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

net/publication/263571586

Axial compressive capacity of helical piles from field tests and numerical study

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · December 2013

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2012-0487

CITATIONS READS
104 2,763

2 authors:

Zeyad Elsherbiny Mohamed Hesham El Naggar

MHE Engineers Ltd. The University of Western Ontario
5 PUBLICATIONS   119 CITATIONS    443 PUBLICATIONS   8,606 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Seismic performance evaluation of underground structure under liquefaction site View project

Investigation of Hybrid Foundation System for Offshore Wind Turbine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M.Hesahm El Naggar on 14 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1191

ARTICLE
Axial compressive capacity of helical piles from field tests and
numerical study
Zeyad H. Elsherbiny and M. Hesham El Naggar
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14

Abstract: The compressive capacity of helical piles in sand and clay is investigated by means of field testing and numerical
modeling. The numerical models are conducted using the computer program ABAQUS and are calibrated and verified using
full-scale load testing data. The calibration was accomplished by using reasonable assumptions regarding soil–pile interaction
and soil parameters reported from the literature. The model was verified by comparing its predictions with observed load–displace-
ment curves obtained from full-scale pile load tests. The verified numerical model was used to perform a parametric study
considering different pile configurations and soil parameters to evaluate the compressive capacity and load-transfer mechanism
of helical piles. The compressive capacity obtained from the numerical models is compared with that obtained from existing
theoretical methods for calculating the capacity. It is found that the predictions of theoretical equations for piles in cohesionless
soil vary largely depending on the choice of bearing capacity factors and proper failure criteria. The interaction of closely spaced
helices on the capacity of a helical pile is also evaluated. A bearing capacity reduction factor, R, and helix efficiency factor, EH, are
proposed to evaluate the compressive capacity of helical piles in cohesionless soil considering an industry-acceptable ultimate
load criterion corresponding to settlement equal to 5% of helix diameter, D.

Key words: helical piles, individual bearing, cylindrical shear, load-transfer mechanism, interhelix spacing, helix efficiency.

Résumé : Cet article présente une étude de la capacité en compression de pieux hélicoïdaux dans du sable et de l’argile réalisée
For personal use only.

avec des essais de terrain et de la modélisation numérique. Les modélisations numériques sont faites avec le programme
informatique ABAQUS, et les modèles sont calibrés et vérifiés à l’aide de données d’essais de chargement à l’échelle réelle. Le
calibrage a été accompli en utilisant des hypothèses raisonnables par rapport à l’interaction sol-pieu et des paramètres de sol
provenant de la littérature. Le modèle a été vérifié en comparant ses prédictions à des courbes de chargement-déplacement
observées lors d’essais de chargement de pieux à l’échelle réelle. Le modèle numérique validé a ensuite été utilisé pour réaliser
une étude paramétrique qui considère différentes configurations de pieux et de paramètres de sol afin d’évaluer la capacité en
compression et le mécanisme de transfert de charge de pieux hélicoïdaux. La capacité en compression obtenue par le modèle
numérique est comparée à celle obtenue grâce à des méthodes théoriques existantes de calcul de capacité. Il est démontré que
les prédictions des équations théoriques pour des pieux dans un sol sans cohésion varient beaucoup dépendant du choix des
facteurs de capacité portante et des critères de rupture appropriés. L’interaction des hélices rapprochées sur la capacité d’un pieu
hélicoïdal est aussi évaluée. On a donc proposé un facteur de réduction de la capacité portante, R, et un facteur d’efficacité de
l’hélice, EH, pour évaluer la capacité en compression de pieux hélicoïdaux dans un sol sans cohésion, considérant un critère
ultime de charge acceptable dans l’industrie correspondant à un tassement égal à 5 % du diamètre, D, de l’hélice. [Traduit par la
Rédaction]

Mots-clés : pieux hélicoïdaux, portance individuelle, cisaillement cylindrique, mécanisme de transfert de charge, espace inter-
hélice, efficacité de l’hélice.

Introduction the performance characteristics of helical piles under different

A typical helical pile consists of one or more pitched helical
bearing plates affixed to either a central square shaft or circular
pipe. Helical piles are installed into the ground by a mechanical
torque applied through a drive head. These piles can be installed
to any depth and at any angle provided that the soil conditions
are tolerable and the pile is designed to withstand the applied
torque from a suitable drive head.
Helical piles are used in various projects to provide high com-
pressive, uplift, and lateral capacities for static and dynamic
loads. Their current applications include residential and commer-
cial buildings, bridges, solar farms, light poles, wind turbines, and
machine foundations. Due to the increased demand for more
complex and efficient designs, it is necessary to better understand
loading scenarios and to provide more rigorous design approaches.
The current design methods are based on the same framework
and theories of conventional piles, where the compressive capac-
ity of the pile is provided by a combination of shaft resistance and
bearing resistance, i.e.,
(1) Qc ⫽ Qf ⫹ Qb
where Q c is the ultimate compressive capacity, Q f is the friction
resistance along the shaft, and Q b is the end bearing resistance.
The relative contributions of shaft and bearing resistances de-
pend on the embedment depth, soil layering, and pile geometry.
The theoretical ultimate compressive capacity of helical piles
is most commonly calculated employing the limit equilibrium

Received 31 December 2012. Accepted 3 September 2013.

Z.H. Elsherbiny and M.H. El Naggar. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Western University, London,
ON N6A 5B9, Canada.
Corresponding author: Hesham El Naggar (e-mail: helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca).

Can. Geotech. J. 50: 1191–1203 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0487 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 24 September 2013.
 1192 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

method, i.e., the static equilibrium of the pile at the onset of Fig. 1. Possible failure mechanisms of a multi-helix helical pile:
failure of the soil around the pile. The forces transferred from the (a) individual bearing failure and (b) cylindrical shear failure.
pile to the soil are estimated through identification of the failure
surface and shape of the failed soil mass. Helical piles with mul-
tiple helices are known to have two possible failure mechanisms:
individual bearing failure or cylindrical shear failure as shown in
Fig. 1 (Mitsch and Clemence 1985; Narasimha Rao et al. 1991; Zhang
1999; Livneh and El Naggar 2008). For helical piles in dense homo-
geneous cohesionless soil, the failure mechanism is thought to be
through bearing on each helix. For piles installed in homogeneous
cohesive soil, the failure mechanism is thought to be through bear-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14

ing on the lower helix and friction along the soil cylinder formed
in-between the helices, provided that the interhelix spacing is less
than three times the lower helix diameter.
In practice, the helical pile capacity is verified, empirically, dur-
ing installation by monitoring the installation torque with depth.
The torque is correlated to the capacity using an empirical torque
coefficient (kT), (Canadian Geotechnical Society 2006), such that

(2) Q c ⫽ kTT

where kT is the empirical torque factor and ranges between 10 to

33 m−1 and T is the installation torque averaged over the last
1 m (kN·m).
It is common that the helix diameter is 2 to 3 times the shaft
Table 1. Subsurface soil profile at site (A).
diameter. Therefore, for the same pile embedment, shaft diame-
ter, and soil strength parameters, a helical pile with one helix N (blow counts / Moisture
would provide 4 to 9 times the end bearing resistance of a conven- Depth (m) Description 300 mm) content (%)
For personal use only.

tional pile. Consequently, the helical pile capacity could be derived 0–0.5 Organics and clay — 15
either primarily through end-bearing or through a combination of 1 Sand 10 18
shaft friction and end-bearing. 2.5 Sand 22 20
4 Sand 24 20
Field testing 5.5 Sand 21 20
The field testing program consisted of performing five compres- 7 Sand 15 21
sion load tests on four noninstrumented piles of different sizes at 8.5–9 Sand 27 20
two sites: site (A) is located in northern Alberta, Canada, and is 9–10 Silty clay (very stiff) 20 20
primarily composed of sand; site (B) is located in northern On-
tario, Canada, and its profile represents mainly clay soil. Two axial
compressive load tests were conducted at site (A), while the test- to stiff brown silt and sand that extends to depths between 2.3 to
ing program at site (B) consisted of three axial compression load 4.6 m below ground surface with an SPT number (N) varying be-
tests. The piles installed at site (A) have single helices, while those tween 3 and 12. The natural moisture content ranges between 19%
installed at site (B) have double and triple helices. The loading and 27%.
procedures adopted in the testing program conform to procedure Further down is a silty clay layer that extends to depths between
A of ASTM (2007) standard D1143 for axial compression testing. 6.1 and 7.6 m below ground surface. A field shear vane testing
within this layer resulted in shear strength values from 100 to
Soil properties 14 kPa, indicating a very stiff to very soft soil with increasing
The subsurface soil classification at site (A) was obtained from depth. The silty clay layer gets softer with increasing depth and
the closest borehole. The top 0.3 m is an organic soil material the SPT number ranges from 6 to 0. The sensitivity ratio (peak
followed by a thin brown clay layer that extends 0.5 m and con- versus residual) varies between 2 to 3. Finally, the groundwater
sists of silt and sand, and traces of gravel. Underlying the clay layer table was encountered 1.0 m below the ground surface. The sub-
is a sand layer that extends to 9 m below ground surface. The sand surface soil profile at site (B) is summarized in Table 2.
ranges from fine grained at the top to coarse grained with increas-
ing depth. In addition, a standard penetration test (SPT) program Pile configurations and layout
was conducted using a Donut hammer, and the measured blow All piles at both sites were manufactured from a single central
count number field values (N) increased with depth from 10 at the shaft with welded helices and were installed using a rotating drive
top to 27 near the bottom, which indicated loose to medium-dense head mounted on a track hoe excavator and equipped with a
sand conditions. The natural moisture content was averaged at torque gauge. The helical piles at test site (A) had cylindrical shafts
20% along the depth. Beneath the sand layer, there is a very stiff with one helix affixed to each shaft. The pile geometrical proper-
clay layer that contains some silt and sand. The groundwater was ties were representative of typical helical pile geometry in proj-
not observed at the time of drilling and the piles were installed ects that involve light to medium loading conditions. The test
and tested during the month of October. The subsurface soil pro- piles were manufactured of steel pipes of approximately 6.0 m
file at site (A) is summarized in Table 1. length and varied in diameter from 219 to 273 mm and wall thick-
The average subsurface soil profile established from the bore- ness from 8.2 to 9.3 mm. The helix diameter was either 508 or
holes at site (B) comprises a surficial fill layer of sand and gravel 610 mm. The reaction piles were helical piles of 8.0 m length,
mixed with some organics and extends to 1.5 m with an SPT num- 140 mm shaft diameter, and 457 mm double-helix diameter. The
ber (N) ranging between 5 and 6 and moisture content ranging reaction piles were spaced at 4.7 m center-to-center allowing a
between 19% and 31%. Underlying the surficial layer is a medium minimum distance to the test piles of 2.35 m, which is about

Published by NRC Research Press

 Elsherbiny and El Naggar
Table 2. Subsurface soil profile at site (B).
N (blow counts /
Depth (m) Description 300 mm)
0–1.5 Fill (sand and silt, or silty clay) 5–6
1.5–3.4 Silt and sand (loose to compact) 3–12
3.4–7.6 Silty clay (firm to very soft) 6–0
9 times the pile shaft diameter and 4 times the helix diameter to
minimize interaction between the test and reaction piles. The
tested pile configurations for site (A) and the final installation
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14
torque averaged over the last 1 m of embedment are summarized
in Table 3, and the test layout is shown in Fig. 2. Two piles were
tested under axial compressive loads up to 200% of their calcu-
lated design capacity. The tests were proof tests and the piles were
not loaded to failure.
The test piles at site (B) were helical piles with cylindrical shafts
with two and three helices affixed to them. These piles were man-
ufactured of steel pipes with lengths varying from approximately
7.6 to 4.8 m, and varied in diameter from 114 to 178 mm and wall
thickness from 6 to 8.1 mm. Test piles PB-1 and PB-2 were manu-
factured as triple-helix piles with helix diameters of 610 mm and
interhelix spacing of 1.8 m. Test piles PB-3 and PB-4 were manu-
factured as double-helix piles with helix diameters of 406 mm and
interhelix spacing of 0.8 m. The reaction piles were of the same
type as PB-1 and PB-2. The reaction piles were spaced at 6.0 m
center-to-center allowing a minimum distance to the test piles of
3.0 m, which is about 17 times the pile shaft diameter and 5 times
the helix diameter to minimize interaction between the test and
For personal use only.
reaction piles. Figure 3 shows the pile layout and Table 4 provides
the geometrical characteristics of the test piles used in the load
tests and the final installation torque.
Load test reaction system
The reaction system for helical pile load testing at site (A) was
composed of two reaction helical piles, each of shaft diameter
140 mm, length 8.0 m, and helix diameter 457 mm. One pile was
located on each end of the main reaction beam. The reaction piles
had at least 4.5 times the capacity of the test piles. During axial
compression loading, the load was transferred to the reaction
piles through high-strength threaded steel bars with 38 mm di-
ameter and 1.22 m length that were connected to both ends of the
reaction beam. The bars were connected to the reaction piles
through a pile cap that was connected to the head of the reaction
piles using steel pins.
The head of the test pile was leveled to allow the bearing plate
to be perpendicular to the pile axis. A 400 mm × 400 mm × 40 mm
steel cap plate was centered and welded to the pile head. The
hydraulic jack was placed on top of the steel cap and the load cell
was situated between a hemi-spherical bearing sitting on top of
the jack and the main reaction beam using steel plates (305 mm ×
305 mm × 25 mm) in between.
Similarly, the reaction system for helical pile load testing at site
(B) was composed of two reaction helical piles each of shaft diam-
eter 178 mm, length 7.6 m, and helix diameter 610 mm. One pile
was located on each end of the main reaction beam. The reaction
piles had the same capacity of the 7.6 m test piles and at least
3 times the capacity of the 4.8 m test pile. During axial compres-
sion loading, the load was transferred to the reaction piles
through the main reaction beam that was welded to the reaction
piles. A steel cap plate was leveled, centered, and welded to the
pile head, the load cell was placed on top of the steel cap, and the
hydraulic jack was situated between the load cell and the main
reaction beam.
Load and settlement measurements
The load measurements at site (A) were facilitated by using a me-
chanical pressure gauge and an electronic pressure transducer at-
1193
Moisture Shear vane
content (%) strength (kPa)
19–31 —
19–27 —
— 14–100
Table 3. Summary of tested piles configurations for site (A).
Shaft Stick Helix Installation
diameter Depth out diameter, torque
Pile (mm) (m) (m) D (mm) (kN·m)
PA-1 273 5.5 0.3 610 25.9
PA-3 219 5.6 0.3 508 25.9
tached to the pump, and a vibrating wire load cell. The load was
applied using a 69 MPa (10 000 psi) electric pump and a 1000 kN (100 t)
hydraulic jack. The electronic data was recorded using a data acqui-
sition system. The vertical pile movement under compression load
was monitored using two linear displacement transducers (LDT) with
accuracy of 0.01 mm and maximum mechanical travel of 100 mm.
The transducers were mounted on two 102 mm angle-section steel
reference beams in the form that the transducers’ stems bear on the
test pile cap at axisymmetric points equidistant from the center of
the test pile. The reference beams were independently supported
with steel rebars located far enough from the test and reaction piles
to ensure that data measurement would be unaltered by ground
disturbance. The lateral movements of the test pile were monitored
during the axial compression test using two dial gauges of accuracy
0.25 mm, while the two gauges were oriented in orthogonal direc-
tions mounted with their stems perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of the test pile.
For the tests at site (B), the load measurements were facilitated
by using a vibrating wire 2000 kN (200 t) load cell. The load was
applied using a 69 MPa (10 000 psi) hand pump and an 800 kN
(80 t) hydraulic jack. The load data was monitored through a
read-out unit attached to the load cell and was recorded manually.
The vertical pile movement under compression load was moni-
tored using two dial gauges with an accuracy of 0.25 mm and
maximum mechanical travel of 100 mm. The dial gauges were
mounted on two 102 mm box-section steel reference beams in the
form that the transducers’ stems bear on the test pile cap at sym-
metric points equidistant from the center of the test pile. The
reference beams were independently supported with steel rebars
located far enough from the test and reaction piles to ensure an
accurate data measurement.
Testing procedure
Compression load testing of the helical piles was conducted in
accordance with ASTM (2007) standard D1143/D1134M 07, follow-
ing the Quick Load Test Method for Individual Piles. The following
are the general procedures:
• Load was applied in increments of approximately 10% of the
proposed final load with a constant time interval of 5 min.
• Unloading was done in four steps, 5 min each.
• Applied load was measured using three methods: mechanical
pressure gauge, electronic pressure transducer, and calibrated
load cell. The pressure readings are converted to load by mul-
tiplying pressure by the effective cylinder area.
• Movement at the pile head was measured by two types of in-
strumentation: dial gauges and LDTs.
To account for the pressure drop caused by reaction frame and
(or) test pile movement, two manual readings were taken at each
loading increment: one at the beginning and one at the end of the
load step.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1194
Fig. 2. (a) Testing piles geometry and (b) testing piles layout at site (A).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14
For personal use only.
Load test results
Table 5 summarizes the maximum applied load (i.e., load at the
end of test) and corresponding settlement for all tested piles.
The maximum applied compressive load ranged from 210 kN
for the helical piles at site (A) tested 3 days after installation to
143 kN for the helical piles at Site (B) tested 1 day after instal-
lation. The maximum settlement varied from 9 to 12 mm for
piles at site (A), and from 12 to 50 mm for piles at site (B).
A typical load–settlement curve obtained from a pile axial
compression test generally exhibits three distinct regions: initial
linear-elastic region with large slope (large stiffness); transition
nonlinear region where the settlement is largely disproportional
to the load increment; and final linear region that shows a small
slope (reduced stiffness). An example of the load–settlement
curves for the compression tests at sites A and B are shown in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
By inspecting the load–settlement curves presented in Fig. 5, it
is noted that the three distinctive regions have developed (i.e.,
initial linear region, nonlinear region, and final linear region with
reduced stiffness). Thus, the load–settlement curves obtained
from the load testing program can provide a useful tool to estab-
lish the ultimate capacities of the test piles.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013
It should be noted that the initial linear-elastic region of the
load–settlement curve for piles in sand is relatively short with a
curvilinear tendency, while piles in clay exhibit a longer linear
region with a steep initial slope. These observations agree well
with the findings of Livneh and El Naggar (2008) for piles installed
in clayey silt and dense sand, and agree well with the numerical
model results discussed later.
In addition, the initial linear-elastic slope for piles installed in
dense or stiff to very dense or stiff soils is mostly steeper than the
slope of the unloading curve. This might be due to the fact that
not only the pile shaft undergoes elastic shortening, but also the
helical plate undergoes elastic deformations as a cantilever.
Numerical modeling
A finite element model has been developed using the program
ABAQUS (SIMULIA 2009) to simulate the field experimental work.
The developed finite element model has been calibrated using
some results of the pile load testing program. The numerical
model was verified using a different set of the experimental re-
sults to demonstrate its utility in conducting an extensive para-
metric study to further our understanding of the behaviour of
helical piles in different soil conditions.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Elsherbiny and El Naggar 1195

Fig. 3. (a) Testing piles geometry and (b) testing layout at site (B).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14
For personal use only.

Table 4. Summary of tested piles configurations for site (B).

Shaft Stick Helix diameters Interhelix Installation
Pile diameter (mm) Depth (m) out (m) (top to bottom), D (mm) spacing (m) torque (kN·m)
PB-1 178 7.2 0.4 610; 610; 610 1.83 9.5
PB-2 178 7.2 0.4 610; 610; 610 1.83 10.4
PB-4 114 3.2 1.65 406; 406 0.81 13

Table 5. Summary of full-scale testing results. Description of finite element model

The soil continuum is modeled considering a three-dimensional
Maximum Maximum
applied displacement, (3D) cylindrical configuration and the pile is placed along the axial
Pile load (kN) S (mm) S/D (%) z-direction of the cylinder. The helix is idealized as a planar cylin-
drical disk. Therefore, modeling of the pile and the surrounding
PA-1 210 9 1.5
soil can take advantage of the axisymmetric conditions. Figure 6
PA-3 210 12.3 2.4
PB-1 127 12 2 presents the model geometry for a single pile subjected to axial
PB-2 143 49.5 8.1 load.
PB-4 118 48 11.8 The 3D soil medium is discretized into eight-noded, first-order,
and reduced integration continuum solid elements (C3D8R). The
element has three active translational degrees of freedom at each

Published by NRC Research Press

 1196
Fig. 4. Calibrated numerical model compared with field
compression test of PA-1.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14
Fig. 5. Calibrated numerical model of compression tests PB-1 and PB-2.
For personal use only.
node and consists of one integration point located at the centroid.
The pile is simulated using four-noded, first-order, reduced inte-
gration, general-purpose shell elements (S4R).
The locations of the boundaries are chosen such that there is
minimal effect on the results. The radius of the soil column ex-
tends 9 m (i.e., approximately 33 shaft diameters) from the center
of the pile shaft. The depth of soil deposits below the lower helix
is taken as 4 m, which is 6.5 helix diameters. The top surface of the
soil model is considered a stress-free boundary. The boundary
conditions are chosen such that symmetry is exploited. The bot-
tom of the soil cylinder is prevented from moving in any direction
(i.e., pinned) such that Ux = Uy = Uz = 0, where U is the translational
degree of freedom. The back of the cylinder is constrained in the
horizontal direction so that Ux = Uy = 0 and is free to move verti-
cally.
The soil is modeled as an isotropic elastic – perfectly plastic
continuum with failure described by the Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion. The elastic behavior was defined by Poisson’s ratio, ␯,
and Young’s modulus, E. The plastic behavior is defined by the
residual angle of internal friction, ␾r, and the dilation angle, ␺,
and material hardening is defined by the cohesion yield stress, c,
and absolute plastic strain, ␧pl.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013
Fig. 6. Numerical model geometry for a single pile subjected to
axial load.
In addition, the pile–soil interface is modeled using the tangen-
tial behavior penalty–type Coulomb’s frictional model, in which
the relative tangential motion is zero until the surface traction
reaches a critical shear stress value that is the lesser of a fraction
of the interface pressure or the interface shear strength. The soil
unit weight is accounted for in the numerical model as an initial
stress through the geostatic equilibrium step.
Model calibration and verification
Using some of the test results, the above model properties and
configurations, and representative soil properties obtained from
the boreholes and the literature, the numerical models are cali-
brated satisfactorily considering the soil conditions and load test
results of piles PA-1 and PB-1 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. To verify the
ability of the calibrated models to accurately depict the behavior
of helical piles under compressive loading, the calibrated models
were utilized (considering the same soil properties and boundary
and interface conditions) to analyze the remaining load test data
and the results show satisfactory agreement with actual test re-
sults of piles PA-3 and PB-4 as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The soil
parameters used for the calibration of PA-1 and PB-1 are shown in
Tables 6 and 7, where cu is the undrained cohesion, ca is the adhe-
sion, ␥ is the soil unit weight, and Ks is the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure.
Figure 9 presents the load-transfer curves of PA-1, in sand, at
different load levels as a percentage of the maximum load applied
on the pile. The load-transfer curves of PA-1 show that the pile is
primarily an end-bearing pile. This behavior is common for heli-
cal piles installed in relatively dense sand.
For test pile PB-2 in clay, Fig. 10 presents the load-transfer curves
at different load levels as a percentage of the maximum load
applied on the pile. The load-transfer curves of PB-2 show that the
shaft friction contributes a considerable share to the total pile
resistance. However, the pile still exhibits significant end-bearing
behavior as it is a characteristic of helical piles. The reason is that
the helix attracts more load than a pile of a straight shaft base. In
addition, the soil layering is not homogeneous and the soil near
the top helix is much stronger than the soil at the bottom helix.
This led to continuous redistribution of stresses on each helix
with increasing load levels.
Parametric study
Using the previously calibrated and validated models, a numer-
ical parametric study is conducted to better understand the per-
formance of single helical piles considering different practical
pile configurations and common soil types. The pile geometry
under study is chosen to reflect an average size helical pile that is
commonly used in industry, especially in Alberta, Canada. The
Published by NRC Research Press
 Elsherbiny and El Naggar
Fig. 7. Verified numerical models for compression test PA-3.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14
Fig. 8. Verified numerical models for compression test PB-4.
For personal use only.
piles considered consist of a steel pipe that has two helices at-
tached to it. The interhelix spacing ratio, Sr (= interhelix spacing /
helix diameter) ranges between 1 and 3 (i.e., interhelix spacing =
1D, 2D, and 3D). The pile embedment depth is 6 m with a 273 mm
outer diameter circular steel shaft pipe and double 610 mm diam-
eter helices.
Failure criterion considered
As mentioned previously, the typical load–settlement curve for
piles tested under compression exhibits three regions: linear
initial-elastic region with high stiffness, highly nonlinear region,
and nearly linear rapid failure region with low stiffness and nearly
zero slope. The onset of failure is located somewhere near the
start of the nonlinear region. Therefore it is important to choose a
failure criterion that lies within this region. It is common in the
helical pile industry to use a failure criterion equal to 5%D for
helix diameter greater than 610 mm and 10%D for helix diameters
less than 305 mm or at the plunging failure, whichever occurs
first. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) method (Reese
and O’Neill 1988) suggests that a 5%D failure criterion for drilled
shafts (mostly end bearing similar to helical piles) provides a suit-
able prediction for ultimate total pile capacity in sandy soils. As
the helices in this study are 610 mm in diameter, the 5%D (30 mm)
failure criterion is adopted herein for cases when plunging failure
is not easily identifiable.
1197
Pile and soil parameters considered
The pile is modeled as elastic steel with modulus of elasticity
(E) = 200 GPa and Poisson’s ratio, ␯ = 0.3. For piles in sand, the sand
is modeled as homogeneous with residual friction angle ␾r = 30°
and dilation angle ␺ = 0°, 7°, and 15° to cover a wide range of
relative densities from loose to very dense sand. The yield cohe-
sion, c, is 0 kPa to represent purely frictional sand. The sand is
assumed to have a bulk unit weight of 20 kN/m3 and an initial
coefficient of lateral earth pressure, Ks, equal to 0.5. Moreover, the
pile–soil interface friction angle, ␦, is evaluated using the recom-
mendations of Stas and Kulhawy (1984) and is assumed to be
0.7 ␾r, which yields a friction factor of 0.38. Finally, the modu-
lus of elasticity of the soil is assumed to be 100, 200, and
400 MPa corresponding to ␺ = 0°, 7°, and 15°, respectively. The
soil Poisson’s ratio, ␯ = 0.3.
For piles in clay, it is assumed that the top helix is always
embedded into a very stiff clay layer, while soil above top helix
(i.e., along the shaft) varies from soft clay to very stiff clay. The clay
is modeled assuming the water level is at the ground surface, and
the loading rate is assumed fast enough to invoke undrained con-
ditions. Therefore, Poisson’s ratio = 0.49 was considered in the
analysis along with undrained shear strength parameter, cu = 25
to 100 kPa, to represent undrained conditions. The adhesion be-
tween the pile and the soil is estimated from Canadian Geotechnical
Society (2006): for cu = 25 kPa, ca = 25 kPa; for cu = 50 kPa, ca =
40 kPa; and for cu = 75 and 100 kPa, ca = 50 kPa. A friction factor of
1.0 is used, indicating that the frictional stresses along the shaft
are equal to the contact pressure. However, to account for the
adhesion strength, a shear stress limit along the interface is de-
fined at which slippage occurs. This shear stress limit along the
interface is given by the value of soil adhesion, ca.
Results and discussion
Capacity of piles in sand
The load–settlement curves for helical piles in sand with inter-
helix spacing ratio, Sr = 3, and their capacity, Qc, at 5%D failure
criterion are shown in Fig. 11. It is noted that all curves have the
same initial elastic-slope with a curvilinear tendency. Similar
curves are obtained for Sr = 1 and 2. The pile capacities for all cases
are summarized in Table 8. It should be noted that in these anal-
yses, only ␺ and E are varied, while the other soil parameters are
kept constant.
As expected, the pile compressive capacity increases with an
increase in dilation angle, ␺ (i.e., increase in relative density of
sand). It is also observed (see Table 8) that the capacity increases as
the interhelix spacing increases; for ␺ = 15°, Qc = 2270 kN at 1D,
2470 kN at 2D, and 2620 kN at 3D. By examining the soil vertical
displacement contours around the helices near failure shown in
Fig. 12, it can be noted that the failure mechanism changed grad-
ually from individual bearing in very dense sand (Fig. 12a) to cy-
lindrical shear in loose sand (Fig. 12c). Moreover, with decreasing
interhelix spacing for the same soil strength, the piles are more
likely to exhibit a cylindrical shear failure. Therefore, the failure
mechanism, whether individual end bearing or cylindrical shear
failure, is a function of the dilation angle or the interhelix spac-
ing, or a combination of both.
The pile ultimate capacity for each case is calculated assuming
both failure mechanisms, individual bearing and cylindrical
shear, using the methods reported by Zhang (1999), Livneh and
El Naggar (2008), and Perko (2009) and the results are presented in
Table 8.
The compressive capacity based on cylindrical shear failure is
given by
(3) Q c ⫽ ␥ H2A2Nq ⫹ (␲ /2)D␥ 共H22 ⫺ H12兲Ks tan␾
2
⫹ (Ps /2)Heff ␥ Ks tan␦
Published by NRC Research Press
 1198 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Table 6. Soil parameters used for numerical calibration, site (A).

Depth (m) Description ␾r (°) ⌿ (°) Friction factor ␥ (kN/m3) Ks ␯ E (MPa)
0–5.0 Sand (compact) 24 10 0.44 20 0.55 0.3 50
5.0–9.0 Sand (compact) 21 10 — 20 0.55 0.3 50

Table 7. Soil parameters used for numerical calibration, site (B).

Depth (m) Description Cu (kPa) Ca (kPa) ␥ (kN/m3) Ks ␯ E (MPa)
0–3.0 Sandy silt (compact) 36 34 17 1.0 0.49 24
3.0–7.0 Silty clay (very soft) 9 9 17 1.0 0.49 7
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14

Fig. 9. Load-transfer mechanism for PA-1. Fig. 11. Load–displacement curve for a helical pile in sand with Sr = 3.
For personal use only.

for the ultimate frictional resistance along the interface between

Fig. 10. Load-transfer mechanism of PB-1.
the soil cylinder that is formed in-between the top and bottom
helices and the surrounding soil. Finally, the third term in eq. (3)
accounts for the ultimate frictional resistance along the interface
between the pile shaft and the surrounding soil.
For example, for the case of interhelix spacing equal to 3D and
␺ = 0° (i.e., 3D − 0°), Qc is calculated as follows:

␥  ⫽ 20 kN/m3 ; Ks ⫽ 0.5; ␾ ⫽ 30°; A2 ⫽ 0.292 m2 ; Nq ⫽ 18;

D ⫽ 0.61 m; Heff ⫽ 3.6 m; H1 ⫽ 4.2 m; H2 ⫽ 6 m;
Ps ⫽ 0.858 m; ␦ ⫽ ¾␾ ⫽ 22.5°

Thus,

Q c ⫽ 644 ⫹ 102 ⫹ 21 ⫽ 767 kN

The compressive capacity based on individual helix bearing is

given by

(4) Q c ⫽ ␥ H2A2Nq ⫹ ␥ H1A1Nq ⫹ (Ps /2)Heff

2
␥ Ks tan␦

where
␥= = effective unit weight of soil;
H2 = depth to bottom helix;
A2 = surface area of the bottom helix;
Nq = bearing capacity factor 共⫽ e␲ tan␾ tan 2共45° ⫹ ␾/2兲兲 (Meyerhof
1951);
H1 = depth to top helix;
␾ = soil peak internal friction angle;
Ps = perimeter of the screw pile shaft;
Heff = effective shaft length, shaft length above top helix – helix
diameter.
The first term in eq. (3) accounts for the ultimate bearing capac-
ity derived by the bottom helix, while the second term accounts
where A1 is the net surface area of the top helix = ␲(D2 − d2)/4.
The first term in eq. (4) accounts for the ultimate bearing capac-
ity derived by the bottom helix, while the second term accounts
for the ultimate bearing capacity derived by the top helix. Finally,
the third term in eq. (4) accounts for the ultimate frictional resis-
tance along the interface between the pile shaft and the surround-
ing soil.
For example, for the case of interhelix spacing equal to 2D and
␺ = 7° (i.e., 2D − 7°), the capacity is calculated as follows:
A1 ⫽ 0.233 m2 ; H1 ⫽ 4.7 m; H2 ⫽ 6 m; Nq ⫽ 18
Thus,

Published by NRC Research Press

 Elsherbiny and El Naggar 1199

Table 8. Summary of capacities of piles in sand.

Calculated capacity (kN)
Numerical capacity Calculated capacity, Helix efficiency Individual bearing Cylindrical
Case at 5%D (kN) individual bearing (kN) factor, EH (%) including EH shear
1 D - 15° 2270 8182 60 6825 4856
1 D - 7° 1332 2632 44 2028 1603
1 D - 0° 765 1145 25 798 721
2 D - 15° 2470 7783 79 7151 4900
2 D - 7° 1445 2498 60 2115 1636
2 D - 0° 795 1084 33 810 746
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14

3 D - 15° 2620 7385 100 7385 4938

3 D - 7° 1535 2366 80 2199 1665
3 D - 0° 830 1024 42 816 768

Fig. 12. Vertical displacement contours for a pile with Sr = 3 at pile head displacement = 30 mm for (a) very dense sand, (b) dense sand, and
(c) loose sand.
For personal use only.

Q c ⫽ 644 ⫹ 404 ⫹ 28 ⫽ 1076 kN
From Table 8, it can be shown that the calculated capacity using
eqs. (3) and (4) is higher than the capacity obtained from the
numerical models, and the difference widens as the soil shear
strength increases. The reason is that the theoretical ultimate
capacity equations (eqs. (3) and (4)) assume that the shear strength
of soil around the pile and underneath the helices is fully mobi-
lized. In addition, the bearing capacity factors are based on the
assumption of rigid helical plates. On the other hand, the pile
capacity evaluated from the numerical analyses is obtained at a
practical settlement level (5%D–10%D), not necessarily reflecting
actual failure, and accounts for the flexibility of the helical plates.
This is particularly significant for piles in dense sand where an
actual failure load requires an excessively large settlement, ac-
companied by sizable deflection of the helical plates. Such large
settlement cannot be tolerated and would cause damage to either
the pile or superstructure before geotechnical failure is reached.
The load–settlement curve from the numerical model, Fig. 11, does
not show the actual failure level even at 100 mm of displacement
(16%D) and an interpreted failure load is obtained at a practical
settlement level equal to 5%D.
Table 8 also shows that the capacity obtained from numerical
models increases as soil shear strength increases regardless of
embedment depth of the top helix. However, an increase in the
embedment depth of the upper helix results in an increase in the pile
capacity when calculated using the individual bearing method
(eq. (4)), but results in a decrease in the capacity calculated using
the cylindrical shear method (eq. (3)). This is expected because the
bearing capacity of a helix is a function of the embedment depth
and the cylindrical shear capacity is a function of the cylinder
height, however unrealistic.
To obtain more realistic results using the individual bearing
method, a helix interaction reduction factor should be applied to
the capacity. This factor is a function of the interhelix spacing
ratio; the closer the helices are to each other the greater the
interaction as observed from the numerical results and shown in
Tables 8 and 9. The upper helix contact area with the soil is 80% of

Published by NRC Research Press

 1200 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Table 9. Percentage contribution of the helices and the shaft at different load levels for piles in sand.
Contribution (%)
Very dense (␺ = 15°) Dense (␺ = 7°) Loose (␺ = 0°)
Sr Section LL = 20% LL = 64% LL = 100% LL = 24% LL = 67% LL = 100% LL = 30% LL = 70% LL = 100%
1 Shaft 20 12 10 20 11 9 20 9 8
Top helix 30 28 27 30 24 22 29 18 14
Bottom helix 50 60 63 50 65 69 51 73 78
Sr Section LL = 20% LL = 64% LL = 100% LL = 24% LL = 68% LL = 100% LL = 31% LL = 71% LL = 100%
2 Shaft 20 15 14 20 13 13 21 10 9
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14

Top helix 33 30 29 33 27 24 32 21 16
Bottom helix 47 55 57 47 60 63 47 69 75
Sr Section LL = 19% LL = 64% LL = 100% LL = 23% LL = 68% LL = 100% LL = 31% LL = 73% LL = 100%
3 Shaft 20 15 14 21 14 13 21 11 11
Top helix 33 32 31 33 29 27 33 23 17
Bottom helix 47 53 55 46 57 60 46 66 72
Note: LL, load level (percent of ultimate).

the contact area of the bottom helix, assuming a soil plug forms Fig. 13. Load-transfer mechanism for a pile in very dense sand with
inside the shaft and contributes to the bearing capacity of the Sr = 1D.
bottom helix. Also, based on the bearing capacity theory, the soil
shear strength increases with the increase in embedment depth of
the top helix; for top helix embedment depth equal to 4.2 m (i.e.,
Sr = 3) the bearing pressure on the top helix is 70% of that on the
bottom helix. As a result, the bearing resistance of the top helix
for Sr = 3, 2, and 1, excluding interaction effects, is 56%, 64%, and
72% of the bearing resistance of the bottom helix, respectively.
For personal use only.

Those factors are independent of the shear strength of the soil.

By inspecting the load–transfer mechanism for ␺ = 15° and
Sr = 1 (Fig. 13), the ratio of the top helix bearing to the bottom helix
bearing is maximum at the lowest load level reaching 60% and
decreases to 43% at a load level corresponding to 5%D settlement
(i.e., interpreted failure). From the numerical results, tabulated in
Table 9, the helix group effects, which are quantified in terms of
the helix efficiency factor, EH (= ultimate bearing capacity of a
multi-helix single pile / sum of ultimate bearing capacities of the
individual helices within the pile) for different soil strengths and
Sr values are calculated (Fig. 14) and the compressive capacity
taking into account the helices efficiency factor, EH, are summa-
rized in Table 8.
The helix efficiency factor concept applies to both failure mech- is highest at Sr = 3 and lowest at Sr = 1, similar to the cylindrical
anisms: the individual bearing failure and the cylindrical shear shear method.
failure. For a cylindrical shear failure mode, the frictional shear However, the theoretical capacity of the pile is still much higher
resistance along the sides of the soil cylinder has to be trans- than the capacity obtained numerically at 5%D settlement. This
formed into bearing resistance onto the helix that confines the difference is easily observed for dense to very dense sands. Using
cylinder from the top. Therefore, a cylindrical shear failure could the theoretical capacity in design could lead to excessive settle-
be thought of as an end-bearing failure with a helix efficiency ment, and consequently potential damage to the pile, superstruc-
factor that accounts for the interaction between the helices. ture or any buried utility lines. For the purpose of safe design, it is
As a result of applying the group reduction factors to the calcu- therefore important to introduce a reduction factor, R, to the
lated capacities using the individual bearing method, the capacity plate bearing capacity, along with the helix efficiency factors, i.e.,

(5) R⫽ 再2.255
1.0
⫺ 0.0426␾ for 45° ≥ ␾ ≥ 30° with 15° ≥ ␺ ≥ 0° and D ≥ 500 mm
for ␾ ⬍ 30° and ␺ ⫽ 0°

Considering the bearing capacity reduction factor, R, and the
helix efficiency factor, EH, the following equation is proposed to
evaluate the compressive capacity of helical piles in cohesionless
soil obtained at 5%D settlement:
(6) Q c ⫽ ␥ H2A2NqR ⫹ EH␥ H1A1NqR ⫹ (Ps /2)Heff
2
␥ Ks tan␦
It is noted that as load level increases, the top helix resistance
decreases while the bottom helix resistance increases and even-
tually a full soil cylinder may form in-between the helices. There-
fore, the cylindrical shear failure could eventually become the
failure mechanism of multiple helix piles installed in sand if large
settlement is allowed. However, the individual helix bearing re-
sistance (along with a helix efficiency factor) is more representa-
tive of the capacity of piles in sand when limiting settlement to
only 5%D for D ≥ 0.5 m. It is also noted that the expected increase
in the top helix bearing resistance with embedment depth is off-
set by the increase in interaction with the lower helix such that

Published by NRC Research Press

 Elsherbiny and El Naggar 1201

Fig. 14. Helix efficiency factors for double-helix piles in sand. Fig. 15. Load–displacement curve for a helical pile in clay with Sr = 3.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14

Table 10. Summary of capacities of piles in clay.

Calculated capacity (kN)
the top helix resistance to the bottom helix resistance is almost
Numerical capacity Individual Cylindrical
the same for all Sr values as shown in Table 9.
Case at 5%D (kN) bearing shear
Capacity of piles in clay 1 D - 25 kPa 661 487 433
The load–settlement curves for single piles in clay with interhe- 1 D - 50 kPa 729 549 495
lix spacing ratio, Sr = 3 are shown in Fig. 15. The figure shows that 1 D - 75 kPa 762 591 537
all curves exhibit an initial linear segment, typical of piles in- 1 D - 100 kPa 778 591 537
stalled in cohesive soils. Similar curves are obtained for Sr = 1 and 2 D - 25 kPa 774 474 537
2. The pile capacities corresponding to the 5%D failure criterion 2 D - 50 kPa 834 528 591
are shown in Fig. 15 and are summarized in Table 10. It should be 2 D - 75 kPa 860 565 627
2 D - 100 kPa 868 565 627
For personal use only.

noted that, unlike the case of piles in sand, plunging failure oc-
curred in all cases. It is noted that the failure criteria of 5%D falls 3 D - 25 kPa 808 461 641
within the nearly linear rapid failure region of the curve, and 3 D - 50 kPa 867 507 686
therefore is suitable for helical piles in clay. 3 D - 75 kPa 888 538 718
The results demonstrate that the pile capacity consistently de- 3 D - 100 kPa 898 538 718
creases as interhelix spacing is reduced. The load-transfer mech-
anism of a pile in homogenous clay with Cu = 100 kPa and Sr = 1 is
shown in Fig. 16. It should be noted that the load-transfer mecha- Fig. 16. Load-transfer mechanism for a pile in very stiff clay with
nism for single piles at Sr = 1D, 2D, and 3D showed similar trends at Sr = 1.
different soil strengths along the shaft and load levels. The shaft
resistance contribution to the capacity is considerable compared
to the helices’ bearing contribution, as shown in Fig. 16 and
Table 11. The shaft contributes an average of 45% at low load levels
and decreases with increasing load levels up to 20% at failure.
Table 11 summarizes the contribution of the shaft and helices as
a percentage of the applied load, and as a percentage of the ulti-
mate load. At the ultimate load level (which corresponds to
30 mm settlement), the pile experiences complete plunging fail-
ure. It is noted that the percentage contribution of the shaft and
helices at a load level equal to 100% of the failure load do not add
up to unity due to rounding off numerical errors as a result of the
large volumetric strains in the soil elements below the helices at
plunging failure. At this stage, the numerical problem became
divergent and therefore the contact pressure integrated over the
helix area was discarded from the analysis. It is interesting, how-
ever, to see that at the onset of failure where the load level is equal
to 90% of the failure load (occurred at 15 to 20 mm settlement), the
contributions of the helices and the shaft add up to unity, which where
satisfies equilibrium. Therefore, the interpreted failure load is
taken as 90% of the plunging failure load. Cuf, Cuc, Cub = undrained shear strength along shaft, along soil
Similar to piles in sand, the compressive capacity of the pile for cylinder, and below bottom helix, respectively;
each case is calculated assuming both failure mechanisms: indi- ␣ = adhesion factor along shaft, a function of Cu (Canadian
vidual bearing and cylindrical shear, using the methods reported Geotechnical Society 2006);
by Zhang (1999), Livneh and El Naggar (2008), and Perko (2009) and Sf = interhelix spacing factor for Sr > 3, a function of interhelix
are presented in Table 10. spacing (Zhang 1999);
The compressive capacity based on cylindrical shear failure is Nc = bearing capacity factor for cohesive soils.
given by The first term in eq. (7) accounts for the adhesion resistance
along the interface between the pile shaft and the surrounding
(7) Q c ⫽ PsHeff␣Cuf ⫹ ␲D1(H2 ⫺ H1)CucSf ⫹ CubNcA2 soil, while the second term accounts for the ultimate frictional

Published by NRC Research Press

 1202 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Table 11. Percentage contribution of the helices and the shaft at different load levels for piles in clay.
Contribution (%)
Soft clay (Cu = 25 kPa) Medium stiff (Cu = 50 kPa) Very stiff (Cu = 100 kPa)
Sr Section LL = 37% LL = 87% LL = 100% LL = 36% LL = 87% LL = 100% LL = 37% LL = 90% LL = 100%
1 Shaft 40 18 15 47 23 17 50 23 19
Top helix 24 35 34 21 35 33 20 35 32
Bottom helix 39 52 54 35 47 49 32 44 46
Sr Section LL = 34% LL = 89% LL = 100% LL = 33% LL = 89% LL = 100% LL = 34% LL = 92% LL = 100%
2 Shaft 38 16 14 45 21 18 48 22 19
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14

Top helix 25 37 39 22 39 38 21 39 38
Bottom helix 38 47 73 35 44 67 32 41 64
Sr Section LL = 33% LL = 89% LL = 100% LL = 33% LL = 89% LL = 100% LL = 34% LL = 91% LL = 100%
3 Shaft 38 15 12 45 19 14 48 20 14
Top helix 25 38 40 22 40 41 21 40 42
Bottom helix 37 46 67 34 43 63 31 40 60
Note: LL, load level (percent of ultimate).

resistance along the interface between the soil cylinder, which is
formed in-between the top and bottom helices, and the surround-
ing soil. Finally, the third term in the equation accounts for the
ultimate bearing capacity derived by the bottom helix.
For example, for the case of interhelix spacing equal to 3D and
soil along the shaft with Cu = 25 kPa and below the top helix with
Cu = 100 kPa is calculated as follows:
Cuf ⫽ 25 kPa; Cuc ⫽ 100 kPa; Cub ⫽ 100 kPa; ␣ ⫽ 1;
For personal use only.
embedment depth of the upper helix increases the shaft contri-
bution to the capacity increases and (for a helix depth greater
than 5D) the change in capacity calculated using the individual
bearing method (eq. (8)) is only a function of the shaft length.
However, the change in capacity calculated using the cylindrical
shear method (eq. (7)) is a function of the length of both the shaft
and the interhelix cylinder. In Table 10, it is noted that the calcu-
lated capacity using eqs. (7) and (8) is approximately 60% to 75% of

Sf (for Sr ≤ 3) ⫽ 1; A2 ⫽ 0.292 m2 ;
Nc ⫽ 7.33 (Nc ⫽ 9 for D ⬍ 0.5 m and Nc ⫽ 6 for D ⬎ 1 m);
D ⫽ 0.61 m; Heff ⫽ 3.6 m; H1 ⫽ 4.2 m; H2 ⫽ 6 m;
Ps ⫽ 0.858 m
Thus,
Q c ⫽ 76 ⫹ 350 ⫹ 214 ⫽ 641 kN
The compressive capacity based on individual helix bearing is
given by
(8) Q c ⫽ PsHeff␣Cuf ⫹ Cu1Nc1A1 ⫹ Cu2Nc2A2
where Cu1 and Cu2 are the shear strength below top and bottom
helices, respectively.
The first term in eq. (8) accounts for the adhesion resistance
along the interface between the pile shaft and the surrounding
soil, while the second and third terms account for the ultimate
bearing capacity derived by the top and bottom helices, respec-
tively.
For example, for the case of interhelix spacing equal to 2D and
soil along the shaft with Cu = 100 kPa and below the lower helix
with Cu = 100 kPa is calculated as follows:
␣ ⫽ 0.5; Cu1 and Cu2 ⫽ 100 kPa; A1 ⫽ 0.233 m2 ;
H1 ⫽ 4.8 m; H2 ⫽ 6 m; Nc1 and Nc2 ⫽ 7.33
Thus,
Q c ⫽ 179 ⫹ 171 ⫹ 214 ⫽ 564 kN
The helices are considered to bear against the very stiff clay
layer; hence, the pile capacity is expected to change proportional
to the change in shear strength of soil along the shaft. As the
the capacity obtained from the numerical models, but follows the
same trend; that is, the capacity increases with the increase in soil
strength. However, as the embedment depth of the upper helix
increases, eq. (8) yields an increase in capacity while eq. (7) results
in a decrease in capacity.
The upper helix contact area with the soil is 80% of the contact
area of the bottom helix, assuming a soil plug forms inside the
shaft and contributes to the bearing capacity of the bottom helix.
Although it may appear that the failure mechanism is through
individual bearing on each helix as shown in Table 11 and Fig. 16,
the displacement contours obtained from the numerical results
(Fig. 17) show that a soil cylinder is starting to form between the
helices near failure. Therefore, the contribution of the top helix to
capacity is indirectly derived from the shear resistance of the
interhelix soil cylinder rather than pure bearing. This could also
be shown in Table 11 where the top helix contribution at 90% load
is almost the same as the bottom helix contribution even though
the contact area of the top helix is 80% of the bottom helix. There-
fore, a cylindrical shear failure mechanism is appropriate for piles
with helices embedded into cohesive soils and the load-transfer
mechanism at failure shown in Fig. 16 comprises shear along the
pile shaft, shear along the interhelix soil cylinder, and end bear-
ing on the bottom helix.
The location of the helix within cohesive soil layers of different
strength could affect its bearing capacity. In the analyses consid-
ered herein, the top helix is always located at the interface
between two clay layers with different shear strengths; the
underlying layer is a very stiff clay and the overlying layer ranges
from soft to very stiff clay. If no shear cylinder forms between the
helices at failure, it is expected that the failure surface of the
upper helix would extend to the softer overlying layer, hence
reducing its bearing capacity. Therefore, it is recommended to
install the top helix into the strong layer a minimum distance
equal to 5D to mobilize the shear strength of the stiffer layer
(Canadian Geotechnical Society 2006). However, as it is almost
inevitable to have a cylindrical shear failure for multi-helix piles
in cohesive soils, this requirement should only apply to the bot-
tom helix of multi-helix piles.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Elsherbiny and El Naggar
Fig. 17. Displacement contours for a pile with Sr = 1 in clay near
failure (i.e., 20 mm displacement).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Western Ontario on 01/21/14
For personal use only.
The capacity calculated using eqs. (7) and (8) is consistently
lower than the capacity evaluated from the numerical models,
which implies that the bearing capacity factor, Nc, is underesti-
mated. This could be due to the fact that Nc values are evaluated
using a two-dimensional failure surface that ignores the confine-
ment effects of the soil in the third dimension. Therefore, it is
recommended that Nc be assigned a value of 12 to account for
3D effects.
Conclusions
The compressive capacity of helical piles in sand and clay was
investigated by means of numerical modeling. The numerical
models were conducted using the computer program ABAQUS
and the models were calibrated and verified using full-scale load
testing data. The verified numerical model was used to perform a
parametric study considering different pile configurations and
soil parameters to evaluate the compressive capacity and load-
transfer mechanism of helical piles.
The pile capacity was established from the numerical modeling
considering an interpreted ultimate load criterion that is widely
used in industry. This criterion defines the ultimate load as the
load applied at the pile head to produce a settlement at the pile
head equal to 5% of the helix diameter, D. The interpreted pile
capacity was compared with the pile theoretical ultimate capacity
evaluated from available equations in the literature. Based on this
comparison, the following conclusions can be made.
For piles installed in sand:
1. The theoretical ultimate capacity is found to be much higher
than the interpreted capacity obtained numerically consider-
ing the 5%D criterion. This difference is more evident for dense
to very dense sands. Therefore, the pile design should be gov-
erned by settlement requirements to avoid excessive settle-
View publication stats
1203
ment, which could potentially be damaging to the pile or
superstructure.
2, The main load-transfer mechanism is through individual bear-
ing. However, as the spacing between the helices decreases,
the helices interact — reducing their bearing capacity. A heli-
ces efficiency factor, EH, is proposed to account for that effect,
which should be applied to the interpreted capacity at 5%D
settlement.
3. As the load level increases, the top helix resistance decreases
while the bottom helix resistance increases and eventually a
full soil cylinder forms in-between the helices. Thus, the
cylindrical shear failure could eventually become the failure
mechanism of multiple helix piles installed in sand if large
settlement is allowed.
4. To avoid excessive settlement, the capacity of helical piles
installed in sand should be adjusted considering the reduction
factor, R, and the helix efficiency factor, EH, as proposed in
eq. (6).
5. It is noted that the increase in the top helix bearing resistance
with embedment depth is offset by the increase in interaction
with the lower helix such that the top helix resistance to the
bottom helix resistance is almost the same for all Sr values.
For piles installed in clay:
1. Locating a helix at the interface between an underlying very
stiff clay layer and overlying soft clay layer may result in its
failure surface extending to the softer overlying layer, hence
reducing its bearing capacity. Therefore, it is recommended to
install the top helix into the strong layer to mobilize the shear
strength of the stiffer layer.
2. The pile theoretical ultimate capacity is consistently lower
than the interpreted capacity from the numerical models,
which implies that the bearing capacity factor, Nc, is underes-
timated. Therefore, it is recommended that Nc should be as-
signed a value of 12 to account for 3D effects.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to extend their thanks to the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for their
generous financial support. The authors also extend their thanks
and appreciation to Helical Pier Systems (HPS) and Almita Piling
Inc. for their continuous support.
References
ASTM. 2007. Standard test methods for deep foundations under axial compres-
sive load. ASTM standard D1143M-07. ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, Pa.
Canadian Geotechnical Society. 2006. Canadian foundation engineering man-
ual. 4th ed. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, B.C.
Livneh, B., and El Naggar, M.H. 2008. Axial testing and numerical modeling of
square shaft helical piles under compressive and tensile loading. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 45(8): 1142–1155. doi:10.1139/T08-044.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1951. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Géotech-
nique, 2(4): 301–332. doi:10.1680/geot.1951.2.4.301.
Mitsch, M., and Clemence, S. 1985. The uplift capacity of helix anchors in sand.
In Proceedings of Uplift Behaviour of Anchor Foundations in Soil. Edited by
S. Clemence. ASCE, Detroit. pp. 26-47.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N, and Dinakara Shetty, M. 1991. The behaviour
of model screw piles in cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations, 31: 35–50.
doi:10.3208/sandf1972.31.2_35.
Perko, H.A. 2009. Helical piles: a practical guide to design and installation.
Wiley, N.J.
Reese, L.C., and O’Neill, M.W. 1988. Drilled shafts. Construction procedures and
design methods. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Publi-
cation No. FHWA-HI-88-042.
SIMULIA. 2009. Getting started with ABAQUS: interactive edition. Dassault Sys-
tèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, R.I.
Stas, C.V., and Kulhawy, F.H. 1984. Critical evaluation of design methods for
foundations under axial uplift and compression loading. Electrical Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. Report El-3771.
Zhang, D.J. 1999. Predicting capacity of helical screw piles in Alberta soils. Un-
published master’s thesis, University of Alberta, Alta.
Published by NRC Research Press