HELICAL FOUNDATIONS AND TIE BACKS

State of the Art

Richard W. Stephenson

Professor of Civil Engineering

University of Missouri-Rolla

Rolla, Missouri 65409

June 26, 1997

November 4, 2003 (10:14AM)

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3

HISTORY .......................................................................................................................................3
Modern Usage.....................................................................................................................4

HELICAL PILE DESIGN ............................................................................................................7

Prototype.............................................................................................................................8
Theoretical ..........................................................................................................................8
Semi -empirical ..................................................................................................................8
Empirical ............................................................................................................................9

UPLIFT CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES ..............................................................................9

General................................................................................................................................9
Semi-Empirical Helical Pile Capacity............................................................................10
Individual Plate Capacity Method .....................................................................10
Kulhawy Method..................................................................................................11
Clemence Method ................................................................................................16
Uplift capacity of shallow anchors in sand ............................................16
Uplift capacity of deep anchors in sand .................................................25
Uplift capacity of helical anchors in clay ...............................................28
Empirical Method. ...........................................................................................................32

BEARING CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES ........................................................................33

Bearing Capacity Design of Helical Piles ......................................................................34

LATERAL CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES........................................................................36

Analysis Based on Limiting Equilibrium or Plasticity Theory........................36
Analysis Based on Elastic Theory.......................................................................37
Analysis Based on Nonlinear Theory .................................................................37
Simplified Method for Nonlinear Analysis of Helical Piles in Clay ................39

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................46

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................48

Uplift Capacity .................................................................................................................48
Shallow Anchor in Sand ..........................................................................48
Deep Anchor in Sand ...............................................................................49
Shallow anchor in Clay............................................................................50
Deep anchor in Clay.................................................................................51
Anchor in Sand.........................................................................................52
Anchor in Clay .....................................................................................................53
Lateral Capacity of a laterally Loaded Helical Pile in Medium Clay.............53
Lateral Capacity of a Laterally Loaded Helical Pile in Soft Clay...................54

2
 HELICAL FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHORS
STATE OF THE ART
6/26/1997
R.W. Stephenson, P.E., Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
Helical piles (helical anchors) are finding increasingly widespread use in the geotechnical
market. These foundations have the advantages of rapid installation and immediate loading
capabilities that offer cost-saving alternatives to reinforced concrete, grouted anchors and driven
piles. The last 12 years have seen the rapid development of rational geotechnical engineering-based
design and analysis procedures that can be used to provide helical pile design solutions

HISTORY
Helical foundations have evolved from early foundations known as screw piles or screw
mandrills.@ The earliest reported screw pile was a timber fitted with an iron screw propeller that
was twisted into the ground(11). The early screw mandrills were twisted into the ground by hand
similar to a wood screw. They were then immediately withdrawn and the hole formed was filled
with a crude form of concrete and served as foundations for small structures. Conventional screw
piles have been in use since the 18th century for support of waterfront and in soft soil conditions for
bridge structures as early as the 19th century.
Power installed foundations were developed in England in the early 1800's by Alexander
Mitchell. In 1833, Mitchell began constructing a series of lighthouses in the English tidal basin
founded on his new “screw (1)piles.@
The first commercially feasible helical anchor was developed in the early 1900's to respond
to a need for rapidly installed guy wire anchors. The anchors were installed and used primarily by
the electrical power industry. The development of reliable truck mounted hydraulic torque drive
devices revolutionized the anchor industry. These advances allowed the installation of helical
anchors to greater depths and in a wider variety of soil conditions than ever before(1).

Modern Usage
Modern helical anchors are earth anchors constructed of helical shaped circular steel plates
welded to a steel shaft (Figure 1). The plates are constructed as a helix with a carefully controlled
pitch. The anchors can have more than one helix located at appropriate spacing on the shaft. The
central shaft is used to transmit torque during installation and to transfer axial loads to the helical
plates. The central shaft also provides a major component of the resistance to lateral loading.
A typical helical anchor installation is depicted in Figure 2. These anchors are turned into
the ground using truck mounted augering equipment. The anchor is rotated into the ground with
sufficient applied downward pressure (crowd) to advance the anchor one pitch distance per
revolution. The anchor is advanced until the appropriate bearing stratum is reached or until the
applied torque value attains a specified value. Extensions are added to the central shaft as needed.
The applied loads may be tensile (uplift), compressive (bearing), shear (lateral), or some
combination.
Helical anchors are rapidly installed in a wide variety of soil formations using a variety of
readily available equipment. They are immediately ready for loading after installation. Large

3
Figure 1: Modern Helical Pile

4
Figure 2: Installation of Helical Pile

multi-helix anchors develop capacities of up to 100,000 lbs. (450 kN).

In the past 20 years, the use of helical anchors has expanded beyond their traditional use in
the electrical power industry. The advantages of rapid installation, immediate loading capability and
resistance to both uplift and bearing loads have resulted in their being used more widely in
traditional geotechnical engineering applications. Reported uses include tiebacks for soil retaining
walls, foundations for lightly loaded structures such as transmission line towers, light poles, tie
downs for manufactured housing, temporary structures, etc., and for underpinning lightly loaded
structures such as single family dwellings. Because of these uses, there has been an increase in
research into the behavior of helical anchors. Since about 1975, a number of researchers have
studied the geotechnical principals governing the behavior of helical piles. They have published
reports of their studies of helical anchors under loading and proposed design procedures by which
helical pile performance can be predicted. By far, the majority of this work has been in the
anchoring (uplift) capacity of helical piles(1). However, studies in the lateral and bearing
(compression) load performance are reported as well.

5
HELICAL PILE DESIGN
The methods available to design helical pile systems and to predict their performance under
load can be divided into four broad categories: prototype (load test), theoretical, semi-empirical and
empirical.

Prototype
In the prototype design method, helical pile capacities are determined by testing a helical pile
identical to the production pile in identical subsurface conditions (5). The results of the prototype
test (load test) are then extrapolated to the rest of the helical piles used at the site. Advantages of
this approach lie in the fact that actual piles are evaluated in their field use conditions. However,
this method requires the a priori selection of helix size and configurations as well as installation
depth. The testing of several helical pile configurations to determine optimum size and spacing is
usually too costly. Consequently, prototype testing is used primarily for proof testing semi-
empirical and empirical designs.

Theoretical
Theoretical methods utilize soil mechanics theories of the interaction behavior of foundations
and earth materials. The theories use the basic properties of the foundation (strength and
deformability) as well as the basic properties of the soil (strength and compressibility) to create
design procedures that can be applied to different soil structures and different helical pile
configurations. Ideally, the procedures are independent of particular installation equipment and can
be applied to all realistic combinations of helical piles and soil stratigraphies.

Semi -empirical
Unfortunately, because of the complexity of soil stratigraphy and the inability of current soil
mechanics theories to fully describe the actual field performance of a soil, most geotechnical design
procedures are theoretical procedures modified by experience (semi-empirical).
Empirical
Empirical methods are most often developed and used by helical pile manufacturers who
have access to vast quantities of pile behavior data. Empirical methods are based on statistical
correlations of anchor uplift capacity with other, easily measured, parameters such as standard
penetration test (N) values, installation torque, or other indices. The methodology for development
of these correlations and the data on which they are based is usually considered proprietary by the
manufacturers. Results obtained from these methods are highly variable (1)(1)(1)(1).
By far the majority of the research has been directed toward the uplift behavior of helical
piles (helical anchors). This is due primarily to their traditional use as guy line anchors and as tie
downs for transmission towers and tiebacks for retaining structures. Considerably less work has
been carried out on the performance of helical piles under lateral loading. However, significant
work is available on laterally loaded piles that could possibly be applied to helical piles. Even less
data is reported on the performance of helical piles under bearing (compressive) loading. This is
becoming more important since helical piles are gaining wide use for underpinning and supporting
lightly loaded structures. The following sections will address each of the three design loading
conditions.

6
UPLIFT CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES
General
The behavior of any deep foundation is highly complex. Consequently, it is important to
understand the the behavior of helical piles is influenced by the same factors that influence the
behavior of drilled piers and driven piles: i.e., strength and deformation properties of soils, soil non-
homogeneities, groundwater levels, soil plasticity and volume change potential as well as installation
procedures and equipment.

Semi-Empirical Helical Pile Capacity

Individual Plate Capacity Method. One method of computing uplift capacities of helical
piles is the individual plate capacity method. In this method, the uplift capacities are computing
using:
n
Q u = ∑ QU i (1)
i =1
where n is the number of helices and Qui is the ultimate uplift capacity of the individual helix.
Qui can be computed from bearing capacity theory as:

Qui = qui xA (2)

where:
1
qui = cN *c + Di γ N *γ + γ H i N *q
2
A = area of helix
Di = diameter of helix (3)
H i = Depth from ground surface to helix
γ = effective unit weight of soil above helix
The first term of equation three is the contribution of soil cohesion to the uplift capacity. The
second term is the contribution of soil friction to the capacity and the third term is the contribution of
soil overburden to the capacity. Nc *, Nγ* and Nq* are bearing capacity factors on cohesion, friction
and surcharge respectively.
For cohesive (clay) soils, Nc* is normally taken as 9.0 for H1/D1 > 3. For H1/D1 ≤ 3, Nc* is
normally taken as 5.7. Nγ* and Nq* are taken as 0 and 1 respectively.
For helical foundations embedded in cohesionless (sand) soils, c is zero and Nγ* and Nq*
vary as a function of the coefficient of friction (Φ) of the sand. Meyerhof=s values of Nγ* and Nq*
are often used and are presented as Table 1, below.
Kulhawy Method. Kulhawy (1) described a method of analysis of the uplift capacity of
helical anchors by describing their behavior as intermediate between the grouted and spread anchors
(Figure 3). In his model, the upper helix develops a cylindrical shear surface that controls its
behavior. The soil between the helices becomes an effective cylinder if the helices are sufficiently
close together. The shearing resistance along the interface is said to be controlled by the friction
angle and state of stress in the disturbed cylinder of soil above the anchor. This disturbance effect
can be approximated by relating the disturbed properties to the in-situ properties in the following
equations:

7
 Qu = Q p + Q f + W f (4)
Qu = Ultimate uplift capacity
Qp = Top plate (cone breakout) capacity
Qf = Cylinder friction capacity
Wf = Weight of helical pile (often neglected)

For cohesionless (sand) soils, Kulhawy recommended the following equations:

Table 1 Meyerhof’s Bearing

Capacity Factors

Φ N c* Nq* Nγ *
(deg)

0 5.1 1.0 0.0

5 6.5 1.6 0.1

10 8.4 2.5 0.4

15 11.0 3.9 1.1

20 14.8 6.4 2.9

25 20.7 10.7 6.8

26 22.3 11.8 8.0

28 25.8 14.7 11.2

30 30.1 18.4 15.7

32 35.5 23.2 22.0

34 42.2 29.4 31.1

36 50.6 37.7 44.4

38 61.4 48.9 64.0

40 75.3 64.1 93.6

45 133.9 134.7 262.3

50 266.9 318.5 871.7

8
 Q p ( max ) = A f ( q q N q ζ qr ζ qs ζ qd ) + W f + Qtu (5)
where:
Qp(max) = Top plate capacity limit
Af = Area of top helix
⎯q = effective surcharge = ⎯γ H1
Wf = Effective weight of helical pile alone
Qtu = Tip capacity in uplift (usually neglected)

Figure 3: Force model for helix

9
 The Nq term is a bearing capacity factor given by:
⎛ _ φ⎞
tan ⎜⎜ 45 + ⎟⎟
π tan φ
Nq = e
2
(6)
⎝ 2⎠
⎡ ⎛ log 2 I ⎞⎤
ζ qr = exp ⎢(- 3.8 ) tan φ + (3.07 sin φ )⎜⎜ 10 r ⎟⎟⎥ ≤ 1.0 (7)
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1 + sin φ ⎠⎥⎦
G ⎡ E ⎤⎡ 1 ⎤
=⎢ ⎢ ⎥ (8)
) ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ qi tanφ ⎥⎦
Ir =
qi tan φ ⎣ 2(1 +ν

The ζ terms are modification factors for soil rigidity (ζqr), anchor shape (ζqs), and anchor depth (ζqd)
as given below.

ζ qs = 1+ tan φ (9a)
ζ qs = 1+ tan φ (9b)
⎛H⎞
ζ qd = 1+ 2 tan φ (1 - sin φ )2 tan-1 ⎜ ⎟ (9c)
⎝ D1 ⎠
with the tan-1 term in radians.
G = soil shear modulus
E = soil elastic modulus
The cylinder friction capacity, Qf , is computed from the following equation:
H
Qf = ∫ P(z)σ v k u (z)( tan δ )(z)dz
H1
(10)
k
H
⎡ δ⎤
= ∫
k o H1
P(z)σ v k o (z) tan ⎢
⎣
φ (z) ⎥
φ⎦
where:
P = helix perimeter
σv = effective vertical stress
k = coefficient of horizontal earth pressure
δ = effective interface friction angle
ko = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
φ = Effective stress soil friction angle
δ/⎯φ = 0.9
k/ko = 5/6

The friction capacity of the helical pile system is reduced due to disturbance caused by
pile installation. Kulhawy accounted for this by using a reduced uplift capacity according to the
following equation:
β
Q f(reduced) = Q f r (11)
β0
10
 2+ β o
βr=
3 (12)
β o = k o tan δ

Clemence Method. A significant series of studies on helical anchor uplift capacity was
done by Clemence (1), and later summarized in Mitsch and Clemence (1) and Mooney, Adamczak,
and Clemence (1). They extended the work of previous researchers with extensive full scale field
tests, scale model laboratory tests, and theoretical analysis. These researchers suggested that helical
pile uplift capacity could be divided into two broad categories: shallow anchors and deep anchors.
They stated that the uplift capacity is provided by:

Qu = Q p + Q f (13)

Uplift capacity of shallow anchors in sand (Figure 4):

⎛ φ ⎞⎟
⎛ ⎞ ⎜ 1 tan
3
φ D H 2 H
Q u = π γ k u tanφ cos2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜ 1 1 + 2 ⎟+
Ws (14)
⎝ 2 ⎠⎜⎜ 2 3 ⎟
⎟
⎝ ⎠

The weight of the soil, Ws can be expressed as:

⎡π ⎡ ⎛ φ ⎞
2
⎛ φ ⎞⎟⎤ ⎤⎥
Ws=γ ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
H 1 ( D1 ) + ⎜ D1 + 2 H 1 tan ⎟ + ( D1 )⎜ D1 + 2 H 1 tan ⎟⎥
⎢ 2
(15)
⎢3 ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎥ ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎦
Das non-dimensionalized these equations into:

Qp
F q1 = (16)
γ AH1

⎡ ⎤
Qp ⎡ 2 ⎛φ ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ H1⎤ ⎢ 2
⎛ φ ⎞⎥
⎢ 0.5
= = 4 ( tan φ )⎢ cos ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ + 0.33 tan ⎜ ⎟⎥ (17)
F q1
γ AH1
k u ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎢ D ⎥ ⎢⎛ H ⎞ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ D1 ⎠ ⎦

Similarly:
2 2
Ws ⎛ ⎞ φ ⎛ ⎞ φ
F q2 = = 4 + 5.33 ⎜ H 1 ⎟ tan 2 + 8 ⎜ H 1 ⎟ tan (18)
γ AH1 ⎝ D1 ⎠ 2 ⎝ D1 ⎠ 2

11
Figure 4: Idealized failure surface in sand for shallow anchor condition

12
Let
H1 = R (19)
D1

Combining:
Qp ⎡ ⎛ φ ⎞⎤ ⎡ 0.5 ⎛ φ ⎞⎤
Fq = = 4 R 2 k u ( tan φ )⎢cos2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ ⎢ + 0.33 tan ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥
γ AH1 ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ R ⎝ 2 ⎠⎥⎦
(20)
⎛φ ⎞ ⎛φ ⎞
+ 4 + 5.33 R 2 tan 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 8R tan ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠

Fq is called the breakout factor by Das. To determine Fq the value of ku must be determined. Mitsch
and Clemence(11) showed that this value varies with the soil friction angle, Φ. Their values can be
expressed as:
⎛ H1 ⎞
k u = 0.6 + m ⎜ ⎟ (21)
⎝ D1 ⎠
The variation of m is given below.

Table 2 Variation of m

Soil friction angle, Φ m

(degrees)

25 0.033

30 0.075

35 0.180

40 0.250

45 0.289

The magnitude of ku increases with H1/D1 up to a maximum value and remains constant after
that. This maximum value is attained at (H1/D1)cr = Rcr . The variation of ku with H1/D1 and Φ are
plotted in Figure 5. Substituting the appropriate value of ku and R into the previous equation, the
variation of the breakout factor is shown in Figure 6 and Table 3. Now,

13
 Figure 5: Variation of ku with H1/D1

π
Qp = Fqγ A H1= F q γ D1 H 1
2
(22)
4
The frictional resistance that occurs at the interface of the cylinder is given as:

π
D a γ ( H n - H 1 ) k u tan φ (23)
2 2
Qf =
2
Da = average helix diameter.

Therefore the ultimate uplift capacity for a shallow anchor in sand is:

π ⎛ π ⎞⎛ D1 + D n ⎞
F q γ D1 H 1 + ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟( γ )( H 2n - H 12 ) k u tan φ (24)
2
Qu =
4 ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ 2 ⎠

14
 Table 3: Variation of Breakout Factor Fq for Shallow
Anchor Condition
Fq

R =H1/D1 Φ = 25° Φ=30° Φ=35° Φ=40° Φ=45°

0.5 5.27 5.54 5.87 6.23 6.61
1.0 6.74 7.38 8.25 9.18 10.17
1.5 8.41 9.54 11.16 12.91 14.77
2.0 10.27 12.01 14.64 17.49 20.53
2.5 12.33 14.82 18.72 22.99 27.54
3.0 14.6 17.97 23.44 29.46 35.94
3.5 21.48 28.84 36.99 45.74
4.0 25.35 34.95 45.64 57.13
4.5 41.81 55.44 70.18
5.0 49.46 66.56 85.00
5.5 78.97 101.68
6.0 92.76 120.34
6.5 108.01 141.06
7.0 124.78 163.98
7.5 189.14
8.0 216.69
8.5 246.73
9.0 279.34

15
 Φ = 45 deg

Φ= 40 deg
100

Φ= 35 deg

Φ= 30 deg
Fq

Φ= 25 deg

10

1
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
H1/D1
Figure 6: Variation of breakout factor with H1/D1 for shallow condition

Uplift capacity of deep anchors in sand:

Qu = Q p + Q f + Qs
Q p = bearing capacity of the top helix
(25)
Q f = frictional resistance of the cone between the helices
Q s = shaft friction resistance = 0
π
F q γ D1 H 1
* 2
Qp=
4 (26)
*
where F = deep anchor breakout factor
q

The magnitude of the Fq = Fq* is determined by setting R = Rcr and ku = ku(max) in equation 20.
Fq* has been plotted in Figure 8.
The frictional resistance Qf is computed using:
16
 π
Da γ ( H n 2 - H 1 ) k u max tan φ
2
Qu =
2
(27)
D 1 + Dn
where D a =
2
The two equations can be combined to yield the net ultimate uplift capacity for deep anchors in sand:

π ⎛ π ⎞ ⎡ D1 + D n ⎤
F q γ D1 H 1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥γ ( H n - H 1 ) k u max tan φ (28)
* 2 2 2
Qu =
4 ⎝ ⎠⎣
2 2 ⎦

If the helices are placed too close to each other, the average net ultimate uplift capacity of
each anchor may decrease due to the overlapping and interference of the individual failure zones
It is recommended that the optimum spacing of the helices be about 3D1 apart. A factor of safety of
2.5 or more should be applied to the ultimate uplift capacity to determine the allowable or working
uplift capacity.

17
Figure 7: Failure surface for deep helical pile in sand

18
 Deep Anchor Breakout Factor, Fq*
100

10
24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Soil Friction Angle (deg)
Figure 8: Variation of deep anchor breakout factor with soil friction angle

Uplift capacity of helical anchors in clay.

Failure of helical piles in clay soils is normally analyzed using the Φ= 0 condition. The soil
shear strength is then characterized as:

su = cu (29)

Uplift capacity of shallow helical anchors in clay. For shallow anchors

(H1/D1)≤ (H1/D1)cr), the failure surface at ultimate load extends from the top helix to the ground
surface (Figure 9 ). If the H1/D1 ratio is relatively large then the failure zone will not extend to the
ground surface and the deep anchor situation controls.
For shallow anchors:
Qu = Q p + Q f (30)
where: Qp = bearing capacity of the top helix
Qf = bearing due to friction along enclosed cylinder between helices.
Q p = A1 c F c + W s = A1 ( c u F c + γH 1 ) (31)
Where A1 = area of the top helix
Fc = breakout factor
19
 .
Qu

Φ/2 Ws Φ/2

H1

Qp
Hn
Qf

Figure 9 Failure mode for shallow helical pile in clay

γ = unit weight of soil above top helix

H1 = distance between the ground surface and the top helix
Fc is related to the bearing capacity factor Nc in that it increases with depth of embedment up to a
maximum of 9 at the critical Rcr = (H1/D1)cr value that depends on the undrained cohesion, cu
(kN/m2) as in:

⎡ H1⎤
Rcr = ⎢ ⎥ = 0.107 cu + 2.5 ≤ 7 (32)
⎣ D1 ⎦ cr

20
 10

5
Fc

-1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(H1 /D1 )/(H1 /D1)cr

Figure 10: Variation of Fc with (H1/D1)/(H1/D1)cr

The variation of the breakout factor Fc is plotted as a function of (H1/D1)/(H1/D1)cr in Figure 10.
The frictional resistance of the cylinder of soil between the helices can be computed from:
⎛ D + Dn ⎞
Qf = π ⎜ 1 ⎟ cu ( H n − H 1 ) (33)
⎝ 2 ⎠
Combining:
π ⎛ D + Dn ⎞
Qu = D12 ( cu F c + γ H 1 ) + π ⎜ 1 ⎟( H n - H 1 ) cu (34)
4 ⎝ 2 ⎠

Uplift capacity of deep helical anchors in clay. For the deep anchor condition (H1/D1)>
(H1/D1)cr deep anchor criteria holds (Figure 11). The capacity for this case is given below.
Qu = Q p + Q f + Q s (35)
Where Qs = resistance due to adhesion at the interface of the clay and the anchor shaft located
above the top helix.
π
Qp = ( D12 )(9 cu + γ H 1 ) (36)
4
⎛ D + Dn ⎞
Qf = π ⎜ 1 ⎟ cu ( H n − H 1 ) (37)
⎝ 2 ⎠

Q s = π Ds H 1 ca (38)

21
Where ca is the adhesion and varies from about 0.3cu for stiff clays to about cu for soft clays and Ds
is the shaft diameter. Combining:
π ⎛ D + Dn ⎞
Qu = ( D12 )(9 cu + γ H 1 ) + π ⎜ 1 ⎟( H n - H 1 ) cu + π D s H 1 c a (39)
4 ⎝ 2 ⎠

Figure 11: Deep helical pile in clay

22
All ultimate uplift capacities should be divided by an appropriate factor of safety to set the
allowable(working) factor of safety, i.e.,
Q
Qallow = u (40)
FS

Empirical Method
Empirical methods are most often developed and used by anchor manufacturers who have
access to vast quantities of anchor behavior data. These methods are based on statistical correlations
of anchor uplift capacity with other, easily measured, parameters such as standard penetration test
(N) values, installation torque, or other indices. The methodology for development of these
correlations and the data on which they are based are usually considered proprietary by the
manufacturers. Results obtained from these methods are highly variable.

The most widely used correlation is with installation torque. In this method, the total anchor
capacity is computed from the installation torque as:
Qu = K t xT (41)
where: Kt is the empirical factor relating installation torque and uplift capacity and T is the average
installation torque. Currently, Kt values are reported between 3 feet-1 for large (8 inch) extension
shafts to around 10 feet-1 for all small (3 inch) shafts. 10 feet-1 is most widely used in the industry.

BEARING CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES

Although helical piles have been used as tower foundations for many years, the design
loading for these foundations is not bearing (compression) but uplift. It is only relatively recently
that helical piles have been used in primarily bearing conditions. In particular, these foundations are
being used in the retrofit or underpinning of distressed lightly loaded structures.
There are several advantages of helical piles for foundation underpinning(1). Of particular
importance is the general relationship between installation torque and helical pile capacity. It is
possible to develop site-specific Kt values from preliminary field load testing and use the results as
quality control values for the production piles. Other advantages include the ease of extending pile
length by adding on extension shafts, the lack of influence of water table or caving soils, ability to
install in low-overhead, low noise or other restricted areas. Helical anchor shafts are relatively small
in diameter and by that develop low lateral stresses and low drag along their lengths. This makes
them particularly applicable in expansive soil conditions.

Bearing Capacity Design of Helical Piles

The bearing capacity of helical piles in compression is based upon the general bearing
capacity equation:
q ult = cN c' + q(N q' - 1) (42)
Where: c = soil cohesion
q = overburden pressure = γHi
γ = effective unit weight
Hi = depth to helix

23
 N’c= and N’q= are bearing capacity factors for circular plates at varying H/D values.
Although there are some minor differences in these values depending upon the particular theory
adopted, in general N’c= and N’q= are taken from Figure 11(1).
The bearing capacity of a multi-helix system is the sum of the individual capacities of the
individual helices if they are spaced appropriately far apart, i.e., three times the plate diameter or
greater.
Q =
n

ult ∑
i
[
Ai c N ' + q ( N ' - 1)
i ci i qi
] (43)

Ai = individual plate area

ci = cohesion of soil at and beneath helix I
qi = γiHi = overburden pressure at helix i
N’ci = Bearing capacity factor on cohesion for helix i (Figure 12)
N’qi = Bearing capacity factor on overburden for helix i (Figure 12)

1000
Nc* and Nq*

100
H/D
7 4
Nc 1
7 4 1
10

Nq

1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Soil Friction Angle (deg)
Figure 12: Nc* and Nq* as a function of soil friction angle Φ

24
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

Uplift Capacity

Shallow Anchor in Sand

Given the situation shown in Figure EX-1. Using equation 24:

π ⎛ π ⎞⎛ D + D n ⎞
Q u = F q γ D12 H 1 + ⎜ ⎟⎜ 1 ⎟( γ )( H n2 - H 12 ) k u max tan φ
4 ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ 2 ⎠
36
R = H1 = = 3.6
D 1 10
Interpolating from Table 3, Fq = 30.06.
ku = 1.3 (Figure 5).

π ⎛ π ⎞⎛ 10 + 7.5 ⎞
2
⎛ 10 ⎞
Q u = 30.06x105 ⎜ ⎟ 3 + ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟(105)( 8 2 - 3 2 )1.3x tan 35
4 ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ 2x12 ⎠

Qu = 5164+6021 = 11,185 lbs

FS = 2.5
Qallow = 11,185 = 4474 lbs = 4.5kips
If the water surface were at the ground surface, then:
γ = γ ′ = γ sat - γ water = 117.8 - 62.4 = 55.4 pcf
 π ⎛ π ⎞⎛ 10 +7.5 ⎞
2
⎛ 10 ⎞
Qu = 30.06x55.4 ⎜ ⎟ 3 + ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟(55.4)( 8 2 - 32 )1.3x tan 35
4 ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ 2x12 ⎠

Qu = 5902 lbs
FS = 2.5
Qallow = 5902/2.5 = 2361 lbs = 2.4 kips

Deep Anchor in Sand

Given the situation shown in Figure EX-2. Using equation 28:

72
R = H 1 = = 7.2
D1 10

⎡ H 1⎤
k u max = 1.5 (Figure 5) = 0.6 + m ⎢ ⎥
⎣ D 1 ⎦ cr

For Φ = 35°, m = 0.18 (Table 2)

⎡ ⎤
1.5 = 0.6 + ⎢ H 1 ⎥
⎣ D1 ⎦ cr
⎡ H1⎤ 0.9
⎢ ⎥ = 0.18 = 5 < R
⎣ D1 ⎦ cr

Fq* = 50 (Figure 8)
π ⎛ π ⎞⎛ D 1 + D n ⎞
F q γ D 1 H 1 + ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟( γ )( H n2 - H 12 ) k u max tan φ (equation 28 )
2
Qu =
4 ⎝ ⎠⎝
2 2 ⎠

π ⎛ π ⎞⎛ 10 +7.5 ⎞
2
⎛ 10 ⎞
Qu = 50x105 ⎜ ⎟ 6 + ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟(105)( 112 - 6 2 )1.5x tan 35
4 ⎝ ⎠
12 ⎝ ⎠⎝
2 2x12 ⎠
Qu = 17181+10737 = 27918 lbs
FS = 2.5
Qallow = 27918/2.5 = 11,167 lbs = 11.1 kips
If the water surface were at the ground surface, then:
π ⎛ π ⎞⎛ 10 +7.5 ⎞
2
⎛ 10 ⎞
Qu = 50x55.4 ⎜ ⎟ 6 + ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟(55.4)( 112 - 6 2 )1.5x tan 35
4 ⎝ ⎠
12 ⎝ ⎠⎝
2 2x12 ⎠

Qu = 14730 lbs
FS = 2.5
Qallow = 14730/2.5 = 5892 lbs = 5.9 kips

Shallow anchor in Clay

Figure EX-3 Shallow anchor in clay

Given the situation shown in Figure EX-3. Using equation 30

Q p = A1 c F c + W s = A1 ( cu F c + γ )
⎡ H1⎤
Rcr = ⎢ ⎥ = 0.107 cu + 2.5 ≤ 7
⎣ D1 ⎦ cr
⎡ ⎤
R ≤ Rcr = ⎢ H 1 ⎥ = 0.107(49)+ 2.5 = 7.7
⎣ D1 ⎦cr

Fc = 9
D1 = 12 in = 30.5 cm
π ⎡ 30.5 ⎤
2

Qp = (49x9 + 19.5) = 33.6 kN

4 ⎢⎣ 100 ⎥⎦
⎛ D + Dn ⎞
Qf = π ⎜ 1 ⎟ cu ( H n H 1 )
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ (12 + 10)2.54 ⎞
Qf = π ⎜ ⎟ 49.5 [(8x0.305) (3x0.305)] = 66.3 kN
⎝ 2x100 ⎠
Qu = 33.6 + 66.3 = 99.9 kN
Deep anchor in Clay

Figure EX 4 Deep anchor in clay

π ⎛ + ⎞
Qu = ( D12 )(9 c u + γ H 1 ) + π ⎜ D1 D n ⎟( H n - H 1 ) c u + π D s H 1 c a (Equation 39)
4 ⎝ 2 ⎠

Assume ca = 0.9c = 0.9(48.0) = 43.2 kN/m2.

π
Qu = [(1x.305 )2 )[9x48.0 + 19.5x(6x.305)]
4
⎛ (12 + 10).305 ⎞
+π ⎜ ⎟(11 - 6)(.305)48.0
⎝ 12x2x100 ⎠
⎡ 2x.305 ⎤
+π ⎢ ⎥6x.305x43.2
⎣ 12 ⎦
Qu = 34.17 + 0.64 + 12.63 = 47.4 kN

FS = 3.0
Qall = Qu/FS = 235.3/3 = 78 kN
Bearing Capacity of a Helical Pile in Compression Anchor in Sand (Figure EX-5)

Figure 5 EX 5 Bearing capacity of helical pile in sand

q ult = cN c′ + q( N q′ - 1) (equation 42 )
c=0
γ = 105 pcf
Φ = 35 deg
n
Qult = ∑ Ai [ ci N c′i + qi ( N q′i - 1)]
i
2 2
= π D1 = π (10/12 ) = 0.545 sf
A1
4 4
2 2
D 2 = π (10/12 ) = 0.545 sf
A2 = π
4 4
D
2
(12/12 )2
A3 = π =π
3
= 0.545 sf
4 4
2 2
= π D4 = π (10/12 ) = 0.307 sf
A4
4 4
 10 H 1 = 3.6
D1 = H1= 3 N q 1′ = 77
12 D1
10 H 2 = 5.6
D2 = H 2 = 4.67 N q 2′ = 90
12 D2
10 H 3 = 7.6( max = 7)
D3 = H 3 = 6.34 N q 3′ = 110
12 D3
7.5 H 4 = 12.8( max = 7)
D4 = H 4 = 8.0 N q 4′ = 110
12 D4

q1 = γ 1 H 1 = (105)(3) = 315 psf

q 2 = γ 2 H 2 = (105)(3 + 5/3) = 490 psf
q 3 = γ 3 H 3 = (105)(3 + 10/3) = 665 psf
q 4 = γ 4 H 4 = (105)(3 + 5) = 840 psf

n 4
Qult = ∑ Ai [ ci N c′i + qi N q′i ] = ∑ Ai qi N qi
i 1

= [(0.545)(315)(77)+ (0.545)(490)(90)+ (0.545)(665)(110)+ (0.307)(840)](110)

= 13,219 + 24,035 + 39,867 + 28,367 = 105,487 lbs = 105 kips
Qult 105
Q allow = = = 35.2 kips
FS 3

Anchor in Clay (Figure EX-6)

Figure 6 EX-6 Shallow anchor in clay

 q ult = cN *c + q( N *q - 1) (equation 42 )
c = 1000 psf
γ = 124 pcf
Φ = 0 deg
Nq= = 1 (Figure 11)
n
Qult = ∑ Ai [ ci N *ci + qi ( N *qi - 1)]
i

12 H 1 = 3.0
D1 = H1= 3 N c 1′ = 10
12 D1
12 H 2 = 4.67
D2 = H 2 = 4.67 N c 2′ = 14
12 D2
12 H 3 = 6.34
D3 = H 3 = 6.34 N c 3′ = 15
12 D3
10 H 4 = 9.6( max = 7)
D4 = H 4 = 8.0 N c 4′ = 16
12 D4

2 2
= π D1 = π (12/12 ) = 0.785 sf
A1
4 4
2 2
D 2 = π (12/12 ) = 0.785 sf
A2 = π
4 4
D
2
(12/12 )2
A3 = π =π
3
= 0.785 sf
4 4
2 2
= π D4 = π (10/12 ) = 0.545 sf
A4
4 4

Qult = 0.785(1000)(10)
+ 0.785(1000)(14) + 0.785(1000)(15)
+ 0.545(1000)(16)
= 7850 + 10,990 + 11,775 + 8720 = 39,335 lbs
= 39.3 kips
Qult 39.3
Q allow = = = 13.1 kips
FS 3
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Wilson, Guthlac, “The Bearing Capacity of Screw Piles and Screwcrete Cylinders,” J. Inst of
Civil Engineers, London, Vol 34, pp 4-93, 1950.

2. Stephenson, R.W., “Design and Applications of Helical Earth Anchors,” (1988), unpublished
notes of a seminar for geotechnical engineering graduate students, University of Missouri-
Rolla, Oct. 20, 1988.

3. Clemence, S.P., Thorsten, R.E., and Edwards, B., “Helical Anchors: Overview of
Application and Design” (1990), Foundation Drilling, Dec./Jan. 1990, P.P. 8-12.

4. Das, Braja M. Earth Anchors, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, Series No. 50,
Elsevier, NY 1990.

5. Udwari, J.J., Rodgers, T.E., and Singh, H., "A Rational Approach to the Design of High
Capacity ;Multi-helix Screw Anchors," Proceedings, Seventh IEEE/PES Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exposition, April 1-6, 1979, pp. 606-609.

6. Lutenegger, A.J., Smith, B.L., and Kabir, M.G., "Use of In Situ Tests to Predict Uplift
Performance of Multihelix Anchors," Special Topics in Foundations, ASCE, pp. 93-108.

7. A.B. Chance Co. Encyclopedia of Anchoring, The A.B. chance Co., 1977.

8. Hoyt, R.M., and S.P. Clemence (1989), "Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Sand,"
Proceedings of the XII International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rio De Janeiro, Aug, 1989, pp 1019-1022.

9. Kulhawy, F.H., "Uplift Behavior of Shallow Soil Anchors - An Overview", Uplift Behavior
of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, New York, pp. 1-25, 1985.

10. Clemence, Samuel P., "The Uplift and Bearing Capacity of Helix Anchors in Soil," Contract

Report TT112-1, 3 Volumes, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Syracuse, New York
(1984).

11. Mitsch, M.P., and Clemence, S.P., “The Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Sand,” Uplift
Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, New York, pp. 26-47 (1985).

12. Mooney, J.S., Adamczak, S., and Clemence, S.P., "Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in
Clay and Silt," Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, pp. 48-72 (1985).
13. Carville, Chester, A., P.E., and Walton, Robert W. , “Foundation Repair Using Helical
Screw Anchors,” Foundation Upgrading and Repair for Infrastructure Improvement,@
Geotechnical Special Publication, N. 50, American Society of Civil Engineering, New York,
1995.

14. Meyerhof, G.G., “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile foundations,” Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No.
GT3, pp. 197-228, 1976.