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

net/publication/322681274

A critical review: State of knowledge in seismic behaviour of helical piles

Article · January 2017

DOI: 10.1080/19375247.2017.1414108

CITATIONS READS

4 321

3 authors, including:

Amy Cerato Tatiana Vargas

University of Oklahoma University of Oklahoma
69 PUBLICATIONS   1,160 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

ODOT: Evaluation and Field Verification of Strength and Structural Improvement of Chemically Stabilized Subgrade Soil View project

Oklahoma Transportation Center: The Effects of Soil Suction on Shallow Slope Stability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amy Cerato on 16 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations
Institute

ISSN: 1937-5247 (Print) 1937-5255 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ydfi20

A critical review: State of knowledge in seismic

behaviour of helical piles

A. B. Cerato, T. M. Vargas & S. M. Allred

To cite this article: A. B. Cerato, T. M. Vargas & S. M. Allred (2017) A critical review: State of
knowledge in seismic behaviour of helical piles, DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations
Institute, 11:1, 39-87, DOI: 10.1080/19375247.2017.1414108

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19375247.2017.1414108

Published online: 24 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ydfi20
A critical review: State of knowledge in seismic
behaviour of helical piles
A. B. Cerato1*, T. M. Vargas2 and S. M. Allred1
Helical piles are being used in seismic regions of the U.S. and other countries, yet there remains much
confusion regarding the state of practice and building codes for this pile type. Nonetheless, it is
anticipated that piles with comparatively small cross-section and high anchoring capacity, such as
helical piles, could be beneficial for seismic resistance due to their slenderness, higher damping
ratios, ductility, and resistance to tip uplift. In addition, helical piles can be easily implemented as a
retrofitting solution for foundations that are found to be deficient according to updated seismic
codes. This paper is part of three phase investigation on the use of helical piles for earthquake
mitigation. The results of an extensive literature and industry search for previous seismic tests
performed on helical piles are highlighted as well as the current design standards used in seismic
regions. Existing seismic testing results and current design standards are analysed to make
recommendations about how to fill the knowledge gaps and provide quantitative data on the
behaviour of helical piles under seismic conditions.
Keywords: Helical piles, Helical piers, Seismic design, Earthquakes, Shake table, Deep foundations

Introduction
Helical piles are deep foundation elements that look like,
and are installed like, a large steel soil screw – they have a
slender steel shaft with any number of round plates welded
to the shaft at the tip to provide support to the structure
they hold (Fig. 1). Helical piles are rotated into the ground
with a large torque motor and provide support through soil
bearing on the helix bearing plates and along the shaft. A
helical pile is considered a low-displacement pile, where
the leading helix cuts through the soil according to the
pitch of the helix, with all trailing helices following the
same cutting path. Even a careful installation will create a
zone of disturbance around the pile, with the amount of dis-
turbance depending on the soil type, size and number of
helices. Disturbance effects can be mitigated, in some
instances, by cyclically preloading the pile or anchor in a
sand, or simply waiting in a saturated soft clay. Helical
piles come in many lengths and are often the foundation
of choice for foundation repair, retrofitting existing build-
ings or new urban construction, due to their small footprint
and ability to create minimal disturbance to surrounding
structures. Helical piles are routinely installed as foundation
elements in seismically active areas such as New Zealand
1
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
2
Project Engineer, Carollo Engineering, Tampa, FL, USA
*Corresponding author, email acerato@ou.edu
and Japan where design codes have been written specifically
for the use of helical piles. While helical piles have been used
in seismic areas within the United States, there remains a
good deal of confusion throughout the industry regarding
appropriate design classifications and specifications.
This confusion, admittedly, was brought on by arbitrary
exclusion of higher seismic design categories from accep-
tance criteria used for code compliance technical evaluation
of manufactured helical products even though numerous
‘survival’ case studies exist from past earthquakes in New
Zealand (Woods 2016, July), Japan, and the United States
(Perko 2009).
For example, in New Zealand, it was observed that heli-
cal pile foundations fared much better than driven and
drilled concrete piles after the 2011 Christchurch earth-
quake. Woods (2016, July) described in a personal com-
munication that out of the 300 structures in centre city
Christchurch supported by helical piles, less than 10 suf-
fered significant structural damage, while many structures
supported by driven and drilled concrete piles were
damaged enough that they were condemned and demol-
ished. Woods (2016, July) also conducted an exhumation
of a multi-story parking structure on helical piles and
found no damage to the piles. These piles were later
reinstalled during the rebuilding effort.
Similar anecdotal observations exist from the 1994
Northridge Earthquake in the United States, however
they have never been well documented. Perko (2009)
describes a discussion with an engineer who surveyed

© 2018 Deep Foundations Institute

Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute
Received 7 November 2017; accepted 4 December 2017
DOI 10.1080/19375247.2017.1414108 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11 NO 1 39
Cerato et al. A critical review
1 Typical helical pile configuration
some structures after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and
found that helical piles performed better than other types of
surrounding foundations. This case study describes a few
structures that had to undergo partial foundation repair
prior to the earthquake. The partial repair for these struc-
tures consisted of installing helical piles to support the
parts of each structure where the previous foundation had
not performed adequately. The survey concluded that
these particular structures suffered significant foundation
and structural damage where the previous foundation had
remained in place, while the parts of each structure
supported by helical piles suffered minimal structural or
foundational damage.
It is obvious from these documented case studies that the
international community has anecdotal proof that helical
piles perform well in earthquake prone areas, but engineers
have not quantified why. Therefore, experimental full-scale
projects subjected to real earthquake loads that seek to find
out why helical piles seem to behave so well in seismic regions
will be essential in narrowing or closing this wide knowledge
gap. In order to determine the best way forward in under-
standing the behaviour of helical piles under seismic loads,
it is instructive to compile, compare and contrast the existing
research. While good work has been performed on many
aspects of helical pile axial and lateral cyclic and dynamic
behaviour, the studies are limited with most simulating earth-
quake loads by simplified loads at the top of the pile. In
addition, very few tests have directly compared different
pile types in the same subsurface at the same time. This leaves
engineers with site specific responses spanning various load-
ing protocols and no clear overall consensus on how helical
piles should be designed or how helical piles compare to
more traditional and accepted foundations in active seismic
areas. This paper discusses the current state-of-practice of
helical piles in seismic areas, existing research and results
and recommendations for future research.
40 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11
Current helical pile design practices
across the world
Helical pile design procedures in the United States have
gone through a remarkable evolution over the past 10
years with the establishment of the 2007 AC 358 Helical
Pile Acceptance Criteria (ICC-ES 2013) and inclusion of
helical screw piles in the 2009 International Building
Code (IBC). AC358 was written by an Ad Hoc committee
of helical pile manufacturers and engineering consultants
and presented to the International Code Council – Evalu-
ation Services (ICC-ES); a private, for-profit evaluation
company authorised by the International Building Code
(IBC) to evaluate products. AC358 was vetted and adopted
by the ICC-ES in 2007. It is used today as the basis for issu-
ance of an evaluation report (Evaluation Service Report
(ESR)) that could be used to aid a building official in asses-
sing if helical piles meet their building code (Perko 2007).
AC358 established standards for evaluation of small diam-
eter (less than 4.5 inches), low displacement helical piles
and foundation brackets, taking into consideration connec-
tion to structures, buckling, corrosion and soil interaction.
The acceptance criteria includes new construction, foun-
dation augmentation, slab support and tension anchor pro-
duct applications. Four primary strength components are
considered, including brackets, shafts, helical bearing plates
and soil interaction. Brackets are evaluated for their con-
nection to structures, internal strength and connection to
pile shafts. Shaft evaluation includes tension and com-
pression as well as shear and torsion. Helix bearing plates
are evaluated for punching, weld shear and torsion and
soil capacity evaluation considers compression, tension
and lateral load resistance (Perko 2007).
It should be noted that AC358 is a product evaluation
tool, not a guide code. The development of this acceptance
criteria was to supplement general requirements for helical
NO 1

piles in the 2009 IBC. AC358 is a vehicle by which building
officials can evaluate products, rate them, and make sure
they meet IBC codes without requiring the pile to be engin-
eered on every single job. However, the criteria were arbitra-
rily constrained by the ICC-ES to helical pile systems and
devices used to support structures only in generally non-
seismic areas, corresponding to Seismic Design Categories
(SDC) A, B or C (AC 358 Section 1.2.1) to limit the ICC-
ES liability and/or responsibility as an evaluating agency.
In other words, the ICC-ES established the SDC limits to
‘generally non-seismic’ areas that would apply to their
evaluation of helical piles. The application and use of heli-
cal piles in areas with SDC D, E, and F would require
further analysis by a registered design professional. It is
the responsibility of the design professional and general
contractor to be sure materials used in construction meet
the code for seismic applications. It is the responsibility of
the building official to enforce this.
While the IBC never states which type of foundations are
allowed in different seismic design categories, it implies
which foundations are recommended for SDCs by provid-
ing seismic requirement sections for select types of deep
foundations. Specifically, the IBC talks about seismic
requirements of concrete foundations for SDCs A and B
in Section 1808.8.6 and points to Section 1908 for
additional requirements for foundations of structures in
SDCs C, D, E or F, while noting that provisions of ACI
318 Sections 21.12.1 through 21.12.4 shall apply when not
in conflict with the IBC. In Section 1810.2.4.1, the IBC
requires that structures assigned to SDC D, E or F, or
deep foundation elements on Site Class E or F sites be
designed and constructed to withstand maximum imposed
curvatures from earthquake ground motions and structure
response. Two exceptions to this requirement are precast
pre-stressed concrete piles and cast-in-place deep foun-
dation elements that have specific detailing requirements.
Micropiles are detailed in Section 1810.3.10 for Seismic
Design Categories A and B, and require a permanent
steel casing to the point of zero curvature in Seismic Design
Category C. Micropiles are only supposed to be used as
alternative systems in Seismic Design Categories D, E
and F, as specified in Section 104.11, which requires that
supporting documentation and test data proving that the
proposed design is satisfactory and is at least ‘equivalent
of that prescribed in the code in quality, strength, effective-
ness, fire resistance, durability and safety,’ to be submitted
to the building official for review and approval. Section
104.11 is a catch-all provision which allows any material
or design or method of construction not specifically pre-
scribed by the code to be implemented on a project, pro-
vided it has been approved by the building official. The
problem with provisions such as these is that some building
officials may not be comfortable approving an alternative
design, even with adequate supporting testing data, simply
from lack of experience using the system and the fear of the
unknown or lack of engineering background to feel comfor-
table understanding the calculations. Finally, driven piles
and helical piles are briefly described in Sections
1810.3.1.4 and 1810.3.1.5, with only a mention that they
‘shall be designed and manufactured in accordance with
accepted engineering practice to resist all stresses induced
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cerato et al. A critical review
by handling, driving and service loads.’ The IBC makes
no specific mention of SDCs within which either driven or
helical piles could be utilised.
In addition to AC358 and the IBC within the United
States, the 2006 Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
(CFEM 1992) provides a helical pile design methodology
for design of both small and large diameter helical piles
considering shaft friction. The Institution of Professional
Engineers, New Zealand (IPENZ) published ‘Practice
Note 28, Screw Piles: Guidelines for Design Construction
and Installation’ in 2015 after encountering a substantial
increase in the installation of helical piles in New Zealand
following the 2010/11 earthquakes in Christchurch.
IPENZ was concerned that a lack of standards and Codes
of Practice may result in performance issues. Therefore,
IPENZ used the existing 2009 Australian Standard (AS
2159) Piling Design and Installation, to create a design
standard specifically for New Zealand that highlights
many critical elements of the design, certification, installa-
tion and testing of screw piles. This Practice Note focuses
heavily on seismic considerations, including liquefaction
potential, cyclic softening, lateral spreading and land slid-
ing. This Practice Note is a technical reference to inform
engineers, developers, contractors and local authorities of
best practices and critical elements to take into consider-
ation while designing and installing helical piles in New
Zealand.
Direct pile type comparisons
The dynamic response of a deep foundation depends on the
dynamic impedances and the pile-soil interaction presented
in all projects, therefore, different models have been pro-
posed to quantify these dynamic responses (e.g. Lumped
mass models, Winkler models, finite element methods,
cone models and the continuum approach). Dynamic soil-
pile-structure interaction under earthquake loading is mod-
elled considering soil and structural yielding, pile-soil gap
formation, radiation damping and cyclic degradation of
soil stiffness and strength (Allotey and El Naggar 2008).
Yet, a limited amount of research is available to directly
compare the cyclic or dynamic performance of helical
piles versus other pile types. Consequently, any contrast
regarding their damping and resilience advantages under
earthquakes events remains subjective and dependent on
the particular soil characteristics of the testing site. For
instance, dynamic axial loadings were applied to full-scale
helical piles with two helix bearing plates and closed
ended driven piles (that presented the same pile diameter
and length) using an oscillator that covered a frequency
spectrum from 3 to 60 Hz. The oscillator was comprised
of two counteracting shafts and each carried a set of
eccentric masses to generate harmonic excitation. The test
was conducted two weeks after the installation of the piles
in a layered profile composed mainly of sandy and clayey
soils. It was concluded that the response of driven and heli-
cal piles was close, and therefore the performance was simi-
lar for the geometries tested (Elkasabgy and El Naggar
2013). Conversely, high strain dynamic tests conducted on
helical piles and driven piles (with the same shaft diameter
and embedment depth) in a layered profile consisting
2017 VOL 11 NO 1 41
Cerato et al. A critical review
mainly of silt and silty clay, concluded that helical piles pro-
vided about 230% to 290% higher capacities than driven
piles (Sakr 2013). These two studies show that the response
of a pile is highly dependent on the soil type it is embedded
in and when the soil profile is siltier, the helices seem to pro-
vide an axial capacity advantage over a driven pile. More
research on other types of soils is needed to identify the
influence of the soil-pile interaction, different cyclic ampli-
tudes and loading levels on the helical pile’s behaviour.
Another study that used comparator piles was published
by Prasad and Rao in 1994, who quantified the behaviour of
driven and helical piles under lateral cyclic loading to deter-
mine what effect it had on the ultimate uplift capacity.
These small-scale foundations were installed in cohesive
soils in a laboratory setting. Phase one consisted of static
lateral tests to determine the ultimate lateral capacity
defined as the lateral load at which the load-displacement
curve generated from the tests became linear. Phase two
consisted of lateral cyclic loading. The number of cycles
was determined during testing, and were stopped when
the deflection of the pile stabilised (did not change). This
usually occurred after a few hundred cycles, but the testing
never exceeded 500 cycles (Prasad and Rao 1994). Further-
more, lateral cyclic tests were conducted at three different
load levels. The load levels were calculated as percentages
of the maximum lateral capacity determined from Phase
one. The load levels ranged from 30% to 75% of the maxi-
mum lateral capacities. After subjecting the foundations to
a maximum of 500 cycles for each load level, pullout tests
were performed to determine the effect of the soil disturb-
ance on the ultimate uplift capacity.
The study determined that at low load levels (30%) for both
types of foundations, neither experienced a decrease in the
ultimate pullout capacity. When the load level increased to
50% on the driven piles, the deflections of the pile head dra-
matically increased, which caused high soil disturbance and
decreased the ultimate pullout capacity by an average of
23%, while the helical pile pullout capacity was not
decreased. The 70% load level caused a reduction of the dri-
ven pile uplift capacity by 30%, while the helical pile only
experienced a reduction in uplift capacity of 3%. The
reduction of the uplift capacity for the helical pile only
occurred when its top helix bearing plate was embedded
deep enough for the shaft above to create adhesion with the
soil. This indicated that the uplift capacity of the helix bearing
plates was left unchanged. The reason for the drastic decrease
in the driven pile uplift capacity was because a driven pile in
uplift achieves all of its capacity through skin friction, and the
high lateral deflections that formed gapping around the pile
shaft reduced that skin friction. While this gapping also
occurred around the helical pile shaft, all of the support pro-
vided by the helical pile is through its helix bearing plates.
When considering the effects of lateral cyclic loadings on sta-
tic uplift capacity, helical piles are recommended over driven
piles (Prasad and Rao 1994).
One study was found that directly compared a concrete
foundation to a driven steel pipe pile foundation, and it
was during a passive foundation condition, three-layer
liquefaction event. The two single, full-scale piles tested in
Cubrinovski, Kokusho and Ishinhara (2006) were a solid
steel pipe pile and a pre-stressed high strength concrete
42 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11
(PHC) pile of similar ∼ 12-inch diameter. The PHC pile
revealed low lateral resistance and displaced with the
ground surface throughout the duration of lateral spread-
ing. The high displacement quickly caused the PHC pile
to reach its ultimate moment, and a plastic hinge was gen-
erated at the base of the liquefied layer. In contrast, the steel
pile displayed high lateral resistance and did not follow the
ground surface displacement causing high relative displace-
ment between the two. In the initial stages of lateral spread-
ing, the steel pile reached a maximum deflection of 5 cm,
then resisted further movement as soil continued to flow
around it. This behaviour is comparable to results found
in Abdoun and Dobry (2002). The surface soil reached a
maximum passive pressure to the steel pile causing high
bending moments at both interfaces of liquefiable and
non-liquefiable strata. However, unlike the PHC pile, maxi-
mum moments only reached approximately 60% of the steel
pile’s yield moment.
Comparisons between foundation types installed in the
same subsurface and subjected to the same loads, such as
what was just discussed, is instructive for engineers to better
understand how varying foundations behave for a specific
application. However, there have been relatively few studies
that provide this important insight. The most common pile
type comparison found was driven steel piles with helical
piles, as mentioned previously, and there was only one
study found that compared a concrete pile with a steel dri-
ven pile under seismic load. More effort must be placed in
conducting research on side-by-side foundation types to
better assess relative behaviour when subjected to the
same loads in the same soil profile.
Previous work on single helical piles – axial
cyclic/dynamic loads
In terms of understanding how helical piles react to axial
cyclic and/or dynamic loads in varying subsurfaces, there
have been a number of studies performed to not only under-
stand how a helical pile behaves during an earthquake, but
to specifically determine how the pile or anchor sustains
their ultimate design capacity following a seismic event.
These events can cause high amounts of disturbance to
the soil surrounding the foundation, which can effectively
decrease the axial and lateral capacity of the pile. El Naggar
and Abdelghany (2007a, 2007b) sought to quantify the
amount that the ultimate axial compressive capacity of a
helical pile reduces after a seismic event simplified by
axial cyclic loads. They subjected three plain helical screw
piles (HSP) and four grouted helical screw piles (GHSP)
in cohesive soils to 15 load cycles of the same frequency,
which was determined to be the average number of ‘effec-
tive’ load cycles of an earthquake. The ultimate capacity
was determined using torque correlations and compared
with the axial compressive failure loads of the final tests.
Based on the results, it was concluded that after being sub-
jected to 15 cyclic loadings the ultimate bearing capacity of
the HSP decreased by 5%–10% and the GHSP by 18%.
Therefore, it was suggested that both performed satisfac-
torily and warranted consideration for axial cyclic appli-
cations in cohesive soils (El Naggar and Abdelghany
2007a, 2007b).
NO 1

El Sharnouby and El Naggar (2012a) researched the
axial cyclic and monotonic compression performance of
steel-fibre reinforced helical pull-down micropiles
(RHPM) versus a plain helical pile and compared the
results. Phase one consisted of statically loading one plain
helical pile, and six RHPM to a minimum deflection
equal to 8% of the average helix bearing plate diameter.
Phase two consisted of cyclically loading the six RHPM fol-
lowed by axial loading until the load approached the 890
kN capacity of the load cell. The cyclic loading of phase
two consisted of 15 load cycles each applied over 2-min dur-
ations. There was significant contribution of the grout shaft
at working load levels, which attributed for 72%–80% of the
total resistance. However, this contribution decreased to a
range of 36%–50% of the total resistance at higher load
levels. As a result of this decrease in grout shaft contribution
to total resistance, the load is transferred to the first helix
bearing plate on the lead section. The RHPM demon-
strated good behaviour during cyclic loading as no degra-
dation was observed after 15 load cycles, and the
resulting displacement was observed to be less than 1.77%
of the shaft diameter. Additionally, the ultimate capacity
of the test piles was found to increase after application of
one-way cyclic loading with the average and maximum cyc-
lic loading greater than 40% and 54% of the ultimate
capacity, respectively. From these results, it was concluded
that RHPM are a viable foundation system in axial mono-
tonic and one-way cyclic loading applications.
Abdelghany (2008) studied the effect of axial cyclic load-
ing on the ultimate axial capacity of 23 helical piles with
different types of reinforcement in the grout column and
installed in cohesive soils. The piles had similar geometries
and all had three helix bearing plates on the lead sections,
which decreased in diameter towards the pile tip to assist
with the installation process. Many types of reinforcement
were applied to several of the test piles including: Grouted
Helical Screw Piles (G-HSP), Grouted Reinforced Helical
Screw Piles (RG-HSP), and Fibre Reinforced Polymer
Grouted Helical Screw Piles (FRP-G-HSP). Plain Helical
Screw Piles (PHSP) were also tested for a baseline compari-
son. This effect was studied by conducting initial quick
compression tests before applying 15 cyclic loadings.
These were followed by post cyclic quick compression
tests conducted in the same manner as the initial com-
pression tests. The quick compression tests were conducted
to failure, which was the applied load at an axial deflection
equal to 10% of the average helix bearing plate diameter.
The effect of cyclic loading proved to be insignificant to
PHSP, as this pile’s ultimate capacity slightly reduced
within the range of 5–10%. This reduction is considered
insignificant since a typical helical pile is designed with a
factor of safety of two times its design load. RG-HSPs
revealed the highest capacities of all piles tested, and on
average was approximately double that of PHSP before
and after cyclic loading and reached up to 187% of this
pile’s predicted capacity derived from previous empirical
torque correlations. In many of the tests conducted, the
effects of cyclic loading benefited the capacities of the
piles. In general, the RG-HSPs, G-HSPs, and FRP-G-
HSPs (with no outside grout column) showed increases in
ultimate compressive capacities as a result of cyclic loading
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cerato et al. A critical review
effects. Some were significant increases up to approximately
50% for a few of the G-HSPs and FRP-G-HSPs. These
increases were attributed to the cyclic loading of
piles stiffening the surrounding soil, which had been
previously disturbed from the pile installation process.
Abdelghany (2008) concluded that HSPs perform
satisfactorily under axial cyclic loading conditions, and
therefore should be considered in seismic applications in
cohesive soils.
Helical anchors used as foundation systems for wind
tower guyed cables are subjected to constant dynamic ten-
sile forces from wind turbine vibration and environmental
loads such as ice, water, snow, and wind. As a result of
being constantly subjected to these forces, helical anchors
can experience creep, or anchor movement under load
over time. Cerato and Victor (2008, 2009) conducted
research on helical anchors to determine effects of long-
term dynamic loading, fluctuating water table, and helix
bearing plate geometries. To determine these effects, five
helical anchors were dynamically loaded for 2–4 weeks
and were constantly monitored. This was followed by
post-dynamic static tests. Included in the five helical
anchors were three different helix bearing plate geometries,
including two, three and four helices. A sixth anchor was
only tested statically as a benchmark comparison. Dynamic
loads were applied in sustained-repeated loading at 3–5 Hz
which ensured the anchors were subjected to constant ten-
sion throughout. From these tests, it was concluded that
long-term creep can be minimised and static uplift capacity
of helical anchors can be increased significantly by pre-
loading them with dynamic loads at high ratios of high cyc-
lic loads to static uplift capacity (0.25–0.40). This increase
was attributed to densifying the soil after installation. It
was also observed that a significant rise in water table can
greatly reduce the anchor uplift capacity. As a result, it
was recommended to install helical piles to a depth where
the uppermost helix bearing plate is below the lowest
known ground water table location to prevent a reduction
in uplift capacity. Additionally, the optimum helix bearing
plate geometry determined for this study was three helices.
The two-helix geometry performed poorly as it encountered
excessive creep. Furthermore, the addition of a fourth helix
bearing plate revealed similar behaviour to that of three
helices and did not display additional strength as expected.
Additional details of all studies discussing single helical
piles under axial cyclic or dynamic loads can be found in
Table A1.
Previous work on single helical piles – lateral
cyclic/dynamic loads
The lateral deflection of piles is caused primarily due to the
plastic deformation of soil. Even so, it has been found that
helical piles recovered most of the deflection during unload-
ing, indicating minimal structural damage (El Sharnouby
and El Naggar 2011b). This is most likely due to the duct-
ility of the pile. A pile is generally classified as flexible when
the length over which the pile deflects due to lateral cyclic
loads is less than the total length of the pile. Perko (2009)
stated that a lower slenderness ratio (ratio of pile length
= L to its diameter = d) should result in a lower lateral
2017 VOL 11 NO 1 43
Cerato et al. A critical review
flexural response and that under dynamic lateral loading,
the damping response of a pile increases as the flexural
characteristics of the pile increases; therefore, a lower pile
head displacement is obtained. This observation was pre-
viously quantified in a study by Tabesh and Poulos (1999)
who found that the increase in pile flexural behaviour
induced larger strains, which produced an increased damp-
ing energy from the soil that may reduce the pile head accel-
eration up to 60%. Using observations from damaged pile
exhumations from three earthquakes, Miura (1997) con-
cluded that a ‘pile with higher rigidity will be damaged fas-
ter than a pile with lower rigidity when they are subjected to
the same ground motion,’ and that ‘[a flexible pile] is better
than a pile with higher rigidity.’ By all anecdotal success
stories and case-history accounts of foundation perform-
ance under seismic load, flexibility due to the material prop-
erty of the pile and possibly the looser soils within the zone
of influence caused by installation disturbance, is one of
helical piles’ greatest assets.
Unlike the large number of studies detailing the axial cyc-
lic and dynamic capacity of helical piles, the amount of
research conducted to quantify the performance of helical
piles under cyclic or dynamic lateral loadings is limited.
All existing tests are detailed in Table A2. Abdelghany
(2008) conducted research on the effect of lateral cyclic
loading of helical piles in cohesive soils. The test piles
were the same as used for the axial monotonic and cyclic
tests as discussed previously. Initial lateral load tests were
conducted to determine the ultimate capacities of the test
pile, which was considered the applied lateral load at a hori-
zontal pile head deflection of 6.25 mm. The initial lateral
load tests were conducted until pile head displacement
reached 12.5–15.0 mm. The lateral resistance of the PHSP
were found to be insignificant and were not considered for
lateral cyclic tests. Three of the G-HSP were subjected to
monotonic and cyclic lateral load tests and it was found
that their lateral resistance significantly decreased after
the cyclic lateral loading which was attributed to the crack-
ing and separation of the grout around the shaft. RG-HSP
performed best before and after lateral cyclic loading
revealing three to seven times higher lateral capacity than
the G-HSP.
Similarly, El Sharnouby and El Naggar (2013) conducted
monotonic and cyclic lateral test on steel-fibre composite
grout reinforced helical pulldown micropiles. During mono-
tonic testing the piles were subjected to displacements
greater than 150% of the pile width and 50% of the steel-
fibre reinforced grout column diameter, and did not show
any significant decrease in stiffness. The grout column sur-
rounded the square shaft of the pile, but separation was
noticed during testing. After unloading, the piles recovered
∼70% of the deflection from static tests. Lateral cyclic test-
ing was conducted over five different loading levels. At each
load level the piles were subjected to five two-way load
cycles. The results displayed degradation of the pile stiffness
as a result of the gap formation between the reinforced
grout column and the square shaft. Reductions in lateral
capacity at typical failure pile head deflection criteria
(6.25 and 12.5 mm) were comparable to that of RG-HSPs
tested in Abdelghany (2008), at ∼55% by the end of cyclic
testing.
44 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11
Liquefaction concerns/susceptibility
While there have been no studies of helical piles in liquefi-
able conditions to date, many of the areas where helical
piles have been installed and performed well (e.g. New Zeal-
and) and where they could be used in the future, include a
liquefiable layer in the subsurface. Therefore, it is instructive
to understand the type of research that has been done
already in order to direct this important future research pri-
ority. Liquefaction is a phenomenon commonly associated
with large seismic events. Loose, saturated, alluvially depos-
ited sands of a young geologic age, are typically susceptible
to liquefaction. This is because during shaking, pore water
pressure increases and the loose sand attempts to densify,
prohibiting drainage. Pore water pressure continues to
increase, and as a result the effective stress in the soil
decreases and reduces the ability of the soil to carry vertical
and lateral loads. Historically, liquefaction events cause
foundations to collapse, excessively settle, overturn, fail,
crack, and/or permanently deform laterally. Safely design-
ing any deep foundation element in a potentially liquefiable
area requires the assessment of what the strength of the
layer will be during and after liquefaction. Conservatively,
a foundation designer can assume no strength in the layer
and take the entire layer as an unbraced length when asses-
sing pile buckling. The 2015 International Building Code
(IBC) specifies that deep foundation elements standing
unbraced in water or fluid soils must be classified and
designed as columns from the top down to the point
where adequate lateral support is provided, which for
piles embedded in stiff soil is the first five feet and for
piles embedded in soft soil is the first 10 feet (to prevent
buckling) (IBC 2015). For a cast-in place foundation with
a ratio of unsupported height to a horizontal dimension
of less than three, the element should be designed as a ped-
estal according to the ACI 318. In addition, all deep foun-
dations that are not defined as a laterally braced pile must
be designed in accordance to the minimum unbraced
length. However, that assumption oftentimes makes the
pile section not only too large to be economical but also stif-
fer and therefore, more brittle, which is the opposite of what
type of foundation will work best under earthquake loads.
In general, more flexible and ductile piles should be used.
Therefore, some geotechnical engineers assume that there
is a certain percentage of the original strength left in the
layer during liquefaction based on Idriss and Boulanger
(2008) work, which suggests a correlation method between
the clean sand corrected SPT blow count, or (N1)60cs-Sr, and
the residual shear strength ratio of non-plastic liquefied
soils, noted as Sr/σ’vo. However, there are no clear guidelines
in IBC or ASCE 7 (2010) to make designing within liquefi-
able zones more uniform between engineering firms and
large section reinforced concrete shafts continue to be the
foundation of choice in earthquake prone areas despite
exhumed reinforced concrete piles from the 1964 Niigata
Earthquake in Japan that revealed poor performance in a
sandwiched liquefiable layer.
Reinforced concrete piles that were exhumed 20 years
after the 1964 Niigata Japan earthquake (7.6 M)
(Kawamura, Nishizawa and Wada 1985; Hamada, Saito,
Yasuda and Isoyama 1988; Yoshida and Hamada 1990;
NO 1

Hamada 1992; Hamada 2000) provide visual evidence of
the magnitude of lateral bending induced by a large
magnitude earthquake. It was observed that the piles of
several structures (i.e. Niigata Family Court House
concrete piles, S-Building reinforced-concrete friction piles
and East Bridge over railway concrete piles) were broken
exactly at the boundary between non-liquefied and
liquefiable soils, which indicated that most of the failure
was caused by large ground movement (Bhattacharya
et al. 2014).
The Niigata earthquake generated such large ground
displacements, that even steel pipe piles saw large defor-
mations. A steel two-foot diameter by 82 feet long pipe-
pile was exhumed from the Showa Bridge. The construction
of this bridge was completed in a medium sand overlying
layers of fine sand just five months before the earthquake.
Two contradictory theories have been proposed to explain
the failure. Based on eye-witnesses’ testimonies, Hamada
(1992) proposed that the collapse of the bridge was caused
by permanent ground movements that deformed the piles
and caused the girders to fail. A second theory based on
a numerical model (non-linear Beam on Nonlinear Winkler
Foundation), concluded that the failure of the bridge was
caused by the difference in natural periods between the
ground motion and the bridge. At 70 seconds from the
beginning of the earthquake a jolt was produced (Bhatta-
charya et al. 2014), which generated large displacements,
unseating the deck and triggering the collapse of the bridge.
It was reported that the bridge did not collapse at full lique-
faction. In conclusion, according to the exhumations con-
ducted 20 years after the 1964 Niigata earthquake, the
reinforced concrete piles exhumed from the Yachiyo Bridge
(peak residual deformation of 41 inches at pile head) pre-
sented a lower peak residual deformation than the steel
pipe-piles extracted from the Showa Bridge (peak residual
deformation of 79 inches at pile head), even though the
slenderness ratio of the steel pipe-pile was 1.23 times the
slenderness ratio of the reinforced concrete pile. One reason
for the differences in final pile-head deformations may be
the subsurface under the Yachiyo Bridge was slightly
stronger.
Tests on model piles embedded in similar soil conditions
as the Niigata case-studies were conducted to quantify the
behaviour of the piles under liquefaction and the results
demonstrate a clear deformation between the boundary of
the non-liquefiable soil and the liquefiable layer (Hamada
2000). Even more, after the assessment of several structures
damaged by major earthquakes, including the 1923 Great
Kanto earthquake (7.9 Mw), the 1948 Fukui earthquake
(6.8 Mw), the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu Earthquake
(7.9 Mw), the 1990 Luzon earthquake (7.8 Mw) it was con-
cluded that the governing factors that cause damage to
structures are permanent ground displacement caused by
lateral spreading and liquefaction (Hamada et al. 1988;
Wakamatsu, Yoshida, Suzuki and Tazoh 1992; Hamada,
Wakamatsu and Yasuda 1992a, 1992b). Nonetheless,
(Bhattacharya et al. 2014) points out the deficiencies of
the proposed pile failure theories and alternatively proposes
that the piles behave as an unsupported long slender col-
umn that buckles due to the axial forces produced by the
super structure.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cerato et al. A critical review
With these real examples of how concrete and steel piles
fare during a large earthquake in a liquefiable zone, it begs
to reason that specific design criterion would be provided to
attempt to mitigate the potential damage an earthquake
could do to deep foundation elements and their supporting
structure. The IBC and ASCE-7 do discuss liquefiable soil
in Sections 1803.5.11, 1803.5.12 and Section 11.8.2,
respectively, but only give general guidelines, which leaves
the actual design and methodology used up to individual
engineers. These general guidelines also require geotechni-
cal and structural engineers to be comfortable with asses-
sing subsurface strength during and after a liquefaction
event in order to safely design their deep foundation
elements. The IBC requires that for any structure assigned
to SDC C, D, E or F, a geotechnical investigation be con-
ducted to evaluate potential geologic and seismic hazards,
including liquefaction. It also requires that for structures
assigned to SDC D, E or F, the geotechnical investigation
must include the ‘potential for liquefaction and soil strength
loss evaluated for site peak ground accelerations, magni-
tudes and source characteristics consistent with the design
earthquake ground motions.’ The code allows peak ground
acceleration (PGA) selection based on site-specific studies
or determined in accordance with Section 1613.5.4.3 and
requires ‘an assessment of potential consequences of lique-
faction and soil strength loss.’ The code also requires a dis-
cussion of mitigation measures and how they shall be
considered in the design of the structure.
New Zealand has published the Canterbury Supplemen-
tal Guidelines for deep foundations in potentially liquefi-
able areas, which entail repair and rebuilding
recommendations (Ministry of Business 2012a, 2012b,
2013, 2015), and guides the designing engineer with more
specific step-by-step design methodologies. Designing foun-
dations in a liquefiable zone requires that the engineer first
determine the triggering potential of the liquefiable soil.
Idriss and Boulanger (2008) developed a simple method
of determining the triggering potential of the liquefiable
soil by defining a liquefaction triggering factor (FL) as
the ratio between the cyclic or liquefaction resistance
ratio (CRR) to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR), where liquefac-
tion would be triggered when FL < 1. CRR and CSR are
determined from in situ test data. After the triggering
potential is assessed, the engineer must consider the compe-
tency and location of a sufficient bearing stratum and the
design method for deep foundations. The chosen foun-
dation must be designed to withstand potential moderate
lateral movement of at least 12 inches without undergoing
brittle shear failure on sites with or without surface evi-
dence of lateral movement. They use a six-step design
approach for the pile design including 1) Formulating a
ground model through an in situ investigation to identify
a bearing stratum and the thickness of both the surface
crust and liquefiable layer, 2) estimating free-field ground
deformation assuming the maximum displacement relative
to the bearing stratum at the base is 12 inches for residential
projects, 3) estimating soil-spring parameters using Winkler
soil-springs, 4) estimating pile moment-curvature relation-
ships well past the plastic range to provide useful predic-
tions of pile strains and encompassing the range of axial
loading expected during an earthquake, 5) conducting
2017 VOL 11 NO 1 45
Cerato et al. A critical review
numerical analysis using commonly used software like
LPILE or Seismostruct and 6) assessing the results of
analysis.
The Canterbury Supplemental Guidelines states that for
design and repair of foundations in liquefiable soils, using
lightweight materials are preferred, particularly for roof
and wall cladding, which reduces the load on foundations
and therefore, reduces settlement from future seismic events
expected to cause liquefaction of subsurface materials.
Foundations are required to be stiffened and tied together
to resist ground deformations and lateral stretch of the
underlying soil. Foundation slabs are also recommended
to reduce the effects of lateral spreading at the ground sur-
face. The Ministry of Business (2013) also provide advan-
tages and disadvantages of multiple foundation types.
They state that helical piles are beneficial as foundations
in liquefiable soils due to their unique helical bearing plates
which provide the support for most of the structural load.
Recorded torque installation profiles can provide confi-
dence that the helix is embedded into the target bearing
stratum, ensuring that it is supporting the structural load.
Since helical piles transfer the structural load to the end
bearing via the helical plates, there is minimal skin friction
along the shaft of the pile; therefore, preventing excess
down-drag forces along the shaft during a liquefaction
event of the overburden materials. However, piles with
more than one helical bearing plate cannot contain helices
embedded in the liquefiable strata, or in any deposits which
have underlying liquefiable strata. Once installed, the hol-
low shaft can be filled with concrete, to decrease corrosion
potential or prevent ice accumulation inside the pile. The
specific mention of helical piles and their advantages in seis-
mic zones in the New Zealand design guidelines lend credi-
bility to the technology and, as a result, helical piles are
used throughout the region without as much resistance as
is felt within the U.S.
When considering deep foundations in laterally spread-
ing soils, two separate loading conditions are possible.
The first can be referred to as a ‘passive foundation’ con-
dition. In a passive foundation condition, the soil surround-
ing the pile becomes liquefied and spreads laterally. In this
instance, the pile is subjected to the passive pressure of the
soil ( Abdoun and Dobry 2002; Gerber 2003; Ashford, Juir-
narongrit, Sugano and Hamada 2006; Cubrinovski et al.
2006; Haeri, Kavand, Rahmani and Torabi 2012; Motamed
et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2015). The second can be referred to
as an ‘active foundation’ condition. In this case, the foun-
dation is displaced and its movement is resisted by the
soil’s passive pressure on the leading side and its active
pressure on the trailing side of the foundation (Mizuno
et al. 2000; Rollins, Sparks and Peterson 2000, Rollins, Ash-
ford and Lane 2001, Rollins, Gerber, Lane and Ashford
2005a, Rollins, Price, Dibb and Higbee 2006, Rollins,
Hales, Ashford and Camp 2005b; Gerber 2003; Weaver,
Ashford and Rollins 2005; Haeri et al. 2012). Therefore, it
may be appropriate to overestimate the passive pressure
of liquefiable soil to avoid excessive loading in a passive
foundation situation or it may be appropriate to underesti-
mate the passive and active soil resistance in an active foun-
dation situation. These two scenarios complicate
foundation design in liquefiable soils (Gerber 2003;
46 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11
Cubrinovski et al. 2006) and must be considered separately
when designing foundations in soil susceptible to liquefac-
tion. More complications arise when considering the
location of the liquefiable soil; specifically, if the liquefiable
soil is arranged between two non-liquefiable soil strata, or if
the liquefiable strata is overlain or underlain by a non-lique-
fiable crust or bearing layer, respectively. These can be
referred to as three-layered systems (Abdoun and Dobry
2002; Rollins et al. 2005b, 2006; Cubrinovski et al. 2006;
Naeini et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2015) or two-layered systems
(Mizuno et al. 2000; Rollins et al. 2000, 2001, 2005a;
Abdoun and Dobry 2002; Gerber 2003; Weaver et al.
2005; Ashford et al. 2006; Haeri et al. 2012; Motamed
et al. 2013). While there have been no studies on helical
piles in liquefiable soils to date, there have been several
studies with driven steel pipe piles, drilled concrete shafts
and cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) concrete reinforced drilled
shafts in liquefiable soils that will be detailed briefly here,
with more detail provided in Table A4, in order to gain
an understanding of how various foundation types behave
in a liquefiable subsurface. Some of the studies using steel
pipe piles may be directly related to helical piles in that
the central shaft diameter and wall thickness ranges are
similar between driven pipe piles and helical piles and can
be used as a starting point when directing future research
needs. The installation effects, however, may cause two
identically sized and loaded pile shafts to behave very
differently.
Passive foundation
Passive foundation is the term associated with a liquefac-
tion event in which the pile behaviour is dominated by
monotonic pressure applied by a displacing or laterally
spreading soil. In research, this is simulated multiple
ways; inclining either centrifuge box or soil deposit in direc-
tion of shaking to induce lateral spreading (Abdoun and
Dobry 2002; Haeri et al. 2012), blast-induced liquefaction
on a sloping soil deposit causing lateral spreading (Ashford
et al. 2006), forcibly displacing the surface of the liquefiable
layer after inducing liquefaction (Cubrinovski et al. 2006),
and/or installing a liquefiable soil layer behind a quay
wall retaining a free body of water (Ashford et al. 2006;
Motamed et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2015).
Abdoun and Dobry (2002) performed centrifuge tests on
piles installed in two- and three-layered systems to compare
the effects of each scenario on pile response. The aluminium
pipe pile had an outside prototype diameter of 0.6 m. Four
of these piles were also grouped together to analyse a 2 × 2
pile group response of the two-layered system. Frame
effects were observed as moments in the grouped piles
were decreased when compared to the single pile. The
results of the two-layered and three-layered systems were
compared for the single pile tests. In both tests,
the maximum moment occurred at the interface between
the liquefied and non-liquefied strata. Specifically, the
three-layered system revealed two maximum moments of
relatively similar magnitude, which occurred at both inter-
faces between the liquefied and non-liquefied manner.
However, the magnitudes of these maximum moments
were nearly double that of the two-layered system. The
NO 1

maximum moment in each test occurred shortly after lique-
faction, during the beginning of lateral spreading. After
which, the moment time histories revealed a steadily
decreasing moment, which indicated the soil had reached
some ultimate soil pressure and then lost resistance. It
was visually evident to the authors as they witnessed the
soil flowing around the pile in the two-layered system,
and the surface crust failed in the three-layered system.
When the surface crust failed, the pile cap and head also
snapped, which indicated that the pile was pushing into
the soil at shallow depths.
Haeri et al. (2012) also performed tests on aluminium
pipe piles in a two-layered system, but in a large-scale
shake table. The results were comparable to that of Abdoun
and Dobry (2002). Specifically, maximum moments in the
piles occurred shortly after liquefaction during the begin-
ning of lateral spreading and were located at the interface
between the liquefied and non-liquefied strata. The moment
time histories revealed a steady decrease in moment with
continued shaking. This also indicated the soil had reached
some maximum ultimate soil pressure applied to the pile,
then failed and continued to flow around the piles.
Lateral spreading has been observed to cause substantial
damage to structures near free water. This poses concerns
for foundations supporting off-shore structures and quay
walls. Research has been conducted to determine the behav-
iour of piles and pile groups located behind quay walls
retaining bodies of water subjected to liquefaction induced
lateral spreading (Ashford et al. 2006; Motamed et al. 2013;
Tang et al. 2015).
Piles used in Ashford et al. (2006) were steel pipe piles
with 8.5 inch outside diameters, 0.4 in wall thicknesses,
and 58 ksi yield strength. The test piles were installed as
single piles, a four-pile group (2 × 2), and a nine-pile
group (3 × 3). The soil stratification is slightly more compli-
cated than other research presented since this was
performed in the field but can be generalised as a two-
layered system for the purposes of this review. LPILE soft-
ware was used to generate curves for comparison with
measured data of the single and grouped piles. Grouped
piles were simulated in the software as an equivalent single
pile with four and nine times the flexural stiffness of a single
pile for the four-pile group and nine-pile group, respectively.
P-multipliers were also used in this analysis to account for
group effects. Maximum bending moments occurred at
shallow depths in the dense gravel layer for all tests. Maxi-
mum moments experienced by grouped piles were about
50% of that experienced by the single pile for both the
four-pile group and nine-pile group as were pile head displa-
cements. The grouped pile all experienced similar moments
with respect to other piles in their group. There was a slight
increase in moment magnitude in piles closer to the quay
wall as opposed to piles in the same group further from
the quay wall observed in the four-pile group. Two piles
in the nine-pile group were not installed as deep into the
dense gravel bedrock as their companions. This resulted
in a significant decrease in maximum moment experienced
by the two short piles as compared to the other seven and
indicated that the more fixed the pile tip is, the greater
moments the pile will experience from a lateral spreading
event.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cerato et al. A critical review
Motamed et al. (2013) evaluated the response of a 2 × 3
pile group behind quay walls retaining a free body of
water using a large-scale shake table. The test subjects
were six, 6-inch diameter steel pipe piles with wall thick-
nesses of 0.08 inch. The piles were grouped by a pile cap
and supported four steel columns above the ground surface
which were loaded with a ‘superstructure.’ The setup was
shaken with an input base ground motion recorded from
the 1995 Kobe earthquake and scaled to 8% of its accelera-
tion amplitude. Ground displacement measurements
showed similar behaviour to that displayed in Ashford
et al. (2006), such that a pattern was observed where ground
displacements increased as distance from the quay wall
decreased. By the end of shaking, all piles had failed evident
by formation of plastic hinges. Pile heads displaced laterally
3.2–4.6 feet and the top of the quay wall displaced laterally
7.2 ft. All piles experienced large bending moments at their
connections to the pile cap. Maximum bending moments
occurred at the interface between the liquefied and non-
liquefied strata for the row of piles on the landward side,
while the maximum bending moments in the row of piles
on the seaward side occurred at a depth of 6.6 ft. This
was the same depth to which the quay wall extended. It
was concluded that the row of piles on the seaward side
were subjected to larger lateral soil pressures, which caused
them to experience larger lateral deflections and bending
moments as compared to the row of piles on the landward
side.
Tang et al. (2015) used a large scale shake table and a
laminar container to test a single 0.1 m diameter reinforced
concrete (RC) pile in a three layer system behind a quay
wall that retained a free body of water. The pile was fixed
at the base of the box, and the soil deposit consited of a
non-liquefiable clay layer underlain by a layer of medium
dense liquefiable sand, which can be considered a general-
ised three-layer system. A 132 pound (60 kg) weight was
mounted to the pile head to simulate a supported ‘super-
structure’ for inertial effects. The superstructure was
observed to reach a peak acceleration nearly three times
the input base motion (0.2 g) which occurred prior to lique-
faction of the soil. After liquefaction, the accelerations of
the pile and superstructure reduced significantly. The bend-
ing moment increased with depth in the pile. The maximum
bending moment occurred at the base of the pile after lique-
faction, during the initial stage of lateral spreading. After
this initial stage, the monotonic moment began to decrease
as the soil continued to flow around the RC pile, and the pile
reponse was controlled by inertial loading. This is compar-
able to results from Ashford et al. (2006), and the landside
row of piles in Motamed et al. (2013).
Active foundation
Active foundation is the term associated with a liquefaction
event in which the pile behaviour is dominated by inertial
loadings and/or ground oscillations during excitation. In
research, this is simulated by inducing liquefaction via deto-
nated explosives (Rollins et al. 2000, 2001, 2005a, 2005b,
2006; Gerber 2003; Weaver et al. 2005), or applying a
base excitation to a shake table (Mizuno et al. 2000;
Haeri et al. 2012) then applying some lateral load to the
2017 VOL 11 NO 1 47
Cerato et al. A critical review
pile head, or continuing to apply base excitation to induce
kinetic forces from the ground and/or superstructure oscil-
lations. Since the pile response is dominated by inertial
loadings in this scenario, piles are subjected to larger
shear and bending forces as a result of the liquefied soil los-
ing its resistance.
The Treasure Island Liquefaction Test (TILT) projects
incorporates research performed by Rollins et al. 2000,
2001, 2005a, Gerber (2003) and Weaver et al. (2005). The
objective of the TILT project was to understand soil and
pile behaviour following a liquefaction event. This was per-
formed by installing pile groups and single piles throughout
the Treasure Island project site, testing their lateral per-
formance in the soil both before and after inducing lique-
faction by detonating explosive charges placed at various
depths in the soil and various distances away from the
test subjects. Comparisons were made from recorded data
of the pre-blast tests and post-blast tests. The pre-blast
tests were performed as displacement controlled tests by
use of hydraulic actuators to low displacements. Similarly,
post-blast tests were performed as cyclic displacement con-
trolled tests by use of hydraulic actuators. The tests subjects
included a 2 × 2 pile group, a 3 × 3 pile group, and multiple
single piles. The pile group tests were all comprised of 1-foot
outside diameter steel pipe piles. Single piles tested include
a 2-foot outside diameter cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) concrete
reinforced drilled shaft, a similar 3-foot outside diameter
CISS pile, and a 1-foot steel pipe pile. The soil stratification
can be generalised into a two-layered soil system for simpli-
fication; one liquefiable sand layer underlain by non-lique-
fiable materials. More foundation and soil information of
these tests are provided in Table A4. By the end of post-
blast cyclic tests, it was observed that the secant stiffness
of the 2 × 2 pile group and 3 × 3 pile group had reduced
by 70%, and 83%, respectively. Similarly, the results
revealed the secant stiffness of the 2-foot and 3-foot CISS
piles had reduced by 80% and 89%, respectively. Bending
moments from before and after inducing liquefaction
were also analysed and compared. It was noticed that the
location of the maximum bending moment changed from
before liquefaction to after. The location of the maximum
bending moment for the pre-blast tests was located near
the middle of the liquefiable layer as compared to the
post-blast test results which displayed it near the interface
of the liquefiable and non-liquefiable strata for all piles
tested. The magnitude of the maximum bending moment
was shown to increase at least 60% in some of the test
piles. Others did respond differently.
Piles in groups are known to respond differently with
respect to each other due to group effects. This was also
exhibited in results from the 3 × 3 pile group responses. It
was evident that piles carry more of the lateral load based
on their location in the group prior to liquefaction. This
was displayed by the centre row of piles in the 3 × 3 pile
group experiencing higher bending moments during the
pre-blast tests as compared to the exterior piles. This is
attributed to the overlapping shear zones in the soil associ-
ated with the centre row of piles. Since shear zones associ-
ated with the centre piles overlap with the shear zones of
exterior piles on both sides, the centre piles have lower
soil resistance relative to the exterior pile. However, as a
48 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11
result of liquefaction, it was found that group effects essen-
tially disappear. Therefore, while the maximum moment
increased from liquefaction in the exterior piles, the elimin-
ation of group effects caused the maximum moment in the
centre piles to decrease after liquefaction. Gerber (2003)
extended this research by additional post-blast tests follow-
ing liquefaction during the dissipation process to determine
the residual strength of the liquefied sand after excess pore
water pressure had dissipated. He found that after an hour
or so of dissipation, the liquefied soil-pile system recovered
up to 48% of its initial pre-blast secant stiffness. He further
developed p-y curves for the liquefied soil and observed a
unique concave up behaviour. This means that as the pile
deflection increases, so does the soil resistance. This unique
concave up shape was attributed to a phase change from
contractive to dilative behaviour occurring in the liquefied
soil during shearing, which reduces the excess pore water
pressure ratio.
Research performed by Mizuno et al. (2000) included
testing the response of a two-pile group in liquefiable sand
by use of a shake table. The pile tips were fixed to the lami-
nar box at the base and therefore, the soil stratification can
be simplified to a two-layered system; one liquefiable layer
beginning at the ground surface and extending to the pile
tips underlain by a non-liquefiable material. The test piles
were solid steel square sections of 40 cm length and 10 cm
width. The objective of this research was to understand
the soil and pile behaviour during liquefaction and after
liquefaction during the dissipation process. Liquefaction
was induced in the sand by applying a base excitation to
the deposit via a shake table. After liquefaction, oscillator
tests were performed during the dissipation process. Similar
to Rollins et al. (2000) and Gerber (2003), Mizuno et al.
(2000) found that the depth of the maximum moment
increases as a result of liquefaction. This was explained
by the deeper soils losing resistance before shallow soils.
Furthermore, Mizuno et al. (2000) made similar obser-
vations to Gerber (2003) as he witnessed a regain in soil
stiffness as excess pore water pressure dissipated. This
caused the maximum moment to redistribute towards the
head of the pile.
Rollins et al. (2006) tested an 8.5 foot diameter CISS pile
in liquefied sand. The soil stratification can be generalised
into a three-layered soil system for simplification, which
was a non-liquefiable crust, underlain by a liquefiable
layer, which is underlain by non-liquefiable materials. Fol-
lowing the TILT project, Rollins et al. (2006) induced lique-
faction by use of explosive charges. Pre-blast static lateral
load-controlled tests were conducted prior to inducing
liquefaction and post-blast lateral cyclic load-controlled
tests were performed following the liquefaction event.
Results of the pre- and post-blast tests were compared to
determine the effect of liquefaction on soil and pile
response. It was observed from the post-blast test results
that the maximum bending moment increased up to 100%
as compared to that determined from the pre-blast test,
which indicated a significant loss in soil resistance.
Additionally, similar to Rollins et al. (2000), Gerber
(2003), and Mizuno et al. (2000), the location of the maxi-
mum moment increased in depth following liquefaction as
compared to the pre-blast location. Rollins et al. (2005b)
NO 1

further derived p-y curves for the liquefied sand based on
the results. These p-y curves were found to be comparable
to p-y curves developed in Gerber (2003). Rollins et al.
(2005b) generated estimated p-y curves based on the
empirical formula proposed by Gerber (2003) for the
2.59 m CISS pile. Based on the results, it was determined
that the estimated p-y curves developed from the empirical
formula proposed by Gerber (2003) agreed well with the p-y
curves generated from the test results.
Mitigation measures
Densification, drainage and reinforcement are three of the
most common ground improvement methods used by
engineers to mitigate damage from liquefaction. Rollins
et al. (2000) conducted pre- and post-blast displacement
controlled cyclic lateral tests before and after the installa-
tion of stone columns arrayed around the four-steel pipe
pile group and the single CISS pile. This mitigation measure
used all three improvement methods: densification of the
soil by vibration and replacement, providing reinforcement
as the stone columns are stiffer than the soil, and providing
drainage paths to prevent the build up of excess water
pressure (Rollins et al. 2000).
The 24 stone columns were each 3 feet in diameter and
installed in a 4 × 6 grid around the test piles. Additionally,
they were spaced 7.9 feet centre-to-centre and installed to
the bottom of the liquefiable stratum at a depth of ∼19.7
feet (Rollins, Quimby, Johnson and Price 2009). Rollins
found that ground improvement through the installation
of stone columns around the piles in a 4 by 6 grid,
increased the performance of the piles, as they increase
the density of the soil and the stiffness of the foundation
by more than 2.5–3.5 times. Increasing the diameter of
the piles by 50% or doubling the number of piles, how-
ever, did not affect the performance of the foundation.
This conclusion is supported in a case study conducted
on the Hokuriku-Building located in Japan, where no
damage was presented on the superstructure, nor cracks
or inclination was observed after the Niiagata earthquake,
due to the implementation of several reinforced concrete
piles that induced densification of the soil and prevented
lateral ground displacements. Mizuno et al. (2000) studied
the effect of installing vertical wick drains near the test
piles on the liquefaction process and the dissipation of
excess pore water pressure process. They found that the
vertical wick drains did not prevent liquefaction, the
build up of excess pore water pressure, nor did they
alter the soil-pile behaviour during the liquefaction pro-
cess. However, the excess pore water pressure did dissipate
up to four times faster with the wick drains as opposed to
without, which allowed the soil to regain its maximum
residual strength much faster.
Abdoun and Dobry (2002) attempted to mitigate the
effects of liquefaction of the three-layered soil system.
The technique studied was to replace the non-liquefiable
surface soil surrounding the test piles with frangible
material that would yield under constant lateral forces.
Soft. clay was used to replace the non-liquefiable surface
sand which surrounded the piles. This was found to signifi-
cantly reduce the pile bending moment in the surface layer
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cerato et al. A critical review
(from 221 kip-ft (300 kN-m) to 7.4 kip-ft (10 kN-m)) and
reduce the pile head deflection by a factor of two.
Another mitigation method investigated by Mashiri,
Vinod and Neaz Sheikh (2015) was mixing the liquefiable
soil with recycled tire chips (TCh) to develop an improved
sand-tire chip (STCh) composite. Strain controlled
undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on cylindrical
specimens of poorly graded sand 4 inches (100 mm) in
diameter and 8 inches (200 mm) in height. It was found
that as the TCh content increased, the damping ratio
increased up to a TCh content of approximately 33%, at
which the damping ratio began to decline. Furthermore,
they determined that the liquefaction potential begins to
decrease at TCh contents greater that 20% and continued
to decrease as the TCh content increased, up to approxi-
mately 33%.
Gianella, Stuedlein and Canivan (2015) installed conven-
tional and drained timber piles to evaluate the degree of
densification and liquefaction mitigation possible. Drained
timber piles were created by nailing a wick drain along the
length of a pile. Forty-foot long, by 12 inch head diameter
by 8-inch toe diameter timber piles were installed at 2, 3, 4
and 5 diameters spacing. It was found that all test zones
exhibited improved liquefaction resistance, but the zones
with the drained timber piles performed the best with
regard to post-shaking displacements.
Future research recommendations
All of the published research on seismic behaviour of helical
piles has been done on single piles – and the majority study-
ing behaviour under axial load. In addition, all of the avail-
able data were generated with the cyclic and dynamic loads
through simplified earthquake motions introduced at the
pile head. Some of the research through the years has
shown conflicting behaviours between similarly sized piles
due to the many different parameters and variables in
each test set-up (e.g. subsurface, lead configuration,
induced load and/or ‘sit’ time) and very few tests have
been true comparisons with alternate foundation systems.
That being said, all studies on plain helical piles have
shown excellent results under axial and lateral cyclic and
dynamic loads, in part due to their flexibility and possibly
their cylindrical installation disturbance zone. It was
found through detailed exhumation studies that flexibility
in foundations may have minimised the damages seen in
the 1964 Niigata earthquake. Even though there is physical
proof from several earthquakes and countless success stor-
ies of flexible foundations in earthquake zones, engineers
continue to design bigger, more rigid foundations.
Going forward, it is recommended that all performance
research on the behaviour of helical piles under seismic con-
ditions use true earthquake motions, such as found on large
or small shake table tests or blast induced liquefaction, and
do so in conjunction with other ‘benchmark,’ or more
widely used and generally accepted, deep foundation sys-
tems. These tests should be conducted side-by-side and
within a relatively short time frame, to minimise variables
and maximise similarities. In addition, it is recommended
that future research focus on the behaviour of helical pile
groups. Besides the most recent seismic work of assessing
2017 VOL 11 NO 1 49
Cerato et al. A critical review
the group behaviour of helical piles in dense sand (Allred
2018), there are no other studies that specifically discuss
the group behaviour of helical piles. It is imperative that
this gap be filled since all applications of helical piles in seis-
mic zones require them to be laterally braced and, therefore,
acting in a group. While small- and full-scale tests should
remain a research focus in order to generate various scen-
arios and ranges of behaviour, another target of the helical
pile research community should be long-term monitoring
of engineered foundation and structure systems in seismi-
cally active areas as well as well-documented exhumations
after major earthquakes. This performance data, especially
if it is in contrast to another foundation system nearby, will
provide invaluable information to design engineers around
the world on the seismic performance of helical piles.
The following research recommendations are presented
to fill the gaps in current knowledge and provide the most
useful information to practicing engineers who make
decisions on foundation types on a daily basis. The list is
in no way exhaustive, but yet summarises the most impor-
tant topics to explore in order to provide the most benefit.
High quality video documentation of the potential research
endeavours, where appropriate, is imperative to allow the
results to best reach as wide an audience as possible.
. Long-term monitoring of instrumented helical pile sys-
tems and structures in seismic zones around the world
with preference to direct comparisons of foundation
type (e.g. identical transmission towers or buildings in
close proximity but on different foundations). Both lique-
fiable and non-liquefiable subsurfaces should be sought
and every effort should be made between potential prin-
cipal investigators to employ similar instrumentation
plans (e.g. location and spacing of gages and acceler-
ometers on piles and structures, and accelerometers and
potential pressure gages in the near subsurface when
liquefaction is deemed a concern) and data collection
methods (e.g. solar powered, remotely accessed data
capabilities).
. Direct comparisons with other types of foundations in
non-liquefiable soils and two- and three-layer liquefac-
tion conditions: Comparator foundations may include
drilled shafts, driven concrete piles, driven steel piles,
grouted helical piles, or micropiles. The installation
method may affect the seismic response and soil con-
ditions where pile flexibility and ductility are best suited
should be studied. Concentration should probably be
on concrete piles, as they are the most familiar to struc-
tural engineers and widely used in seismic zones,
although in liquefiable zones such as Japan, have been
documented to fail under large displacements. The
same inertial weight should be used and the weight
should be near the design capacity of the piles to be as
realistic as possible. Small-scale testing, that has been
calibrated to existing large-scale tests for validation,
would allow for multiple conditions to be tested,
however, it would be beneficial to perform several well-
documented full-scale tests as well.
. Behaviour of helical pile groups compared with non-heli-
cal pile groups: The most beneficial study would focus on
the axial and lateral capacity of a small symmetric group
of helical piles, spaced in a conventional manner,
50 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11
immediately next to a group of alternative piles in the
same soil, subjected to the same loads. It would be ben-
eficial as well to record the rocking of the foundations
to assess the difference in a helical pile’s ability to act
in both compression and tension next to a foundation
system that relies on end-bearing and skin friction in
compression, but only skin friction in tension. This
type of study would not only allow the industry to assess
axial and lateral group efficiency, which is a measure of
the bearing or lateral capacity of the group to the sum
of the bearing or lateral capacity of the individual piles,
and a calculation currently based solely on a few tests
on drilled shafts, but show the differences and similarities
of two varying foundation systems in seismic conditions.
. Influence of pile cap choice and head fixity: There is no
doubt that the connection between a pile system and
the super structure is important in transmitting and
damping earthquake motions, and yet, there is limited
information about this connection in seismic zones.
While reinforced concrete pads are probably the most
common pile-structure connection, in some instances,
the client wishes to have a steel-steel connection. This is
either due to constructing in a remote area or schedule
or because the structure may be temporary in nature.
Research on connections of different types spanning
the gamut between fixed and pinned conditions would
be helpful.
. Well-documented foundation exhumations after earth-
quakes. While superstructure damage has been widely
well-documented, no real emphasis has been placed on
assessing foundation competency after major earth-
quakes. The Japanese case histories are the only docu-
mented cases of foundation exhumations and were
invaluable in understanding the ground displacements
and subsequent pile strains in a sandwiched liquefiable
layer system. These missed learning opportunities are
perpetuating ‘same-old’ design methods that may not
be the best engineered system.
. Helical piles as liquefaction mitigation. Because of a heli-
cal pile’s ease of installation with relatively small equip-
ment, it would be interesting to see how well helical
piles compare with driven timber piles or geopiers as
liquefaction mitigation. The zone of disturbance around
a helical pile may be an effective drainage system for dis-
sipating pore water pressures.
Summary and conclusions
Understanding the seismic behaviour of helical piles and
creating implementation standards are especially important
and timely to generate because certain areas of the United
States are now requiring seismic retrofits of existing build-
ings. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles adopted a
seismic ordinance that will require more than 13,000 struc-
tures, both pre-stressed concrete and soft-story wood struc-
tures, to be seismically retrofitted. Anecdotal observations
(e.g. New Zealand, Japan and the U.S.) have shown that
piles with comparatively small cross-section and high
anchoring capacity, such as helical piles, are beneficial for
seismic resistance seemingly due to their slenderness, higher
damping ratios, ductility, and resistance to tip uplift.
NO 1

Unfortunately building codes and current state of practice
have not been adequately developed for this pile type.
Research of seismic behaviour of helical pile supported
structures is therefore imperative, and urgent, to generate
necessary data that will help ensure that helical piles are
being correctly applied in seismic areas and establish quan-
tifiable benefits and/or limitations of helical pile use in seis-
mic areas. Applied projects of this kind will benefit people
living in seismic zones by educating engineers with full-
scale helical pile experimental data so that they better
understand how to design a building system that is safer,
more resilient and sustainable for individuals and the
community.
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this research was provided by the
Helical Pile and Tiebacks Committee (HPTC) members
through the Deep Foundation Institute’s (DFI) Special Pro-
jects Fund, as well as the National Science Foundation
(NSF) (Grant No. 1624153). The support is greatly
appreciated.
References
Abdelghany, Y. 2008. Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of helical screw piles
under axial and lateral loading. University of Western Ontario –
Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository.
Abdelghany, Y. and El Naggar, M. H. 2010a. Monotonic and cyclic behav-
ior of helical piles under axial and lateral loading. Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Ed. S. Prakash, San
Diego, CA, May 24–29, SPL 4.
Abdelghany, Y. and El Naggar, M. H. 2010b. Full-scale experimental inves-
tigations & numerical analysis of different innovative instrumented
helical screw piles under axial & lateral monotonic & cyclic loadings.
Proceedings of the 63rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference.
Abdelghany, Y. and El Naggar, M. H. 2011. Steel fibers reinforced grouted
and fiber reinforced polymer grouted screw piles–an innovative deep
foundations seismic systems. Proceedings of the 2011 Pan-Am CGS
Geotechnical Conference, GEO11Paper1043, Toronto, ON, Canada,
October 2–6.
Abdelghany, Y. and El Naggar, M. H. 2013. Innovative seismic resistant
helical screw piles (FRP-G-HSP – Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Grouted and RG-HSP Reinforced Grouted Steel Fibers Novel
System). Proceedings of the 2013 Geo Montreal Conference,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, September 29–October 3.
Abdoun, T. and Dobry, R. 2002. Evaluation of pile foundation response to
lateral spreading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22,
1051–8. doi:0267-7261/02/$
Allotey, N. and El Naggar, M. H. 2008. A numerical study into lateral cyc-
lic nonlinear soil–pile response. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(9),
1268–81.
Allred, S. M. 2018. Seismic performance of grouped helical piles with fixed
and pinned connections. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil
Engineering, University of Oklahoma.
ASCE. 2010. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE/SEI Standard 7–10.
Ashford, S. A., Rollins, K. M. and Baez, J. I. 2000. Comparison of deep
foundation performance in improved and non-improved ground
using blast-induced liquefaction. Geotechnical Special Publication,
107, 20–34.
Ashford, S. A., Juirnarongrit, T., Sugano, T. and Hamada, M. 2006.
Soil-pile response to blast-induced lateral spreading. I: field test.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(2),
152–62.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cerato et al. A critical review
Beim, J. and Luna, S. C. 2012. Results of dynamic and static load tests on
helical piles in the varved clay of Massachusetts. DFI Journal, 6(1),
58–67.
Bhattacharya, S., Tokimatsu, K., Goda, K., Sarkar, R., Shadlou, M. and
Rouholamin, M. 2014. Collapse of Showa Bridge during 1964
Niigata earthquake: A quantitative reappraisal on the failure mechan-
isms. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 65, 55–71.
Brown, D. A., O’Neill, M. W., Hoit, M., McVay, M., El Naggar, M. H. and
Chakraborty, S. 2001a. Static and dynamic lateral loading of pile
groups. NCHRP Report 461.
Brown, D. A., O’Neill, M. W., Hoit, M., McVay, M., El Naggar, M. H.
and Chakraborty, S. 2001b. NCHRP report 461: static and dynamic
lateral loading of pile groups. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Buhler, R. and Cerato, A. B. 2010. Design of dynamically wind-loaded heli-
cal piers for small wind turbines. ASCE Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, 24(4), 417–26.
CFEM. 1992. Canadian foundation engineering manual. Richmond, BC:
Canadian Geotechnical Society. Print
Cannon, J. G. 2000. The application of high strain dynamic pile testing to
screwed steel piles. In: Niyama S. and Beim J. (eds). Sixth inter-
national conference on the application of stress-wave theory to piles.
São Paulo: Taylor and Francis, pp. 393–8.
Cerato, A. B. and Victor, R. 2008. Effects of helical anchor geometry on
long-term performance for small wind tower foundations subject to
dynamic loads. The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI)
2, 30–41.
Cerato, A. B. and Victor, R. 2009. Effects of long-term dynamic loading
and fluctuating water table on helical anchor performance for small
wind tower foundations. ASCE Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, 23(4), 251–61.
Christensen, D. S. 2006. Full scale static lateral load test of a 9 pile group in
sand. Thesis (M.S.), Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Brigham Young University.
Clemence, S. P. and Pepe, F.D. Jr. 1984. Measurement of lateral stress
around multi-helix anchors in sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 7
(3), 145–52.
Clemence S. P. and Smithling A. P. 1983. Dynamic uplift capacity of helical
anchors in sand. Civil Engineering for Practicing and Design
Engineers, 2(3), pp.345–67.
Clemence, S. P. and Smithling, A. P. 1984. Dynamic uplift capacity of heli-
cal anchors in sand. Proceedings of the Fourth Australia – New
Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Perth, Western Australia,
May 14–18, V1, pp. 88–93. Publ Barton: Inst of Engineers.
Clemence, S. P. and Veesaert, C. J. 1977. Dynamic pullout resistance of
anchors in sand. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Soil-Structure Interaction, Roorkee, pp. 389–97.
Cubrinovski, M., Kokusho, T. and Ishinhara, K. 2006. Interpretation from
large-scale shake table tests on piles undergoing lateral spreading in
liquefies soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26, 275–86.
Dilley, L. and Hulse, L. 2007. Foundation design of wind turbines in
Southwestern Alaska, a case study. Proceedings, Artic Energy
Summit, Anchorage, Alaska, October 15–18. pp. 1–7. Institute of
the North.
El Naggar, M. H. and Abdelghany, Y. 2007a. Seismic helical screw foun-
dations systems. Proceedings of the 60th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Ottawa, October 24–26, Paper 160.
El Naggar, M. H. and Abdelghany, Y. 2007b. Helical Screw Piles
(HSP) capacity for axial cyclic loadings in cohesive soils. Proceedings
of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering. June 25–28, Thessaloniki, Greece. Paper No. 1567.
El Sharnouby, M. M. 2012. Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of steel fibre-
reinforced and FRP-steel fibre-reinforced helical pulldown micropiles.
University of Western Ontario – Electronic Thesis and Dissertation
Repository. Paper 902.
El Sharnouby, M. M. and El Naggar, M. H. 2011a. Monotonic and Cyclic
axial full-scale testing of reinforced helical pulldown micropiles.
Proceedings of the 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference.
GEO11Paper336, Toronto, ON, Canada, October 2–6.
El Sharnouby, M. M. and El Naggar, M. H. 2011b. Monotonic and cyclic
lateral full-scale testing of reinforced helical pulldown micropiles.
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations,
2011, Boston, MA, USA, (DFI).
2017 VOL 11 NO 1 51
Cerato et al. A critical review
El Sharnouby, M. M. and El Naggar, M. H. 2012a. Axial monotonic and
cyclic performance of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) – steel fibre-
reinforced helical pulldown micropiles (FRP-RHPM). Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 49, 1378–92.
El Sharnouby, M. M. and El Naggar, M. H. 2012b. Field investigation
of axial monotonic and cyclic performance of reinforced
helical pulldown micropiles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49,
560–73.
El Sharnouby, M. M. and El Naggar, M. H. 2013. Lateral static and cyclic
behavior of the composite steel-fibre reinforced helical pulldown
micropiles-innovative foundation solutions for seismic applications.
Proceedings of the 21st Symposium of the Vancouver Geotechnical
Society, 6 pp.
Elkasabgy, M. and El Naggar, M. H. 2011. Field and theoretical dynamic
response of vertically loaded helical and driven steel piles. Proceedings
of the 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference, GEO11Paper574,
Toronto, ON, Canada, October 2–6.
Elkasabgy, M. and El Naggar, M. H. 2013. Dynamic response of vertically
loaded helical and driven steel piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
50, 521–35.
Elkasabgy, M., El Naggar, M. H. and Sakr, M. 2010. Full-scale vertical and
horizontal dynamic testing of a double helix screw pile. Geo2010 –
63rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference in Calgary. September 12–
September 16, pp. 352–9.
Finn, W. D., Dowling, J. and Wu, G. 2014. Load distribution in large pile
groups for static and seismic loading. Proceedings of the 10th
National Conference in Earthquake Engineering (10NCEE).
Anchorage, Alaska, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Gerber, T. M. 2003. P-Y curves for liquefied sand subject to cyclic loading
based on testing of full-scale deep foundations. Brigham Young
University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
ProQuest Information and Learning Company, Ann Arbor, MI.
Giannakos, S., Gerolymos, N. and Gazetas, G. 2012. Cyclic lateral response
of piles in dry sand: finite element modeling and validation.
Computers and Geotechnics, 44, 116–31.
Gianella, T. N., Stuedlein, A. W. and Canivan, G. J. 2015. Densification of
liquefiable soils using driven timber piles. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
Christchurch, New Zealand, November 1–4.
Haeri, S. M., Kavand, A., Rahmani, I. and Torabi, H. 2012. Response of a
group of piles to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading by large scale
shake table testing. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 38,
25–45. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.02.002
Hamada, M. 1992. Large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines:
1964 Niigata Earthquake. Case studies of liquefaction and lifeline per-
formance during past earthquakes. Buffalo, NY: National center for
earthquake engineering research.
Hamada, M. 2000. Performances of foundations against liquefaction-
induced permanent ground displacements. 12th WCEE 2000 (p. 8).
Hamada, M., Saito, K., Yasuda, S. and Isoyama, R. 1988.
Earthquake damage by liquefaction-induced permanent ground dis-
placement. Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, August 2–9, VIII, pp.
213–18.
Hamada, M., Wakamatsu, K. and Yasuda, S. 1992a. Liquefaction-induced
ground deformations during the 1923 kanto earthquake. Case Studies
of Liquefaction and lifeline performance during past earthquakes.
Buffalo, NY: National center for earthquake engineering research.
Hamada, M., Yasuda, S. and Wakamatsu, K. 1992b. Large ground defor-
mations and their effects on lifelines: 1948 Fukui Earthquake. Case
studies of liquefaction and lifeline performance during past earth-
quakes. Buffalo, NY: National center for earthquake engineering
research.
Hirade, T., Mizuno, H., Iiba, M., Sugimoto, M. and Mori, T. 2000.
Oscillator Tests of Pile Foundations in Dissipation Process of
Excess Pore Water Pressure after Liquefaction. 12WCEE.
Hussien, M. N., Tobita, T., Iai, S. and Rollins, K. M. 2010. Soil-pile separ-
ation effect on the performance of a pile group under static and
dynamic lateral loads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47, 1234–46.
doi:10.1139/T10-026
IBC. 2015. International Building Code. Country Club Hills, ILL: ICC,
2014. Print.
ICC-ES. 2013. Acceptance criteria for helical pile systems and devices
(AC358). ICC-ES.
52 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2017 VOL 11
Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earth-
quakes. Monograph MNO-12. Oakland, CA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
Kawamura, S., Nishizawa, T. and Wada, H. 1985. Damage to piles due to
liquefaction found by excavation twenty years after earthquakes.
Nikkei Architecture, 7/29, 130–4 (in Japanese).
Mashiri, M. S., Vinod, J. S. and Neaz Sheikh, M. 2015. Liquefaction poten-
tial and dynamic properties of Sand-Tyre Chip (STCh) mixtures.
Geotechnical Testing Journal. doi:10.1520/GTJ20150031
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
2012a. Supplementary guidance; Part A: technical guidance.
Canterbury, New Zealand: Ministry of Business, Innovation &
Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
2012b. Supplementary guidance; Part B: technical information.
Canterbury, New Zealand: Ministry of Business, Innovation &
Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
2013. Supplementary guidance to ‘guidance on repairing and rebuilding
houses affected by the Canterbury Earthquakes’, December 2012.
Canterbury, New Zealand: Ministry of Business, Innovation &
Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
2015. Supplementary guidance; Part C: assessing, repairing and
rebuilding foundations in TC3. Canterbury, New Zealand: Ministry
of Business, Innovation & Employment Hikina Whakatutuki.
Miura, F. 1997. Should piles be rigid or flexible? lessons from the damage
caused by past earthquakes. DFI Proceedings. pp. 283–7. http://
www.dfi.org/ISM/Proceedings/1997/Session20420-%20Miura.pdf
Mizuno, H., Sugimoto, M., Mori, T., Iiba, M. and Hirade, T. 2000.
Dynamic behavior of pile foundation in liquefaction process – shak-
ing table tests utilizing big shear box. 12WCEE.
Motamed, R., Towhata, I., Honda, T., Tabata, K. and Abe, A. 2013. Pile
group response to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading: E-defense
large shake table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
51, 35–46. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.04.007
Naeini, A. J., Choobbasti, A. J. and Saadati, M. 2013. Seismic behaviour of
pile in three-layered soil (case study: Babol City Center Project). Arab
Journal of Geoscience, 6, 4487–97. doi:10.1007/s12517-012-0671-x
Perko, H. A. 2007. Creating acceptance for helical foundations. Code
Updates: Code Developments and Announcement Section, Structure
Magazine, pp. 49–50.
Perko, H. 2009. Helical piles: a practical guide to design and installation.
New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Prasad, Y. V. S. N. and Rao, S. N. 1994. Pullout behaviour of model pile and
helical pile anchors subjected to lateral cyclic loading. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 31(1), 110–19.
Quimby, M. J. 2009. Liquefaction mitigation in silty sands using stone col-
umns with wick drains. Brigham Young University, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering. Provo, Utah: BYU Scholars
Archive, All Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved January 2017
Rao, S. and Prasad, Y. 1993. Uplift behavior of pile anchors subjected to
lateral cyclic loading. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(4),
786–90.
Reese, L. C. and Van Impe, W. F. 2001. Single piles and pile groups under
lateral loading. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Rollins, K. M., Sparks, A. E., Peterson, K. T. 2000. Lateral load capacity
and passive resistance of a full-scale pile group and cap.
Transportation Research Record 1736, Transportation Research
Board, pp. 24–32.
Rollins, K. M., Ashford, S. A. and Lane, J. D. 2001. Full-scale lateral load
testing of deep foundations using blast-induced liquefaction.
International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. Scholars’ Mine.
Rollins, K. M., Gerber, T. M., Lane, J. D. and Ashford, S. A. 2005a.
Lateral resistance of a full-scale pile group in liqefied
sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
131(1), 115–25.
Rollins, K. M., Hales, L. J., Ashford, S. A. and Camp III, W. M. 2005b. P-Y
curves for large diameter shafts in liquefied sand from blast liquefac-
tion tests. In: Boulanger R.W. and Tokimatsu K. (eds). Geotechnical
special publication no. 145, Seismic performance and simulation of
pile foundations in liquefied and laterally spreading ground. ASCE,
pp. 11–23.
NO 1

Rollins, K. M., Price B. E., Dibb E. and Higbee J. B. 2006. Liquefaction
mitigation of silty sands in Utah using stone columns with wick
drains. Proceedings of Geo-Shanghai International conference,
Geotechnical Special Publication 152, Ground Modification and
Seismic Mitigation. ASCE, pp. 343–8.
Rollins, K. M., Quimby M., Johnson S. R. and Price B. 2009. Effectiveness
of stone columns for liquefaction mitigation of silty sands with and
without wick drains. Proc. US-China Workshop on Ground
Improvement Technologies, ASCE, 2009; Geotechnical Special
Publication (188): pp. 160–9.
Rosquoët, F., Garnier, J., Thorel, L. and Canepa, Y. 2004. Horizontal cyclic
loading of piles installed in sand: study of the pile head displacement
and maximum bending moment. In: Triantafyllidis T. (ed).
Proceedings of the international conference on cyclic behaviour of
soils and liquefaction phenomena. Bochum: Taylor & Francis, pp.
363–8.
Sakr, M. 2013. Comparison between high strain dynamic and static load
tests of helical piles in cohesive soils. Soil Dynamic and Earthquake
Engineering, 54, 20–30.
Schiavon, J. 2016. Behavior of helical anchors subjected to cyclic loadings. A
Dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree,
Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos, Brazil.
Stuedlein, A. W. and Gianella, T. 2016. Drained timber pile ground improve-
ment for liquefaction mitigation. Washington, DC: IDEA Programs
Transportation Research Board.
Stuedlein, A. W., Gianella, T. N. and Canivan, G. 2016. Densification of
granular soils using conventional and drained timber displacement
piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
142(12). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001554
Tabesh, A. and Poulos H. G. 1999. The effect of soil yielding on internal pile
response. In: Seco e Pinto P.S. (ed). Proceedings of the 2nd inter-
national conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, vol. 1.
Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 327–33.
Tang, L., Ling, X., Zhang, X., Su, L., Liu, C. and Li, H. 2015. Response of
a RC pile behind quay wall to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading:
a shake-table investigation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 76, 69–79. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.0150267-7261/
Tsuha, C. H. C. and Aoki, N. 2010. Relationship between installation tor-
que and uplift capacity of deep helical piles in sand. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 47, 635–47.
Tsuha, C. H. C., Santos T. 2012. Effect of helix configuration in uplift load
capacity of helical piles on tropical soil. Universidade de Sao Paulo.
Escola de Engenharia de Sao Carlos, departamento de geotecnia. p.
171.
Tsuha, C. H. C., Aoki, N., Rault, G., Thorel, L. and Garnier, J. 2007.
Physical modeling of helical pile anchors. International Journal of
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 7, 1–12.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cerato et al. A critical review
Tsuha, C. H. C., Aoki, N. Rault, G., Thorel, L. and Garnier, J. 2012.
Evaluation of the efficiencies of helical anchor plates in sand by cen-
trifuge model tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49, 1102–14.
Tsuha, C. H. C., Santos T. C., Rault G., Thorel L. and Garnier J. 2013a.
Influence of multiple helix configuration on the uplift capacity of heli-
cal anchors. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, France, September
2013, pp. 2893–6.
Tsuha, C. H. C., Thorel L. and Rault G. 2013b. A review of centrifuge
model tests of helical foundations. Proceedings of 1st International
Geotechnical Symposium on Helical Foundations, Amherst, MA,
August 8–10. International Society for Helical Foundations. pp. 1–24.
Tsuha, C. H. C., Thorel, L., Rault, G. and Garnier, J. 2013c. Evaluation of
the effect of installation on the helical pile performance in sand by
centrifuge tests. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on
Helical Foundations, pp. 308–19.
Turan, A., El Naggar, M. H. and Hinchberger, S. 2008. Lateral behavior of
micro-pile groups under static and dynamic loads. Proceeding of the
4th Canadian Conference of Geohazards: From Causes to
Management. Quebec: Presse de l’Université Laval.
Victor, R. and Cerato, A. B. 2008. Helical anchors as wind tower guyed
cable foundations. Proceedings of the 2nd British Geotechnical
Association (BGA) International Conference on Foundations.
ICOF2008. Brown M. J., Bransby M. F., Brennan A. J. and
Knappett J. A. (Editors). Dundee, Scotland. June 24–27, 2008. Vol.
1, pp. 343–56.
Wakamatsu, K., Yoshida, N., Suzuki, N. and Tazoh, T. 1992. liquefaction-
induced large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines during
the 1990 Luzon, Phillipines earthquake). Case studies of liquefaction
and lifeline performance during past earthquakes. Buffalo, NY:
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Weaver, T., Ashford, S. and Rollins, K. 2005. Lateral resistance of a 0.6 m
drilled shaft in liquefied sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(1), 94–102.
White, B., Alzawi, A., Bradka, T. and Phang, Y. 2013. High strain dynamic
load testing on helical piles–case study. Proceedings of 1st
International Geotechnical Symposium on Helical Foundations,
Amherst, MA, pp. 336–46.
Woods, J. 2016, July. Personal Communication with Pile Tech in
Canterbury, New Zealand. (A. Cerato, S. Allred, & T. Vargas,
Interviewers).
Yoshida, N. and Hamada, M. 1990. Damage to foundation piles and
deformation pattern of ground due to liquefaction-induced perma-
nent ground deformations. Proceedings of the 3rd Japan-U.S.
Workshop on Earthquake Resistance Design of Lifeline Facilities
and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction. San Francisco, CA,
pp. 147–61.
2017 VOL 11 NO 1 53
54

Cerato et al.
Appendix
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A1 Previous research considering vertical cyclic/dynamic loading of single helical piles

Ref. Pile type Vertical load test description Soil Results Recommendations/conclusion

′ ′′ ′′
Elkasabgy and El Naggar Full scale 29 -6 by 12-3/4 OD
(2013) double 24′′ helix (interhelix
spacing of 36′′ ) helical and
closed-ended steel driven piles.
2017
13 dynamic-quadratic tests
(vertical harmonic motion) of
different force intensities within a
frequency range that covered the
piles’ resonant frequencies.
Silt crust underlain by a layer of Helical pile’s response manifested a
clay, underlain by sand and then reduction in the resonant frequency
clay till, respectively. with an increase in the excitation
intensity.
The dynamic load was transferred to
the surrounding soil medium
through the interface resistance
between pile shaft and soil.
Using a linear approach, the
theoretically calculated values of
stiffness were found to be higher
The measured responses of the driven
piles were significantly similar to those
of helical piles tested 2 weeks after
installation.
There was a close agreement between
measured and calculated response
curves. An insignificant influence of the
helices on load transfer mechanism was
observed.
This research demonstrated the ability
of existing tools to model the dynamic

than the experimental results behaviour of helical piles.

obtained 2 weeks after installation
by 145% and by 62% to 88% for the
helical piles tested 9 months after
VOL

installation. The theoretical

11

nonlinear analysis provided a

reasonable estimation for the pile’s
response curves and impedance
NO

parameters due to the weak

1

boundary zone considered around

Sakr (2013) 4 full scale 29′ 6′′ by 12-3/4′′ single High strain Dynamic Testing
24′′ helix helical piles.
2 full scale 29′ 6′′ long or 19.7′ by loading.
12-3/4′′ driven piles.
the pile.
Silt over a silty clay. The static capacities obtained from More research regarding HSDT of
(HSDT) and static compression CAPWAP were lower than the helical piles is recommended and more
capacities established from static studies are needed for HSDT with
load tests (the delivered energy to different configurations (shaft diameter,
helical piles during High Strain helix size, and number of helices).
Dynamic Test (HSDT) was low and
did not mobilise end-bearing
resistance). Even more, CAPWAP
analysis underestimated the axial
static capacity and shaft resistance
of helical piles using wave equation
analysis.
Helical piles provided about 230%
to 290% higher capacities than
driven piles with similar shaft
diameter and embedment depths
(due to the use of single or multiple
helix with diameters larger than the
shaft diameter).
 White, Alzawi, Bradka and 3 full scale (50 ft long by 9-5/8′′ The High strain dynamic testing Sandy silt crust underlain by a The majority of the resistance (60%– The helical pile resistance exceeded
Phang 2013 O.D.) helical piles: P1: double 20′′ (HSDT) used a protocol of three or layer of clay, underlain by silty 75% under the highest energy the design load.
helices, P2: double 22′′ helices, P four impacts ranging between 2′′ sand and clay till. impact) was from end bearing on HSDT is a viable, cost effective
3: double 24′′ helices. and 18′′ in height. the bottom helices, which was alternative to a traditional static load
expected due to the hard clay layer tests.
at the tip elevation. 60%–70% of the
shaft resistance was indicated to
occur near the bottom of the pile
based on the CAPWAP analysis.
The soil profile indicated the
presence of extremely hard clay at
the tip elevation. It was assumed
that failure occurred either by
shearing of the soil plug between
the helices or was affected by the
upper helix.
Elkasabgy and El Naggar Full scale, 29′ -6′′ by 12-3/4′′ O.D. Dynamic: Of quadratic type; Silt, overlying layer of clay, The maximum displacement was The responses of driven piles were
(2011); Elkasabgy, El Naggar close ended, double 24′′ helix- applied using a Lazan mechanical followed by sand, and 0.01 inches at the centre of gravity close to those of helical piles; therefore
and Sakr (2010) helical pile. oscillator; with five force intensities, underneath it, clay till. A seismic for the static mass. their performance characteristics are
and with an intensity range that cone penetration test was The linear approach highly similar for all the pile geometries
covered the resonance conducted to determine the overestimated both the stiffness and considered.
frequencies of the tested pile-soil- dynamic properties of the soil. damping of the piles due to the The nonlinear approach provided a
cap systems. A rectangular steel Poison’s ratio 0.4 to 0.47. assumed perfect bonding between reasonable estimation for impedance
plate was the pile cap, then 59 the pile and soil. No variation in the parameters and response curves,
circular steel plates were added stiffness and damping which confirmed the influence of soil
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

simulating a superstructure. characteristics were observed for disturbance due to pile installation
different excitation intensities, and process on the dynamic response of
the stiffness was not sensitive to helical piles.
frequency changes, especially at The pile-soil separation length
low frequencies. predicted by the nonlinear approach
The damping coefficient of piles was 1.54–1.85 times the shaft radius.
rapidly increased as the frequency
approached zero. The damping
ratios ranged from 6.85% to 7.57%.
The vertical response for the
adopted five excitation intensities
was linear with clear resonance
peaks. The resonance frequency
was linear for the low excitation
intensities as resonant frequency
ranged from 37 to 38 Hz.
The resonant frequency decreased
from 37 to 35 Hz as the excitation
intensity (defined as me*e, where
me is the oscillator eccentric rotating
2017

mass and e is the eccentricity)

Cerato et al.
increased from 0.87 to 1.52 lb-ft.
indicating a slight nonlinear
response of the soil-pile system.
VOL
11

(Continued)

A critical review
1NO
55
56
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Table A1 Continued
Ref. Pile type Vertical load test description
Buhler and Cerato (2010) Seven full scale 10′ by 1-3/4′′ (SS Long term dynamic vertical:
175) square piles: six with triple 8- working load was applied first (2–4 clay overlying layers of sand.
10-12′′ helices and one with kips) at 5 Hz and then shock wind
2017
double 8-10′′ helices. loads were applied at 1 Hz. In two
piles the difference between the
maximum and minimum load was
kept constant at 2 kips, maximising
VOL
the load span. Initially an 18–20
11
kips span, followed by 10–20, 2–
10, 2–15 and 2–20 kips.
Displacement was determined to
NO
be stopped if over 30-s there was
1
no variation. Failure was
determined when at a constant
load the anchor continued to
displace.
Soil
Layered soil composed of a lean
Results
The dynamic span has a greater
effect on a helical pile performance
than the maximum load applied, for
loads lower than 50% the predicted
ultimate static uplift capacity.
The capacity of two anchors with
similar torque installation values and
different water content (2% change)
was not affected when the water
table level was not changed and
under the same loading and soil
conditions.
A three-helix anchor performed
better than the two-helix anchor.
Between the cylindrical shear,
bearing plate, Helicap® and torque
correlation methods to predict uplift
capacities, Helicap® predicts the
actual dynamic failure span
magnitudes of dynamically loaded
piles more closely. The torque
correlation method exhibited more
consistent results than the soil
mechanics approaches and could
be reduced by 3 to account for the
dynamic loading effects.
Cerato et al.
A critical review
Recommendations/conclusion
Large span dynamic loads will reduce
uplift capacity of helical piles.
Piles in soils with increased water
content showed equal capacity to
comparable piers in drier soils.
Nevertheless, there is an indication of
increased displacement at lower loads
in increased water content conditions.
More testing is necessary to determine
the relationship between water content
increase and helical pile performance.
Fewer number of helices increase the
possibility of local bearing capacity
failure at each helix, based on a single
two-helix pier test.
It would be improbable to see
significant movement in a single wind
load event, piers could be monitored for
displacement and the guy wires
tightened over the lifetime of the tower
to compensate for any movement.
 Cerato and Victor (2008, Eight full scale, depths of
2009) embedment of: 10′ , 14′ , 16′ , 21.5′ ,
23′ and 25′ by 1-3/4′′ Square shaft.
helical anchors.
Three with quadruple 8-10-12-14′′
helices, two with triple 8-10-12′′
helices and three with double 8-
10′′ helices.
All adjacent piles were spaced 5D
of the largest helix with a minimum
of 5 ft.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
2017
VOL
11
1NO
57
A 1-year monitoring program was
executed on a wind tower to
determine loadings from working
and extreme conditions.
5 anchors Cyclically/dynamically
loaded in uplift for 2–4 weeks
followed by a post-dynamic static
test. Three piles were only tested
statically to compare their
performance. Dynamic tests were
conducted under a sustained-
repeated loading condition.
Layered soil composed by a lean
clay overlying layers of sand,
then silty clay and weathered
shale, respectively.
Wind vibrations occurred between 3
and 5 Hz, and average working
loads were 1,000–3,000 lbs. per
guyed cable. The maximum load
was on the south cable during a
50 mi/hr wind gust was 8,000 lbs.
Depending on the soil type, the soil
could fill the voids around the
helices during dynamic loading,
which would prevent the anchor
from returning to its original position.
A three-helix anchor with a
predicted capacity of 29,700 lbs.
performed well in minimising long
term creep.
An anchor with a capacity of
30,000 lbs. and FS of 2 experienced
half of the total displacement during
seating loads, nevertheless over
100% of the displacement was
recovered after that the load was
released.
Even if there is disturbance during
installation, once the anchor is
cycled several times to a seating
load there is minimal additional
creep under working loads and
during the lifetime of the application.
A two-helix anchor experienced a
high rate and magnitude of
displacement, producing excessive
creep, probably due to the smaller
bearing stratum between the helices
and the presence of a weak layer of
soil.
3 or 4 helix piles installed to the
design torque and below a
fluctuating water table would help to
minimise creep.
More tests are needed to confirm that
the resistance to long term creep is
more correlated to the number of
helices than it is to the factor of safety.
More tests are needed to confirm if a
two-helix does not have enough surface
area to dissipate dynamic loads and are
more susceptible to creep. Would be
beneficial to test the effect of using
larger helices to determine the general
cyclic resistance.
The optimum geometry to use on
dynamically loaded guyed cable
foundation is the 3-helix pile.
All anchors showed movement during
seating loadings due to installation
disturbance of an inclined anchor.
A dynamic anchor preloading program
should be implemented to achieve the
desired lifetime performance
A rise of 13 ft. in water table from below
to above all the helices lowered the
predicted anchor capacity, therefore all
anchors should be installed so the top
helix is below the lowest known water
table to avoid losing strength as the soil
becomes saturated. Cylindrical shear
under predicted the uplift capacities of
seven out of eight piles. The individual
bearing plate method under predicted
the uplift capacity of the anchors and
the torque correlation method under
predicted six of eight anchors.
(Continued)
Cerato et al.
A critical review
58
Table A1 Continued
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Ref. Pile type
Victor and Cerato (2008) 4 Full scale 10′ , 14′ and 25′ by 1-3/
4′′ square shafts. Two with
quadruple 8-10-12-14′′ helices
and two with double 8-10′′ helices.
Helices spaced 5D of the largest
helix and minimum 5 ft.
2017
VOL
11
NO
1
Cannon (2000) Full scale 26′ by 3.5′′ with a single
14′′ helix and 6.6′′ OD with double
or quintuplet 27.5′′ plates (Case
1), 26′ by 8.6′′ OD with double
33.5′′ helices (square plate with
rounded corners) (Case 2) and 8–
16′ by 3.5′′ with single 13.5′′ helix
and 4.5′′ with 17.5′′ Square helix
plates (Case 3).
Vertical load test description
Static short term and long term
tests were conducted on three
piles, and a long term dynamic test
was performed on the fourth
anchor, followed by a static short-
term pullout test. Seating loads of
10%–20% of predicted ultimate
capacity were applied in both
dynamic and static. Load was
applied at 15% increments of the
predicted ultimate uplift capacity
and sustained for 10–15 min on the
short-term testing and 1–24 h on
the long-term testing up to failure.
Dynamic testing was long term
and lasted for 2–4 weeks applied in
a sustained-repeated loading
condition.
High strain dynamic test (HSDT)
that started with low blows, which
then increased over time until shaft
stresses reached yield stress. On
case 2 a static load test was
conducted after the dynamic test.
Soil
Layered soil composed of a lean
clay overlying layers of sand,
then silty clay and weathered
shale, respectively.
Case 1: moderate to medium
sand.
Case 2: clayey sand.
Case 3: stiff clay.
Results
The static uplift resistance of one
tested anchor decreased
considerably probably due to
increase on the water table from
installation to testing, and
consequently changing the soil
properties from unsaturated to
saturated. Therefore, the shallow
anchor tested followed the
predicted behaviour and its
capacity remained unchanged
despite the change in water table as
the soil above the helix remained
unsaturated. Under static loadings
the three anchors performed better
than predicted and major increases
in capacity were observed under an
increase in water table. In one pile
the cyclic loading compacted the
soil and increased the static uplift
capacity. The four-helix has the
lowest uplift capacity. For cyclic
loading, the frequency used did not
affect the load-versus time
behaviour, therefore a 10 Hz
frequency could be used when
constructing long-term load-
displacement comparisons. After
the dynamic testing was applied the
static testing showed a higher
ultimate capacity than the initially
predicted.
Case 1: The test was conducted at
more than two times the working
load. CAPWAP models show
resistance concentrated at the
helices locations. Results show
considerable resistance and
elasticity which persisted over a
longer time.
Case 2: Static and dynamic test
passed the initial elastic behaviour
of the pile, the dynamic test
mobilised more resistance and the
test was limited only by stresses in
the pile shaft
Case 3: CAPWAP results
demonstrated 120% to 170% of the
required ultimate resistance,
showing that a factor of safety of 2.5
was unnecessary. Suggested a
factor of safety of 0.8.
Cerato et al.
Recommendations/conclusion
A critical review
Torque correlation design must
consider worst case groundwater
conditions. A default Kt does not
consider the changes in soil conditions
from the moment of installation
throughout the lifetime of the project.
The torque correlation method under-
predicted anchor uplift capacities
under dynamic loading but over-
predicted capacities when the water
table rose. Piles with few helices need to
be installed at larger depths to achieve
similar torque values as anchors with
more plates. Shallower anchors
performed better in uplift. Long-term
cyclic loading affects static uplift
capacity.
Installation torque does not give a good
indication of pile capacity (From testing
of high capacity piles on Redlands
Mater Hospital, Brisbane: where a pile
was tested at two penetrations and the
torque resistance was ‘quite’ high
during installation, and during testing it
was very high with a corresponding low
mobilised resistance), but high strain
dynamic testing gave a better
quantitative indication of pile resistance
(the initial CAPWAP analysis found
mobilised resistance close to the
requirement, for half of the test. Results
showed 120% to 170% of the required
ultimate resistance from Case method
approach). *Nevertheless, it is
important to note that the helices had no
true helical shape and they may not
screw into the soil but rather auger,
which could create certain
disturbances.
 Clemence and Pepe (1984)
Abdelghany and El Naggar
(2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2013);
Abdelghany (2008)
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
One-quarter scale, 1.6′′ long by 9 Dynamic tests applying uplift Sand. High horizontal stresses developed
.375′′ square shaft (SS 126543 AE) loads until failure was reached. in the sand by vibratory
with triple 2-2.5-2.75′′ helices. densification or installation of the
piles, produced an increase in the
at-rest stress and lateral stress, for
all the soil conditions studied. The
magnitude of the increase in stress
depends on the density of the sand.
During the installation process the
sand in contact with the helices was
sheared and displaced laterally in
the case of deep anchors (H/D > 8),
densifying the sand. In the case of
shallow anchors, the sand is
mobilised upward.
Seven plain helical screw piles (P- Axial monotonic and cyclic: an Cohesive soil: Silt and clayey silt RG-HSPs presented the highest
HSP); Four grouted (G-HSPs); initial compression test, then 15 reaching a very dense sand at axial ultimate compression capacity
eight fibre reinforced cycles of axial loading with 30 ft. and stiffness of all different pile
polymer (FRP-G-HSPs); and four increments of 10–15% of the types tested under 15 cyclic loads.
reinforced grouted (RG-HSPs). proposed design load with Pile axial compression capacities
constant time intervals of 2.5 min. A are proportional to the installation
The coefficient of lateral earth pressure
at failure were 30% and 40% lower than
the values determined for buried
foundations on previous research due
to shear disturbance during installation.
Further research is needed to
determine the effect of anchor type, soil
conditions and in-situ stress conditions
before a comprehensive application of
the coefficients can be established.
RG-HSPs presented higher axial
compression capacities, therefore the
shaft’s reinforcement increased the
axial capacity of the anchors and
enhanced their axial seismic
performance.

′ ′
Beim and Luna (2012) 8 full scale 13.5 (3 piles)-20 (5
piles) by 2-7/8′′ OD helical piles. days static loading tests were
Triple 8-10-12′′ helices with 2D
spacing and 3′′ pitch.
2017
final compression test.
Cyclic loading tests, after 25–30
conducted, using increments of
5% the failure load, each kept.
torque and the torque correlation
factor can be used to predict the
pile capacity of the P-HSP.
The shaft resistance measured on
G-HSPs was around 55% of the total
pile’s compression resistance and
on P-HSP was 14% of the total pile-s
compression resistance.
Clay. A CAPWAP analysis was performed,
and the a dynamic loading test is a
viable alternative to determine the
compressive load capacity of
Helical Piles embedded in cohesive
soils, with lower cost and execution
time. It is necessary to perform one
or more load tests on each site to
determine the best correlating factor
(Kt), which depend on the particular
pile size and configuration, as well
as the type and condition of the soil.
A design equation was generated to
predict the contribution of the inter-helix
to the axial capacity of the pile,
assuming a tapered shear failure
surface developed in that zone.
RG-HSP axial capacity was more than
twice the P-HSP.
Further investigation is needed to
determine the failure criterion that
should be adopted for Dynamic
Loading Test (DLT) on helical piles.
Agreement between Static Loading
Tests (SLT) and DLT of helical piles
embedded in cohesive soils was
demonstrated. Further research is
needed to evaluate SLT and DLT
agreement in non-cohesive soils.

(Continued)

Cerato et al.
VOL
11

A critical review
1NO
59
60

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

Table A1 Continued

A critical review
Ref. Pile type Vertical load test description Soil Results Recommendations/conclusion

El Sharnouby (2012); El 13 steel fibre-Reinforced Helical
Sharnouby and El Naggar Pulldown Micropiles (RHPM) and
(2012a) 12 full scale Fibre-Reinforced
Polymer-steel-fibre Reinforced
Helical Pulldown Micropiles (FRP-
RHPM) of 2.25 inches of width (SS
225) triple-helix (10′′ -8′′ -6′′ )
helices spaced 3D. Depth of the
piles ranged between 24 and
24.6 ft. and the grout column
ranged between 11.14 and 12.8 ft.
In addition, one regular 24′ by 1-3/
4′′ (SS175) and 5-1/2′′ OD (with
10′′ OD grout reinforcement in
upper 10′ ) by triple 8-10-12′′
2017
PHASE I: An axial monotonic load Stiff clayey silt till underlain by
was applied with increments of
6744 lbf every 4 min, then 15 one-
way compression cyclic loads
with a mean load of 43% of the
ultimate capacity, and an
amplitude of 13% of the ultimate
capacity were applied. Finally
loading up to a displacement of 1
inch. PHASE II: static loading to
67,443 lbf then 15 one-way
compression loading cycles, and
a final static loading until jacking
was required to maintain loading/
large displacement/ load cell
For RHPM piles it was found that the
dense sand. residual deformation after cyclic
loadings were between 0.004 and
0.012 inches. RHPM presented
higher stiffness and resistance at all
times versus plain helical piles, but
at higher displacement levels (0.79
in) RHPM had resistance of 180% to
250% those of plain helical piles.
RHPM: At low displacement levels
(1.3% shaft diameter), the shaft
resistance was 72% to 80% of the
total resistance, but as the
displacement level increases (20%
shaft diameter), the shaft resistance
The top helix contributed more to the
cyclic loading resistance than the other
helices.
Cyclic loading improved the pile’s axial
performance and capacity by up to
15%.
The load transfer mechanism within the
lead section is through bearing of each
helix, and for piles under high static
loads all helices have equal distribution
of the applied load.
More research is needed to examine
the effect of higher cyclic loading range
on the pile capacity and performance.

helices spaced 3D. capacity reached. decreases to 36% to 50% of the total
resistance. Nevertheless, RHPM
piles did not experience stiffness
degradation during cyclic loading.
VOL

FRP-RHPMs performed as a
11

composite foundation system.

Cyclic and post-cyclic performance
of FRP-RHPM depends on the initial
NO

level of loading. If the cyclic loading

1

range was below the maximum

initial static load, the loading and
unloading stiffness remains
constant throughout the cyclic
loading, and the displacement is
relatively small and occurs within
the first one or two cycles.
Negligible permanent displacement
was reported after the cyclic
loading.
Post-cyclic axial stiffness was not
affected by the cyclic loading.
Where the cyclic loading was higher
than the maximum initial static
loading: the pile performance was
satisfactory, no degradation in
stiffness was observed, and the
displacement per cycle decreased
with the number of cycles.
For FRP-RHPM under post-cyclic
static compression loads, the top
helix share is more than 50%.
It was observed that cyclic loading
densifies the sand in the vicinity of
the helices, reducing disturbance
due to installation processes.
 El Sharnouby and El Naggar 11 full scale 1-3/4′′ (SS175) Steel
(2012b) Fibre Reinforced Helical Pulldown
Micropiles (RHPM) with a 6′′ grout
column in upper 12′ with triple 6-8-
10′′ helices spaced 3D.
El Sharnouby and El Naggar Full scale, 23-24.6′ by 1-3/4′′
(2011a, 2011b) square (SS 175) plain and
reinforced grouted helical
pulldown micropiles (RG-HSP)
with triple 8-10-12′′ helices with 3′′
pitch and located 6′′ , 29′′ and 58′′
from pile tip.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
El Naggar and Abdelghany Full scale 7′ by 1-3/4′′ square
(2007a, 2007b) (SS175) plain (P-HSP) and
Grouted Helical screw pile (G-
HSP) with triple 8-10-12′′ helices
with 3′′ pitch and located 6′′ , 29′′
and 58′′ from pile tip.
2017
VOL
11
NO
1
61
Stage I-A: Monotonic
compression loads, increased by dense sand.
6744 lbs every 4 min. Piles were
tested up to a displacement of 8%
of the average helix diameter.
Stage I-B: 15 Cyclic one-way
compression loading, each cycle
applied for 2 min, the maximum
and minimum load of 130% and
70% of the average cyclic load
(67,443 lbf).
Monotonic compression loading
followed by a minimum of 15 – one in the dense sand layer, while the helical pulldown micropiles was
way compression cyclic axial
loading, each cycle over 2 min,
and then an axial compression
reloading was applied.
15 Cyclic compression loadings
followed by a monotonic
compression loading to failure.
Stiff clayey silt till underlain byThe shaft contribution to the total
Lead section embedded entirely The stiffness for all four reinforced
grout column embedded within found to be higher than that of plain
the silty clayey till.
Layered cohesive-frictional soil, 15 Cycles of loading reduced the
composed mainly of clayey silt. ultimate capacity of plain helical
For cyclic loading applications, it is
resistance ranged from 72% to 80% favourable to use multi-helix lead
at working levels and from 36% to sections instead of a single helix.
50% at higher loading levels. The RHPM pile is a viable foundation
Furthermore, the load-transfer system for axial monotonic and one-way
mechanism of the lead section is cyclic applications.
through individual helix bearing.
The pile performance depends on
the cyclic performance of the grout
shaft. The displacement during
cyclic loading was less than 1.77%
of the shaft diameter with no
degradation in the stiffness.
An average and maximum cyclic
loading of more than 40% and 54%
of the ultimate capacity, improved
the ultimate axial stiffness and axial
capacity of the pile.
Under a cyclic loading of up to 58% of
the ultimate load, the RG-HSP pile
performs well, with no deterioration in
helical piles: The load at 0.8 inch their performance and only presented a
deflection for a reinforced piles was small displacement increase.
80% to 124% higher than the load of RG-HSP is a viable deep foundation
a plain pile subjected to the same option for axial monotonic and cyclic
deflection. The stiffness and loading applications.
capacity of the reinforced piles were The peak deflection observed on
not affected by the cyclic loading. reinforced piles was 0.07%–0.23% of
The stiffness remained constant the grout column diameter.
during cyclic loading up to failure
(121,400 lbs.) for plain helical piles.
The maximum monotonic axial load
reached at the end of the test for the
reinforced piles was 137% to 155%
higher than that of the plain pile.
The cyclic performance is satisfactory
and permits the consideration of helical
piles by less than 5%–10%, and by piles for seismic applications.
18% in grouted helical piles. The The effect of cyclic loading on the
load was transferred to the soil in stiffness of Plain and Grouted Helical
both helical pile types tested (plain piles are negligible.
HSP and grouted helical piles),
mainly through a cylindrical shear
failure surface over the inter-helices
soil and by the bearing capacity of
the lead helix.
The grout column works with the
helical pile on the load transfer
interaction as a composite pile. For
Cerato et al.
P-HSP’s, the percentage of the load
transferred from the shaft on the
portion above the helices increased
from 10% for a plain helical pile to
45% for a grouted column shaft
above the helices.
A critical review
(Continued)
62

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A1 Continued
Ref. Pile type Vertical load test description Soil Results Recommendations/conclusion

Dilley and Hulse (2007) 2 Full scale, 25′ by 20′′ OD helical Cyclic: Six uplift load tests were Frozen soils composed of silt The helical pile reaction stabilised The test anchor performed well under all
piles with a single 36′′ plate. applied. The downward load and organics underlying a layerout to zero displacement or creep, loads and the displacement was
applied on the reaction pile was of silty sand. Temperature within 24 h following each loading minimal or the pier capacity exceeded
2017

equal to half the test load. between 30.5°F and 31.8° F. cycle. the test load applied.
The total anchor displacement in
upward movement accumulated up
to 0.0093 inches to 0.0072 inches
VOL

when unloading from 200% to 0% of

the design load.
11

Clemence and Smithling One-quarter scale 16′′ by 0.375′′ Application of prestress load, then Fine air-dried medium-dense The anchor subjected to a larger An increase in displacement amplitude
(1983, 1984); Clemence and square (SS5, model number 12 cyclic loading test were Sand compacted to a density of displacement amplitude of 1/15′′ results in a shorter anchor life.
NO

Veesaert (1977) 126543AE) single 2.5′′ helix helical transferred to the anchor through a 3
97.5 lb/ft . failed after 120 cycles, while the A significant reduction in the static uplift
1

piles. system composed by a lever arm anchor with smaller displacement
and a steel test container of 30′′ in (1/37′′ ) failed after 1,200 cycles.
diameter. A frequency of 6 Hz was The horizontal stress increases
used. A post cyclic static tension during installation and during the
test was conducted. application of a static prestress
load. This stress decreases during
cyclic loading, indicating that the
sand around the pile was loosened
until the active state of stress was
reached and the anchor failed.
For prestressed anchors with a ratio
of dynamic load /effective static load
ratio greater than 3%, the anchor
failed earlier than a similar anchor
subjected only to cyclic loading.
capacity occurred after cyclic loading.
At ratios of dynamic load/effective static
capacity lower than 3%, a prestressed
anchor reached failure later than a
similar anchor subjected only to cyclic
loading. However, for anchors with a
ratio of dynamic load /effective static
capacity above of 3%, the anchor
reached failure sooner and a
deterioration of the pile strength was
observed.
 Schiavon (2016) Test 1: Model-scale with shaft
diameters of 0.24′′ , 0.31′′ ,
0.39′′ and 0.47′′ and shaft
depth of 8.6′′ . Single helix
diameters of 0.79′′ , 1.05′′ , 1.3′′
and 1.6′′ .
Test 2: Full-scale helical piles
with: 4′′ shaft diameter,
Helix diameter: 12′′ . The helix
was 49′ from the ground
surface.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
2017
VOL
11
1NO
63
Test 1: Initial monotonic tensile
load followed by a Cyclic
loading through centrifuge
acceleration applied to the
helix of the model anchor,
different acceleration levels
were used for each pile.
Test 2: Cyclic full scale test:
Four series of uplift loads, each
one involving a monotonic load
followed by 50 tensile cyclic
loads.
Test 1: Dry Dense fine silica
sand.
Test 2: Clayey sand
overlying a layer of pebbles
and then clayey sand
Test 1: Before cyclic loading, the
helix bearing resistance was
82% of the total applied load.
The degradation on shaft
resistance was more evident
during the first 100 cycles, which
was represented by
accumulation of permanent
displacements.
Helical anchor presented vertical
displacements greater than 10%
of the helix diameter (D) after
1000 cycles, nevertheless the
post-cycle uplift capacity did not
presented degradation until it
reached 2000 cycles. On the
other hand, under low mean
load, the accumulated
displacement was lower than
0.1D after 1000 cycles but the
post-cycle uplift capacity was
reduced.
When initial cycles have
intermediate amplitude, the
vertical displacement of following
cycles is reduced, however
when the initial cycles are of high
amplitude, the accumulated
displacement is almost
independent on the loading
order
Test 2: Negative skin friction and
residual loads were presented
after installation and uplift test,
nevertheless they were
dissipated after cyclic loading.
The anchor response improved
after monotonic test due to the
soil compaction above the
helices (improved disturbed soil)
The cyclic performance was
influenced by the preceding
monotonic test.
Greater increase of shaft
resistance was identified for the
helical piles subjected to cyclic
loadings.
Test 1: Scaling issues on modeling
helical piles have not been
investigated before; the proposed
solution consisted of conducting
different pullout-tests on model-
scale piles using the centrifuge to
select an anchor model. The
identified scaling effects are valid
for models with effective helical
radius/average grain size ratios
greater than 58.
Under cyclic loadings, the anchor
behaviour and failure mechanism
depends on the disturbance
produced during installation. Sand
disturbance is not uniform along
the cylindrical zone above the
helices.
Helical anchor behaviour was
governed by helix bearing, with no
decrease in the helix bearing
capacity due to cyclic loading.
Proposed the use of interaction
diagrams to evaluate the cyclic
performance of helical anchors
based only on the accumulated
displacement response. Curve-
fitting was proposed to evaluate
the post-cyclic behaviour of piles
due to cyclic loading.
It is recommended to conduct
centrifuge tests with helical piles
with different number of helices
and under two-way cyclic
loadings. Even more, to conduct
tests on loose sand and cohesive
soils.
Numerical models: Future work
should consider constitutive
models that may reproduce
hardening and cyclic degradations
of soils, and investigate the
influence of the variation of lateral
Cerato et al.
stresses on the anchor behaviour.
A critical review
(Continued)
64

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A1 Continued
Ref. Pile type Vertical load test description Soil Results Recommendations/conclusion

Tsuha et al. (2007); Tsuha
and Aoki (2010); Tsuha
et al. (2012); Tsuha and
Santos (2012); Tsuha et al.
(2013a); Tsuha, Thorel
and Rault (2013b); Tsuha,
Thorel, Rault and Garnier
(2013c)
2017
1st test: Nine small scale
helical piles (P1,P2, P3, =
embedded depth 5.7′′ by
0.12′′ OD; P4,P5,P6 =
embedded depth 8.4′′ by
0.18′′ OD; P7,P8,P9 =
embedded depth 11′′ by
0.24′′ OD) and three pipe piles
(embedded depths of 5.7′′ ,
8.4′′ and 11′′ and O.D. of
0.12′′ , 0.18′′ and 0.24′′
respectively).
2nd Test: Eight Full scale
1st test: 18 tensile loadings
were conducted on two
containers. Centrifuge test.
2nd test: uplift loadings.
First Test: dry
Fontainebleau silica sand
(relative densities of 56%
and 85%).
Second test: sandy clay
(26.25′ depth) overlying a
residual soil and then a layer
of pebbles.
First Test: The efficiency of the
second helix of the double- and
triple-helix anchors depends
linearly of the helix diameter
and also of the initial sand
relative density.
The difference in compactness
between the sand penetrated
by a helix one time and the sand
penetrated two or three times is
significant.
The efficiencies of the second
plates of the tested anchors
First Test: The efficiency of the
second helix of helical anchors
with steel-pipe shafts decreases
with the increase in helix diameter.
The proposed equation to
calculate uplift helix bearing
capacity of helical piles is only
appropriate for piles with the same
diameter as the piles tested,
spaced more than 3D and
embedded in the same sand.
Second test: The contribution of
the second helix to the total

helical piles:, embedment decrease with the increase in capacity is better for tapered
depth of 32.8′ by 2.87′′ OD helix diameter, therefore the configurations. The contribution of
with single, double and triple effect of the helical pile the third helix to the total capacity
VOL

helices of varying diameters. installation is more significant decreases with an increase in the
11

with anchors with larger helices. third helix diameter, even for
Strong influence of sand density tapered piles. Further investigation
in uplift capacity and installation is needed to confirm.
NO

torques.
1

An increase in pile size and

number of helices causes
increases in the uplift capacities
and installation torque.
Ratio of measured displacement
at failure to the helix diameter
was larger in dense sand models
and was not affected by the
number of helices.
The torque correlation factor
decreases with an increase in
pile dimensions and also with
sand friction angle (increase in
density).
Second test: The uplift. capacity
of an anchor with tapered helices
(6′′ -8′′ -10′′ ) was around 8%
greater than that of an anchor
with the same average plate
diameter (8′′ -8′′ -8′′ ). However, to
install the tapered helical pile it
was necessary to apply 20%
greater torque.
 Table A2 Previous research considering Lateral cyclic loading on single helical piles
Ref. Pile Type
Abdelghany and El 23 Full scale, 20′ by 1-3/4′′
Naggar (2010a, square (SS175) helical piles
2010b); Abdelghany with triple 8-10-12′′ , 3′′ pitch
and El Naggar (2011, helices located at 6′′ , 29′′ and
2013); Abdelghany 58′′ from the pile tip
(2008) respectively: Seven plain
helical screw piles (P-HSP);
four grouted (G-HSPs); eight
fibre reinforced
polymer (FRP-G-HSPs); and
four reinforced grouted (RG-
HSPs).
El Sharnouby and El 8, 4.92′ long by 1-3/4′′ square
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Naggar (2013) Reinforced Helical pulldown
micropile with triple 3′′ pitch
8-10-12′′ helices spaced 3D.
2017
VOL
11
1NO
65
Lateral Load Test description
Lateral monotonic and cyclic
loading: initial lateral load test,
then 15 cycles of lateral
loading. Finally monotonic
lateral load test.
Under a free head condition,
dual pile testing was
conducted. 2-way cyclic
loading, five cycles at every
load level with increments of
1,125 lbs. until the maximum
stroke of the hydraulic jack was
reached.
Soil
Lead section lied entirely in
the dense sand layer, while
the grout column lies within
the silty clayey till.
Clayey till soils resting on
sandy soils.
Results
Reinforced grouted helical
piles had the greater lateral
capacities, followed by FRP-G-
HSPs with internal and external
grout, and grouted helical
piles, and FRP-G-HSPs with
internal grout respectively.
The performance of the pile is
determined by the gap along
the pile.
The steel-fibre grout column
improved the pile’s resistance
to lateral loads.
A preferential direction was
observed during the testing as
a result of the formation of
gaps, therefore, one side
provided a stiffer response
than the other, as when a load
was reversed the pile did not
provided resistance until the
gap was closed. Furthermore,
the gap in the direction of first
loading cycle was smaller than
the gap on the other direction.
2-way cyclic loads degrade the
performance of the pile, and it
was mainly due to the gap that
formed and closed during the
test.
Recommendations/Conclusions
The plain helical piles had
negligible lateral capacity. The
lateral capacity of most pile
configurations degraded due to the
cyclic loading. However, the RG-
HSPs showed a small reduction,
and in some cases, some increase
in the capacity after the cyclic
loading, therefore it exhibited the
best stiffness performance.
The numerical and field test results
showed favourable agreement, and
therefore a load transfer
mechanism for the RG-HSPs was
established.
RG-HSP piles lateral capacity was
more than three times the PHSPs
capacity.
Piles should be designed
considering the softer preferential
direction.
Piles exhibited three main
behaviours; pile behaving as a free
cantilever, pile moving through the
gap, and linear and non-linear
response after the gap is closed
and the soil resistance is mobilised.
Cerato et al.
(Continued)
A critical review
66

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A2 Continued
Ref. Pile Type Lateral Load Test description Soil Results Recommendations/Conclusions

Elkasabgy et al. Full scale, 29.5′ by 12-3/4′′ Dynamic: Quadratic type Silt, overlying layer of clay, Damping ratios between 4% It is necessary to quantify and
(2010) pipe with double 24′′ helix – applied using a Lazan followed by sand, and and 5.1% qualify the dynamic performance of
Helical Pile. mechanical oscillator with; five underneath it, clay till. A The true displacement helical piles, the results presented
force intensities, applied within seismic cone penetration amplitude for the horizontal in the paper presented some
intensity range that covered test was conducted to vibrations were computed insights concerning this goal for
the resonance frequencies of determine the dynamic through three steps: base line engineers and researchers.
2017

the tested pile-soil-cap properties of the soil. correlation, filtering and double
systems, A rectangular steel Poison’s ratio 0.4 to 0.47. integration.
plate was the pile cap then 59 The resonant frequency is
VOL

circular steel plates were practically the same for all

11

added simulating a eccentricities and ranged

superstructure. between 3.43 and 3.67 Hz. At
NO

higher frequencies, the

horizontal response
1

amplitudes started to increase

up to a peak produced by the
rocking mode of vibration.
Computed damping ratios are
larger than the value obtained
from the free vibration test by a
factor of 2.0.
The dimensionless horizontal
amplitude versus frequency
exhibited a slightly nonlinear
behaviour near the resonant
frequency, then it turns more
nonlinear as the frequency
increases due to the rocking
movement.
 El Sharnouby and El Full scale 24.3′ by 1-3/4′′
Naggar (2011a, square (SS 175) reinforced
2011b) helical pulldown micropiles
(RG-HSP) with triple 8-10-
12′′ , 3′′ pitch helices spaced
3D.
The steel fibre-reinforced
grout column had 6′′
diameter by 12.5′
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Monotonic: Applied in
increments of 1,125 lbs. every
2.5 min.
5 cycles at each lateral load
level. The lateral load was
applied in increments of 1,125
lbs.
Clay till, overlying dense Monotonic: All piles sustained
sand. loads without a sudden loss in
stiffness, until the pile head
displacement was more than
50% of the pile diameter. Upon
unloading, the piles retrieved
about 70% of their maximum
displacement. Piles exhibited
almost elastic behaviour for
displacements up to 0.4 in. A
gap formed between the pile
shaft and surrounding soil.
Radial cracks originating from
the pile steel shaft (after pile
displacement reached 0.5 in)
and extended to the pile/soil
interface.
Owing to the elastic behaviour
exhibited by helical piles under
monotonic loadings, it was
indicated its ability to satisfy the
common serviceability criterion of
0.25 in.
The ultimate load depends on the
passive resistance of the soil. The
pile performance was affected by
the grout characteristics of the top
pile portion.
The cyclic deflection was primarily
due to plastic deformation of the
soil. Nevertheless, minimal
structural damage was indicated.
Failure mechanism primarily
dominated by separation of the

Cyclic: The test showed low grout column from the surrounding
energy dissipation. Up to a soil.
load of 1,800 lbs., the
displacement during cyclic
loading seems to stabilise. At
higher load levels, the
displacement increased with
the number of cycles.
Furthermore, the rate of
increase in the deflection
increased with the increase of
the loading level. Upon
unloading, the piles retrieved
most of the deflection. Gap
formed.

(Continued)
2017

Cerato et al.
VOL
11

A critical review
1NO
67
68

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A2 Continued
Ref. Pile Type Lateral Load Test description Soil Results Recommendations/Conclusions

Rao and Prasad 2 model-scale 20.2′′ long by
(1993); Prasad and .5433′′ OD or 0.71′′ OD steel
Rao (1994) pipe piles and a 20.2′′ long
by 0.5433′′ OD helical pile
with quadruple 1.3′′ helices
spaced at 1.96′′ .
2017
Phase I: static the pile’s lateral
capacity was determined.
Phase II: 32 cyclic loading
tests with a period of 12
s. Different loading levels were
applied (30%–75%). 500
cycles were conducted at low
loading levels. At higher
loading levels the test was
Marine Clayey (40% clay,
50% silt, and 10% sand). Soil
bed prepared at a water
content of 50%. Consistency
index (0.64). 2′′ Layers were
pressed with a template to
remove the entrapped air.
Under static loading, the
deflection of the pile is less
than 6% of pile diameter.
Under low cyclic loading levels
of up 30%–40% the deflection
of pile becomes stabilised at
250 cycles, and it seems to be
stabilised within the first 100–
200 cycles, even more its value
The behaviour of helical piles is
better at higher loading levels.
When a short helical pile is
subjected to lateral cyclic loading,
the pullout capacity and lateral
capacity are going to be effected:
The loss of contact around the pile
during lateral cyclic loading effect
the skin friction leading to reduction

stopped at a deflection of 1%– is less than 3% of pile diameter in the pullout capacity, which
10% the pile diameter. Phase and the degradation factor was depends on the lateral deflection of
II: pullout test. equal to unity. There was no the pile during cyclic loading and
VOL

reduction in the pullout on its L/d value. But if the ratio of

11

capacity, but if the deflection lateral cyclic load/ static lateral

was greater than 3% of pile capacity is kept below 0.3–0.4, the
diameter there was a reduction lateral deflection of the pile would
NO

in the capacity. At higher be less than 0.025D–0.03 D with no

1

loading levels of 50%–70%, apparent reduction in their

there is a reduction in the capacities.
capacity of the pile and the In field situations where lateral
deflection is stabilised at 500 cyclic loading effects pullout
cycles, furthermore most of the capacity, the use of helical piles is
deflections are elastic. The suggested
degradation factors were less
for piles with a ratio L/d of 15
compared to piles with a ratio
of L/d 20, typical values at a
lateral deflection of 10% of the
pile diameter were 0.65 and
0.75 respectively.
Beyond a 70% loading level,
the pile movement is very rapid
leading to failure, frequently
between 70% and 75% loading
levels.
 Table A3 Previous research considering Vertical and Lateral cyclic loading on grouped piles

Ref Pile Type Pile Group Type Test Description Soil Results Conclusions

Brown et al. Driven steel pipe piles.
(2001a, 2001b) Piles consisted of straight
seam pipe rather than spiral
welded pipe to minimise
influence of the fabrication
process on the
instrumentation
L = 40 ft.
O.D. = 10.75 in.
Wall Thickness = 0.5 in.
Yield Strength = 43 ksi.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
3 × 4 groups at 3D c-c spacing
and 3 × 3 group at 4D c-c
spacing.
Groups were connected by a
steel loading frame constructed of
steel H and wide flange sections
with attached steel cutouts
welded to the frame to provide a
guide for each pile. High tension-
capacity threaded-steel rods
passed through the frame to allow
the frame to be clamped down
onto the piles after installation.
Additionally, the piles were tack
welded to the frame guides to
prevent slippage.
A total of 10 different tests conducted
at two different sites (1–5 Wilmington,
North Carolina; 6–10 at Spring Villa
National Geotechnical
Experimentation Site (NGES) in
Opelika, Alabama):
1) Two directional static test on 3 × 4
pile group at three-diameter centre-
to-centre (3D c-c) pile spacing in soft
clay.
2) Dynamic Test on 3 × 4 pile group
at 3D c-c spacing in soft clay.
3) Static test on single pile in soft
clay.
4) Static test on single pile over water
in loose sand.
5) Dynamic tests on 3 × 4 pile group
at 3D c-c spacing over water in loose
sand.
6) Static test on 3 × 4 pile group at 3D
Tests 1–3: Tests 1–3: The static behaviour and Analysis of the static test results
0–8.2 ft.: very soft. static behaviour derived from the indicated that p-multiplier for
organic clay statnamic loading using the SDOF groups of bored piles are lower than
SPT-N = 0 model were found to compare very those for groups of driven piles,
CPT-q = 0. well. The statnamic test results particularly in the leading row.
8.2–33 ft.: loose, indicated that a considerable Analysis also indicated that the
alluvial sand silts and damping contribution was present harmonic dynamic lateral response
silty sands in the soil resistance for the two of a single pile could be simulated
SPT-N = 0–6 m and largest statnamic loads. Load well using static p-y curves (such as
11–12 blows per foot distributions between the static and the API sand method)
(bpf) in lower portions statnamic tests were similar. In both Furthermore, there was no
CPT-q = 0.435– situations, the lead pile carried more difference found in the p-multipliers
0.725 ksi to 23 ft. and load than any trailing pile. Bending based on location in the group
1.45 ksi below 23 ft. moment profiles revealed max relative to another pile. Only the c-c
Tests 4–5: moments occurred at lower depths spacing, pile head displacement,
0–6.6 ft. free water in trailing piles than in lead piles, but and frequency of loading was found
6.6–49.2 ft.: loose of lesser magnitude. to affect the p-multipliers.
sand Tests 6–10: The static behaviour
SPT-N = 0–4 bpf from and static behaviour derived from
6.6 to 29.5 ft. (below the statnamic loading using the

c-c spacing in silt. water surface) and SDOF model appeared to converge
7) Dynamic test on 3 × 4 pile group at 10–20 bpf below at large displacements. Large
3D c-c spacing in silt. 29.5 ft. depth damping was present only at large
8) Static test (at two different CPT-q < 0.145 ksi loads and displacements. Similar to
locations) on single pile in silt. from above 6 m Tests 1–3; load distributions
9) Static test on 3 × 3 pile group at 4D (19.7 ft.) depth between the static and statnamic
c-c spacing in silt. CPT-q = 2.2 ksi from tests were similar.
10) Dynamic test on 3 × 3 pile group depth 29.5 ft. and
at 4D c-c spacing in silt. below.
Tests 6–10: silty
residual soil.
0–6.6 ft.: SPT-N = 10–
18 bpf
CPT-q = 0.3–0.6 ksi.
9.8–19.7 ft.: SPT-N =
8–12 bpf
CPT-q = 0.3–0.6 ksi
c’ = 2.5 psi
w = 31°.
6m-BTD: SPT-N =
10–15 bpf
CPT-q = 0.3–0.6 ksi
2017

c’ = 2.5 psi

Cerato et al.
w = 31°
VOL

(Continued)
11

A critical review
1NO
69
70

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A3 Continued
Ref Pile Type Pile Group Type Test Description Soil Results Conclusions

Finn, Dowling Driven, closed-ended steel 4 × 4, 5 × 5, 8 × 8, 10 × 10, 10 × 2, VERSAT-P3D numerical modeling 0–6.9 ft.: Sand For comparison of results, loads were Dynamic load distributions and
and Wu (2014) pipe piles 15 × 2. analysis under static and seismic w = 40° measured at specific displacements GRF’s for fixed head conditions
L = 42.65 ft. The spacing between all piles conditions to determine the Gmax = 4.3 ksi during static and seismic tests. These were reported for the first time.
O.D. = 1.063 ft. was 1.0 m (∼3 pile diameters) distribution of shear loads within the g = 106.4 pcf. loads were normalised by the load GRF’s decrease with increasing
Wall Thickness = 0.375 in Pinned and Fixed pile head piles of each group type. 6.9–7.9 ft.: Sand measured on the lead pile of the number of piles under pinned head
Area = 0.10764 ft.2) conditions were explored. VERSAT–P3D was calibrated to w = 40° outside row of each group at a conditions from 0.78 (2 × 2) to 0.32
I = 0.01657 ft.4) replicate the results from a full scale Gmax = 2.3 ksi common displacement to generate (10 × 10). Under fixed head
E = 29 ksi. static lateral load field test on a 3 × 3 g = 44 pcf. the load ratio of each pile in the conditions the GRF range was
pile group by Christensen (2006) 7.9–12.1 ft.: Clay group. Group Reduction Factors found to range from 1.16 (2 × 2) to
The Seismic simulation used the El w = 35° (GRF) were also determined and are 0.46 (10 × 10) showing a minimum
Centro earthquake record scaled to Gmax = 1 ksi defined as the ratio of observed load increase of 14% in the case of the
PGA = 0.1 g for most simulations and g = 59.2 pcf. on a group of n piles to reach a 10 × 10 group (32% Pinned
2017

to PGA = 0.1 g and 0.4 g in the case 12.1–15.1 ft.: Clay specified deflection to n times the condition and 46% fixed).
of the 15 × 2 group. w = 35° load on an individual pile to reach the Dynamic load distributions were
Gmax = 1.12 ksi same deflection. compared with static load
g = 59.2 pcf. 3 × 3 pile group: Static–the load ratio distributions and found to be very
VOL

15.1–20.67 ft.: Sand decreases from 1.0 at the lead pile to different. Dynamic load distributions
w = 38° 0.8 for both the centre trailing pile and are symmetrical about the centre
11

Gmax = 2.58 ksi the last trailing pile. Seismic–Load piles in the row due to the changing
g = 52.9 pcf. distribution is more symmetrical due load direction and due to this, the
NO

20.7–26.25 ft.: Clay to alternating load directions. The end piles in the row carry similar
w = 35° centre trailing pile revealed a loads during seismic events, and
1

Gmax = 0.937 ksi minimum load ratio of 0.72 and the centre piles contribute less under
g = 59.2 pcf. last trailing pile increased to a load seismic conditions as compared to
26.25–53.2 ft.: Sand ratio of 1.04. under static conditions at high
w = 33° 5 × 5 pile group: Static–the load ratio displacements (i.e. greater than
Gmax = 3.28 ksi decreases from 1.0 at the lead pile to ∼1′′ ).
g = 43.9 pcf. ∼0.65 at the centre trailing pile and
∼0.75 at the last trailing pile.
Seismic–Similar to the 3 × 3 pile
group the load distribution is
symmetrical about the centre pile.
The load ratios for the three centre
trailing piles are approximately the
same and averaged out at 0.52 and
the last trailing pile increased to a
load ratio of ∼1.05.
8 × 8 pile group: Static–the load ratio
of the outside row decreases from 1.0
at the lead pile to approximately 0.75
in the last trailing pile at all
displacements. The load ratio of the
centre piles in the outside row
revealed a minimum of ∼0.6 at small
displacements and increased to ∼0.8
at larger displacements due to the
soil yielding around the lead pile and
more load being transferred to the
trailing piles.
 Seismic–With the exception of the
outside row, the load distribution in
each row was symmetrical about the
centre trailing piles and revealed
load ratios that decrease with
increasing displacement from ∼0.2
in the centre trailing piles at high
displacements up to 0.4–0.6 at low
displacements.
15 × 2 pile group: Static–Load
ratios decreased from 1.0 at the
lead pile to ∼0.6 in centre trailing
piles at low displacements to ∼0.75
at high displacements. The last
trailing pile showed load ratios of
∼0.78 to ∼0.82 which increased with
increasing displacement. Seismic–
The load distribution was
symmetrical about the centre piles
just as seen in other groups.
However, in comparison to other
groups, the load ratios of the centre
trailing piles decreased with
increasing displacement. The load
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

ratio of the furthest trailing pile was

approximately equal to that of the
lead pile at all displacements, ∼1.0.
Group Factors: GF’s were
generated for each pile group for
both pinned and fixed connection
types. The results show the typical
trend of decreasing GF with
increasing number of piles in the
group. For pinned connections, GF
= 0.78 (2 × 2), ∼0.65 (3 × 3), ∼0.57
(4 × 4), 0.52 (5 × 5), ∼0.4 (8 × 8),
0∼0.32 (10 × 10). For Fixed head
conditions, the GF increases in all
groups compared to their values
under pinned head conditions and
in the 2 × 2 and 3 × 3 pile groups
provide more resistance than the
sum of the individual piles (GF > 1).
Fixed head, GF = 1.16 (2 × 2), ∼1.05
(3 × 3), ∼0.9 (4 × 4), ∼0.8 (5 × 5),
2017

∼0.6 (8 × 8), 0.46 (10 × 10).

Cerato et al.
(Continued)
VOL
11

A critical review
1NO
71
72

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A3 Continued
Ref Pile Type Pile Group Type Test Description Soil Results Conclusions

Giannakos, Centrifuge: 1 × 2 (analysing shadow effect) 3D numerical modeling with the finite Centrifuge: one Results of the 1 × 2 pile group The formation of a relaxation zone at
Gerolymos and Driven pipe pile element code ABAQUS was used to uniform sand layer simulation are compared with those the back of a leading pile
Gazetas (2012) L = 14.37 in reproduce centrifuge tests gd = 105.1 pcf of the single pile under similar cyclic significantly reduces the lateral soil
O.D. = 0.709 in conducted by Rosquoët, Garnier, Dr = 86% conditions. It was found that for the resistance on the trailing pile. This
Wall thickness = 0.118 in Thorel and Canepa (2004). Then wp = 41.8° same average load per pile, the behaviour was found to be more
EI = 68.6 kip-in2 simulate a pile group. wcv = 33°. group displacement is greater than prominent at large pile
Yield Stress (Aluminium) = Centrifuge Test: Carried out at 40 g. that of the single pile, demonstrating deformations.
35.5 ksi FEM: cyclic soil behaviour the shadow effect of overlapping The efficiency factor of the leading
FEM: assumed to be linear described by a nonlinear constitutive shear zones of the grouped piles in pile decreases with increasing pile
2017

elastic law with kinematic hardening law the soil. This effect was found to be displacement. However, at
O.D. = 2.39 ft. and associated plastic flow rule. more dominant with decreasing extremely large deformations it
Distance from pile tip to bottom pile-to-pile spacing. recovers, if not overpasses, its initial
boundary set to 3.3 pile diameters. Similar to the free-head pile value.
VOL

condition, the pile group Comparatively, the efficiency factor

11

displacement increases at a of the trailing pile decreases

decreasing rate with increasing monotonically with loading at a
number of cycles until reaching a decreasing rate until reaching an
NO

‘plastic shakedown’ equilibrium. asymptotic value.

1

The force-displacement loops of the The asymptotic values of all three

group are wider than that of the efficiency factors (leading pile,
corresponding single pile, which trailing pile, and pile group)
indicated greater soil plastification compare well with those developed
around the pile group. by Reese and Van Impe (2001).
Similar to the single pile, the However, at very low displacements
bending moments in piles of the all three are nearly 1.0.
group increased with the number of
cycles and shifted to greater depths
following the progressive extension
of soil yielding. A similar trend in the
behaviour was exhibited by the
shear force.
The leading pile developed the
largest bending moment in
comparison to both the trailing and
the single pile.
The maximum bending moment of
the trailing pile below the ground
surface was found at a deeper
depth than that of the leading pile.
 Turan, El Micro-piles.
Naggar and L = 49.2 ft.
Hinchberger O.D. = 0.82 ft.
(2008) Assumed to comprise grout
Additional 0.3 ft.) diameter
concentric steel
reinforcement bar extended
from the pile head to pile tip
Assumed to be linear
elastic with 2% Rayleigh
damping (dynamic)
(Case 1) micro-piles
equipped with steel casing
surrounding grout from
ground surface to 16.4 ft.
depth.
(Case 2) no steel casing.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
3 × 3 group.
Rigidly Connected to a reinforced
concrete pile cap:9.84 ft. ×
9.84 ft. × 0.984 ft.
Concrete–E = 4,061 ksi, y = 0.3
Steel Rebar–E = 17,404 ksi, y =
0.25.
E was changed throughout
pseudo-static testing producing
an EI values of 8.7 × 108 and
3.032 × 1011 kip-in2 and 6.62 ×
1010 kip-in2) to evaluate rigid and
flexible caps.
Used 3D Finite Element Model for
test simulations: foundation and soil
layer were modelled using mainly 8-
noded linear hexahedron elements
with three degrees of freedom per
node. Max element sized used was
between 1/6th and 1/8th of the
minimum Rayleigh wavelength. Pile
Cap was loaded with a 40 ton
concentrated mass supported by a
single 1 m tall column located in the
centre of the pile cap (FF = 1.36 Hz)
for all analyses.
Dynamic: Ricker wavelet motion
was applied to the base of the model.
Pseudo-Static: Analysis performed
using the Drucker-Prager
constitutive model, pile cap was
loaded using a 225 lb. lateral load
applied in sinusoidal form with a
period = 1 sec. Conducted with a
flexible and rigid pile cap for
One Homogenous soil Dynamic: Bending moments of the
layer. centre pile were determined from the
Input Parameters: bottom of the casing (16.4 ft.) to the
g = 110 pcf pile tip (50.2 ft.) for both cases (with
y = 0.45 and without steel casing). Results of
Es = 3.83 ksi the two cases were compared and
w = 0° (dynamic), 5° found that bending moments in the
(pseudo-static) pile are significantly higher in piles
Flow Stress Ratio = N/ with the steel casing than without the
A (dynamic), 1 steel casing at a depth of 21.3 ft. (an
(pseudo-static). increase in over 100%). Beyond a
Yield Stress = N/A depth of 29.5 ft. the difference in
(dynamic), 39.9 psi bending moment was found to be
(pseudo-static). minor between the two cases.
Rayleigh Damping Pseudo-Static: Bending moment
Ratio = 5% (dynamic), results of the centre pile from the
N/A (pseudo-static). ground surface to the pile tip in both
cases (rigid and flexible pile cap)
were compared and found to be
similar, indicating the EI of the pile
cap does not significantly impact the
When micro-piles are equipped with
an upper-cased section, the
bending moments in the pile may
increase by more than 100% just
below the casing termination
compared to micro-piles with no
casing, which could have a
significant impact on the pile
performance given the stress
concentrations that already exist at
this location. Flexural rigidity of the
pile cap will not influence the pile
bending moment but will influence
the pile-soil contact gap opening,
contact pressure, sliding behaviour,
and surface pressures to a depth of
3 m (9.84 ft.), after which the effects
are negligible. Furthermore,
increasing the surface surcharge
will increase the pile bending
moment, decrease the magnitude

bending moments in the piles. The of pile-soil separation, and increase

comparison. Additionally, further
analysis was conducted by applying
different amounts of surface
surcharge (0, 2.9, and 7.25 psi) for
comparison on the effect each has
on the pile bending moment.
2017
soil-pile gap opening and pile cap the soil-pile interface surface
sliding behaviour results for both pressures beyond some depth
cases were compared. They (1.5 m (4.9 ft.) in this study) while
revealed a slight decrease in pile cap leaving them unaffected above this
sliding and maximum gap opening depth.
size due to an increase in EI of the
pile cap. The flexible pile cap resulted
in slightly higher contact pressures at
1 m depth while the rigid pile cap
resulted in higher surface pressures
between 3.28 and 9.84 ft. Below the
9.84 ft. depth, the influence of pile
cap rigidity is negligible. Furthermore,
it was found that increasing surface
surcharge will: increase max pile
bending moment, slightly decrease
the magnitude of the soil-pile gap
opening, decrease the magnitude of
sliding, and below some depth
increase the soil-pile contact
stresses.

Cerato et al.
VOL
11

A critical review
1NO
73
74

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A4 Liquefaction results

Layered
Reference no. Foundation type Soil information system type Ground water level

Ashford, Rollins and Baez (2000)
Mizuno et al. (2000)
2017
One single concrete cast-in-steel-section (CISS) 0–4.92 ft. – Excavated Two-layered 4.92 ft. (bottom of excavation depth)
piles 4.92–19.68 ft. – Loose Sand with Silt system
1.97 ft. outside diameter (Liquefiable)
2 × 2 grouped steel pipe piles 19.68–32.8 ft. – Soft. Fat Clay
1.07 ft. outside diameter 32.8–42.65 ft. – Loose silty sand
42.65–59.05 ft. – Soft. Fat Clay
Two pile group both Steel Hollow Square Section 0–19.09 ft. – Kasumigaura Sand with: Two-layered Cases 1 through 3: GWL is at ground
(HSS) with: D50 = 0.01224 in System surface
1.31 ft. width Uniformity Coefficient = 3.01 Case 4: GWL is at ground surface and
0.328 ft. thickness wick drains installed
19.1 ft. length Case 5: GWL is 4.6 ft. below ground

surface
Hirade et al. (2000) Two pile group both Steel Hollow Square Section 0–19.09 ft. – Kasumigaura Sand with: Two-layered Cases 1 through 3: GWL is at ground
(HSS) with: D50 = 0.01224 in System surface
VOL

1.31 ft. width Uniformity Coefficient = 3.01 Case 4: GWL is at ground surface and
0.328 ft. thickness wick drains installed
11

19.1 ft. length Case 5: GWL is 4.6 ft. below ground

surface
NO

Abdoun and Dobry (2002) Model pile simulated prototype pile with: Test 1 (Prototype Depths) Test 1: Test 1 and 2: GWL at ground surface
1

1.97 ft. O.D. 0–19.685 ft. – Fine Nevada Sand Two-layered

26.25 ft. length (Liquefiable) with: system
EI = 19,360.5 kip*ft.2 Dr = 40% Test 2:
Tested as single pile and 2 × 2 pile group 19.685–26.25 ft. – Slightly Cemented Sand Three-
Test 2 (Prototype Depths) layered
0–6.56 ft. – Slightly Cemented Sant system
6.56–26.25 ft. – Fine Nevada Sand
(Liquefiable) with:
Dr = 40%
26.25–32.8 ft. – Slightly Cemented Sand
Gerber (2003) 3 × 3 Grouped steel pipe piles with: Single Pile Location Two-layered Single Pile Location
O.D. = 1.07 ft. 0–4.92 ft. – Fine Sand with Shells system GWL is about 1.64 ft. below the ground
wall thickness = 0.0328 ft. 4.92–18.04 ft. – Interbedded Fine Sand and surface
45 ksi minimum yield strength (58.7 ksi average) Silty Sand 3 × 3 Pile Group Location
42 ft. length 18.04–24.06 ft. – Fine Silty Sand GWL is about 0.328 ft. below the
42 ft. embedment depth 24.06–30.2 ft. – Grey Silty Clay ground surface
One single steel pipe pile with similar 30.2–32.8 ft. – Sand
dimensions installed 41 ft. below surface 3 × 3 Pile Group Location
0–4.92 ft. – Fine Sand with Shells
4.92–24.06 ft. – Interbedded Fine Sand and
Silty Sand
24.06–30.2 ft. – Grey Silty Clay
30.2–32.8 ft. – Sand
 Quimby (2009) Reinforced Concrete CISS drilled shaft. 0–4.92 ft. – Loose Poorly Graded Sand to Three- GWL typically located between the
8.5 ft. O.D. Silty Sand, fine, Avg N = 5 layered ground surface and a depth below of
154.2 ft. embedment depth 4.92–9.84 ft. – Soft Sand Fat Clay, w = 106, system 4.92 ft.
Avg 30 day compressive strength of 5.4 ksi LL = 104, PI = 69
Reinforced with #18 bars (36) 9.84–19.7 ft. – Loose Poorly Graded Sand,
Confining #6 bar spirals with 0.3 ft. pitch fine, Avg N = 6
19.7–34.44 ft. – Silty and Clayey Sand, Avg
N = 7, w = 30
34.44–46 ft. – Loose to Medium Dense
Poorly Graded Sand, Avg N = 12
49.2–65.6 ft. – Cooper Marl Fat Clay, Avg N
= 15, 40 < w < 50, 50 < LL < 150, 20 < PI <
80
Cubrinovski et al. (2006) Single Solid Steel Pipe Pile with: 0–3.28 ft. – Kasumigaura Sand (Dry Crust Three- GWL located 3.28 ft. below ground
1.04 ft. O.D. Layer) layered surface
16.08 ft. long 3.28–15.75 ft. – Kasumigaura Sand system
∼15.75 ft. embedment depth (Saturated, Liquefiable)
Fixed at base D50 = 0.01043 in
Free pile head Uc = 2.36
Single Prestressed high-strength concrete pile Fc = 3%
(PHC-pile) with: Dr = 50%
0.984 ft. O.D.
16.08 ft. long,
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

∼14.76 ft. embedment depth

Fixed at base
Free at pile head
Ashford et al. (2006) Steel Pipe Piles 0–13.12 ft. – Very Loose to Loose Poorly- Two-layered GWL located 3.28 ft. below ground
O.D. = 1.04 ft. Graded Silty Sand (SM) system surface
0.413 in. Wall thickness N ∼8 on average
37.73 ft. Nominal Length 40% < Dr <60%
58 ksi Yield Strength fAVG = 29°
Installed 9.84–11.4 ft. into bedrock 13.12–24.6 ft. – Very Soft. Lean to Fat Clay
Tested as: (CL-CH)
Single Pile Avg Undrained Shear Strength = 2.2 psi
Four-pile group (3.5 pile diameters, centre-to- 24.6–27.9 ft. – Medium Dense Sand
centre spacing) 27.9 ft. – BTD Very Dense Gravel Bedrock
Nine-pile group (3.5 pile diameters, centre-to-
centre spacing)
Hussien, Tobita, Iai and Rollins Single steel pipe pile and 3 × 5 pile group all with 0–9.84 ft. – Soft Clay N/A GWL located at ground surface
(2010) same dimensions 9.84–16.4 ft. – Sand
1.06 ft. O.D. 16.4–23 ft. – Soft. Clay
2017

0.374 in. wall thickness 23–59 ft. – Sand

Cerato et al.
38.06 ft. embedment depth. Free rotation at pile
heads.
VOL
11

(Continued)

A critical review
1NO
75
76

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A4 Continued
Layered
Reference no. Foundation type Soil information system type Ground water level

Haeri et al. (2012) Seven Total Hollow Aluminium Alloy Piles with: 0–3.28 ft. – Firoozkuh Silica Sand no. 161 Two-layered GWL is located at about the ground
4.1 ft. height (liquefiable) system surface
1.97 in. O.D. Dr = 15%
1.87 in. I.D. D50 = 0.00945 in
EI = 10.62 kips*ft.2 Coefficient of Uniformity = 1.49
One pile used as reference 4° slope in longitudinal direction
One pile used as a visual 3.28–4.1 ft. – Firoozkuh Silica Sand no. 161
One group of two piles in parallel with direction (compacted, non-liquefiable)
of shaking Dr = 80%
One group of three piles perpendicular to D50 = 0.00945 in
direction of shaking Coefficient of Uniformity = 1.49
2017

4° slope in longitudinal direction

Motamed et al. (2013) Steel Pipe Piles 0–12.3 ft. – Liquefiable Sand Two-layered GWL is located 1.64 ft. below ground
A = 0.0102 ft.2 Dr = 60% system surface
VOL

E = 29877.8 ksi 12.3–14.8 ft. – Non-Liquefiable Sand Base

O.D. = 6 in. Dr = 90%
11

Wall Thickness = 0.0787 in *Note: Piles were embedded into cement-

I = 3.096 × 10−4 ft.4 mixed sand for this depth.
NO

Hollow Cylindrical Steel Columns Albany Silica Properties:

1

A = 0.0513 ft.2 Poorly-Graded

E = 29877.8 ksi D50 = 0.00787 in.
O.D. = 10.53 in. Coefficient of Uniformity = 1.64
Wall Thickness = 0.228 in. Fines Content = 0.18%
I = 4.727 × 10−3 ft.4
Naeini et al. (2013) Solid Concrete Pile with: 0–26.25 ft. – Lean to Fat Clay Three- GWL is located at the ground surface
2.625 ft. O.D. 4 < N < 25 layered
Yield Moment = 413 kip*ft. 0.5 < E (ksi) <2.23 system
45.93 ft. embedment depth 0.0043 < Cu (ksi) < 0.0144
2.3 ft. pile length above ground surface f = 8°
E = 4,351 ksi 26.25–39.4 ft. – Silty Clayey Sand
9 < N < 44
1.17 < E (ksi) < 3.26
f = 30°
39.4–52.8 ft. – Lean to Fat Clay
6 < N < 27
0.64 < E (ksi) < 2.46
0.007 < Cu (ksi) < 0.0185
f = 10°
Mashiri et al. (2015) N/A Specimens are of Poorly Graded Sand with: N/A N/A
D50 = 0.0138 in.
Coefficient of Uniformity = 1.58
 Rollins et al. (2006, 2005b) Reinforced Concrete Pile
Fixed at base of box
Fabricated with fine aggregate concrete
Galvanised with fine iron wires
132.3 lb weight mounted on pile head for inertial
effects
Kr (bending stiffness) = 46,835 lb*ft./rad
6.27 ft. height
0.328 ft. diameter
Yield Moment = 368.8 lb*ft.
Plastic Moment = 1017.8 lb*ft.
Initial EI = 249.3 kip*ft.2
Stuedlein and Gianella (2016); Driven Timber Piles
Stuedlein, Gianella and Canivan Avg. Length = 40.29 ft.
(2016) Avg. Head Diameter = 1.02 ft.
Avg. Toe Diameter = 0.69 ft.
Typical pile taper = 0.1 in./ft.
Pre-fabricated Vertical Drains (PVD) installed
along the length of some timber piles with
roofing nails
to analyse ‘drained timber piles’
4 Zones of 5 × 5 pile groups:
Zones 1 and 2: Drained timber piles spaced at
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
5D and 3D, respectively
Zones 3 and 4: Conventional driven timber piles
spaced at 5D and 3D, respectively
1 Zone of 2 5 × 5 pile groups:
Zone 5: Conventional driven timber piles spaced
at 2D and 4D
Tang et al. (2015) Driven Timber Piles
Avg. Length = 40.29 ft.
Avg. Head Diameter = 1.02 ft.
Avg. Toe Diameter = 0.69 ft.
Typical pile taper = 0.1 in./ft.
Pre-fabricated Vertical Drains installed with
roofing nails along the length of some timber
piles
to analyse ‘drained timber piles’
4 Zones of 5 × 5 pile groups:
Zones 1 and 2: Drained timber piles spaced at
5D and 3D, respectively
2017
Zones 3 and 4: Conventional driven timber piles
spaced at 5D and 3D, respectively
1 Zone of two 5 × 5 pile groups:
VOL
Zone 5: Conventional driven timber piles spaced
11
at 2D and 4D
1NO
77
0–1 ft. – Non-liquefiable Clay crust Three- GWL is located 0.984 ft. below ground
Consolidated normally as reconstituted silty layered surface
clay with: system
LL = 29.8
PL = 18.2
density of 1103 pcf
1–4.9 ft. – Liquefiable Sand
45% < Dr < 50%
Saturated density = 121.7 pcf
D50 = 0.02008 in
Coefficient of Uniformity = 2.98
Fines Content = 2%
0–6.56 ft. – loose to medium dense silty Three- GWL varied with precipitation between
clayey sand fill (SM-SC) layered the depth range
0.145 ksi < CPT qtavg < 1.45 ksi system 8.2–11.5 ft. below ground surface
1 bpf < N60 avg < 10 bpf (blows per foot)
6.56–39.4 ft. – loose to medium dense
clean to silty fine sand (SP to SM)
Potentially Liquefiable
0.145 ksi < CPT qtavg < 1.45 ksi
1 bpf < N60 avg < 10 bpf (blows per foot)
D50 = 0.0079 in
Estimated Dr = 40–50% using Mayne
(2007) method
39.4–42.65 ft. – soft. clay
0.145 ksi < CPT qtavg < 2.9 ksi
1 bpf < N60 avg < 20 bpf (blows per foot)
42.65–47.6 ft. – dense sand
10 bpf < N60 avg < 20+ bpf (blows per foot)
0–6.56 ft. – loose to medium dense silty Three- GWL varied with precipitation between
clayey sand fill (SM-SC) layered the depth range
0.145 ksi < CPT qtavg < 1.45 ksi system 8.2–11.5 ft. below ground surface
1 bpf < N60 avg < 10 bpf (blows per foot)
6.56–39.4 ft. – loose to medium dense
clean to silty fine sand (SP to SM)
Potentially Liquefiable
0.145 ksi < CPT qtavg < 1.45 ksi
1 bpf < N60 avg < 10 bpf (blows per foot)
D50 = 0.0079 in
Estimated Dr = 40–50% using Mayne
(2007) method
39.4–42.65 ft. – soft. clay
Cerato et al.
0.145 ksi < CPT qtavg < 2.9 ksi
1 bpf < N60 avg < 20 bpf (blows per foot)
42.65–47.6 ft. – dense sand
10 bpf < N60 avg < 20+ bpf (blows per foot
A critical review
78

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A5 Liquefaction results

Reference no. Liquefaction mitigation measure Testing type Objective Results

Ashford et al. (2000) Installation of an array of stone
columns throughout project site to
stiffen liquefiable soil.
Mizuno et al. (2000) Case 4 added wick drains to
determine their mitigation effect.
2017
Pre-treatment and Post-treatment: Pre-
blast lateral static control tests and Post-
blast lateral displacement controlled
cyclic tests.
Shake Table Test: 19.7 ft. height,
38.06 ft. length, 9.84 ft. width in
liquefiable sand.
To analyse deep foundation behaviour of
single and grouped piles in liquefiable
soil before and after mitigation
measurements.
To analyse processes occurring DURING
liquefaction including pile behaviour,
effect of wick drains, effect of liquefiable
soil which is not completely saturated.
Treatment increased secant stiffness of
Pre-blast tests on grouped piles by 24%
and on single pile by 44%. Increased Post-
blast secant stiffness on grouped piles by
288% and on single pile by 367%
Early stages of liquefaction–pile behaviour
is mostly influenced by inertial forces. With
progress of liquefaction–behaviour is
much effected by soil motion. At complete
liquefaction–pile behaves with soil in same

direction. Effect of wick drains is very small

during ground motion, but four times
increase in dissipation rate after excitation.
Low ground water table greatly reduces
VOL

the piles internal bending moment

11

Hirade et al. (2000) Case 4 added wick drains to Oscillator tests performed after shaking To analyse soil and pile behaviour and The stiffness of the soil and the coefficient
determine their mitigation effect. during pore water dissipation process. dynamic properties AFTER liquefaction of the horizontal subgrade reaction are
NO

Oscillator–Eccentric moment set to process during pore water pressure recovered with dissipation progress of
constant 7.23 lb.*ft. Sweep up and dissipation. excess pore water pressures. At higher
1

Abdoun and Dobry Replacing surface soil around pile
(2002) and pile cap of three-layered soil
system with frangible material that
will yield under constant lateral
soil forces.
sweep down method application.
100g-ton RPI centrifuge tests in two-
layered (top liquefiable) and three-
layered (sandwich liquefiable) soil
systems. Input motion of 40 sinusoidal
cycles and peak base acceleration of
0.3 g. Box was inclined downslope to
induce lateral spreading.
To study the pile behaviour in two types of
liquefiable strata and the effect of
replacing the surface crust around the
pile with soft clay as a mitigation measure.
excess pore water ratios, the resonant
frequencies of the foundation are low and
damping ratios are large. At lower excess
pore water ratios, the resonant
frequencies are high and their damping
ratios become small.
Max bending moments occurred at the
interfaces between liquefied soil and non-
liquefied strata in all tests. Max moment
decreases in pile groups due to frame
effect. Three-layered soil system caused
bending moments to nearly double in
magnitude and cause pile and pile cap
failure compared to the two-layer soil
system. Introduction of soft. clay around
the pile and pile cap of the three-layered
system revealed dramatic reduction
bending moments of the pile in the surface
crust (from 221.3 to 7.38 kip*ft.) and
reduced max pile head displacement by a
factor of ∼2.
 Gerber (2003) N/A Pre-blast and Post-blast testing
consisted of several lateral cyclic
displacement controlled tests on the
grouped and single pile.
Quimby (2009) N/A Pre-blast and Post-blast testing
consisted of several lateral cyclic load
controlled tests on the single pile.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Cubrinovski et al. N/A 2 Phases: Phase 1–table shaken with
(2006) sine wave excitation with peak base
acceleration = 0.217 g at 2 Hz
frequency, for 30 seconds. Phase 2–rigid
loading frame attached to outer side of
laminar box and initiated lateral ground
movement at a rate of 1.61 in./sec. Model
was subject to low-amplitude (0.027 g),
high-frequency (10 Hz) base shaking.
2017
VOL
11
1NO
79
To develop substantial P-Y curves for
liquefiable sand and a correlating
empirical formula to derive P-Y curves at
different locations for different sizes of
piles.
To develop substantial p-y curve for the
local liquefiable soil for large diameter
shafts to be used in construction project.
To check derived p-y curves of local
liquefiable soil with empirical formula
proposed by Gerber (2003).
To analyse and determine the effects on
two single piles of different material under
liquefaction induced lateral spreading
pressures. And determine the stiffness
degradation factor of the liquefied soil.
Derived p-y curves for liquefiable sand
revealed concave-up shape (increasing
soil resistance with increasing pile
deflection). Resulted from dilation of the
surrounding sand during shearing which
reduces the excess pore pressure ratio.
Proposed an empirical formula for p-y
curve of liquefiable sand. Limitations
include depth of liquefiable zone is less
than or equal to 6 meters, relative density
is about 50%, max soil resistance =
1027.4 lb./ft.
Results of derived p-y curves show
concave up shape (increasing soil
resistance with increasing lateral
deflection), noted as more linear than the
TILT project (Gerber 2003). Derived p-y
curves found to match well using the
Gerber empirical formula with the pile
diameter correction factor. p-y used in
LPILE analysis to check accuracy and
resulted in good agreement
PHC pile–followed ground movement,
bending moment at base sharply
increased from start of lateral spreading,
reached yield moment at ground
displacement of 3.54 in. and failed at
6.7 in. Steel pile–did not follow ground
movement, revealed large lateral
resistance, pile displacement gradually
increased during the first six seconds then
remained constant at 1.97 in. during the
remainder, reached ∼60% of yield
moment. Lateral Stiffness degradation
factors for the liquefied strata were found
to be within the range of 1/30–1/80 on
average and showed a gradual decrease
with increasing lateral ground
displacement.
Cerato et al.
(Continued)
A critical review
80

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A5 Continued
Reference no. Liquefaction mitigation measure Testing type Objective Results

Ashford et al. (2000) N/A Full-Scale Blast Induced Lateral
Spreading
Test conducted on:
Single Pile (free-head condition)
Four-pile group (fixed-head condition)
Nine-pile group (fixed-head condition).
2017
Evaluate loading conditions on the piles
due to kinematic loading from laterally
spreading soils.
Assess the performance of two different
quay walls which were subjected to
lateral spreading.
Conduct damage and performance
assessments of the piles.
Soil surface movement generally
decreased with increased distance from
the quay wall.
Ground surface experienced much more
displacement down-slope of the piles as
compared to up-slope (∼3.28 ft. and
∼11.8 in. respectively).
The free-head (single pile) experienced
much more pile head displacement than
the grouped (fixed) pile heads due to the
effect of pile head restraint in the groups
contributing to resist the moment induced
by the lateral soil pressure.

Max moment in all piles occurred at

∼29.53 ft. depth (bottom of the soft clay).
Max moment magnitude in the grouped
VOL

piles was significantly less than what the

single pile experienced.
11

Rotational restraint at the pile cap led to a

stiffer response under loading applied by
NO

the mobile layer.

1

In the liquefied sand layer (depth 3.28 ft.–

Hussien et al. (2010) Correction to FEM analysis
programs. Considering soil-pile
separation.
Static load controlled lateral tests,
Dynamic load controlled lateral tests
using statnamic device with 70 kips
capacity. FEM analysis conducted for
both static and dynamic tests but under
two conditions for comparison with
measured field results: with soil-pile
separation and without soil-pile
separation.
To affirm FEM analysis models of laterally
loaded grouped and single piles
incorrectly estimate bending moment and
head deflections from considering no soil-
pile separation.
13.1 ft.) the moment distribution the piles
was linear, indicating zero soil reaction.
The larger the degree of fixity at the pile tip,
the higher the developed moment in the
pile.
FEM analysis without soil-pile separation–
for the single pile under static loading
underestimates deflection and max
bending moment up to 50% and 22%
respectively. Overestimates the lateral
load capacity by up to 43%. – For grouped
piles under static loading–results in
excessive increases in the overall soil
resistance during pile deformation,
underestimates the deflection of the
trailing pile which increases as loading
progresses, overestimates the ultimate
lateral load-carrying capacity of the trailing
pile by up to 73%. – For grouped piles
under dynamic loading, underestimates
the max deflection by up to 23.3%,
underestimates bending moment values.
 Haeri et al. (2012) N/A Shake Table Test of multiple different
ground motions. Sinusoidal base
accelerations with 3.0 Hz frequency and
0.2 g amplitude. Duration of 12 sec.
Motamed et al. N/A Two Shake Table Tests on two different
(2013) quay walls (sheet-pile and gravity type
both in landslide) with two dimensional
(horizontal and vertical) input motion
Simulated 80% of 1995 Kobe (Takatori)
Earthquake.
Max horizontal acceleration = 19.55 ft./s2
Max Vertical Acceleration = 5.6 ft./s2.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Naeini et al. (2013) N/A Analysed three different recorded
ground motions in Flac2D finite
difference program of a single pile in a
2017
sandwiched liquefied zone.
VOL
11
NO
1
81
To study the response of a group of piles
subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading using a large-scale 1-g shake
table test.
To study the group effects on piles
subject to liquefaction induced lateral
spreading behind a waterfront structure.
To learn the pile and soil behaviour under
different magnitudes of ground peak
acceleration and predominant
frequencies.
Pile heads reached max displacement a
few seconds after lateral spreading (max
1.42 in.), max ground displacement =
3.26 in.) then bounced back to a small
residual displacement (0.244 in.) during
the remainder of shaking. Bending
moments in piles had similar trend
reaching a maximum (∼147.5 lb.*ft.) after
lateral spreading then decreased
dramatically during the remainder of
shaking. Max lateral soil pressure (∼1.74
psi) occurred at ∼3.28 ft. depth on P4 (an
outside pile of the three-pile group
perpendicular to direction of shaking).
Lateral ground deformations up to 7.22 ft.
occurred.
Piles horizontally displaced between 3.28
and 4.6 ft. at the pile heads.
Footing of the superstructure tilted
seaward.
Lateral displacement of the soil decreased
as the distance from the quay wall
increased towards the land
Max movements occurred at the ground
surface.
Large bending moments occurred in the
rear row piles at a depth of 6.56 ft.
Large bending moments occurred at the
pile heads from the connections to the pile
cap.
The rear row pile received larger lateral
forces and sustained more significant
damage compared to the front row piles
The tilted mass supporting structure may
have applied excessive axial forces i the
rear row piles.
The pile group structurally collapsed
during shaking.
The rear piles sustained much greater
rotations when compared to the front piles
Max bending moment increases when the
peak acceleration increases and/or when
the predominant frequency decreases.
Max lateral displacement of the pile head
Cerato et al.
increases when the peak acceleration
increases and/or the predominant
frequency decreases. Settlement of the
pile increases as the predominant
frequency decreases.
A critical review
(Continued)
82

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A5 Continued
Reference no. Liquefaction mitigation measure Testing type Objective Results

Mashiri et al. (2015) Inclusion of tire chips in poorly
graded sands to reduce
liquefaction potential and effects.
Rollins et al. (2006, N/A
2017
Strain controlled consolidated undrained
cyclic Triaxial tests conducted at
constant frequency of 1 Hz and single
amplitude shear strains of: 0.15, 0.23,
0.38, and 0.50% on specimens of
100 mm (3.94 in.) diameter by 200 mm
(7.87 in.) height.
Shake table test with base motion in
To determine the mitigation effects of
mixing tire chips in poorly graded sands,
and to determine the optimal content of
tire chips to add for most effective
mitigation.
To analyse the response of reinforced
Liquefaction potential decreases at any
single amplitude shear strain with the
addition of TCh ≥ 20% (gravimetric
content). Max number of cycles required
for liquefaction occurred at a proportion of
TCh between 30% and 33%. TCh mixtures
showed minimising the shear modulus
degradation at multiple cycles. Damping
ratios increase with the increase of TCh
proportions up to 30%.
Bending moments gradually increased in

2005b) longitudinal direction concrete pile behaviour behind a steel depth and the max value occurred near
Predominant Frequency = 2 Hz sheet-pile quay wall subjected to the base due to the free pile head
Amplitude = 0.2g liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. condition.
VOL

Laminar Container Dimensions The Max Moment in the pile occurred

5.58 ft. Height during the transition from Stage 1 into
11

7.22 ft. Width Stage 2.

11.48 ft. Length. Larger lateral soil deformation with
NO

relatively low superstructure acceleration

1

produced greater monotonic moments.

Results divided into 4 stages:
Stage 1–Prior to liquefaction (0–
2.6 sec.)
No permanent deformation occurred
Monotonic Moments were approximately
negligible.
Stage 2–Liquefaction-Induced Lateral
Spreading (2.6–15.6 sec.)
Superstructure reached max
displacement of ∼0.20 ft., and soil
deformation reached ∼0.46 ft.
Monotonic Moments gradually increased
as the ground deformation accumulated
and rapidly attained a max after the onset
of lateral spreading.
Stage 3–Slow Flow (15.6–23.2 sec.)
Ground deformation increased slowly,
while the max pile displacement was
reached and then rebound due to slow soil
flow.
 Monotonic Moments decreased as the
liquefied soil continued to flow slowly
around the pile.
Stage 4–No Lateral Spreading (23.2–
30 sec.)
Soil flow nearly stopped and the
displacement exhibited primarily cyclic
behaviour until the shaking ended.
Monotonic Moment continued to decrease
as the lateral spreading had stopped.
Recorded Moment was mainly controlled
by inertial forces.
At end of shaking ground displacement
reached ∼0.6 ft. while the soil
displacement reached 0.656 ft. at a depth
of 1.3 ft.
Stuedlein and Driven timber piles to densify the CTP soundings before and after pile To analyse the effectiveness of using CPT soundings were conducted at 10, 49,
Gianella (2016); liquefiable soil and drained. installation to analyse the increase in conventional and drained driven timber 115, and 255 days after installation to
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

Stuedlein, Gianella Driven timber piles
and Canivan (2016) to also provide additional
drainage to relieve excess pore
water pressures
during a liquefaction event.
relative density of the potentially
liquefiable strata due to the installation of
the driven timber piles.
piles as a potential liquefaction mitigation
method and to determine factors which
influence this.
determine the post-improvement CPT
resistance and estimate the new relative
density of the liquefiable strata which
generally was located in the depth range
of 9.8–36.1 ft. across the five zones.
Zone 1 (drained 5D spacing): Dr
improved to an estimated range of 75% to
85% from 40% to 50% in the upper 9.84 ft.
of the liquefiable strata and to an
estimated range of 65% to 85% from 40%
to 50% in the lower portion of the
liquefiable strata (5% to 10% increase as
compared to the conventional driven pile
post-treatment values of Zone 3 which had
similar (3D) pile spacing).
Average pre-treatment CPT qt = 0.71 ksi

(Continued)
2017

Cerato et al.
VOL
11

A critical review
1NO
83
84

Cerato et al.
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

A critical review
Table A5 Continued
Reference no. Liquefaction mitigation measure Testing type Objective Results

Average 10 day post-treatment CPT qt =

1.1 ksi … 57% increase
Average 255 day post-treatment CPT qt =
0.885 ksi … 27% increase
N60 increased by 2–10 bpf.
Zone 2 (drained 3D spacing): Dr
improved to an estimated range of 75% to
85% from 40% to 50% in the upper 9.84 ft.
of the liquefiable strata and to an
estimated range of 65% to 85% from 40%
to 50% in the lower portion of the
liquefiable strata (5% to 10% increase as
2017

compared to the conventional driven pile

post-treatment values of Zone 4 which had
similar (5D) pile spacing)
VOL

Average pre-treatment CPT qt = 0.725 ksi

11

Average 10 day post-treatment CPT qt =

2.18 ksi … 202% increase
Average 255 day post-treatment CPT qt =
NO

1.78 ksi … 147% increase

1

N60 increased by 3–15 bpf.

Zone 3 (conventional 5D spacing): Dr
improved to an estimated range of 70% to
80% from 40% to 50% in the upper (9.84 ft.
of the liquefiable strata and to an
estimated range of 60% to 75% from 40%
to 50% in the lower portion of the
liquefiable strata
Average pre-treatment CPT qt = 0.769 ksi
Average 10 day post-treatment CPT qt =
1.48 ksi … 93% increase
Average 255 day post-treatment CPT qt =
1.0 ksi … 31% increase
N60 increased by 2–10 bpf.
Zone 4 (conventional 3D spacing): Dr
improved to an estimated range of 70% to
80% from 40% to 50% in the upper 9.84 ft.
of the liquefiable strata and to an
estimated range of 60% to 75% from 40%
to 50% in the lower portion of the
liquefiable strata
Average pre-treatment CPT qt = 0.68 ksi
 Average 10 day post-treatment CPT qt =
1.74 ksi … 156% increase
Average 255 day post-treatment CPT qt =
1.52 ksi … 124% increase
N60 increased by 3–15 bpf.
Zone 5A (conventional 2D spacing): 49-
day CPT sounding refused between
depths of 13.1–19.7 ft. and the improved
Dr was estimated to have increased from
the 40% to 50% range up to the 80% to
100% range
Average pre-treatment CPT qt = 0.769 ksi
Average 10 day post-treatment CPT qt =
Not Conducted
Average 255 day post-treatment CPT qt =
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

1.90 ksi … 147% increase

N60 increased by 5–22 bpf.
Zone 5B (conventional 4D spacing): 49-
day CPT sounding refused between
depths of 13.1 ft.-19.7 ft. and the improved
Dr was estimated to have increased from
the 40% to 50% range up to the 80% to
100% range
Average pre-treatment CPT qt = 0.827 ksi
Average 10 day post-treatment CPT qt =
(1.64 ksi 98% increase
Average 255 day post-treatment CPT qt =
1.04 ksi 27% increase
N60 increased by 2–10 bpf

(Continued)
2017

Cerato et al.
VOL
11

A critical review
1NO
85
86
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Table A5 Continued
Reference no. Liquefaction mitigation measure Testing type
Tang et al. (2015) Driven timber piles to densify the CTP soundings before and after pile
liquefiable soil and drained. installation to analyse the increase
Driven timber piles in relative density of the potentially
to also provide additional liquefiable strata due to the
drainage to relieve excess pore installation of the driven timber piles.
water pressures Additionally, blasting events were
during a liquefaction event. conducted at Zones 1 through 4 along
with a control zone where no timber piles
had been installed for treatment, pore
pressure transducers were installed
throughout the liquefiable strata of all
2017
zones to measure excess pore water
pressure build up during and after
blasting and compare the treated zones
VOL
with the control zone.
11
Blasting was initially conducted on the
control zone. The blasting sequence
plan was proved to achieve complete
NO
liquefaction in the deepest portions of
1
the liquefiable zone and near-complete
liquefaction of the shallower portions.
Once proved, this same blasting
sequence and method was applied to
the treated zones.
Objective
To analyse the effectiveness of using
conventional and drained driven timber
piles as a potential liquefaction mitigation
method and to determine factors which
influence this.
Cerato et al.
A critical review
Results
Results described in Gianella et al. (2015)
and Stuedlein et al. (2016) have also been
described in this report. The blast-induced
liquefaction test results and comparisons
have additionally been provided in this
report. Liquefaction has been defined as
when the residual pore pressure ratio (ru)
is equal to 95%–100%.
Control Zone Test: Blasting Program
consisted of four Blasting Events, but only
results of Blast Event 3 and 4 (BE3 and
BE4) are reported for the control zone.
BE3: Pore Pressure Transducers (PPTs)
are located at depths of 17.22 ft., 20.83 ft.,
24.25 ft., and 28.2 ft. At the 17.22 ft. depth
the ru value achieved a little greater than
60% while the other three depths (20.83 ft.,
24.25 ft., and 28.2 ft.) achieved peak ru
values of 126%, 140% and 152%,
respectively. At these three depths, the
peak residual values ranged between
75% and 100% (increasing with depth) for
approximately 2 min after blasting. The
shallowest PPT measured a sharp
decrease in pressure 10 seconds after
blasting and sustained at ru of
approximately 20%. This proved the
deepest portion of the liquefiable strata
achieved liquefaction, while near-
complete liquefaction was achieved for
the 24.25 ft. depth. After 3 h ru values were
measured as 2% in the shallow PPTs and
4% in the deeper PPTs. The settlement
decreased with increasing distance from
the centre of the control zone.
View publication stats

BE4: PPTs were located at depths of

16.6 ft., 20.73 ft., 26.31 ft., and 28.15 ft.
The peak ru values achieved at these
depths were 105%, 147%, 133%, and
148%, respectively. The two deepest PPT
measurements exhibited complete
liquefaction of the surrounding soil with
peak residual ru values ranging between
95% and 100%. The peak residual values
of the two shallow sensors ranged from
75% to 85%. This again proved complete
liquefaction of the deeper layers and near-
complete liquefaction of the shallow
portion of the liquefiable zone due to the
blasting sequence. On average, the
settlements observed were approximately
1 inch larger than those resulting from
BE3. This indicated the differences in
settlement between events with
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

significantly different durations.

Treated Zone: PPTs were located at
depths of 15 ft., 20 ft., 25 ft., and 30 ft. In
each zone, the bottom three PPTs
recorded peak residual ru values of 75% to
85% while the peak residual ru value
recorded from the shallow PPTs in each
zone fell in the range of 55% to 65%. All of
the PPTs indicated excess pore pressures
that were well below the complete
liquefaction baseline of ru = 95% to 100%,
which demonstrated that liquefaction was
mitigated in all of the improved zones.
There was no difference in behaviour of
the treated zones with and without the
vertical drains. In general, the settlements
of the treated zones equalled
approximately one-quarter to one-third of
2017

those observed in the control zone.

Cerato et al.
VOL
11

A critical review
1NO
87