Screw Piles:

Use and Design

Kristen M. Tappenden
November 2006
 Objectives
► What are screw piles?
► geometry
► fabrication
► installation
► common uses

► Why use screw piles?

► advantages over conventional pile types

► How do we design screw piles?

► axial failure models
► direct pile design approach: LCPC method
► empirical approach: correlates installation effort to axial capacity
What are Screw Piles?
► Deep foundations: carry
tensile, compressive, and
lateral loads

► Constructed of helical
plates welded to hollow
steel pipe
 Emergence of Screw Piles
► No related engineering literature exists prior to 1950s/1960s

► First use of screw piles: Maplin Sands light house in the Thames
estuary in 1838
Screw Pile Geometries
 Terminology

Inter-Helix Spacing Ratio = S/D

18 cm diameter shaft
35 cm diameter helix
5 meter length
Shaft diameters: 11 cm to 32 cm (4 ½ to 12 ¾ inches)
Helix diameters: Commonly 2-3 times the shaft diameter
30 cm to 91 cm (12 to 36 inches)
 Installation
► Turning moment applied to the head of screw pile
shaft, and pile “twisted” into the ground

► Desirable rate of penetration is one helix pitch per

revolution

► Video Clip: courtesy of ALMITA Manufacturing

Installation Equipment
 Screw Pile Advantages
► Rapid installation (typ. < 30 min per pile)
► Little installation noise or vibration
► No casing or dewatering required
► Lightweight installation equipment:
 soft terrain
 areas of restricted access
► Sustain load immediately after installation
► May be removed and re-used
 temporary structures
► Resistant to frost heave
 Screw Pile Limitations
► Not for use in very hard or rocky soils
 may sustain damage to the helical plates
 piles may be removed and helices checked

► Lack of acceptance/understanding in the engineering

community
 Typical Screw Pile Uses:
► Tower foundations

Ft. McMurray, Alberta: 27 cm (10 ¾ in) shaft, one or two 76 cm (30 in) helices, 6 m length
► Pipeline foundations
► Earth retention systems
► Guy wire anchors
► Building Foundations:
 Warehouses
 Multi-family Housing
 Commercial Buildings
 Modular Homes

Hythe, Alberta: 22 cm (8 5/8 in) shaft, single 40 cm (16 in) helix, 8 m length
► Oil Field Foundations
 Temporary Buildings
 Pump Jacks
 Compressors
 Tanks

Typically 18 cm (7 in) shaft, single 40 cm (16 in) helix, 7.5 m deep

 Screw Pile Failure Models
► Cylindrical Shear Model

► Individual Plate-Bearing Model

 Choice of the most representative model depends on

the screw pile geometry, in particular the Inter-Helix
Spacing Ratio (S/D)
Cylindrical Shear Model

After Narasimha Rao et al. (1991)

 Effect of Inter-Helix Spacing Ratio
(S/D)
1 2 3

1: S/D ≈ 1.5
Cylindrical surface fully forms

2: S/D ≈ 2
Cylindrical surface begins to deteriorate

3: S/D ≈ 4.5
Cylindrical surface nearly non-existent

After Narasimha Rao et al. (1991)

Individual Plate Bearing Model
 Summary: Failure Models
► Cylindrical Shear Model:
 Multi-helix screw piles, generally most representative for
S/D <2

► Individual Plate Bearing Model:

 Single-helix screw piles
 Multi-helix screw piles, applicable for S/D>2
 Axial Capacity Prediction
► Theoretical Design Methods
► Application of relevant soil strength parameters (su ,α, Φ,γ, Nq, Nqu)

► Direct Design Approach: LCPC Method

► Directlyrelates results of cone penetration test to ultimate axial
screw pile capacity, with no intermediate determination of soil
strength parameters

► Empirical Approach
► Directlycorrelates measured installation torque to ultimate axial
screw pile capacity
 Direct Design: LCPC Method
► Established design method for predicting the axial capacity
of conventional piles, based on site-specific CPT

► LCPC method developed in France by the Laboratoire

Central des Ponts et Chausees, based on results of many
full-scale pile load tests (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982)

► Use of the CPT is advantageous because the test is fast,

repeatable, and provides continuous profile of soil
information
 Direct Design: LCPC Method
► Basic premise of LCPC method is to apply
scaling (reduction) factors to CPT profile of
tip resistance to calculate appropriate
components of bearing resistance and
friction/adhesion

Qtotal = Qbearing + Qshaft + Qcylinder

 Direct Design: LCPC Method

Soil Type Average CPT tip Bearing Skin friction Maximum unit
resistance over layer i capacity factor factor skin friction
qc kc α qs

(kPa) (kPa)

Soft clay and mud <1,000 0.50 30 15

Moderately compact clay 1,000 to 5,000 0.45 40 35

Silt and loose sand ≤ 5,000 0.50 60 35

Compact to stiff clay and compact silt > 5,000 0.55 60 35

Soft chalk ≤ 5,000 0.30 100 35

Moderately compact sand and gravel 5,000 to 12,000 0.50 100 80

Weathered to fragmented chalk > 5,000 0.40 60 120

Compact to very compact sand and gravel 12,000 0.40 150 120
 LCPC Calculation
qc (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000
0

► Two 36 cm helices
1
► Spacing = 3D
► 21 cm shaft
2

► qs = 35 kPa
3 ► qb1 = 811 kPa
► qb2 = 990 kPa
Depth (m)

Calculated Capacity in Compression:

► Cylindrical Shear: 188 kN
5
► Individual Plate Bearing: 209 kN

6
Calculated Capacity in Tension:
► Cylindrical Shear: 160 kN
7 ► Individual Plate Bearing: 180 kN

8 ► Measured Capacity: 210 kN in both

tension and compression
after Zhang (1999)
 LCPC Method—Compression
Axial Capacity (kN)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0.00

1.00
Depth (m)

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

QLP, Cylindrical Shear Model QL, Cylindrical Shear Model

QLP, Individual Plate Bearing Model QL, Individual Plate Bearing Model
 LCPC Method
26 axial load tests, 7 test sites: clay, sand, clay shale, glacial till
2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
Qpredicted / Qmeasured

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 C4 C5 C6 T4 T5 T6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 T7 T8 T9 C16 C17

Test Pile Designation

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Cylindrical Shear Predicted to Measured Capacity, Individual Plate Bearing
 LCPC Method
2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
Qpredicted/ Qmeasured

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 C4 C5 C6 T4 T5 T6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C16 C17

Test Pile Designation

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Cylindrical Shear Predicted to Measured Capacity, Individual Plate Bearing
 Empirical Torque Correlation
► Direct empirical relationship between torque required to install a given
screw pile and the pile’s ultimate axial capacity

Qultimate = Kt∙ T (after Hoyt and Clemence, 1989)

► Analogous to relationship between pile driving effort and pile capacity

used for driven steel piles

► Can only predict capacity once pile is installed– best used for field-level
verification of expected design capacities
 Torque Correlation
3500
Ultimate Axial Pile Capacity (kN)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Installation Torque (kN-m)
Measured Data (11.4 cm shaft piles)
Linear Regression, 11.4 cm shaft piles (Kt = 16.9 m-1)
Measured Data (14.0 to 40.6 cm shaft piles)
Linear Regression, 14.0 to 40.6 cm shaft piles (Kt = 9.19 m-1)
 Torque Correlation
29 screw pile axial load tests, 10 test sites: sand, clay, glacial till, clay shale, sandstone

2.0

1.8

1.6
Qpredicted/ Qmeasured

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 C4 C5 C6 T4 T5 T6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 T7 T8 T9 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

Test Pile Designation

 Summary
► Screw piles have many advantages, such as ease
of installation, immediate load-bearing capacity,
no casing/dewatering required

► LCPC method provides good axial capacity

prediction in clay and sand, but not suitable for
glacial till soils

► Torque correlation factors provide good capacity

prediction for screw piles in a variety of soil types
 Thank You
► Research Partners:
 Dr. Dave Sego
 Gerry Cyre
 Peace Land Piling / Peace Land Power Ltd.
 ALMITA Manufacturing Ltd.
 ATCO Electric
 ConeTec Inc.

► Funding Providers:
 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
 Alberta Ingenuity Fund
 University of Alberta
 References
Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. 1982. Pile bearing capacity prediction by means
of static penetrometer CPT. In Proceedings of the Second European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-II. Amsterdam. Balkema Publisher,
Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 687-697.

Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N, and Shetty, M.D. 1991. The behavior of
model screw piles in cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations, 31(2):35-50.

Zhang, D. 1999. Predicting capacity of helical screw piles in Alberta soils. M.Sc.
Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Questions?