Design and Performance of Screw Piles

Final Project Report

Timothy Doust1

University of New South Wales Canberra

Groundwater in areas of the Gateway WA Perth Airport and Freight Access Project
exerts significant uplift pressure on the base of concrete bath structures. Screw piles
have been selected as the preferred option to resist these buoyant forces. This project
used analytical methods, numerical methods and correlation with load testing results to
analyse and compare the performance of screw piles. Detailed design of screw piles was
also undertaken for pullout resistance.

Contents
I. Introduction 2
A. Background 2
B. Geotechnical Profile 2
C. Aims 3
II. Literature Review 3
A. General 3
B. Geotechnical Failure 3
C. Piling Codes and Design Requirements 5
III. Analytical Modelling 5
A. Methodology 5
B. Results and Analysis 6
IV. Numerical Modelling 8
A. Methodology 8
B. Results and Analysis 8
V. Commercial Software Evaluation 8
VI. Load Testing 9
A. Methodology 9
B. Results and Analysis 9
VII. Screw Pile Design 10
A. Methodology 10
B. Design Summary 11
VIII. Conclusions 11
IX. Recommendations 11

Acknowledgements 12
References 12

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Selected Results Data A1
Appendix B. Additional Figures B1
Appendix C. Screw Pile Design C1

1
Lieutenant, School of Engineering & Information Technology, UNSW Canberra, ZEIT4501

1
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 Nomenclature
See Perko [1] for a more comprehensive nomenclature and glossary section. The terms screw pile, helical pile
and helical anchor are used interchangeably in literature and in this document.

A = area of helical plate

B = helical plate diameter
Ed = design action
H = plate embedment depth
Hc = critical depth
H/B = embedment ratio or relative embedment
Kt = capacity-to-torque ratio
Nqu = uplift capacity factor
Nqf = dimensionless breakout factor (alternative to Nqu)
qc = cone penetrometer tip resistance
Qu = uplift capacity
Rd,g = design geotechnical strength
Rd,ug = design ultimate geotechnical strength
T = installation torque
W = weight of soil within failure zone
δ = pile-soil friction angle
γ = soil unit weight
φ = soil friction angle
φg = geotechnical reduction factor
φs = structural reduction factor
Θ = failure plane inclination from the vertical

I. Introduction

A. Background
Gateway WA Perth Airport and Freight Access Project is the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken
by Main Roads WA, [2] providing improved access to an expanded Perth Airport and local freight facilities to
hundreds of thousands of Western Australians whilst reducing pressure on the local roads and highways. In the
area of the Leach Highway-Tonkin Highway interchange, height restrictions mean that the alignment extends
below groundwater level at certain locations. To prevent seepage onto the pavement and allow drainage to
occur, as well as stabilize the excavation, the pavement was enclosed in waterproof concrete bath structures,
shown in Fig. 1 [3]. The presence of groundwater induced significant buoyant forces, resulting in uplift on the
base of the bath structures. Excessive uplift could cause failure which, while non-catastrophic, could result in
major pavement damage and significant maintenance costs. Screw piles were chosen as a cost-effective solution
to control buoyancy over alternatives of additional base thickness, concrete ‘wings’ or continuous flight auger
(CFA) piles.

Figure 1. Typical Bath Structure Section [3]

A helical pile, commonly referred to as a screw pile, is a small displacement pile defined as a manufactured
steel foundation consisting of one or more helix-shaped bearing plates affixed to a central shaft that is rotated
into the ground to support structures [1]. Screw piles were first utilized in 1836 but increased in popularity in the
1980s along with technological advancements. Screw piles may be loaded in both tension and compression and
possess a number of benefits including economy, sustainability, and ease of installation. In fact, screw piles
have been recommended as “the best foundation elements to provide such resistance” [4].

B. Geotechnical Profile
A detailed site investigation was undertaken by Gateway WA staff. Geotechnical data was derived from
literature, cone penetrometer testing (CPT), laboratory testing of samples and borehole drilling including soil

2
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
core recovery and standard penetration tests (SPT) [5]. A groundwater profile was constructed following a
hydro-geological study which included borehole drilling and monitoring, CPTs and a review of historical
records [6]. A design groundwater level for the Ultimate Limit State was derived from the profile, from which
design uplift pressure could be calculated.

The soil profile consisted of a surface layer of loose to medium dense Bassendean sand, and below it mainly
medium dense to dense sand from the Guildford formation including clay and silt at different levels. The
assumed soil profile and parameters for the screw piles is contained in Table 1, based on the level of the helices
at a standard 6 m embedment below the design elevations of the bath structures. At this level, soil consists of
predominately medium dense to very dense Guildford sand (SP). Although the soil was layered and not
homogenous above the helix level, the soils had almost identical properties, which are reflected in Table 1 as a
single soil unit. Given that the soil surrounding the helices was up to 11 m below the ground surface, these soil
parameters were likely to be conservative. This conservatism was considered during the analysis in this report.

Soil Profile Soil Parameter Value Soil Parameter Value

Geologic unit Guildford Sand Bulk unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 18 Friction angle, φ’ (°) 35
Soil classification SP-SM Saturated unit weight, γsat 19 Cohesion, c’ (kPa) 0

Elevation (m AHD) Effective unit weight, γ’ 9 Young’s modulus, E (kPa) 80000

1.5 – 11.5
Approximate Relative density, Dr (%) 50 Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.3
Table 1. Assumed Geotechnical Profile

C. Aims
The overall aim of this project was to generate a design for screw piles to rest buoyant uplift forces on the
bath structures in the Gateway WA project. To complete design, it was required to determine the effectiveness
of various analytical and numerical for analysing screw pile capacity. An additional outcome of this project was
an indication of the feasibility of using screw piles for future roadworks in Western Australia. This project
aimed to achieve the following:
1. Review of screw pile design and capacity theory (including standards and codes)
2. Detailed screw pile design
3. Comparison of analytical capacity theories using different screw pile geometries
4. Comparison of analytical theories using numerical modelling
5. Full-scale load testing to confirm analysis*
6. Recommendations for the utilisation of screw piles within WA

*If time and resources permitted. Alternatively, comparison would be performed against existing load test results.

II. Literature Review

A. General
This review focuses on the capacity of a single screw pile subjected to an uplift load, or tension. A more
complete literary review is contained with the final project deliverables. Effects on capacity due to soil
disturbance, helix pitch and group effects have been considered in the complete review, but are not of great
significance in the context of this project. Although there are a wide variety of commercially available screw
piles, this review was limited to consider screw piles with a single helix only. This review was also limited to
consider sandy soils only, given the geotechnical profile at the site.

Screw piles do not appear widely in literature (there is only one book with screw piles as the topic [1]), but
there are a considerable number of academic papers concerning screw pile capacity, as well as some design
guides produced by industry [7, 8]. Although screw piles have been utilised for some time in Australian
construction, there is very little detailed information on their use either commercially or academically, and none
at all for Western Australian conditions specifically.

B. Geotechnical Failure
Failure Mode
Geotechnical failure mode is often the governing aspect for screw pile capacity and has been the subject of
much academic research. Failure mode for a screw pile embedded in a sandy soil depends mainly on soil
friction angle φ and the ratio of embedment depth to helix diameter H/B (relative embedment or embedment
ratio) [9]. Shallow failure involves the pulling out of the screw pile along with a cone of soil above the helix.

3
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
The shape of the angle of the failure plane (Θ) is one topic of contention in research, and estimates range
between φ/4 [10] to 2φ/3 [11]. Other studies have observed and developed equations to model a curved failure
surface [12].

Deep behaviour is the second failure mode. In sandy soil, this normally involves localised failure resembling
an ‘upwards bearing failure’ [13]. In this case the pile has significant movement, but there is no displacement of
soil at the ground surface. This localised failure occurs where the soil fails but does not have sufficient strength
to be pulled out as a unit, and in many cases limits screw pile capacity [14]. Deep and shallow behaviour are
delineated by a critical embedment ratio, with figures ranging between 5 and 14. Some studies, however,
observed no distinct change between deep and shallow behaviour, rather a transitional failure mode displaying
the characteristics of both.

Failure of screw piles in a shallow mode in the context of this project was deemed to be acceptable, as such
behaviour would not prove catastrophic. It was noted, however, that in industry screw piles are usually
embedded to ensure deep behaviour occurs, as shallow behaviour leads to catastrophic failure in many
applications [1].

Analytical Capacity Theories

Ilamparuthi, Dickin & Muthukrisnaiah (2002) investigated the uplift of circular plate anchors in sand using
large-scale models. In the study, a set of empirical equations based on Ilamparuthi (1991) [15] was deduced to
calculate a dimensionless breakout factor, based on relative embedment and soil density. This factor could be
used to subsequently calculate anchor capacity. The authors also proposed critical embedment ratios for
differing sand densities. Although plate anchors do not have a helical pitch and do not disturb the soil during
installation, they are still relevant for soil failure around a circular surface, similar to screw piles [11].

Hanna, Ayadat & Sabry (2001) investigated helical and plate anchors in sand, however only those embedded
to a shallow depth. The authors assumed the same logarithmic spiral failure surface as found in Ghaly & Hanna
(1994) [12]. Analytical models were constructed for each anchor type using an empirical method based on
laboratory testing. Uplift capacity consisted of shearing resistance on the failure surface and the weight of soil
within the failure surface. Pullout capacity factors, depending on friction angle and embedment ratio, were taken
from design charts in the paper and used to calculate ultimate uplift capacity [4].

Ghaly, Hanna & Hanna (1991) investigated the uplift behaviour of model screw anchors in sand. During
laboratory testing, failure surfaces were observed. For a shallow embedment ratio, a cone of soil was pulled out
of the ground. For a deep embedment ratio, a localised failure taking the form of a circular bulb occurred, and at
transitional depths a combination of deep and shallow behaviour was observed. As well as the experimental
testing, theoretical equations were derived for single anchor capacity. These assumed a simplified, truncated
cone failure surface at all levels, despite different observations during the testing. Uplift capacity for shallow
anchors consisted of the sum of shear forces acting on the failure surface and the weight of soil within the
failure cone. For deeply embedded anchors, the cone terminated below the ground level, so had the added
overburden pressure contributing to capacity [9].

Ghaly & Hanna (1994) presented a detailed analysis of uplift capacity for screw piles. These were
considered at deep, shallow and transitional depths, using observed failure surfaces as opposed to the assumed
surfaces in the theory of Ghaly, Hanna & Hanna (1991) [9]. Uplift capacity in a shallow mode of failure
comprised the weight of soil within the failure surface as well as the vertical component of the shearing
resistance along the edge of the failure surface. For a deeply embedded helix, capacity comprised the weight
within the failure ‘bulb’, the vertical component of shearing resistance along the failure surface and the
overburden pressure above the failure surface. Relatively complicated calculations were simplified by
introducing weight and shear factors in the form of design charts with friction angle and embedment ratio as
input parameters. Uplift capacity was calculated directly, with uplift capacity factors able to be back-calculated.
The capacity of screw piles installed in the transitional zone consisted of both shallow and deep components,
and was calculated directly using the weight and shear factors. This set of theories made calculations simple and
considered all failure modes [12].

Clemence, Crouch & Stephenson (1994) investigated a range of analytical and empirical methods developed
academically and by industry. Instead of proposing their own theory, the previous theories were tested
experimentally. This paper was considered to be of limited use in the context of this project and was not
considered in depth [16].

4
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 Kulhawy (1985) investigated multiple anchor types, namely circular spread anchors, helical anchors and
grouted anchors. Screw piles (helical anchors) with a single helix were considered to be nearly identical to
spread anchors that had been installed with a ‘neat’ excavation due to the disturbance of soil during installation.
The capacity of a screw pile comprised soil weight within the failure surface, side resistance of the pulled out
soil and tip resistance, which was considered negligible for undrained situations. Capacity was limited, however,
by screw pile bearing capacity, or the deep mode of failure. In this paper, capacity predictions for deeply
embedded screw piles closely resemble the equations in Mitsch & Clemence (1985) [13]. However,
modification factors resembling Meyerhof bearing capacity factors to account for shape, depth and rigidity were
included in the calculation of the uplift capacity factor. The analytical models in this paper were purely
theoretical, with no laboratory or field testing used to develop or confirm the capacity predictions.

Mitsch & Clemence (1985) tested screw piles with multiple helices in laboratory and field conditions,
reporting on uplift capacity as well as the effects of installation. Ultimate uplift capacity for a pile at a shallow
embedment consisted of shear resistance along the failure surface plus the weight of soil within it. For a deeply
embedded screw pile, failure and thus capacity was similar to end bearing for a deep foundation. This took the
form of a localised failure and was calculated using equations resembling Terzaghi and Meyerhof bearing
capacity equations [17, 18], initially calculating an uplift capacity factor and then calculating ultimate uplift
capacity. For deep behaviour, the uplift capacity factors could be modified using the factors contained in
Kulhawy (1985) [14]. Unlike Ghaly & Hanna (1994) [12], the failure surface was assumed to take the shape of a
truncated cone terminating below the surface of the ground. Although this theory was concerned with piles with
multiple helices, it could be easily applied to single-helix screw piles by considering the top helix only [13].

C. Piling Codes and Design Requirements

In Australia there is no specific code or standard for screw piles, so the main standard for reference is AS
2159 (2009) Piling – Design and Installation [19]. This standard focuses on more common methods of piling
such as driven and bored concrete piles. AS 2159 is not an overly prescriptive standard; unlike structural
standards for steel and concrete, there are no specific design equations. Instead, there are methods to reduce
nominal geotechnical capacity, which is compared against the design action. Because of these limitations,
literature and engineering judgement must be used to determine screw pile geotechnical capacity and complete a
design.

As far as other codes are concerned, the Building Code of Australia makes no mention of screw piles [20].
The International Building Code has some references to screw piles, but these are non-binding and are generally
of little relevance to this project [21]. AC358 is a document detailing helical pile acceptance criteria, and is used
by industry members in the United States. Its prescriptions for screw pile capacity only go so far as to say that
capacity must be verified by load testing [22]. AC358 is of limited usefulness in this project as it has a narrow
scope and is non-binding. In fact, only four companies worldwide have been verified using AC358 [23].

III. Analytical Modelling

A. Methodology
Using equations obtained from literature, analytical modelling was conducted to predict capacity of
commercially available screw piles in Western Australia. A limited number of screw pile geometries were
obtained by engaging screw piling contractors and online research. Instead of considering a requirement for
critical embedment ratio, all screw pile geometries were taken as having a standard 6 m embedment. In addition
to the designated modes of failure, some screw piles were analysed to compare the predictions for a different
failure type and investigate if different types of behaviour limited capacity. For each different theory, the
capacity of a screw pile would be designated as the lower capacity of either behaviour type.

Assumptions
Assumptions including critical embedment ratios were taken from each paper when conducting analysis; this
meant that a pile considered as shallowly embedded by one theory might be considered deeply embedded by
another. A number of additional assumptions were made in order to simplify the modelling. These were:
 The screw piles were installed within the homogeneous soil profile listed in Table 1
 The screw piles were sufficiently spaced, so group effects could be neglected
 The piles possessed sufficient structural strength such that geotechnical failure governed capacity
 The screw pile shafts were smooth, so shaft friction could be neglected
 Groundwater level was at the ground surface (H = 0)

5
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
B. Results and Analysis
A summary of the results of the initial analytical modelling is shown in Table 2. For brevity, each theory
was assigned a code based on the authors and the year of publication. Figures 2 and 3 give a visual
representation of these results, in deep and shallow modes of failure. In addition to the predictions for screw
piles undergoing shallow behaviour in Fig. 3, results are shown for analysis in deep and transitional behaviour
from the method of Ghaly & Hanna (1994).

Example Piles Capacity Estimates by Theory

B (m) Mode GH94 HAS07 MC85 MC85M IDM02 GHH91 K85
0.275 Deep 224.8 - 106.8 252.1 245.1 438.8 252.1
0.35 Deep 351.1 - 173.0 407.4 359.1 682.5 407.4
0.35 Shallow 777.6 - - - - - -
0.35 Transition 808.2 - - - - - -
0.4 Deep 461.7 - 225.9 531.3 446.8 866.7 531.3
0.6 Deep 766.7 - 508.4 1188 878.3 1151 1188
0.6 Shallow 1477 1435 1270 - - 2655 912.4
0.6 Transition 550.5 - - - - - -
0.85 Shallow 1536 1839 1453 - - 2394 1217
0.85 Deep 1144 - 1020 2366 1235 1771 2366
0.85 Transition 513.6 - - - - - -
Table 2. Capacity Estimates from Analytical Modelling

Deep Behaviour
For the piles failing in deep behaviour, Fig. 2 shows some significant outliers both above and below the
average prediction. When the outliers are removed, there was excellent agreement between the analytical results,
with a maximum deviation of 18.9% for the 400 mm helix. The theory of Ghaly & Hanna (1991) significantly
overpredicts capacity, due to its assumed failure surface. The theory of Mitsch & Clemence (1985) had a lower
than average prediction when it was unmodified by the depth, shape and rigidity factors used in Kulhawy
(1985), however agrees far better with the other theories when these factors are applied (as do the results
predicted by Kulhawy). Based on the comparison with the predictions made by the other theories, it would
appear that there is significant basis for using these modification factors in the Mitsch & Clemence theory.

Figure 2. Comparison of Analytical Results for Deep Behaviour

The agreement of the majority of the results for the deep behaviour predictions appears attributable to the
similarity of the various theories. All theories were based on ‘reverse bearing capacity’, differing only in their
calculation of uplift capacity factor Nqu. The exceptions were for the theories of Ghaly & Hanna (1994) and
Ghaly, Hanna & Hanna (1991), which were based on a sort of localised shallow failure. In the case of Kulhawy

6
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
(1985) and Mitsch & Clemence (1985), the equations for Nqu were exactly the same except for the modification
factors.
Shallow Behaviour
For the piles failing in shallow behaviour, capacity was significantly higher than those in deep behaviour,
due in part to the larger helices. Fig. 3 shows that the theory of Ghaly, Hanna & Hanna (1991) produced
significant outliers, similar to the predictions for deep behaviour. This overestimation was also attributed to the
assumed failure surface. When these outliers were removed, there was a greater spread than for the deeply
embedded screw piles, however overall there was still good agreement. The largest spread, 62% for the 600 mm
helix, appears large. Some geotechnical theories, however, may vary by up to 300% due to the uncertainties of
soil, so in reality this spread displays good correlation for a geotechnical application. This larger spread,
compared to the spread of the predictions for deep behaviour, was attributed to more dissimilar approaches in
calculating uplift capacity.

Figure 3. Comparison of Analytical Results for Shallow Behaviour

Transitional and Other Behaviour

In the previous sections, capacity estimates for screw piles were based on the assumption from each theory
of a critical embedment ratio, above which a screw pile would undergo shallow behaviour by pulling a cone of
soil out of the ground. As detailed previously, estimates for critical embedment ratio differ between theories.
Based on Kulhawy (1985), the capacity of shallowly embedded screw piles could be limited by other failure
modes. Because of this possibility, selected pile geometries were evaluated using equations for shallow, deep
and transitional behaviour in order to compare the effects and determine if limiting capacity existed. For the
theory of Ghaly & Hanna (1994), predictions for the deep mode of failure were significantly lower than for
shallow behaviour, indicating that the reverse bearing capacity was a limiting failure mode. Interestingly, the
deep capacity predictions agreed well with the predictions of the other theories, in many cases better than those
from the shallow predictions. For screw piles analysed for transitional behaviour according to the theory of
Ghaly & Hanna (1994), predictions were significantly lower than the predictions made using the equations for
both deep and shallow behaviour. When a decrease in predicted capacity from the 600 mm helix to the 850 mm
helix was observed, it was considered that these results were either overconservative or unreliable. In addition,
none of the other theories in literature considered screw piles undergoing transitional behaviour. As a result of
these drawbacks, it was determined reasonable to only consider the predictions for shallow and deep modes of
behaviour. The results from the alternative analysis are displayed in Fig. 3 with the results for shallow
behaviour.

Evaluation of Methods
Outside of the actual analytical results, the different theories were evaluated to determine possible
limitations or flaws which could lead to discrepancies. The theory of Ilamparuthi, Dickin & Muthukrisnaiah
(2002) was designed for flat anchor plates and only considered embedment ratios of up to 12, leading to
possible inaccuracies if extrapolated. The method of Ghaly, Hanna & Hanna (1991) assumed a larger failure
surface than other theories in shallow behaviour, and for deep and transitional failure assumed a localised
shallow failure as opposed to a bearing type failure. This theory was also derived using small models, possibly

7
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
leading to scale error. The theory of Mitsch & Clemence (1985) may have underestimated results when
calculated uplift capacity factors were not modified by the factors in Kulhawy (1985). The method of Ghaly &
Hanna (1994) relied on a theoretical approach to soil mechanics instead of semi-empirical compilation. It is
possible that this does not account for some soil factors which could lead to inaccuracies. Finally, the method of
Hanna, Ayadat & Sabry (2007) was limited to shallowly embedded screw piles only.

Overall Analysis of Results

Without comparison with numerical modelling (which in itself could present its own inaccuracies) or load
test results, a complete evaluation of the analytical modelling could not be made. However, from the initial
analysis, it was possible to make a number of conclusions. Firstly, it could be seen that the method of Ghaly,
Hanna & Hanna (1991) significantly overestimated capacity in all modes of failure when compared to other
theories. Based on the relative similarity of the other results, this theory could be discarded. For the deep case,
the method of Mitsch & Clemence (1985) underestimated capacity compared to the other theories. When the
calculated uplift capacity factors were modified using the method in Kulhawy, it agreed much better. This made
a good case for the use of the modification factors, which although not referenced elsewhere in literature, did
have a basis in modification factors used by Meyerhof (1963) [24].

IV. Numerical Modelling

A. Methodology
Following the conduct of analytical modelling, numerical modelling using FLAC 2D software (Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) was used to model screw pile behaviour and further evaluate the reliability of
the various analytical models [25]. It was planned to use FLAC 3D to directly model the problem of the bath
structures, however this was deemed to be beyond the scope of this project given time constraints. It would be
considered useful to conduct modelling of this sort to evaluate the overall behaviour of a section of bath
structures, including a number of screw piles and differing groundwater levels. In the meantime, modelling of a
single screw pile would be sufficient for comparison against the different analytical predictions. The modelling
in two dimensions presented a number of challenges, principally the lack of a standard screw pile model. FLAC
possessed some structural elements, including cables and piles, but these were deemed to be dissimilar and
could not be modelled axisymmetrically. Instead of using structural elements, screw piles were modelled as flat
plate anchors in an axisymmetric problem. The continuum was modified to include the anchor’s shape, which
was assigned elastic material properties similar to steel. The remainder of the continuum was assigned a Mohr-
Coulomb model with properties as listed in Table 1.

In order to better model the problem, the top layer of soil was assigned non-zero cohesion and loaded with a
small surcharge. Water table was included at ground level by reducing the unit weight of soil to effective only.
History outputs were included to measure vertical stress at certain points within the soil and in the zone of the
pile itself. Initially, a coarse model was generated in order to observe the general behaviour as predicted by the
modelling. When this was complete, a more detailed model to directly evaluate the different analytical solutions
was generated.

B. Results and Analysis

At the time of writing the numerical modelling remains ongoing, with final results expected to appear in the
final deliverables. The coarse model did not provide any conclusive results, but did give an indication of the soil
behaviour. It is expected that a detailed model will be sufficient to properly model soil behaviour and give an
indication of the load at failure for the different screw pile geometries.

V. Commercial Software Evaluation

Commercial screw pile software was also used to evaluate screw pile capacity. This provided some insight
into industry practice for determining screw pile capacity, and could be compared to the analytical and
numerical modelling to compare its usefulness in capacity predictions. A number of programs existed, with
differing usefulness in the context of this project. One program, Magnum FlyT2.0 [26], was geared toward pile
arrangement and number, and as such had no usefulness to this project. Programs such as MacLean DRS [27]
and HelixPro [28] consisted of a simple, input-based interface which could be used to actually evaluate pile
capacity. Inputs such as soil parameters (including layering), groundwater level and screw pile geometry could
all be easily varied. The programs were specific to their company’s products, which did not necessarily match
up to the example pile geometries contained in the analytical modelling. Despite this apparent disadvantage, a
comparison could still be made by varying the geometry in the analytical modelling to match that of the

8
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
commercial software. The other drawback was that the basis of the results produced by the software was
unknown.

The results of the software analysis were surprising. In both cases, the quoted ultimate pile capacity was far
below that predicted by the analytical modelling. When realistic soil parameters were used and groundwater was
removed, capacity in tension was still underpredicted, compared to the analytical predictions using relatively
conservative parameters. Although there was some potential for confusion given the different terminology
between Australian and American engineering practice, it appeared that the ‘ultimate capacity’ quoted by each
program was unfactored. The large disparity between the analytical results and those predicted by the software
could be because of the basis of analysis used in the software, or potentially the use of a conservative approach
for either safety or business reasons. In any case, the large conservatism of the software compared to a soil
mechanics approach correlated with field and laboratory load testing led to a conclusion that this software was
not overly useful for predictions of screw pile capacity. This caution is affirmed by Pack [7], who asserts that
results of such programs can be ultraconservative, misleading and unreliable.

VI. Load Test Comparison

A. Methodology
In the original concept for this project, analytical methods were to be confirmed against full-scale load
testing of design piles in the project area. It quickly became apparent that this load testing could not take place
because of delays to the project. An alternative to this was the use of existing load test results from Perth piling
contractors. Although these would not have been from the Gateway WA project area, they would still provide
an indication of capacity in WA soils. Unfortunately, obtaining load test results from a contractor was not
possible without the contractor being engaged. The final method of comparison that eventuated was to use load
test data available in literature. A variety of sources were drawn from, including the papers containing the
analytical theories [4, 9, 16, 29-35], and Perko (2009) [1] which contained an extensive list of load test results.
Restricting the project to the use of single helix screw piles had its drawbacks, as a large number of the piles
tested had multiple helices. Load test results were further limited in their availability by considering sand only.

Similar to the initial analytical modelling, soil parameters and screw pile geometries were inputted into the
different analytical equations and capacity predictions made. These predictions were each compared with the
actual test load. Where soil parameters were not quoted, they were assumed using SPT correlation (where given)
or based on characteristic values of soils in other load tests. Due to its inaccuracies during the initial analytical
modelling, the theory of Ghaly, Hanna & Hanna (1991) was only applied to select load tests.

B. Results and Analysis

A summary of selected results of the load test comparison is given in Appendix A, and a visual representation is
shown in Fig. 4, with large outliers removed for clarity.The load testing results were drawn from a wide

Figure 4. Comparison Selected Analytical and Load Test Results (Outliers removed)

9
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
variety of sources, as previously stated. This presented difficulty in classification of the results, as the sources
ranged from small-scale models to full-scale load tests on large-diameter anchors. With such a variety of helix
geometries and soil types, a significant amount of inaccuracy was expected in comparison to single theories
often formulated off their own experimental correlations.

As expected, the theory of Ghaly, Hanna & Hanna (1991) overestimated the majority of load test results, in
most cases by over 300%. These results confirmed that the theory was unreliable. The theory of Ilamparuthi,
Dickin & Muthukrisnaiah (2002) also showed significant overestimation in many cases. Large overestimation
was generally encountered for deeply embedded anchors, caused by an inability to predict uplift capacity factors
for embedment ratios greater than 12 (as shown in the paper itself). For those piles with H/B less than 12, the
theory actually performed very well, with the exception of very shallow embedment ratios (H/B<3) which were
underestimated. The theory of Ghaly & Hanna (1994) appeared to agree well with the majority of the load test
data, with a combination of over-and underestimation encountered. Although the highest overestimation was
170%, many of the predictions were within 50% of the actual result which as discussed in the section on
analytical modelling is reasonable for such broad geotechnical data. For shallowly embedded screw piles, the
theory of Hanna, Ayadat & Sabry (2007) generally performed well. There were a few cases of overestimation
beyond reasonable values, however the majority of predictions were within 30% of the load test results. This
continued to be limited in that it did not consider deeply embedded screw piles. The theory of Kulhawy (1985)
generally did not perform well, somewhat surprising given its good correlation during the initial analytical
modelling. Significant underestimation was encountered with shallowly embedded screw piles, while for deep
behaviour the results were generally overestimated. The theory of Mitsch & Clemence encountered some
overestimation but in general performed quite well, against a variety of shallow and deeply embedded screw
piles. Importantly, it agreed well with the results for deeply embedded screw piles, indicating that the
modification factors used in Kulhawy (1985) were inappropriate for use.

VII. Screw Pile Design

A. Methodology and Assumptions

Design Basis
The governing document for design in the Gateway WA project is the Scope of Works and Technical
Criteria document (SWTC), which contains only one reference to screw piles [36]. The SWTC also states: “this
Scope of Works and Technical Criteria takes precedence over Australian standards, and Australian standards
take precedence over international standards.” This stipulation, and the fact that there was no existing standard
for screw pile design, led to the use of AS 2159 as the principal reference. As stated in the literature review, AS
2159 only mandates a reduction of ultimate capacity [19]. Because of this the analytical and numerical methods
were used to estimate screw pile capacity for use in design. Although other codes and standards regarding the
application of screw piles existed (such as the IBC), compliance was not mandatory and they were generally
assessed as not useful for design.

Assumptions
In order to complete the design, a number of simplifying assumptions were made. This included the
assumptions listed in the analytical modelling methodology. In addition, it was assumed that:
 Groundwater level for the purpose of uplift force was as per the hydrogeological report [99]
 Groundwater level for the purpose of screw pile capacity was at bath level (H = 0)
 2% of screw piles were load tested
 Design loads were vertical only
The majority of the assumptions were conservative. All were considered reasonable given the site conditions.
One of the stipulations of the SWTC was that screw piles could only be placed beneath the bath walls, resulting
in a maximum of two per cross section [36]. Although this simplified the design, it reduced the number of screw
piles that could be placed to increase strength.

Methodology
A number of different design processes exist in literature and in industry. AS 2159 defines design
requirements for strength, serviceability and durability, but does not have a specific design process [19]. This
design process included the evaluation of screw pile capacity using the analytical and numerical modelling as
well as load test comparison. The steps taken to complete the design were based loosely on AS 2159, with
recommendations from literature incorporated along with recommendations from the senior geotechnical
engineer on the Gateway WA project. The general steps are:
1. Determine buoyant uplift force

10
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 2. Choose an initial screw pile and evaluate individual capacity
3. Determine spacing to avoid group effects
4. Reduce geotechnical capacity to allowable/design capacity
5. For a section of bath, determine required number of screw piles to resist uplift
6. Calculate factor of safety against buoyancy
This process was repeated for multiple screw pile geometries, with a final design based on cost.

Buoyancy and Load Factoring

In many engineering applications, and geotechnical ones in particular, conservative soil parameters are used
to compensate from uncertainties. Since a thorough site investigation was undertaken prior to design,
conservative parameters were not deemed to be required [7]. AS 2159 accounts for uncertainties by reducing the
ultimate geotechnical capacity to a design strength using a geotechnical reduction factor φ g. Additionally, the
design action is calculated by load factoring according to AS 1170.0 [37]. Industry practice generally relies on a
blanket factor of safety, usually with a minimum of 2.0 for tension [22].

In this design, ultimate geotechnical capacity was reduced according to AS 2159. Factoring up the design
action, however, was deemed unnecessary due to the fact that any increase in groundwater level over the design
level would flow into the baths, causing no increase in buoyant uplift. On recommendations from literature [1]
and the senior engineer [6], factors of safety to account for buoyancy and uplift were included with the overall
reduction. The final design calculation required an additional factor of safety against buoyancy to be satisfied.
This factor would have similar effects to an increase in design action.

B. Results
A summary of design calculations is in Appendix C. A screw pile with helix diameter 600 mm was chosen
for the initial design, with capacity based around analytical modelling. Because of the spread, and the possible
limitation by a deep mode of failure, upper and lower (approximately half the upper) capacities were assigned
based on the theory of Ghaly & Hanna (1994), given that this theory had good consistency and analysis in deep
and shallow modes actually formed the lower and upper bounds (Fig. 3). The design screw piles were spaced at
4B to avoid group effects.

The design process was virtually identical up until the force comparison between destabilising and resisting
forces. For the lower bound pile, capacity was insufficient when compared against uplift, by a small margin.
Attention was turned to the upper bound pile, which easily passed the check against uplift. At the minimum
spacing, it easily passed the checks for factor of safety against buoyancy, so much so that it appeared to be a
very inefficient design. This could be improved by adjusting the spacing of the screw piles. Apart from the
conclusion that screw piles would by feasible as an option to resist buoyancy, the test design also brought up the
problem of nominal capacity. Such a large difference in capacity predictions meant the piles would either fail or
be largely redundant. This highlighted the importance of load testing to confirm screw pile capacity so that an
efficient and cost-effective design could actually be undertaken.

VIII. Conclusions
Much analysis is contained in the previous sections regarding analytical modelling and load test comparisons.
Without actual load testing, it is impossible to definitely confirm the suitability for any of the theories for screw
piles in Australian soil, less so in the absence of the detailed numerical modelling. The correlation against
external load tests was certainly helpful but given the large variability between the soils and pile geometries, it
was difficult to make a conclusion. One definitive conclusion that could be made was that the theory of Ghaly,
Hanna & Hanna (1991) was inadequate in all of the comparisons and is not suitable for use. The inconsistency
of the results in Kulhawy (1985) also indicated unsuitability for predictive use. However, the theories of Ghaly
& Hanna (1994) and Mitsch & Clemence (1985) appeared to be suitable for use in most situations, and those
formulated by Ilamparuthi, Dickin & Muthukrisnaiah (2002) and Hanna, Ayadat & Sabry (2007) were deemed
to be appropriate if the piles considered were in their scope.

IX. Recommendations
Although the evaluation of the various analytical theories remained to be completed through detailed
numerical modelling and full-scale load testing on site, a number of recommendations were able to be made:
 Screw piles are a cost-effective and viable foundation solution in Western Australian soils, and are
appropriate for a wider scope of use than currently occurs.

11
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
  Screw pile design is generally limited to in-house designers. This project has shown that this does not
have to be the case, and that a geotechnical engineer should at least be able to generate a draft design or
an initial estimate using analytical or numerical modelling to predict screw pile capacity.
 It would be useful (although unrealistic at this point in time) to come up with an Australian Standard for
screw piles. In the meantime, consideration could be made to add clauses to AS 2159 to make it more
relevant when considering screw pile capacity.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Civil Engineering staff at UNSW Canberra, especially Associate
Professor Robert Lo for giving up significant time during long service leave to support this project. The
geotechnical and pavements team at Gateway WA are also thanked, in particular Giovanny Alvarado, senior
geotechnical engineer, for making this project possible in the first place.

References
1. Perko, H., Helical Piles: A Practical Guide to Design and Installation, 1st ed., John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New
York, 2009.
2. Gateway WA, Gateway WA Perth Airport and Freight Access Project (online), 2013, URL:
http://www.gatewaywa.com.au [accessed October 10, 2013].
3. Fortuna, S., “Water Flow and Seepage-induced Uplift Pressures on Bath Structures,” 02-031-GT-PP-0036-A2, Perth,
2013 (unpublished).
4. Hanna, A., Ayadat, T., and Sabry, M., “Pullout Resistance of Single Vertical Shallow Helical and Plate Anchors in
Sand,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2007, pp. 559-573.
5. Hugo, C., “Leach Highway / Tonkin Highway Interchange - Geotechnical Investigation Report,” GVWA-13.03-RP-
GT-0014, Gateway WA, Perth, 2012 (unpublished).
6. Gateway WA, “Leach Highway-Tonkin Highway Interchange - Bath Structures,” 02-031-GT-RP-0001-A1, Perth,
2013 (unpublished).
7. Pack, J., Practical Design and Inspection Guide for Helical Piles and Helical Tension Anchors, 4th ed., IMR,
Denver, 2009.
8. Perko, H., Helical Pile Technical Reference Manual, Magnum Piering, West Chester, Ohio, 2010.
9. Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M., “Uplift Behavior of Screw Anchors in Sand,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, 1991, pp. 773-793.
10. Meyerhof, G., and Adams, J., “The Ultimate Uplift Capacity of Foundations,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
5, No. 4, 1968, pp. 225-244.
11. Ilamparuthi, K., Dickin, E., and Muthukrisnaiah, K., “Experimental Investigation of the Uplift Behaviour of Circular
Plate Anchors Embedded in Sand,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 648-664.
12. Ghaly, A., and Hanna, A., “Ultimate pullout resistance of single vertical anchors”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 31, No. 5, 1994, pp. 661-672.
13. Mitsch, M., and Clemence, S., “The Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors in Sand,” Uplift Behaviour of Anchor
Foundations in Soil, ASCE, 1985, pp. 26-47.
14. Kulhawy, F., “Uplift behaviour of Shallow Soil Anchors–An Overview,” Uplift Behaviour of Anchor Foundations in
Soil, ASCE, 1985, pp. 1-25.
15. Ilamparuthi, K., “Experimental Investigation on Pullout Capacity of Plate Anchors in Sand,” Ph.D Thesis, Indian
Institute of engineering, Madras, Chennai, 1991.
16. Clemence, S., Crouch, L., and Stephenson, R., “Prediction of Uplift Capacity for Helical Anchors in Sand,”
Proceedings of the 2nd Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo, 1994, pp. 332-343.
17. Terzaghi, K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley, New York, 1943.
18. Meyerhof, G., “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations,” Geotechnique, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1951, pp. 301-332.
19. Australian Standard AS 2159 (2009): Piling–Design and Installation.
20. Australian Building Codes Board, Building Code of Australia, CCH Australia, 2013.
21. International Code Council, International Building Code (IBC), International Code Council, Washington, 2012.
22. ICC Evaluation Service, AC358: Acceptance Criteria for Helical Foundation Systems and Devices, 2007.

12
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
23. Helical Pile World, Helical Pile Manufacturers’ U.S. Building Code Compliance (online), 2013, URL:
http://www.helicalpileworld.com/helical-pile-building-code-compliance.html [accessed October 10, 2013]
24. Meyerhof, G., “Some Recent Research on the Bearing Capacity of Foundations,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1963, pp. 16-26.
25. FLAC, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Software Package, Ver. 6.0, Itasca, Minneapolis, 2008.
26. Magnum FlyT2.0, Foundation Layout Tool, Software Package, Ver. 2.0, Magnum Piering, West Chester, Ohio,
2013.
27. HelixPro, Helical Foundation Design Software, Software Package, Ver. 1.0, Foundation Supportworks, Omaha,
Nebraska, 2012.
28. MDRS, MacLean Design Recommendation System, Software Package, Ver. 1.0, MacLean Dixie HFS, Franklin
Park, Illinois, 2013.
29. Ghaly, A., and Clemence, S., “Pullout Performance of Inclined Helical Anchors in Sand,” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124 No. 7, pp. 617-627.
30. Kanayan, A., 1966, “Experimental Investigation of the Stability of Base Anchor Foundations,” Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 387-392.
31. Klym, T., Radhakrishna, H., and Howard, J., “Helical Plate Anchors for Tower Foundations,” of the 25th Canadian
Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, 1986, Vol. 1, pp. 141-159
32. Nasr, M., “Performance-based Design for Helical Piles,” Contemporary Topics in Deep Foundations, edited by M.
Iskander, D. Laefer, and M. Hussein, GeoFlorida 2009, ASCE, Orlando, 2009, pp. 496-503.
33. Sakr, M., “installation and Performance Characteristics of High Capacity Helical Piles in Cohesionless Soils,” Deep
Foundations Institute Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 39-57.
34. Sutherland, H., Finlay, T., Fadl, M., “Uplift Capacity of Embedded Anchors in Sand,” Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, Cambridge, Mass., 1982, Vol. 2, pp. 451-463.
35. Tsuha, C., Aoki, N., Rault, G., Thorel, L., and Garnier, J., “Evaluation of the Efficiencies of Helical Anchor Plates in
Sand by Centrifugal Model Tests,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 1102-1114.
36. Robertson, P., Scope of Works and Technical Criteria, Gateway WA, Perth, 2013 (unpublished).
37. Australian Standard AS 1170.0 (2002): Structural Design Actions–General Principles.
38. Alvarado, G., “Piles to Resist Uplift Forces,” 00-034-GT-PP-0010-A1, Gateway WA, Perth, 2012 (unpublished).
39. Das, B., Earth Anchors, J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, 2007, pp. 169-185.
40. Dickin, E., and Leung, C., “Performance of Piles with Enlarged Bases subject to Uplift Forces,” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 546-556
41. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th ed., BiTech Publishers, Richmond,
British Columbia, 2006.
42. Fleming, W., and Thorburn, S., (eds.), “Piling and Ground Treatment,” Proceedings of the International Conference
in Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations, London, 1983.
43. Ghaly, A., and Hanna, A., “Stresses and Strains Around Helical Screw Anchors in Sand,” Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 32, No. 4, 1992, pp. 27-42.
44. Gu, Q., Geotechnical Pullout Capacity for Helical Ground Anchors, private memorandum, 2008.
45. Hoyt, R., and Clemence, S., “Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil,” Proceedings of the Regional South
America Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 1989, Vol. 2, pp. 1019-1022.
46. MacDonald, H., “Uplift Resistance of Caisson Piles in Sand,” M.Sc Thesis, Nova Scotia Technical College, Halifax,
1963.
47. Malone, A., Pile Design and Construction, Hong Kong Civil Engineering Department, Hong Kong, 1994.
48. Yttrup, P., and Abramsson, G., “Ultimate Strength of Screw Piles in Sand,” Australian Geomechanics, Vol. 38, No.
1, 2003, pp. 17-27.

13
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 Appendix A – Selected Results Data

A. Analytical Modelling

Example Piles All Results (by mode) Disregarding Outliers

B (m) Mode Spread % Mean (kN) STDev Spread % Mean (kN) STDev
0.275 Deep 311 253.3 106.5 12.1 243.5 12.9
0.35 Deep 295 396.7 164.6 16.0 381.2 30.4
0.35 Shallow
0.35 Transition
0.4 Deep 284 510.6 207.4 18.9 492.8 44.9
0.6 Deep 134 946.8 278.4 55.0 1034 198.1
0.6 Shallow 191 1550 656.4 61.9 1274 257.0
0.6 Transition
0.85 Shallow 96.7 1688 453.1 51.0 1511 256.6
0.85 Deep 132 1650 610.9 107 1776 589.4
0.85 Transition
Table A1. Statistical Analysis of Analytical Modelling

B. Load Test Comparison

Sub Test Actual

B (m) GH94 HAS07 MC85 IDM02 GHH91 K85
Serial Serial Load (kN)
1 21 0.05 19.59 28.84 30.92 14 6.0 10.98
2 22 0.4 12.38 16.9 34 41.9 22.94
3 23 0.1 117.4 134.3 328 328.6 60.00
1 15 0.214 187.6 271.1 1753 7410 665.7 131.1
2 17 0.203 183.9 101.5 254.5 2151 242.3 173.3
3 24 0.203 412.9 462.5 1090 1131 177.0
4 6 0.326 241.1 270.6 236 199.8 378 57.47 180.1
5 1 0.343 530.4 187.6 357.6 6507 437.8 195.8
6 7 0.343 304.8 229.3 407.0 1477 544.1 228.1
7 13 0.305 460.6 511.6 1446 6447 1245 280.0
8 12 0.305 519.3 603.1 1864 7477 1476 289.7
9 11 0.305 688.6 407.9 994.7 4650 987.0 293.3
10 18 0.356 561.3 480.4 351.7 1017 124.0 322.2
11 8 0.343 480.3 264.9 592.1 2606 639.6 336.3
12 16 0.203 334.1 1341 214522 34628 3482 373.3
13 25 0.44 1015 1136 2677 2777 413.0
14 20 0.41 606.9 620.3 648.7 492 143.6 463.5
15 10 0.203 258.6 525.5 15032 29902 1303 533.3
16 14 0.356 1092 1609 9140 30079 3980 533.3
Table A2. Comparison of Selected Analytical and Load Test Results (Loads between 10 and 1000 kN)

A1
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 Sub Actual
Serial B (m) GH94 HAS07 MC85 IDM02 GHH91 K85
Serial Load (kN)
1 21 0.4 1.78 2.63 2.82 1.29 0.55 10.98
2 22 0.1 0.54 0.74 1.46 1.83 22.94
3 23 0.214 1.96 2.24 5.46 5.48 60.00
1 15 0.203 1.43 2.07 13.37 56.52 5.08 131.1
2 17 0.203 1.06 0.59 1.47 12.41 1.40 173.3
3 24 0.326 2.33 2.61 6.16 6.39 177.0
4 6 0.343 1.34 1.50 1.31 1.11 2.10 0.32 180.1
5 1 0.3 2.71 0.96 1.83 33.23 2.24 195.8
6 7 0.343 1.34 1.01 1.78 6.48 2.39 228.1
7 13 0.305 1.65 1.83 5.17 23.03 4.45 280.0
8 12 0.305 1.79 2.08 6.43 25.80 5.10 289.7
9 11 0.305 2.35 1.39 3.39 15.85 3.36 293.3
10 18 0.356 1.74 1.49 1.09 3.16 0.38 322.2
11 8 0.343 1.43 0.79 1.76 7.75 1.90 336.3
12 16 0.203 0.90 3.59 574.7 92.8 9.33 373.3
13 25 0.44 2.46 2.75 6.48 6.73 413.0
14 20 0.41 1.31 1.34 1.40 1.06 0.31 463.5
15 10 0.203 0.48 0.99 28.19 56.07 2.44 533.3
16 14 0.356 2.05 3.02 17.14 56.40 7.46 533.3
Table A3. Ratio of Selected Analytical and Load Test Results (Loads between 10 and 1000 kN)

A2
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 Appendix B – Additional Figures

Figure B1. Bath Structure Design Section [6]

B1
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 Appendix C – Design Summary

A. Assumptions
 600 mm helix embedded at 6 m
 Upper bound Capacity: 1470 kN (Rd,ug)
 Lower bound Capacity: 767 kN (Rd,ug)
 Nil shaft friction
 Adequate structural capacity (soil fails first)
 Soil profile as per Table 1
 Uniform groundwater profile
 2% of piles statically load tested before construction (per AS2159)

B. Buoyant Uplift Pressure

Hydrostatic uplift pressure: Pwh   whw – Equation 1
hw: difference in height from bath base to design water table.
Pressure is increased by 50% to account for seepage.

Uplift Pressure
Hydrostatic uplift pressure (kPa) 20
Buoyant pressure including seepage (kPa) 30
Slab Resisting Pressure
Slab self-weight (kPa) 12
Factored self-weight (kPa) 10
Uplift Force
Net uplift pressure (kPa) 20
Uplift Force per metre (kN) - maximum 314.6
Uplift Force per metre (kN) - minimum 384.4
Resisting Force*
Wall self-weight (kN/m) 54.4
Factored self-weight (kN/m) 45.4
Table C1. Destabilising and Resisting Forces

*Slab self-weight included as subtraction in net uplift

C. Screw Pile Capacity Reduction

Geotechnical reduction factor [19]: g  gb  (tf  gb ) K  gb – Equation 2

φgb is calculated using individual and average risk ratings (IRR and ARR).

C1
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
 Risk IRR Weight Total
Geological Complexity 2 2 4
Ground Investigation 3 2 6
Geotechnical Data 2 2 4
Experience 5 1 5
Method of Assessment 3 2 6
Design Method 4 1 4
Design Values 2 2 4
Construction Control 1 2 2
Monitoring 3 0.5 1.5
Total 36.5
ARR 2.52
Table C2. Average Risk Rating Matrix

An ARR of 2.52 falls within the low to moderate risk category. With a high redundancy system (AS 2159
Table 4.3.2 (C)), this yields φgb = 0.60.

Parameter Justification Value

ARR See above 2.52
φgb High Redundancy System 0.60
φtk Static load testing 0.9
K 2% piles tested 0.502
φg 0.75
Table C3. Geotechnical Reduction Factor

Additional reductions are made on the recommendation of Perko (2009) for buoyancy and uplift. This resulted
in an overall reduction factor of 0.51. However, industry recommends a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 so the
reduction factor was rounded down to 0.5.

Reduction Value
φg - initial 0.75
φb - buoyancy 0.80
φu - uplift 0.85
φg - adjusted 0.51
φg (final) 0.50
Table C4. Adjusted Final Geotechnical Reduction Factor

D. Design Screw Pile Capacity

Design geotechnical capacity [19]: Rd , g   g Rd ,ug – Equation 3

Capacity Prediction Rd,g (kN)

Lower 735
Upper 384.5
Table C5.Rd,g Design Screw Pile Capacity

C2
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra
E. Spacing

Recommended longitudinal spacing to avoid group effects is 4B [7]. For a 600 mm screw pile this equals 2400
mm. For the initial calculation, piles will be spaced at minimum spacing.

F. Uplift Resistance Check

A 20 m section of bath was taken, with destabilising and resisting forces directly compared. Number of screw
piles in the section was determined using the longitudinal spacing, with 2 piles per cross section.

Uplift Force Upper Capacity Lower Capacity

Uplift force (kN) 7688 7688

Resisting Force*
Wall self-weight (kN) 907.2 907.2
Screw piles per 20 m section 16 16
Screw pile resisting force (kN) 11760 6144
Total resisting force (kN) 12667 7051

Table C6. Destabilising and Resisting Forces

*Slab self-weight included as subtraction in net uplift

As can be seen from the table above, the screw piles with lower predicted capacity fail in uplift. For a viable
solution, piles would have to be spaced closer together and group effects considered.

G. Factor of Safety against Buoyancy

SW N
 Rd , g
m S
FS against buoyancy: FS  – Equation 4
uw

SW: self-weight (kN) γm: reduction of dead loads uw: buoyant uplift force
N: number of screw piles S: spacing (m)

For the unfactored case (γm = 1), FS must exceed 1.2. For the factored case (γm = 1.2), FS must exceed 1.05 [6].

Factoring FS
Unfactored Case 2.33
Factored Case 2.21
Table C7.Factor of Safety against Buoyancy

In both cases, the factors of safety are large, indicating an inefficient design (quite apart from the conservative
initial approach with the blanket geotechnical reduction factor). The criteria are satisfied, but the screw piles
should have greater spacing so as to have a more efficient design.

C3
Final Project Report 2013 – UNSW Canberra