead to the selection of a pipe shaft used for a helical piling. The criteria
that directly lead to the selection of the appropriate shaft size are: axial load, tension load, lateral load,
moment of overturn, torque considerations, installation equipment, helix size, soil conditions and possibly
others. (See Parts 3, 4 and 5 for shaft designing).
Typical Small Notes:
Diameter Shafts
2" 2 7/8", 3 ½” or 4 ½” Shaft: (Pipe) meets or exceeds ASTM
2" Standards with a minimum yield strength of
70 KSI and a minimum tensile strength of
85 KSI.
Shaft: (Bar) meets or exceeds ASTM

Various Wall Standards with minimum yield strength of
L Thickness 95 KSI and a minimum tensile strength of
120 KSI.
Hx3
Helix: Structual quality plate to conform for
latest CSA Standard G 40.21 minimum grade,
ASTM A36.
T
3 x Hx2 Welding: Welding performed by a shop
Hx2 qualified to CSA Standard W47.1 and in
adherance to CSA Standard W59.
Galvanizing: Hot dipped as per latest CSA

T Standard G164-M and ASTM A153, on
3 x Hx1
request.
Hx1
A
P Hx - Helix Diameter 6" to 18"
T - Thickness of Helix ⅜" or ½"

T
3"
P - Pitch of Helix 3" or 6"
5/16"
W320/W321
5/16"
L - Length of pile 2' to 10'
45 ° Cut A
Pipe Shaft Outside Maximum Torque

Common Wall Thickness
Diameter (Ft. Lbs.)
2-7/8" 0.217 8000
3-1/2" 0.254 16,000
4-1/2" 0.250, 0.237 21,500, 20,400
5-1/2" 0.275 43,600
6-5/8" 0.280, 0.250 53,900
8-5/8" 0.264, 0.322 67,000, 81,200
10-3/4 0.365, 0.250 +90,000
12-3/4" 0.375, 0.250 +90,000
Table 7.1 Common Pipe Sizes
The critical factors that dictate the helix size are axial load, tension load, torque consideration, installation
equipment, soil conditions and pipe shaft size (see Table 7.2). Table 7.2 shows the helix configurations that will
fit on various pipe shaft sizes. The minimum sizes are the minimum physical sizes that will fit on pipe and the
maximum are the maximum practical sizes available. (See Part 2 for Helix designing).
HPS Ltd helix sizes come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, if necessary, custom designing to your
specifications.
Helix diameters currently range from 6 to 48 inches, pitches are set at 3, 4, 6, 12 and 24, thickness of plate
range from ¼, ⅜, ½, ¾, and 1 inches.
Helix Diameter (inches)

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
2-7/8 X X X X X X
3-1/2 X X X X X X X
4-1/2 X X X X X X X X
5-1/2 X X X X X X X X X X
Pipe Shaft O.D. (inches)
6-5/8 X X X X X X X X X X X X
8-5/8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
10-3/4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
12-3/4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
20 X X X X X X X X X X X
24 X X X X X X X X X X
30 X X X X X X X
36 X X X X
Table 7.1 Helix Diameter vs. Pipe Shaft
Steps in Pile Selection:

1. Determine applied loads on pile: Dead load, live load & safety factors.
2. Determine site specific soils information: soil type, soil description, soil classification, water table levels
and depth of frost penetration.
3. Compare soils information with pile load and location information. Pile spacing—is there a group effect
among piles?
4. Design pile—pile geometry (See parts 1 thru 5 of manual).
Select: pile shaft, helix diameter and thickness, number of helixes, embedment depth, extension
required? Bolt-On or Welded?
5. Estimate installation torque.
6. Evaluate design—practical? Can the designed pile be installed? Do soil conditions allow for installing?
Equipment/Power? Possibly repeat Step 4.
7. Calculate ultimate pile capacity and apply Safety Factors (Minimum S.F. = 2.0).
The steps are to be used as a guide in the pile design process, other factors may come into play when designing
a helical pile (ie. seismic considerations, soil chemistry, etc.)

Part A Standards, Specifications and Information
• Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM)
• Alberta Building Code
• ASTM A252 Welded and Seamless Steel Pipe Piles
• CSA G40.21-M Structural Quality Steel
• CSA W47.1 Certification of Companies for Fusion Welding of Steel Structures
• CSA W59 Welded Steel Construction Steel construction (Metal Arc Welding)
• CSGB 1-GP-184 Coal Tar Epoxy (black) Coating
• SSPC-SP6 Commercial Blast Cleaning
• ASTM A 153 Specification for Zinc Coatings (Hot-Dip) on Iron and Steel Hardware
• CSA G164 Hot Dip Galvanizing of Irregularly Shaped Articles
Helical Plate:
Minimum ASTM A36 or CSA G40.21 44W Hot Rolled Structural Steel Plate.
Helical Pile Pipe:

3-½” Diameters piers and under (includes 2-⅞” piers):
meets or exceeds ASTM structural grade pipe requirements (min. yield strength of 70 ksi and min.
tensile strength of 85 ksi).
4-½” Diameter piles and larger: meet or exceeds ASTM structural grade pipe requirements, seamless or
straight welded, Pipe wall thickness vary from Schedule 20 – Schedule 40 – Schedule 80, (min. yield
strength of 90 ksi and min. tensile strength of 105 ksi).
Welding:
• All Welding is certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau (CWB) in Division 2.1. The welding design and
welding fabrication of structural steel will be in accordance with the CSA Standard W47.1.
• All welding performed in accordance with the requirements of CSA Standard W59.1, Latest Edition.
Fasteners:
All bolts will be supplied as per customers’ requirements.
Minimum requirements are ASTM A 325 bolts.
Bolts are bare metal (black), plated or hot-dipped galvanized.
Testing Standards:
When conducting Pile Load Tests they are preformed in accordance with ASTM D1143, Standard Method
of Testing Piles Under Axial Compressive Load, ASTM D3689, Standard Method of Testing Individual Piles
Under Static Axial Tensile Load, and ASTM D3966, Standard Method of Testing Piles Under Lateral Loads.
Torques:
The maximum torque for the 2 ⅞" pipe is 8,000 FT.LBS.
The maximum torque for the 3½" pipe is 16,000 FT/LBS.
Part 8 Hot-Dip Galvanizing for Corrosion Protection
For over 150 years galvanizing has had a proven history of commercial success as a method of corrosion
protection in a myriad of applications worldwide.
HPS uses a round shaft pile and as the galvanizing process involves total immersion of the material, it is a
complete process; all surfaces are coated, both inside and outside.
A primary factor governing corrosion behavior of the galvanized coating in liquid chemical environments is
the pH of the solution. Galvanizing performs well in solutions and soils with a pH above 4.0 and below 12.5
within the pH range or 4.0 to 12.5 a protective film forms on the zinc surface and the galvanized coating
protects the steel by slowing corrosion to a very low rate.
Figure 8.1
The pH range of the soil/water is another important factor. Galvanized coatings proved excellent corrosion
resistance when the pH is above 4.0 and below 12.5. See Figure 8.1.
The National Bureau of Standards has conducted an extensive research program on the corrosion of metals in
soils. Some of their research on galvanized steel pipe dates back to 1924. The expected life is based on a zinc
coating thickness of 200μm.
The results of these tests also showed that the galvanized coating will prevent pitting of steel in soil, just
as it does under atmospheric exposure, and that even in instances where the zinc coating was completely
consumed, the corrosion of the underlying steel was much less than that of bare steel specimens exposed
under identical conditions.

The expected life for a galvanized helical pile is calculated using a conservative coating thickness of 200 µm.
The actual measured coating thickness of HPS' helical piles is usually in the 300–400 µm range. If this value is
used then the life expectancy would be double.
The galvanized coating will provide 50–100 years of corrosion free service. The study also showed that even
after all of the galvanized coating is consumed the residual zinc in the soil would reduce the corrosion on the
remaining steel pile.
Cathodic Protection
Cathodic protection is an equally important method for preventing corrosion. Cathodic protection requires
changing an element of the corrosion circuit, introducing a new corrosion element, and ensuring that the base
metal becomes the cathodic element in the circuit.
There are two major variations of the cathodic method of corrosion protection. The first is called the
impressed current method. In this method an external current source is used to impress a cathodic charge on
all the iron or steel to be protected. While such systems generally do not use a great deal of electricity, they are
often very expensive to install. The other form of cathodic protection is the sacrificed anode method, in which
a metal or alloy that is anodic to the metal to be protected is placed in the circuit and becomes the anode. The
protected metal becomes the cathode and does not corrode. The anode corrodes, thereby providing the desired
sacrificial protection. In nearly all electrolytes encountered in everyday use, zinc is anodic to iron and steel.
Thus the galvanized coating provides cathodic corrosion protection as well as larrier protection.
Further information on galvanizing can be obtained from the American Galvanizing Association
([email protected]).
Pipe Manufacturer's Specifications
Specifications A252 Piling Pipe
Scope Covers nominal (average) wall steel pipe piles of cylindrical shape and ap-
plies to pipe piles in which the steel cylinder acts as a permanent load-carrying
member or as a shell to form cast-in-place concrete piles.
Kinds of Steel Open-hearth
Permitted for Basic-oxygen
Pipe Matedal Electric-furnace
Permissible Variations
Not more than 12.5% under the nominal wall thickness specified.
in Wall Thickness
Chemical Seamless and Welded Pipe: Phosphorus Max. %
Requirements Open-hearth, Electric-furnace or Basic-oxygen 0.050
Hydrostatic Testing None specified.
Permissible
The weight of any length of pile shall not vary more than 15% over or 5% under
Variations in the weight specified. Each length shall be weighed separately.
Weights per Foot
Permissible Variations
Shall not vary more than plus or minus 1% from the diameter specified.
in Outside Diameter
Mechanical Tests Tensile Test—Either longitudinal or transverse at option of manufacturer.
Specified Minimum yield determined by the drop of the beam, by the halt in the gage of
the testing machine, or by the use of dividers.
Number of Tests
One tensile property test per 200 lengths.
Required
Lengths May be ordered in single or double random lengths or in uniform lengths:
Single Random—16'-25' md.
Double Random—Over 25' (mm. avg. of 35').
Uniform—Plus or minus 1 on length specified.
Required Markings on
Each Length Rolled, Die Stamped or Paint Stenciled (Mfgrs. option)
(On Tags attached to Manufacturer's name, brand or trademark, heat number, method of pipe man-
each Bundle in case ufacture, size, weight, length, wall thickness and ASTM A252 and the Grade.
of Bundled Pipe)
General Information Surface imperfections exceeding 25% of the nominal wall in depth are consid-
ered defects. Defects not exceeding 33.5% of the nominal wall in depth may be
repaired by welding. Before welding, the defect shall be completely removed.
Note: This is summarized information from ASTM Standards and API Specification 5L. Please refer to the specific
Standard or Specification for more details.
Mechanical Properties
Mechanical Properties Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Tensile Strength, min Psi 50,000 60,000 66,000
Mpa 345 414 455
kg/mm2 35.2 42.2 46.4
Yield Strength, min Psi 30,000 35,000 45,000
Mpa 205 240 310
kg/mm2 21.1 24.6 31.6
Elongation, min % 30 25 24
Gauge Length in 2 / (48t + 15) 2 / (40t + 12.50) 2 / (32t + 1.00)

Grade 44W Carbon structural steel
Pier Helicals: CSA Grade 44W
Product Plates Shapes

Thickness, in. (mm) To 3/4 Over 3/4 to 1-1/2
All
(20), incl. (20 to 40), incl.
Carbon, max, % 0.25 0.25 0.26
Manganese, % … 080–1.20 …
Phosphorus, max, % 0.04 0.04 0.04
Sulfur, max, % 0.05 0.05 0.05
Silicon, % 0.40 max 0.40 max 0.40 max
Copper, min, % when
0.20 0.20 0.20
copper steel is specified
Mechanical Specifications: CSA 44W

Plates, Shapes, and Bars: Plates and Bars:
Tensile strength, ksi (MPa) 58–80 (400-550) Elongation in 8 in. (200 mm), min, % 20
Yield point, min, ksi (MPa) 44 (300) Elongation in 2 in. (50 mm), min, % 23
Part B References
ASTM D 1143-81 (1981). “Standard Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load”; (Reapproved
1984). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1997, Vol. 04.08, pp. 95-105.
ASTM D 3689-90 (1990). “Standard Test Method for Individual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile Load”;
(Reapproved 1995). Annual Book of ASTM Standard, 1997, Vol. 04.08, pp.366-375.
ASTM D 3966-90 (1990). “Standard Test Method for Individual Piles Under Lateral Loads”; (Reapproved
1995). Annual Book of ASTM Standard, 1997, Vol. 04.08, pp.389-399.
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (1992). Handbook of Steel Construction, 5th Edition. Universal
Offset Limited, Markham, ON. pp.1-40 and 4-68 to 4-74.
CFEM (1992). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. 3rd Edition. Canadian Geotechnical Society,
Technical Committee on Foundations, BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, B.C.
Broms, B.B. (1964a). “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils”; Journal for Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.,
ASCE, Vol. 90, SM2, pp. 27-64.
Broms, B.B. (1964b). “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils”; Journal for Soil Mech. and Found.
Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 90, SM3, pp. 123-156.
Das, B.M. (1990) Earth Anchors. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 241p.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1976). “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations”; Journal of th Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No. GT3, March 1976,
pp. 197-224.
Meyerhof, G.G., and Adams, J.I. (1968). “Ultimate Uplift Capacity of Foundations”; Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. V, no.4, pp.225-244.
Mitsch, M.P., and Clemence, S.P. (1985). “The Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors in Sand. Uplift Behavior of
Anchor Foundations in Soil”; Proceedings of ASCE, New York, N.Y. pp. 26-47.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. University of Sydney, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, N.Y. pp 324-327
Tomlinson, M.J. (1987) Pile design and Construction Practice, 3rd Edition. E & FN Spon, London, pp 205-215
Trofimenkov, J.G., and Mariupolskii, L.G. (1965). “Helical Piles Used for Mast and Tower Foundations”;
Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal,
Quebec, Vol. 11, pp.328-332.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (1985) “Pile Construction”, Field Manual No. 5-134, www.adtdl.army.mil/atdls.
htm, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC,
Zhang,Diane J.Y. (1999). “Predicting Capacity of Helical Helical Piles in Alberta Soils”; MSc Thesis,
Geotechnical Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta
Helical Pier Systems Ltd. recommends field testing to verify the theoretically predicted pile capacity and to determine allowable
design loads and minimum acceptable Safety Factors for the specific project.

Team work
The foundation for success
Industrial | Commercial | Residential

(Livro) Helical Pile Engineering Handbook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Livro) Helical Pile Engineering Handbook PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Livro) Helical Pile Engineering Handbook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineered

Transmission Project Designed by Tom Bradka M.Eng, P.Eng

Helical Pile Engineering Handbook

This manual is available online at www.helicalpiersystems.com

2 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Helix: Structural quality steel to conform per latest CSA Standards

W320/W321 If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: per latest CSA standard

8" 6" – 42"

Figure AA Single Helix Screw Pier/Pile

4 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Helix: Structural quality steel to conform per latest CSA Standards

A If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: per latest CSA standard

Figure BB Double Helix Screw Pier/Pile

All holes are 15/16" Diameter

Helix: Structural quality steel to conform per latest CSA Standards

10" If required: Hot Dipped Galvanizing: per latest CSA standard

6 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

1 ½”, 1 ¾”, 2"

1 ½”, 1 ¾”, 2"

Hx - Helix Diameter 6" to 18" Hx - Helix Diameter 6" to 18"

T - Thickness of Helix ⅜" or ½" T - Thickness of Helix ⅜" or ½"

P - Pitch of Helix 3" or 6" P - Pitch of Helix 3" or 6"

L - Length of pile 2' to 10' L - Length of pile 2' to 10'

Triple Square Helix Screw Pier/Pile Square Shaft Extension

Hx - Helix Diameter 6" to 18"

T - Thickness of Helix ⅜" or ½"

P - Pitch of Helix 3" or 6"

L - Length of pile 2' to 10'

8 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Bearing Capacity Depends On:

Helical Pile Uses

New Construction Foundation

10 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Temporary Buildings and Modular Structures

12 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Slope and Bank Stabilization

Figure E Retaining Wall Tie-Backs

14 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Soil Class Description of Soil

16 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Undrained Shear Strength, Cu

γ = W/V Eqn. 1.1

18 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Qc = Qhelix + Qbearing + Qshaft Eqn. 2.1

20 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Pile Toe Diameter (m) Nc

Explanation of some of the terms:

1.2 Uplift Loading

Qt = ( π D Lc ) Cu + AH ( Cu Nu + γ’ H ) Eqn. 2. 6

22 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Explanation of some of the terms:

Table 2.3 Bearing Capacity Factor, Nq, for Cohesionless Soils

Installation Method Ks/Ko

2.2 Uplift Loading

24 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010

Explanation of some of the terms:

Soil Friction Meyerhof’s Coefficient for Recommended Coefficients

Figure 2.4 Variation of Breakout Factor with Embedment

26 copyright © 7th Edition January, 2010