Ubc 2016 November Khan Muhammad

Estimation of Compressive Load Bearing Capacity of
Helical Piles Using Torque Method and Induced Settlements
By
Muhammad Umair Shabbir Khan
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE
in
THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Civil Engineering)
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Okanagan)
September 2016
© Muhammad Khan, 2016

The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate
Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled:
Estimation of Compressive Load Bearing Capacity of Helical Piles Using Torque Method
and Induced Settlements
Submitted by Muhammad Khan in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the

degree of Master of Applied Science .
Dr. Sumi Siddiqua, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

Supervisor, Assistant Professor (please print name and faculty/school above the line)
Dr. Shahria Alam, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

Supervisory Committee Member, Associate Professor (please print name and faculty/school in the line above)
Dr. Zheng Liu, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

Supervisory Committee Member, Associate Professor (please print name and faculty/school in the line above)
Dr. Liwei Wang, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

University Examiner, Assistant Professor (please print name and faculty/school in the line above)
August 26, 2016

(Date Submitted to Grad Studies)
Abstract
Helical piles are deep foundations that have a helix at the end. The traditional approaches to
determine the load capacity such as loading tests and in situ tests (i.e. SPT, CPT and LCPC) are
not economically feasible for the small scaled constructions, for which helical piles are generally
recommended. In order to estimate the ultimate load that helical piles can carry, torque method
is thus mostly used. Torque method does not account for the possible settlements induced at
calculated loads. Settlement induced is the main load capacity governing factor for deep
foundations, as they are considered failed when a settlement more than the permissible amount is
attained. The possibility that the piles might fail well before the calculated load is achieved
because of excessive settlements make the results of torque method dubious. This research
attempts to investigate the torque method for the settlements and for its precision. For this
purpose, seven RS2875.203 helical piles were installed and their ultimate compressive loads are
calculated using the torque method. On seventh pile, static axial compression test was conducted.
The settlements at torque method’s ultimate loads are determined from the load movement curve
of compression test. Results underscore that the settlements at torque method’s ultimate and
allowable loads are within the permissible amount. The load movement curve of compression
test is interpreted using different failure criteria to calculate the failure load. Results show that
10% failure criterion is the most suitable criterion to interpret the load movement curve of
RS2875.203 helical piles. Additionally, different bearing equations are used to compute the
ultimate compressive loads of helical piles. Result suggest that the loads calculated using torque
method and bearing equations correlate well with each other.
ii
Preface
This thesis is the original work done by the author under the supervision of Dr. Sumi Siddiqua. A
research article comprising of this research has been submitted in scientific journal:
 The contents of this research has been submitted to a journal: “Estimation of
Compressive Load of Helical Piles Using Torque Method and Induced Settlements”.
iii
Table of contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of contents .......................................................................................................................... iv
List of tables.................................................................................................................................. ix
List of figures ................................................................................................................................. x
List of abbreviation and notations............................................................................................. xii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Test program .................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 Literature review .................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Failure modes for helical piles ......................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Individual plate bearing model ................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Cylindrical shear plane bearing model ..................................................................... 8
2.2 Design of helical piles .................................................................................................... 10
iv
2.2.1 Direct methods ........................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2 Indirect method ....................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Torque method ............................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Bearing equations ........................................................................................................... 16
2.4.1 Load bearing equation for shallow foundations...................................................... 18
2.4.2 Load bearing equations for deep foundations ......................................................... 21
2.4.2.1 Bearing factors for pile foundations ................................................................ 22
2.4.2.2 Meyerhof method ............................................................................................ 24
2.4.2.3 Vesic (1977) method ....................................................................................... 26
2.4.2.4 Load bearing equation for helical piles ........................................................... 27
2.5 Pile load tests.................................................................................................................. 30
Chapter 3 Installation of helical piles and site investigation ............................................... 32
3.1 Configuration and material properties of helical piles ................................................... 32
3.2 Soil investigation ............................................................................................................ 37
3.2.1 Soil classification .................................................................................................... 37
3.2.2 Direct shear test....................................................................................................... 39
v
3.2.3 Water contents of soil ............................................................................................. 41
3.2.4 Unit weight of soil .................................................................................................. 42
3.2.5 Maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content .................................... 42
Chapter 4 Static axial compression test ................................................................................ 44
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 44
4.2 Types of static axial compression test ............................................................................ 45
4.3 Components and requirements of loading assembly ...................................................... 47
4.4 Interpretation of static axial compression test ................................................................ 49
4.4.1 Davisson offset limit load criterion......................................................................... 50
4.4.2 10%, 8% and 5% failure criterions ......................................................................... 51
4.4.3 L1-L2 failure criterion ............................................................................................ 53
4.4.4 Chin failure criterion ............................................................................................... 56
4.4.5 Brinch-Hansen 80% and 90% failure criterions ..................................................... 57
4.4.6 De Beer failure criterion ......................................................................................... 58
4.4.7 Decourt’s extrapolation criterion ............................................................................ 59
4.5 Static axial compression test on test pile........................................................................ 59
vi
4.5.1 Test assembly .......................................................................................................... 59
4.5.2 Hydraulic jack and calibration ................................................................................ 62
4.5.3 Static axial compression test ................................................................................... 64
4.6 Interpretation of test pile load movement curve............................................................. 68
4.6.1 Davisson offset limit load ....................................................................................... 68
4.6.2 10%, 8% and 5% failure loads ................................................................................ 70
4.6.3 L1-L2 failure load ................................................................................................... 72
4.6.4 Chin failure load ..................................................................................................... 74
4.6.5 Brinch Hansen failure loads .................................................................................... 75
4.6.6 De Beer failure load ................................................................................................ 76
4.6.7 Decourt’s failure load ............................................................................................. 78
Chapter 5 Estimation of ultimate loads from torque method and bearing equations ...... 80
5.1 Ultimate loads estimated from the torque method and the corresponding settlements .. 81
5.2 Torque method and compression test interpretation criterions ...................................... 86
5.3 Estimation of ultimate loads using bearing equations .................................................... 90
5.4 Torque method and bearing equations ........................................................................... 92
vii
5.5 Numerical modelling of RS2875.203............................................................................. 96
Chapter 6 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 100
References .................................................................................................................................. 103
viii
List of tables
Table 1:Bearing capacity factors for piles .................................................................................... 22
Table 2:Settlements at ultimate and allowable loads corresponding to the torque
averaged over last 2.5ft..................................................................................................... 84
Table 3: Calculated ultimate loads of helical piles at 7ft .............................................................. 91
Table 4: Bearing factor from A.B CHANCE & Hubbell Inc at 7ft .............................................. 92
Table 5: Ultimate loads of installed helical piles calculated from torque method
at 7ft depth ........................................................................................................................... 92
Table 6 : Ratios between ultimate loads calculated from bearing equations
and torque method .............................................................................................................. 94
Table 7: Ratios for pile no 4 ......................................................................................................... 95
Table 8: Ratios between ultimate load calculated from bearing equations and
average ultimate load of helical piles from the torque method ........................................... 95
Table 9: Simulated results of RS2875.203 helical piles using HelixPile ..................................... 99
ix
List of figures
Figure 1. Typical single helix helical pile ....................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Failure plane of a typical footing................................................................................... 20
Figure 3. Nq values for circular deep foundations. ....................................................................... 23
Figure 4. Meyerhof Bearing capacity factors and critical depth ................................................... 26
Figure 5. Installation torques of installed helical piles ................................................................. 36
Figure 6. Liquid limit test apparatus ............................................................................................. 37
Figure 7. Particle size distribution curve of airport soil................................................................ 39
Figure 8. Shearing of cylindrical sample ...................................................................................... 40
Figure 9. Shear and normal stress of airport soil .......................................................................... 41
Figure 10. Compaction curve for airport soil................................................................................ 43
Figure 11. Standard loading assembly .......................................................................................... 48
Figure 12. Regions in load movement curve ................................................................................ 54
Figure 13. Loading assembly for compression test conducted ..................................................... 61
Figure 14. Mounted dial gauges on reference beams ................................................................... 62
x
Figure 15. Hydraulic jack system ................................................................................................. 63
Figure 16. Calibration chart of AME ram ..................................................................................... 64
Figure 17. Load movement curve of the test pile ......................................................................... 67
Figure 18. Davisson offset limit load............................................................................................ 69
Figure 19. 8% failure load ............................................................................................................ 72
Figure 20. L1-L2 failure plot ........................................................................................................ 73
Figure 21. Chin failure plot ........................................................................................................... 74
Figure 22. Brinch-Hansen failure plot .......................................................................................... 76
Figure 23. De Beer failure plot ..................................................................................................... 77
Figure 24. Decourt’s extrapolation ............................................................................................... 78
Figure 25. Ultimate loads calculated from torque method .......................................................... 83
Figure 26. Comparison of calculated loads for torque averaged over last 2.5ft and
failure loads for KT =10/ft ................................................................................................... 88
Figure 27. Comparison of calculated loads for torque averaged over final 2.5ft and
failure loads for KT=9/ft ...................................................................................................... 90
Figure 28. Comparison of loads computed from torque method and bearing equations .............. 94
Figure 29. Model of single helix helical pile ................................................................................ 98
xi
List of abbreviation and notations
A Cross sectional area of footing
As Shaft area
Ah Helix area
B Width of footing
C Cohesion
CPT Cone penetration test
D Average helix diameter
D1 Diameter of uppermost helix
fs Unit skin resistance
H Depth of uppermost helix or installation depth
Heff Effective depth of pile
KT Torque coefficient
Nc, Nq, Ny, Nσ Bearing capacity factors
Qb Tip resistance capacity
QP Ultimate end bearing load
Qs Skin resistance capacity
QT Total ultimate capacity
qb Unit tip resistance
QUlt Ultimate capacity of pile
xii
q Overburden pressure
S spacing between two helixes
SPT Standard proctor test
T Installation torque
KP Passive earth pressure coefficient
y Unit weight of soil
ϕ Angle of internal friction of soil
σ0 mean normal ground effective stress at pile toe
xiii
Acknowledgements
This research has been completed in collaboration with Mitacs Accelerate program and Team
Foundations. The support of Mitacs Accelerate program is commendable who provided
sufficient funds to conduct the testing. I would like to thank Team foundation for their technical
support in conducting the tests and installation of helical piles. I would like to acknowledge my
parents for their motivation whenever I needed. They stood besides me whenever I was going
through hard time thousands of kilometers away from my homeland. I would like to
acknowledge my supervisor Dr. Sumi Siddiqua who demonstrated continued support to me. Her
sympathetic behaviour towards me provided me with a stress less environment for research. Her
knowledge helped me unfold mysteries of research. I would like to thank my committee
members who provided valuable suggestions and lauded my efforts to keep me motivated. I
would particularly like to mention the unconditional support of Jonah Schwab who helped me
pointing out the editing mistakes of thesis.
xiv
Chapter 1 Introduction
Helical piles are a type of deep foundations that are also referred to as helical piers or screw piles
or anchors. They have been used in construction industry for many years for a range of
applications to resist axial compression, axial tension or lateral loads. The helical piles consist of
several sections of a central pile shaft which can be circular or square and have varying
dimensions. These are attached to each other by means of welds, bolts or screwing threads as the
pile is placed in the ground. This shaft has either single or multiple helixes, welded at specified
spacing to make the whole pile as seen in figure (1).
Figure 1. Typical single helix helical pile
(Reprinted from screwpiles, in Wikipedia. n.d., Retrieved May1, 2016, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screwpiles#/media/File:Screwpilediagram.gif. Copyright 2007 by
Steve Lewenhoff. Reprinted with permission)
These helixes can have constant or varying diameters but all must maintain the same
pitch. Same pitch lengths make installation much easier and minimize the soil disturbance.
1
Placement of helical piles is done using hydraulic rotary heads that are commonly mounted on
truck rigs, track hoes and an array of other equipment, to apply a turning motion to the pile. The
combination of the rotary motion and the weight applied on pile drives helical piles into ground.
This advancement should be one pitch of a helix per revolution and every helix should have the
same pitch. The spacing of the helixes is also very important; spacing should be such that each
helix follow the same path. All of these considerations help to minimize the disturbance of the
soil as the helical pile is being advanced (Tappenden, 2007).
There are many advantages of helical piles over other conventional deep foundations.
The most evident benefit is the cost savings due to the rapid and simple installation, since the
piling process only requires two-person team and is very fast. Normally, installation of a helical
pile takes about 20 minutes depending upon the penetration depth and soil conditions. Their
installation also has the benefits of having little noise or vibration, minimal disruption to the
surface and can be completed using light weight equipment. Another major benefit is that piles
can be loaded to its full capacity instantly after placement and can be removed and re-used
(Tappenden, 2007). They can also be used under unique conditions such as high ground water
table because they do not require dewatering for installation, which helps to reduce the time and
cost of the installation process (Sakr, 2011). They are considered to perform better than other
steel piles, and can be estimated to provide loading capacity 3 to 5 times higher than same sized
conventional steel deep foundations (Sakr, 2011). However, helical plates can be damaged
during the installation process in soils that contain gravel and that are hard.
Bearing capacity/ultimate loads of any deep foundation can be determined using various
techniques which include direct methods, indirect methods and pile load tests. Direct methods
2
provide bearing capacity of footings directly from in situ testing. These methods include standard
penetration test and cone penetration test. Indirect methods are empirical correlations that use
different parameters such as soil strength characteristics and dynamic load settlement data to
compute bearing capacity of footings. But for helical piles, a different indirect method called
“torque method” can also be used. Today, most widely used method to estimate the load bearing
capacity of these piles is torque method. In this methods, load capacity is calculated by
multiplying the installation torque of helical piles by a suitable torque coefficient which depends
on shape and size of shaft (Society, 2006). This empirical method only considers the installation
torque for load capacity estimation and ignores soil characteristics and settlements at calculated
load capacities.
Helical piles like any other deep foundation are structurally designed to be strong enough
to carry anticipated loads. Their structural load capacity is significantly higher than the
anticipated loads on them. Also, soil strength is always less than the steel which helical pile is
made of. Thus, failure of helical piles is governed by the geotechnical strength of soil and pile
sustain significant settlements when geotechnical failure occurs. Hence, the bearing resistance of
deep foundations is governed by the amount of settlements in pile head. As discussed earlier that
torque method does not give settlement response of helical piles, the settlements at calculated
load bearing capacities might be significantly higher than the allowable settlements rendering its
results invalid. In order to have reliable results which agree well with settlements in pile head
and soil strength, empirical torque method need to be studied further.
Pile load tests give a complete behavior of footing in terms of settlements at any load.
These settlements are plotted against applied loads which is referred as load movement curve.
3
The settlement at any load can be determined using this curve and ultimate loads can be fixed.
There are various criterions that tend to interpret this load movement curve.
1.1 Objectives
Helical piles are primarily used for housing and small industrial purposes. Geotechnical
investigations, in situ direct test methods and pile loading tests are costly and are not feasible for
such small projects. To save time and money, torque method is mostly used to estimate loading
capacity of helical piles. Torque method do not anticipate settlements in pile. In practice, there is
a significant likelihood that the settlements at calculated loads will be more than what is
permissible, and these settlements will go unidentified by the torque method. As failure of deep
foundations is governed by excessive settlements, torque method need to be investigated
primarily regarding settlements at calculated loads. Therefore, following objectives are studied in
this research:
1. Identify and assess a suitable torque coefficient for RS2875.203 helical piles
2. Investigate torque method by incorporating settlements at calculated loads
3. Explore and understand various interpretation criterions of load movement curve for
RS2875.203 helical piles
4. Compare ultimate loads calculated from torque method and bearing equation
1.2 Test program
In total, seven helical piles were installed at Kelowna international airport and their installation
torque was noted. Each installed piles were RS2875.203 type helical pile. These piles have single
4
helix of 10inch diameter. The shaft dimeter is 2-7/8 inches. Based on these torque values,
ultimate loads on each pier was calculated. On seventh pile, static axial compression test was
conducted according to recommendations of ASTM D1143. Interpretation of this compression
test is done based on several criterions and resultant ultimate loads are compared with those
calculated from torque method. Additionally, soil samples were collected from the testing site
and were analyzed in laboratory to get its strength characteristics. These characteristics have
been used in bearing equations to anticipate ultimate loads of each helical pier.
5
Chapter 2 Literature review
This chapter provide relevant background information about helical piers/piles which is
necessary to understand the tests conducted and further analysis. As discussed above, helical
piles can have single and multiple helixes welded around a single shaft. There are various shafts
sizes used to fabricate the helical piles. The helix sizes can vary from 10 to 14 inches. Normally,
there are maximum three helixes on a single pile. Although helical piles are a subgroup of deep
foundations, but they can be categorized further into shallow, deep and transition helical piles
based on their embedment ratio. Narasimha Rao, Prasad, & Veeresh (1993) categorized helical
piles in shallow, transition and deep helical piles based on their embedment depth. Relative
embedment is ratio between the depth to the uppermost helix (H) divided by the diameter of the
uppermost helix (D1). A pile with a relative embedment of less than or equal 2 is considered a
shallow pile. Piles with H/D1 from 2- 4 are categorized as transition piles. The piles having
embedment ratio equal to or greater than 4 can be considered as deep piles. In cohesionless soils,
the critical embedment ratio after which deep failure conditions prevail depend on soil friction
angle (Meyerhof & Adams, 1968). For a relative embedment of less than 5 it is considered to be
shallow failure conditions and greater that 5 is considered deep failure conditions (Meyerhof &
Adams, 1968).
The load carrying capacity of helical piles depend on the failure modes. The total load carrying
capacity of a helical pile is dependent on the sum of the resistance from the end bearing of
6
helixes, friction incurred from the shaft of the pile and the cylindrical shear plane resistance due
to the helixes (Zhang, 1999) as shown in equation 1.
𝑄𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑄𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝑄𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 + 𝑄𝐻𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑥 (1)
2.1 Failure modes for helical piles
The combination of these three terms given in equation (1) depends on the failure mode of the
soil. The failure modes of helical piles have been split in two different types, cylindrical shear
model and the individual plate bearing model. For single helix pile, only individual plate bearing
model is developed. Whereas, for multihelix helical pile, both failure models can develop. Type
of failure mode that will occur in multihelix pile depends on its inter-helix spacing ratio (S/D).
The inter-helix spacing ratio is the spacing between two helixes on a helical piles shaft (S)
divided by the average helix diameter (D) on a multi helical pile. The failure modes are further
discussed below.
2.1.1 Individual plate bearing model
Individual plate bearing failure is a helical pile mode of failure model. In this model, each helix
acts as an anchor independently of the others, and failure of the soil occurs above and below the
helix plates in tension and compression respectively. In this type of failure, the total bearing
capacity of the helical pile is the sum of the individual bearing capacities of each helix. This
failure mode is applicable for all single helix helical piles. The multihelix helical piles that do not
7
develop cylindrical shear plane (discussed below in section 2.2.2), their helix act individually
and this failure model becomes dominant.
2.1.2 Cylindrical shear plane bearing model
In multihelix helical piles, another phenomenon called cylindrical shear plane is developed
which provides with additional load carrying potential. The cylindrical shear plane is a plane of
resistance developed between the cylindrical volume of soil contained within the circumference
of two adjacent helixes and soil outside this contained area. This plane is only developed with
specific inter-helix spacing ratio.
There is contradiction over what values of this inter-helix spacing ratio should be in order
to have cylindrical shear plane resistance in helical piles. Mitsch & Clemence (1985) explained
the formation of cylindrical shear plane and suggested that installation disturbances increase the
possibility of this plane’s formation. During installation of helical piles, soil surrounding the pile
is stressed and thus gets densified. At the same time soil is also sheared by the helixes rending it
weaker around helixes. However, soil outside the circumference of helixes remains strong due to
induced lateral stresses. This difference of soil’s strength causes the formation of cylindrical
shear plane. Vesic (1971) also attributed formation of this plane to weaker soil zones around pile
created by installation disturbances.
Tappenden & Sego (2007) proposed that cylindrical shear plane is applicable when inter
helix spacing ratio is less than 3. Whereas, Narasimha Rao & Prasad (1993) suggested that S/D
must be less than or equal to 1.5 in order for the cylindrical shear plane to be formed. Their
results were based on tested helical piles in clays for uplift loads. They tested the helical piles
8
with S/D ≤ 1.5 and computed the load carrying capacities taking into account the formation of
cylindrical shear plane. Their calculated loading capacities were in a good agreement with those
found from the field tests and lead to the conclusion that at inter helix spacing ratio of more than
1.5, the cylindrical shear resistance plane cease to exist. Similarly, Narasimha Rao, Prasad, &
Dinakara Shetty (1991) indicated that for helical piles with spacing ration of more than 1.5
installed in cohesionless soils, load carrying capacity estimated from individual plate mode
shows a good agreement with experimental capacities. Their pull out test showed that for spacing
ratio of 1-1.5, the failure surface was very close to cylindrical shear model. Based on their
results, Narasimha Rao & Prasad (1993) provided a factor (SF) which could be used to calculate
actual load capacities of helical piles and is given in equation (2), (3) and (4) for various ranges
of S/D. Actual load capacities could be estimated by multiplying SF with computed load
capacities (5).
SF =1.0 for S / D ≤ 1.5 (2)
SF =0.863+ 0.069(3.5 − S / D) for 1.5 ≤ S / D ≤ 3.5 (3)
SF =0.700+ 0.148(4.6 − S / D) for 3.5 ≤ S / D ≤ 4.6 (4)
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝑆𝐹 = (5)
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
9
2.2 Design of helical piles
Helical piles and conventional piles are normally designed to take two types of load, vertical lift
and compression. To be able to design for the anticipated loads, type of pile needs to be taken
into consideration but the most important factor in the design is the properties of the soil in
which it is to be placed. When a pile fails, it is not the pile material that is failing but is the soil
that the pile is supported by. Experimentation of Sprince & Pakrastinsh (2010) on helical piles in
different soils reinforced the significance of soil dependence. They observed differential increase
in capacity of same sized helixes in different soils. So the most important part to the design of
piles is the properties of the soil on site.
Piles can be designed using two approaches: direct method and indirect method. Direct
method calculates the soil unit resistance directly based on soil strength characteristics idealized
from in situ testing. Indirect method uses some empirical approaches for this purpose.
2.2.1 Direct methods
Direct methods include standard penetration test (SPT) and cone penetration test (CPT). SPT
works by driving a thick walled tube into a borehole. This tube is driven by dropping a weight of
140 lb on it. The number of dropping blows is counted per six inch of penetration and used to
estimate the unit end resistance of soil. The ultimate load carrying capacity can be determined by
multiplying end resistance of soil by area of pile at toe. For helical piles, projected area of
helixes can be used for this purpose.
10
Cone penetration test involve penetration of a cone into the soil. The resistance of cone
penetration is recorded using a sensor at the tip of the cone, a pour water pressure sensor directly
above it or located on the cone, and a friction sleeve following the pour water sensor. Using
these three sensors the CPT test can give a good approximation of the soil properties. An
extension of CPT is used for piles which is LCPC method. This stands for Laboratoire Central
des Ponts et Chaussees in Paris and is based on 197 static loading tests that were conducted on
different piles (Tappenden, 2007).
LCPC method can directly measure the ultimate end bearing and skin resistance of piles.
This method was documented by Bustamante and Gianeselli in 1982 and use factors related soil
and pile type (Rodrigo & Junhwan, 1999). Tappenden & Sego (2007) argued that LCPC utilizes
the coefficients used for cone penetration test to estimate resistances of pile. These coefficients
used are derived from soil type and tip resistance of cone penetration test (Tappenden & Sego,
2007). However, it is not clear if this method is able to estimate resistance of cylindrical shear
plane in case of helical piles. The basic relationship for LCPC is given in equation (6) and (7)
after Rodrigo & Junhwan (1999).
𝑞𝑏 = 𝐾𝐶 𝑞𝑐𝑎 (6)
1
𝑞𝑠 = 𝑞 (7)
𝐾𝑠 𝑐
11
Where
qb = unit base or end resistance
Kc= base resistance factor
qca = equivalent cone resistance at pile toe
Ks =shaft resistance factor
qc = representative cone resistance factor for corresponding layer
qs = unit shaft resistance
2.2.2 Indirect method
Indirect methods estimate unit resistance/strength of soil using empirical relations. These
relationships include t
 Torque method
 Bearing equations
 Dynamic load and settlement formulas
Torque method is the most widely used method in industry because of its instant results.
It is only used for helical piles. Bearing/load capacity is determined by multiplying installation
torque with a suitable torque coefficient. On the other hand, bearing equations calculate this
capacity by means of soil strength parameters such as cohesion and angle of internal friction.
They use few factors which include bearing, shape and inclination factors. These equations can
12
be used for both helical and conventional piles and require laboratory analysis of soil. The third
indirect method, Dynamic load settlement formulas, relate bearing capacity of foundations with
instant settlement that are incurred in them as a result of dropping certain amount of load. These
formulas do not need any lab or field analysis. Each of these methods are discussed here.
2.3 Torque method
The torque method is widely known around the industry for its simplicity and zero setup effort.
The torque method is able to determine the pile load capacity based on installation torque of the
helical pile. This method has two basic advantages; it does not require any soil exploration data
and ultimate load capacity of helical piles can be determined immediately after their installation.
This method was established based on uplift load tests on helical piles (CFEM, 2006), but is
equally used for axial compressive loads in industry and for research. Given the fact that deeper
soil layers are denser and stronger than upper layers, the uplift capacity is always less than the
compressive capacity. (Trofimenkov & Mariupolskii, 1965) tested two hundred helical piles and
found that capacity in compression was 1.4 to 1.5 times the capacity in uplift. Similarly, Sakr
(2009) conducted a helical pile test program and found that the compression capacities were 40%
to 50% more than the uplift capacities . Researchers such as Livneh & El Naggar (2008) and
Narasimha Rao et al. (1991) have studied the behaviour of helical piles in tension and
compression and found that the load carrying capacity was higher in compression.
To calculate ultimate resistance, the installation torque is multiplied with an appropriate
torque coefficient. The basic relationship is shown in equation (8) below.
13
𝑄𝑈𝑙𝑡 = 𝐾𝑇 × 𝑇 (8)
where
QUlt = Ultimate load on pile
KT = Torque coefficient
T = Installation torque
Canadian Foundation Engineering manual (CFEM, 2006) suggests that the torque
coefficient is a function of the skin resistance along the length of the shaft, the skin resistance of
the top and bottom of the helixes and the resistance of the leading edge of helixes. This
coefficient depends on pier’s shaft size and shape. The recommended values of torque coefficient
according to CFEM (2006) for use with equation (8) are as follows:
 7/ft for pipe/round shafts of 90mm outer diameter, with this value decreasing to 3/ft for
shaft diameters approaching 200mm.
 10/ft (33/m) for square shafts of less than 90mm diameter,
Installation torque can vary depending on the skin resistance of the shaft during
installation. Different shaft types of the same size (i.e. round vs. square) may vary slightly in
skin friction values. However, for small sized shafts which produce little or no skin resistance,
the installation torque is completely dependent on the skin resistance of the helix, and the
computed bearing capacity will be the same regardless of the type of shaft. The minimum shaft
14
diameter for which skin friction is applicable is 100mm (CFEM, 2006). The shaft diameter of
installed helical piles (RS2875.203) is 2-7/8 inches (or 73 mm). Hence, a torque coefficient of
10/ft as suggested by CFEM (2006) for square shafts of less than 90mm can be used for
RS2875.203 helical piles.
Hoyt & Clemence (1989) analyzed 91 multihelix piles in uplift and obtained good
approximation of loads using KT as 10/ft for square and round shafts having less than 3.5 inches
(89mm) diameter. Furthermore, the same value of KT was used by Zhang (1999) for calculating
the uplift capacity of helical piles having similar sized shafts. Although, this is a reasonable
choice of torque coefficient for helical piles having 2-7/8 inch outside shaft diameter, 9/ft is a
value that is also suggested for this shaft sizes. A.B CHANCE INC, a renowned company that
specializes in helical piles, and they recommend to use 9/ft for RS2875.203 helical piles
(A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell, 2014). Likewise, section 13.2.1 of AC 358 (ICC evaluation service,
2007) and the international building code 2009 (Willis & Ram Jack., n.d.) advocate same value
of torque coefficient for helical piles having round shaft diameters equal to 2-7/8 inches.
Changes in the KT can vary the resultant load capacities, but the values of installation
torque used in torque method can alter the calculated ultimate load drastically. The Canadian
Foundation Engineering manual (2006) advises to use a value of installation torque averaged
over the entire depth of the pier, whereas, Hoyt & Clemence (1989) recommend using
installation torque values averaged over the final length of penetration equal to three times the
diameter of largest helix. Their research was based on analysis of 91 multihelix helical piles
tested in uplift.
15
2.4 Bearing equations
As discussed before, piles develop their full load carrying capacity from end bearing and skin
resistance. In helical piles, a third component, known as the cylindrical shear plane, is added.
Bearing equations are available for each of these components of bearing capacity. The basic
form of the bearing equation for ultimate capacity of a pile is given in equation (9).
𝑄𝑈𝑙𝑡 = 𝑄𝑏 + 𝑄𝑠 = 𝑞𝑏 𝐴𝑏 + 𝑓𝑠 𝐴𝑠 (9)
where
QUlt = ultimate capacity
Qb = tip resistance capacity
Qs = skin resistance/friction
qb = unit baring capacity of the soil
Ab = area of pile at base/toe
fs = unit skin friction
As = shaft area
This equation includes end/tip resistance and shaft resistance. The basic form of the
bearing equation used to calculate tip resistance is given in equation (10) as proposed by Terzagi
in 1943 (Das, 1999). This correlation gives the ultimate end bearing load of footing. The
maximum allowable load is calculated by multiplying ultimate load with a suitable safety factor.
16
𝑄𝑈𝑙𝑡 = 𝐴(𝐶𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞 + 0.5Ƴ𝐵𝑁𝑦) (10)
where
 C= cohesion
 A= cross sectional area of footing
 Ƴ= unit weight of soil
 qʹ= overburden pressure
 NC, Nq, Ny= bearing capacity factors
Overburden pressure is calculated by multiplying the unit weight of soil with the depth of
footing. Unit weight of soil used depends on the water table depth below natural surface level. If
the water table is located above the footing, the soil’s submerged unit weight must be used in the
bearing equation. This can be calculated by subtracting unit weight of soil with unit weight of
water.
As depicted, this relationship estimates ultimate load capacity using three terms.
Understanding these terms is vital when explaining the calculated results. Bowles (1988)
provides an explanation of these terms. The first term, CNC, dominates in the case of cohesive
soils, while the second term, qʹNq. is dominates when the soil is cohesionless. He describes the
third term, 0.5yBNy, as the width of foundation’s contribution to bearing capacity. Additionally,
cohesion can be replaced by undrained shear strength when clay is present. This is due to the low
hydraulic conductivity of clays (Coduto, 2001).
17
The basic bearing equation for shallow and deep foundations is the same; however, they
differ in regards to which bearing factors will be used. In the case of shallow foundations,
separate additional factors such as shape, depth, and inclination are used. The bearing equations
for shallow and deep foundations are explained below.
2.4.1 Load bearing equation for shallow foundations
Shallow foundations differ from deep foundations primarily because of their shallower depth, but
they can also feature different shapes such as strip, square, and circular. This basic form of the
correlation given in equation (10) is used for strip footings. For circular and square foundations,
additional factors known as shape factors are used. With the inclusion of shape factors, equation
(10) can be written as shown in (11) and (12).
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝐴(1.3𝐶𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞 + 0.4Ƴ𝐵𝑁𝑦) (𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒) (11)
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝐴(1.3𝐶𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞 + 0.3Ƴ𝐵𝑁𝑦) (𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟) (12)
The bearing capacity factors for shallow foundations given by Terzaghi are as follows in
equation (13), (14) and (15) (Das, 1999).
3𝜋 𝜙
2( − )𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙
𝑒 4 2
𝑁𝑐 = 𝐶𝑜𝑡𝜙 ( − 1) = 𝐶𝑜𝑡𝜙(𝑁𝑞 − 1) (13)
𝜋 𝜙
2𝐶𝑜𝑠 2 ( 4 − 2 )
18
3𝜋 ϕ
𝑒 2( 4 − 2 )𝑡𝑎𝑛ϕ
𝑁𝑞 = (14)
ϕ
2𝐶𝑜𝑠 2 (45 + 2 )
𝐾𝑝
𝑁𝑦 = 0.5 ( − 1) 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 (15)
𝐶𝑜𝑠 2 𝜙
where
Kp is passive earth pressure coefficient
These bearing capacity factors correspond to the soil failure plane angle, α, which is equal to
friction angle (𝜙) . However, studies have shown that α is closer to 45+𝜙/2 rather than 𝜙 as
shown in figure (2). Therefore, the values of bearing capacity factors were modified and applied
in equation (16), (17) and (18) (Das, 1999).
𝑁𝑐 = (𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝐶𝑜𝑡𝜙 (16)
𝜙
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + ) (17)
2
𝑁𝑦 = 2(𝑁𝑞 + 1)𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 (𝑉𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑐 1973) (18)
19
Figure 2. Failure plane of a typical footing.
(Reprinted from Principles of foundation engineering (P. 157) by Das, 1999. Copyright 1999 by
Cengage learning, Inc. Reprinted with permission)
Bearing capacity factor, Ny, shown in equation (18) was initially presented by Vesic in 1973
(Das, 1999). Nowadays, there are several correlations used for Ny. Meyerhof in 1961 gave a new
relationship (Meyerhof, 1963) shown in equation (19). Another correlation for Ny proposed by
Davis and Booker (1971) is presented in equation (20) (CFEM, 2006). This relationship is
suitable when angle of internal friction is more than 10 degrees (CFEM, 2006).
𝑁𝑦 = (𝑁𝑞 − 1)1.4𝜙 (19)
𝑁𝑦 ≅ 0.0663𝑒 0.1623𝜙 (20)
The bearing capacity equations mentioned above do not consider the shearing resistance above
the bottom of footing along failure plane. To address this, Meyerhof (1963) introduced additional
factors in order to account for the deficiencies of these equations (Das, 1999). These factors
20
included shape, depth and load eccentricity factors. The modified equation by Meyerhof can be
written as given in equation (21).
𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝐴(𝐶𝑁𝑐 𝐹𝑐𝑠 𝐹𝑐𝑑 𝐹𝑐𝑖 + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞 𝐹𝑞𝑠 𝐹𝑞𝑑 𝐹𝑞𝑖 + 0.5Ƴ𝐵𝑁𝑦 𝐹𝑦𝑠 𝐹𝑦𝑑 𝐹𝑦𝑖) (21)
where
Fcs, Fqs, Fys= shape factors
Fcd, Fqd, Fyd= depth factors
Fci, Fqi, Fyi= load inclination factors
If all these new factors are combined within thethe bearing factors, then equation (21) can be
written as shown in equation (22) below. These bearing capacity factors: 𝑁𝑐 ∗ , 𝑁𝑞 ∗ and 𝑁Ƴ ∗
include the depth, shape and inclination factors.
𝑄𝑈𝑙𝑡 = 𝐴(𝐶𝑁𝑐 ∗ + 𝑞ʹ𝑁𝑞 ∗ + 0.5Ƴ𝐵𝑁Ƴ ∗ ) (22)
2.4.2 Load bearing equations for deep foundations
Deep foundation piles develop their load bearing capacity from two primary mechanics: toe
resistance and skin resistance. The skin (or shaft) resistance of a pile is not considered if the shaft
is less than 100mm in diameter (CFEM, 2006). The basic form of bearing equations for deep
foundations is the same as for shallow foundations, except for the bearing factors. Unlike
shallow foundations, bearing factors for deep foundations are complex and difficult to calculate.
This is due to the variation in soil angle of internal friction, which is caused when the pile is
21
driven into the soil (Day, 2010), as well as the differences in soil-footing interaction. When piles
are driven into sandy soils, they displace and densify the soil at the bottom of the pile. This
action tends to increase the friction angle of the soil around the vicinity of the pile; therefore
changing the bearing capacity factors, especially Nq (Day, 2010). The bearing factors for deep
foundations/piles are explained below.
2.4.2.1 Bearing factors for pile foundations
As discussed above, the bearing capacity factors for deep foundations are relatively complex.
Various values for these factors can be found in literature. Abdel-rahim, Taha, & Mohamed
(2013) use an NC value of 9 for deep foundations. This approximation of NC is also in use for
helical piles (Thompson, n.d. ; A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell, 2014). However, a design engineer
can override this value based on the above mentioned correlations for NC (Thompson, n.d.).
Canadian foundation engineering manual (2006) recommends NC values for different pile toe
diameters which are given in table (1).
Table 1:Bearing capacity factors for piles
Pile toe diameter (m) Nc
less than 0.5 9
0.5-1 7
larger than 1 6
Winterkorn & Fang (1975) gave the following correlation for NC.
22
𝑁𝑐 = (𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜙 (1) (23)
The bearing capacity factor, Nq, depends on soil friction angle and the failure mechanism at the
pile toe. The bearing factors are generally much higher for deep foundations as compared to
shallow footings (Lambe & Whitman, 1969). The possible cause of this is the variations in
friction angle of soil due to the soil consolidation around pile during pile installation as discussed
above. Vesic (1967) gave the values of Nq for circular deep foundations/piles by several
researchers which has been given in figure (3).
Figure 3. Nq values for circular deep foundations.

(Reprinted from “Ultimate loads and settlements of deep foundations in sand,” by Aleksandar. S.
Vesic, 1967. Copyright 1967 School of engineering, Duke university)
23
For deep foundations, the width (toe diameter) is very small compared to the depth of
foundation. For helical piles it is even smaller. Such small diameters result into very small values
of 0.5ƳD𝑁Ƴ and therefore can be neglected. If B is less than 9.8 to 13.1ft, then this term can be
ignored (Thompson, n.d. ; Hubbell & CHANCE, 2003).
Various researchers such as Meyerhof, Vesic and Janbu have studied bearing equations for piles.
Das (1999) explained Meyerhof and Vesic methods which are discussed below.
2.4.2.2 Meyerhof method
In 1976, Meyerhof proposed recommendations for calculating the bearing capacity of pile
foundations. He argued that the point bearing resistance and skin resistance of piles increases
with the depth of pile inside the ground in homogeneous soils. The ultimate end bearing load for
homogeneous cohesive soils from this method is given in equation (24)
𝑄𝑝 = 𝐴𝑃 (𝐶𝑁𝐶 ∗ + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞 ∗ ) ≤ 𝐴𝑃 𝑞1 (24)
where
Qp= ultimate end bearing load
AP= cross-sectional area of pile
q/= effective overburden pressure
q1 = limiting value of unit point resistance
24
Nq*= bearing capacity factor with respect to overburden pressure
NC*= bearing capacity factor for cohesion
When using a helical pile, the area of pile in equation (26) is replaced by projected helix area
(Ah). q1 is given as 0.5𝑁𝑞 ∗ tan(𝜙), and has units of tons per square foot. Nq increases as
embedment ratio increases, and reaches a maximum value when the embedment ratio becomes
equal to half of the critical embedment/depth ratio. The critical embedment ratio corresponding
to any specific friction angle of soil can be calculated using Meyerhof (1976) plot given in figure
(4). Meyerhof states that in most cases, the embedment ratio of deep foundations is greater than
half of critical embedment ratio. For this reason, maximum value of 𝑁𝑞 ∗ and 𝑁𝐶 ∗ should be used
for determination of load carrying capacity. These bearing factors are given in figure (4) below.
25
Figure 4. Meyerhof Bearing capacity factors and critical depth
(Reprinted from “Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations,” by G.G. Meyerhof, 1976,
Journal of the geotechnical engineering division, 102(GT3), p. 197-228. Copyright 1976
American Society of Civil Engineering. Reprinted with permission. (This material may be
downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of the American
Society of Civil Engineers)
2.4.2.3 Vesic (1977) method
Vesic proposed a different method for measuring the ultimate load on piles in 1977 (Das, 1999).
The Vesic’s ultimate point/end bearing load on pile is given in equation (25) below.
𝑄𝑝 = 𝐴𝑝 (𝐶𝑁𝐶 ∗ + 𝜎0 ʹ𝑁𝜎 ∗ ) (25)
where
26
1+𝐾𝑜
σ0=mean normal ground effective stress at pile toe= ( )𝑞 ′
3
𝑁𝜎 ∗ = bearing capacity factor
The bearing factor, 𝑁𝜎 ∗ , is a function of reduced rigidity index. Reduced rigidity index can be
computed using the rigidity index which in turn is dependant on friction angle, cohesion and
modulus of elasticity of the soil. Das (1999) has provided, the bearing factors used in Vesic’s
method for various values of reduced rigidity indexes and friction angles.
2.4.2.4 Load bearing equation for helical piles
Helical piles, like conventional piles, derive their full load bearing capacity from two main
mechanisms; skin friction and end bearing. Additionally, a third phenomenon known as
cylindrical shear plane can develop depending upon inter helix spacing ratio and contribute to
load bearing capacity. The summation of these three components yields the total bearing capacity
of helical foundations. The end bearing of each helix is calculated unless the helixes are not close
enough to form a cylindrical shear plane. In order to calculate total end bearing load capacity
(QT), end bearing resistance of all individual helixes (Qh) are summed up as shown in equation
(26). The ultimate individual helix bearing capacity can be derived using the same relations as
for other deep foundations, because helical piles are a sub type of deep foundations (CFEM,
2006). However, the calculation for helical pile differs as area of pile is replaced by projected
helix area, as seen in equation (27)
𝑄𝑇 = ∑ 𝑄ℎ (26)
27
𝑄ℎ = 𝐴ℎ (𝐶𝑁𝑐 ∗ + 𝑞ʹ𝑁𝑞 ∗ + 0.5Ƴ𝐷𝑁Ƴ ∗ ) (27)
where
Ah= projected helix area
Although, the bearing factors for deep foundations can be used for helical piles, some researchers
have explained bearing factors specifically for helical piles. Tappenden & Sego (2007) argued
that for helical piles, the Nq values recommended by Vesic (1963) may be used. Additionally, Nq
values can also be calculated based on the work of Meyerhof (1976) (A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell,
2014;Thompson, n.d.). The relationship adopted from Meyerhof’s work is given in equation (28)
which is Meyerhof Nq values multiplied by 0.5. This approach is used for long term applications
(A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell, 2014;Thompson, n.d.).
𝑁𝑞 = 0.5(12 × 𝜙)𝜙/54 (28)
Based on the above discussion, the friction angle of soil has come forward as a basic parameter
in order to calculate bearing capacity factors. However, when angle of internal friction is not
known, SPT blows can be utilized to approximate a value of internal friction angle. For this
purpose the empirical data provided by Bowles in 1968 can be used which is represented by the
equation (29) given below (Thompson, n.d.).
∅ = 0.28𝑁 + 27.4 (29)
28
Skin friction in helical piles is a resistance that develops along the shafts of the pile and
can also be referred to as shaft friction/resistance. This type of friction follows a relationship
with the shaft, where the resistance will increase as the shaft diameter increases. The relationship
given in equation (30) can be used to calculate shaft friction (CFEM, 2006). The shaft friction is
ignored if the shaft is less than 100mm in diameter (CFEM, 2006).
𝑄𝑠 = ∑[𝜋𝐷𝑓𝑠 ∆𝐿𝑓 ] (30)
where,
QS = shaft capacity
D= Diameter of shaft
ΔLf = Incremental pile length over which πD and fs are taken as constant
fs= Sum of friction and adhesion between soil and pile
The length of shaft for which skin friction is valid for is referred to as effective length of
shaft (Heff). Effective length is not always equal to entire shaft length, rather, it varies depending
upon the category of helical piles in terms of embedment ratio. Narasimha Rao, Prasad, &
Veeresh (1993) conducted several tests on model helical piles in uplift and explained the
implications of different effective lengths. They observed that the failure zone of shallow helical
piles extended to the top of a pier at the surface, and that there is a gap between the shaft and soil
at the top of pier. Based on these observations, they argued that the shaft resistance for shallow
helical piles should be ignored. Similarly, skin resistance was present for transition piles;
however, heaving of soil at the surface was also observed. This indicates that skin resistance is
29
not applicable for the entire shaft length and varies with different embedment ratios. For
transition helical piles, effective shaft length was equal to 0.7 D1 - 0.9 D1 and 1.7 D1 - 2.5 D1
for embedment ratio of 3 and 4 respectively. No heaving of soil was observed for deep helical
piles and effective length of shaft was in the range of (H - 1.4 D1) to (H - 2.3 D1).
(Trofimenkov & Mariupolskii, 1965) analyzed helical piles in compression and tension
and found that skin resistance was not applicable for the entire shaft length. They attributed it
with the formation of compaction zone and hollow zone above top helix in tensile and
compressive loads respectively. The length of shaft above the top helix for which skin resistance
is not applicable is equal to the helix diameter (Trofimenkov & Mariupolskii, 1965). Zhang
conducted helical pile load tests in 1999 and proposed an effective length of shaft for skin
friction as given in equation (31). Where, H is installation depth of pile and D1 is diameter of top
helix.
𝐻𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐻 − 𝐷1 (31)
2.5 Pile load tests
Pile load tests are the most accurate and precise way to determine the ultimate loads
which a pile can carry. Direct and indirect methods of design do not give settlements/deflections
in piles, and therefore lack accuracy. As discussed earlier, if a pile settle more than the specified
limits, it is considered failed even if the designed allowable load is not reached. For this reason,
pile load tests are conducted prior to construction to check for actual ultimate and allowable load.
30
Two types of load tests can be performed: axial tension and axial compression. In axial tensile
load tests, tension loads are applied on a pile, whereas, for axial compressive load tests,
compressive loads are applied in order to check for ultimate and allowable loads. The main
product of a pile load test is to obtain load and settlement data. A graph is plotted between load
and settlement which is regarded as load movement curve or loading curve. Using this plot,
settlement/deflection of a pile at any load magnitude can be determined. This curve is useful
because it describes the complete behaviour of a footing. Depending upon the allowable limits of
settlements for any particular structure, a suitable ultimate and allowable load is selected from
loading curve.
There are several failure criterions which analyze a load movement curve and define
ultimate loads. Since pile load tests are done in real field conditions, they represent actual
loading capacity of footings for which settlements are maintained within limits.
31
Chapter 3 Installation of helical piles and site
investigation
North-West corner of Kelowna International airport was selected as the testing site to install
helical piles. This site is away from the airport taxiway and is a good plain area with minimum
disruptions. Prior to the testing, City of Kelowna was contacted to get the permission for testing
on these grounds. Because of the presence of utilities and water pumps in vicinity, it was
necessary to check for any underground utilities at the piling location. For this purpose, BC
CALL ONE was contacted, and piling started after getting their confirmation.
3.1 Configuration and material properties of helical piles
All piles installed and tested were AB CHANCE RS2875.203 helical piles. These single helix
piles have shaft diameter of 2.875 inches and thickness of 0.203 inches. The diameter, pitch and
thickness of helix is 10 inches, 3 inch and 0.375 inch respectively. A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell
(2014) specifies the nominal capacity of RS2875.203 as 73.6 kips and maximum torque rating as
6000 ft-lb. The material used for the manufacturing of the shafts is ASTM A500 grade C
material with a minimum yield strength of 50 ksi. The helix material is ASTM A572 with
minimum yield strength of 50 ksi. The allowable load capacity of these piles is 66.3 and 36.8
kips based on LRFD and ASD design methods respectively (A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell, 2014).
However, the load carrying capacity of deep foundations is governed by the geotechnical
strength of soil, as the structural strength of deep foundations is much greater than the soil’s
strength.
32
In total, seven helical piles were installed at the test site, and installation torques were
measured digitally through a system supported by a wireless network. A Quick static axial
compression test was performed on seventh pile which is identified as test pile here after. Test
pile was installed in the middle of all the other piles. All piles were driven to a depth where they
achieved an installation torques value close to 5500 ft-lb. The distance between piles was
carefully selected in order to avoid any interaction between their developed pressure bulb within
the ground. Helical pile extensions were used to drive them to the desired depth. The torque
records of installed piles are given in figure (5). From these records, it is clear that the increase in
torque was not gradual; but instead changed rapidly.
Pile No 1
6000
4500
Torque (ft-lb)
3000
1500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth (ft)
(a)
33
Pile No 2
6000
4500
Torque (ft-lb)
3000
1500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth(ft)
(b)
Pile No 3
6000
4500
Torque (ft-lb)
3000
1500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth (ft)
(c)
34
Pile No 4
6000
4500
Torque (ft-lb)
3000
1500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth(ft)
(d)
Pile No 5
6000
4500
Torque(ft-lb)
3000
1500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth(ft)
(e)
35
Pile No 6
6000
4500
Torque (ft-lb)
3000
1500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth(ft)
(f)
Test Pile
6000
4500
Torque(ft-lb)
3000
1500
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Depth (ft)
(g)
Figure 5. Installation torques of installed helical piles
36
3.2 Soil investigation
In order to determine the geotechnical characteristics of the soil in which helical piles
were installed, soil was excavated to a depth of 7ft and samples were collected. Various tests
such as soil sieve analysis, hydrometer test and direct shear test were conducted to investigate the
classification of soil and its strength characteristics.
3.2.1 Soil classification
To classify the soil according to unified soil classification system, ASTM D2487
standards were followed. Soil sieve analysis revealed that the soil composition was sand with
fines. In order to further classify the soil, liquid and plastic limit tests were performed according
to ASTM D4318 standards. The liquid limit test apparatus used is shown in figure (6).
Figure 6. Liquid limit test apparatus
37
Due to the significant fluctuations of liquid and plastic limit test results, a hydrometer test
was performed to further classify the soil. This test is conducted to determine the particle size
distribution of particles less than 0.075mm. As silt consists of particles sized from 0.05-0.002mm
and clay particles are less than 0.002mm, the percentage of silt and clay in a soil sample can be
identified by analyzing the particle size distribution curve given by a hydrometer test.
Hydrometer test was conducted according to recommendations of ASTM D422. And the
soil particle size distribution curve is given in figure (7). The results from the hydrometer test
and soil sieve analysis are plotted together in figure (7) which explains the complete particle size
distribution of the soil at the test site. As underscored by the distribution curve, the percent
passing at diameter equal to 0.002mm and 0.038mm was about 3% and 8.17% respectively.
Clearly, percentage of soil with particle size equal to 0.002mm was less than the percentage at
size greater than 0.002mm; thus, the soil was classified as silty sand (SM).
38
120
100
80
Percent passing
60
40
20
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Diameter (mm)
Figure 7. Particle size distribution curve of airport soil
3.2.2 Direct shear test
Direct shear test is performed to determine shear strength characteristics of soil (i.e. angle of
internal friction and cohesion). For this purpose, the direct shear apparatus developed by GDS
instruments was used. Parameters such as sample height, width, shearing rate and normal load on
sample are input using the device’s built in computer software. It is able to record and save data
every second. Two displacement transducers, vertical and horizontal, are attached to the
apparatus which records respective displacements. Two types of soil samples can be sheared
using the GDS apparatus, one is square and other is cylindrical. The shearing plane is predefined
in case of square samples, whereas there is no control over shearing plane in the case of
39
cylindrical samples. Several steel rings are used to confine the cylindrical soil samples, which
ensure the anonymity of shearing plane.
Figure 8. Shearing of cylindrical sample
Direct shear test was performed according to the recommendations by ASTM D3080, and
in total, four tests were conducted with square samples. Each sample was compacted to develop
density similar to that in field. Each sample was sheared to a relative lateral displacement equal
to 10% of the width of sample as per the recommendations of ASTM D3080, where the relative
lateral displacement is defined as the distance between the top and bottom halves of shear box.
Figure (9) represents the results of direct shear tests which were conducted. As observed in
figure, the results show very good consistency with each other. The cohesion and friction angle
was calculated to be 0.0036 ksi and 27 degrees.
40
0.016
y = 0.5098x + 0.0036
0.012
Shear Stress (Ksi)
0.008
0.004
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Normal Stress (Ksi)
Figure 9. Shear and normal stress of airport soil
3.2.3 Water contents of soil
Water content is calculated by dividing the weight of water in a soil sample by the soil’s dry
weight. For this purpose, four samples were taken and dried in an oven for 24 hours. Weights
were measured before drying and after drying in order to calculate the water contents in the
samples. Average water contents in soil was found to be 7.40%.
41
3.2.4 Unit weight of soil
The bearing capacity of a foundation is dependent on the soil unit weight or density in field. To
measure the unit weight of soil, two steel moulds were inserted into the ground to collect
undisturbed soil samples. The internal diameter and height of moulds were measured using
Vernier calliper. Using these measurements, the volume of soil contained inside the moulds was
calculated, and weights of the moulds with soil still inside was subtracted with the weights of
empty moulds to determine the weight of soil. Unit weight was calculated by dividing weight of
soil with the volume of soil. Average unit weight was found to be 14.90 KN/m3.
3.2.5 Maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content
The maximum unit weight of the soil is dependant on its moisture content. As the moisture
content in a soil increases, the unit weight will increase until it attains a maximum value at
certain moisture content, which is known as the optimum moisture content. This test was
performed based on the recommendations of ASTM D698 (standard proctor test), from which
the compaction curve is given in figure (10). The optimum moisture content of soil was found to
be 12.5% and maximum dry unit weight was 18.1 KN/m3.
42
18.5
Dry density (KN/m3) 18
17.5
17
16.5
0 4 8 12 16 20
Actual moisture content (%)
Figure 10. Compaction curve for airport soil
43
Chapter 4 Static axial compression test
4.1 Introduction
There are several methods to estimate the load capacity of foundations, such as empirical
relations, bearing capacity equations and load tests. Empirical formulas for deep foundations
include high strain dynamic loading tests and torque tests method. Dynamic testing is conducted
by dropping a load from a variety of different heights to the foundation cap to induce some
immediate settlements, which is linked to soil strength and eventually leads to load capacity.
Similarly, torque method links installation torque with load carrying capacity and calculates load
capacity by multiplying installation torque with a torque coefficient. The bearing capacity
equations utilize soil strength characteristics to estimate the ultimate load carrying capacity.
All these correlations indirectly calculate load capacity and possess default uncertainties,
as there can be instrumental or human errors in data acquisition. The static axial compression test
is conducted to estimate the actual load carrying capacity of foundations. In this loading method,
a predefined load is applied on foundations in intervals. The resultant settlements are recorded at
each load interval. As this test is conducted in field on installed piles, it results in the actual load
capacity of foundations by taking real soil conditions into account which is not possible by other
method. Other methods such as empirical and bearing equations estimate ultimate load carrying
capacities regardless of settlements and sometimes may give results for which settlements are not
within allowable range.
44
4.2 Types of static axial compression test
The compression test on foundations can be performed in seven different ways. Load movement
curve is the key product of each method. ASTM D1143 specifies the following seven types or
methods of static axial compression test.
i. Quick test
ii. Maintained test
iii. Loading in excess of maintained test
iv. Constant time interval test
v. Constant rate of penetration test
vi. Constant movement increment test
vii. Cyclic loading test
i. Quick test: In this method, anticipated failure load is applied on foundations in
increments of 5% and settlement for each load interval is measured. The load is applied
until the foundation fails but is not exceeded by the safe structural load of foundations.
During each increment, the load is kept constant for a time interval of 4 to 15 minutes.
After completely loading the pile, the load is removed in 5 to 10 equal decrements
keeping each decrement constant for 4 to 15 minutes. Movements (settlements) in pile
head are noted down at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 15 minutes during each load increment and
decrement.
ii. Maintained test: In this method, load equal to 200% of design load is applied in
increments of 25% and is maintained unless rate of axial movement does not exceed
45
0.25mm per hour. Afterwards, load is removed when settlement do not exceed 0.25mm in
one hour
iii. Load in excess of maintained test: This test method is an extension of maintained test
where the pile is loaded again to the maximum maintained load in increments equal to
50% of pile design load. For this, time interval between the load increments is kept 20
min. Additional load is applied in increments, keeping the same time intervals, equal to
10% of pile design load until the pile fails. If the pile fails, load is applied until the pile
attains a settlement equal to 15% of pile diameter. Otherwise, the load is held for two
hours and removed in four decrements keeping time interval of 20 minutes.
iv. Constant time interval test: The same procedure is followed as for maintained load test.
However, the load increments are 20% of design load with one-hour time interval
between each increment. The pile is then unloaded with same time interval of one hour
between loading decrements.
v. Constant rate of penetration test: In this testing method, a magnitude of load is applied
such that the pile penetrates with a constant rate equal to 0.25 to 1.25mm per minute for
cohesive soils and 0.75 to 2.5mm for granular soils. Maximum applied load is held on
pile unless it penetrates at least 15% of average pile diameter or stops penetrating and
then load is removed gradually.
vi. Constant movement increment test: Load is applied in increments such that the additions
in settlement of pile head are equal to 1% of pile diameter. The load is continuously
applied until the total settlement reaches 15% of pile diameter. Additional load is not
applied until the load variation rate necessary to keep the settlement increments constant
46
is less than 1% of total applied load per hour. Load is then removed in four decrements
until rate of load change is less than 1% per hour.
vii. Cyclic loading test: Load is applied in 50, 100 and 150% increments of design load in the
same manner as in case of maintained load. Each load increment is kept for one hour and
load is removed in decrements which are equal to increments. Time between decrements
is kept 20 minutes. After removal of each load, pile is then loaded again keeping load
increments equal to 50% of design load and time interval of 20 minutes.
4.3 Components and requirements of loading assembly
Following are the main components of loading assembly as recommended by ASTM D1143 in
order to apply the load on pile or a pile in group.
 Hydraulic jack/ Weights
 Test beam
 Anchor piles/Reaction piles
 Steel test plate
 Load transfer beams
 Reference beams
 Settlement measuring device
After installation of a pile, a steel test plate is placed above the pile head to uniformly
distribute loads. The load is applied by means of hydraulic jack which is placed over the steel
test plate. The load induced by hydraulic jack is transferred to the soil as tensile load by means
of four reaction piles. For safety purposes, load capacity of each reaction pile is kept more than
47
the anticipated failure load of foundation. This loading assembly can be changed depending upon
the conditions of sites and availability of different loading components. For example, the
wooden planks and dead weights can replace reaction beams and hydraulic jack respectively in
case they are not available.
A standard loading assembly can be seen in figure (11) where load is applied using
hydraulic jack. Reaction piles are fixed with load transfer beams which are placed horizontally
normal to the test beam. When hydraulic jack is raised to apply load, the load is transferred from
test beam to the load transfer beams, which further distribute load uniformly to four reaction
piles.
Figure 11. Standard loading assembly

(Reprinted from Standard test method for deep foundations under static axial compressive load,
ASTM D1143, in ASTM international. Retrieved from
http://compass.astm.org/EDIT/html_annot.cgi?D1143+07(2013) . Reprinted with permission)
48
The requirement of each component of this assembly is important for reliable results. The
test beam should be strong enough to sustain load and sufficient in size to prevent excessive
deflections. The settlements can be measured using displacement transducers and dial gauges.
Laser beams and surveyor’s level can also be used to observe settlement and should be
referenced with a permanent bench mark. A minimum of two transducers or dial gauges capable
of measuring at least 2 inches are required. These gauges are mounted on reference beams and
their stems are kept parallel to longitudinal axis of pile or pile group. Reference beams should be
levelled horizontally to avoid any errors in settlement measurements.
4.4 Interpretation of static axial compression test
Static axial compression test provides load and settlement data. This data can be interpreted to
determine the failure/ultimate load of foundations. There are several criterions that attempt to
analyse this data and can be used to estimate failure load. These criterions/methods are discussed
in the following section.
 Davisson offset limit load criterion
 10%, 8% and 5% failure criterions
 L1-L2 failure criterion
 The Chin failure criterion
 The Brinch-Hansen 80% & 90% failure criterions
 De Beer failure criterion
 Decourt’s extrapolation
49
There is no specific method recommended by any standards. However, the International
Building Code (2006) recognizes three methods by which load movement curve can be
interpreted. These three methods are: 1- Davisson; 2-Brinch Henson, and; Butler-Hoy criterion
(NeSmith & Siegel, 2009). The selection of these methods depend on individual cases but
Davisson offset limit load and 10% failure criterion are the most widely used methods in the
deep foundation analysis.
4.4.1 Davisson offset limit load criterion
The Davisson offset limit load considers elastic compression of pile. It is mostly used for driven
piles which are tested according to quick method (Fellenius, 1980;Sakr, 2011) It defines failure
load as the load corresponding to a settlement which exceeds elastic compression by 0.15 inches
plus a factor equal to diameter of pile divided by 120 (Fellenius, 1980). Equation (32) can be
used to compute this settlement.
PL D
S= + 0.15 + (32)
AE 120
where
S= total settlement
P= load
A= cross sectional area of pile
E= modulus of elasticity of pile material
D= diameter of pile at toe in inches
50
The diameter of pile used in equation (32) should be considered as the diameter at the toe
of the pile. For helical piles, this diameter should be the helix diameter. If the pile is expanded at
the base, then the diameter of pile should be taken as the diameter of expanded base (CFEM,
2006). In order to determine the failure load, elastic compression line is first drawn on load
movement curve. The scale of the load movement graph should be such that the elastic
compression line makes an angle of 20 degrees with the load axis (Abdelrahman, Shaarawi, &
Abouzaid, 2003). Canadian foundation engineering manual (2006) also recommends to draw this
line at 20 degrees from the load axis. In the second step, offset line is drawn parallel to elastic
compression line at a distance equal to 0.15 inches plus D/120 from elastic compression line.
The load corresponding to the intersection point of offset line with the load movement curve is
considered as the ultimate load on pile. Allowable or safe load is determined by dividing the
ultimate load with a safety factor which is normally equal to 2.
The primary advantage of this criterion is that the elastic compression and offset line can
be drawn prior to the pile load test and test can be ended when load movement graph touches the
offset limit line. Davisson method can also be analyzed to check the presence of skin friction
along the pile shaft. The intersection of elastic compression line with the load movement graph
indicates the presence of skin friction along the shaft of pile (A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell, 2003).
This offset limit load method always yields conservative results (CFEM, 2006).
4.4.2 10%, 8% and 5% failure criterions
According to 10% failure criterion, a pile can be considered failed when it settles to an amount
equal to 10% of its diameter at toe. This criterion was first proposed by Terzaghi in 1942 for
51
compressive loads (Sakr, 2009). Subsequently, this criterion was proposed by Viggiani,
Mandolini, & Russo (2014). Sakr (2011) proposed that full toe resistance of soil is normally
mobilized at a settlement equal to 10% of helix diameter. Unlike the toe resistance, shaft
resistance is mobilized at small settlements which are equal to 5mm to 10mm (CFEM, 2006).
10% failure criterion, when used for smaller helix plates, yields appropriate settlements. For piles
with greater diameter of helix, 10% criterion can result into a failure load for which settlements
will be too high. These excessive differential settlements can pose a major challenge for design
engineers. For this reasons, further failure criterions have been introduced which could account
for larger diameter helixes and are describer below.
Livneh & El Naggar (2008) tested 19 helical piles in both tension and compression. They
observed that most of the piles failed in compression when a settlement more than 8% of helix
diameter had been achieved. They proposed a failure criterion which defines the failure load as a
load corresponding to the settlement equal to 8% of largest helix plus elastic compression
settlement of helical pile. This failure criterion is given in equation (33) below which is similar
to Davisson offset limit load criterion. Failure load is also determined in the same way as for
Davisson offset limit load criterion.
𝑃𝐿
𝑆= + 0.08𝐷 (33)
𝐴𝐸
where
S= Settlement at failure
P= Applied load at failure
52
L= Length of pile
A= Cross-sectional area of pile shaft
E= Young’s modulus of steel
D= Diameter of largest helix
5% failure criterion was proposed by Sakr in 2009 and defines the ultimate or failure load as a
load corresponding to a settlement equal to 5% of average helix diameter. This criterion is
intended for the uplift loads. In most cases, the uplift capacities of helical piles are less than the
compressive capacities for the same soil characteristics. The testing of two hundred helical piles
by Trofimenkov & Mariupolskii (1965) revealed that the compression load capacities were
about 1.4 to 1.5 times the tension or uplift load capacities. Sakr (2009) tested few helical piles
and suggested that compression capacities are about 40% to 50% more than the uplift capacity.
For this reason, the 5% failure criterion can also be used for the compressive load capacities, as
the results will always be safe. O’ Neill & Reese (1999) defined the axial compressive capacity
of cast-in-place concrete piles as the load that produces a settlement in pile equal to 5% of the toe
diameter.
4.4.3 L1-L2 failure criterion
L1-L2 method was proposed by Hirany & Khulhawy in 1989 (Kulhawy & Hirany, 2009).
The load movement curve can be divided in three regions as shown in figure (12): initial linear,
transition and final linear. In initial linear portion, the graph remains more or less linear.
Afterwards, it starts changing its shape which is transition region. Then comes a stage after
transition region where a large settlements occur by applying small loads. This portion of graph
53
is called final linear portion. The point corresponding to initial linear region is L1 and point
corresponding to final linear region is called L2. The load corresponding to point L1 and L2 are
PL1 and PL2 respectively.
Figure 12. Regions in load movement curve
(Adapted from “Interpreted failure load for drilled shafts via Davisson and L1-L2,” by Fred. H.
Kulhawy and A. Hirany, 2009, Proceedings of the 2009 International Foundation Congress and
Equipment Expo, p.127-134. Copyright 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers. (This
material may be downloaded for personal use only. Any other use requires prior permission of
the American Society of Civil Engineers)
54
L1 is easy to point out as it is prominent in most of the cases. However, in absence of
large displacement data, it is difficult sometimes to determine the exact location of point L2 on
graph (Kulhawy & Hirany, 2009). Khulhawy and Hirany in 2009 analyzed this method with
other existing methods and found out that most of the piles fail in transition region or in the final
linear region of load movement curve. Their research revealed that the Davisson offset limit load
was always higher than PL1 and lower than PL2 and failure occurred in transition zone. However,
they argued that failure can also take place beyond final linear portion of graph. Sakr estimated
ultimate loads for the helical piles in 2011 using Davisson, L1-L2 and 5% failure criterions. The
3
helical piles that were tested by Sakr (2011) had shaft diameter range between 12 4 to 16 inches
and helix diameters were between 30 to 40 inches. He found out that capacity results from L1-L2
method were lower than the 5% criterion by 13% to 18%. However, Davisson criterion yielded
load capacity values up to 47% lower than L1-L2 and 5%.
Apart from being a simple method, this method has some major drawbacks. One
drawback is that it can be effected significantly by the scale of graph as shape of load movement
curve can change as a result of scale change. The shape of load movement graph can also vary
considerably by the amount of skin friction in shafts of piles. This criterion can produce
considerably high load capacity values when skin friction is present. The graph of load
movement curve starts changing shape once skin friction reaches its threshold value. Thus, this
method can produce considerably low capacity values for small diameter piles where skin
friction is usually non-existent. Moreover, unlike other criterions such as Davisson, this criterion
does not consider elastic compression.
55
4.4.4 Chin failure criterion
This failure criterion was proposed by Chin in 1970. This method assumes a hyperbolic function
between load and settlement (Abdelrahman et al., 2003). In order to calculate the failure load,
each settlement value is divided by its corresponding load value and plotted along the ordinate.
The settlements are plotted along the abscissa. This failure criterion works on the assumption
that the plot shows a straight line at failure and the inverse slope of this straight line is failure
load. The slope of plotted straight line is called C1 and y intercept is called C2. The equation of
this straight line is given in equation (34).
∆
= 𝐶1 ∆ + 𝐶2 (34)
𝑃
where,
Δ= settlement
P= load
To identify a straight line, three points are required on a line. However, there are
significant chances of arriving at wrong conclusions in locating this straight line. Canadian
foundation engineering manual (2006) suggest that Chin failure criterion always results in
ultimate load capacities more than the maximum applied load on pile and is therefore is less
useful. However, it can be used to underscore the potential damages to the pile which appear as a
sudden change in Chin graph (CFEM, 2006).
56
Chin method can be applied to both quick and slow tests but there has to be constant time
increments between loads (Fellenius, 1980). This criterion is also dependent on extent of loading.
Abdelrahman et al. (2003) monitored this dependency and suggested that if the pile is loaded
close to failure loads then predicted ultimate loads are higher. As ASTM D1143 does not allow
to load the footing beyond safe load capacity, the applied loads in static axial compression test
are lower than the failure loads most of the times. For this reason, sometimes one need to
extrapolate the load movement curve in order to estimate the failure loads. The extrapolation
creates doubts and can result in wrong failure loads (CFEM, 2006;Abdelrahman et al., 2003).
Fellenius (1980) suggested that this method is more effective for high load data points on the
load movement curve. Usually a straight line does not form until it passes Davisson offset limit
load and as a rule, Chin method results are 20% to 40% greater than Davisson offset limit load
(Fellenius, 1980).
4.4.5 Brinch-Hansen 80% and 90% failure criterions
Brinch-Hansen 80% criterion was proposed by Brinch & Hansen in 1961. It defines failure load
as a load which induces four times the settlements as obtained at 80% of that load (Fellenius,
1980). Failure load is (PU) which induce settlement (ΔU) if 0.80PU gives a settlement value of
0.25ΔU. Similarly, Brinch-Henson 90% criterion defines failure load as a load that gives twice
the settlements of pile head as obtained at 90% of that load (Fellenius, 1980). In most cases, 80%
criterion is usually followed.
To estimate failure load, a graph is plotted between ratio of square root of each deflection
and the test load (√Δ/P) on ordinate and deflections on abscissa (Dotson, 2013). This method
57
assumes a straight line on its plot (CFEM, 2006). A best fit linear line is drawn and its slope (C 1)
and y intercept (C2) is calculated. PU and ΔU are given as follows in equation (35) and (36).
1
𝑃𝑢 = (35)
2√𝐶1 𝐶2
𝐶1
∆𝑢 = (36)
𝐶2
The load movement data with low load points can be ignored to plot Brinch Hansen
curve because data with high load magnitude is more significant for this criterion (Dotson,
2013). Canadian foundation engineering manual (2006) suggest that this criterion is only valid if
failure load (plunging failure) was reached during static axial compression testing of pier and the
point (0.8PU, 0.25ΔU) lies on load movement curve of test pile. If this is not the case, load
movement plot can be extrapolated.
4.4.6 De Beer failure criterion
This failure criterion was proposed by De Beer in 1967 and again in 1972 by De Beer and
Wallays. This method was initially developed for slow axial load tests (Fellenius, 1980). To
calculate failure load, graph between load and settlement is plotted in a double logarithmic scale.
Graph plot values falls in two straight lines. The intersection of these lines is defined as failure
load. This method assumes that pile was loaded close to failure load, otherwise the graph can be
a single straight line (Abdelrahman et al., 2003).
58
4.4.7 Decourt’s extrapolation criterion
This criterion was proposed by Luciano Decourts in 1999 (Abdelrahman et al., 2003). Each load
value is divided by its corresponding settlement and plotted against the load. Plot tend to be a
straight line. The point where this straight line intersects load axis is regarded as ultimate/failure
load. Ultimate load is calculated by extrapolating straight line to the load axis. The slope of the
line is C1 and y intercept is C2. The ultimate load can directly be determined by dividing C2
with C1 (equation 37).
𝑄𝑢 = 𝐶2/𝐶1 (37)
4.5 Static axial compression test on test pile
The helical pile on which this compression test was conducted is denoted as test pile. Test pile
was the same as other installed helical piles i.e. RS2875.203. It was installed at the middle of the
rest piles so as to keep it in same soil conditions as for other’s.
4.5.1 Test assembly
The load set up is shown in figure (13). The components of the compression test assembly were
the same as explained by ASTM D1143 and are given below.
 Hydraulic jack
 Test beam
59
 Reaction piles
 Steel test plate
 Load transfer beams
 Reference beams
 Dial gauges
The main part of this assembly is to have a strong and huge test beam. This test beam was
sufficient in size to avoid excessive deflections and to sustain huge loads. The test beam was
connected with load transfer beams to transfer the load to these beams. The load transfer beams
were connected with reaction piles with the help of ringed steel rod bolted with the reaction
piles.
Four reaction piles were installed which were multi helix piles containing three helixes of
10, 12 and 14 inches. Multi helix pile were used as reaction piles for safety purposes as they have
more capacity than a single helix pile in both tension and compression loadings. Reaction piles
were driven to a depth and installation torque similar to the test pile. They all attained a similar
torque value at an average depth of 21ft.
60
Figure 13. Loading assembly for compression test conducted
There were two reference beams for mounting the dial gauges. They were accurately
levelled to measure settlement precisely. In total, four dial gauges were used to measure the
resultant settlement and were placed at four corners of steel test plate. The gauges were fixed on
the reference beam with the help of magnetic bases. Net settlement was calculated by averaging
the settlement of each dial gauge. The test set up with dial gauges is shown in figure (14).
61
Figure 14. Mounted dial gauges on reference beams
4.5.2 Hydraulic jack and calibration
There were two hydraulic jacks which could be used to load the test pile. First was AME ram
and other was Orbit ram. For this test, AME ram/hydraulic jack was used fig 15 (b). This ram is
powered by a generator and is capable of applying a load up to 186,246 lbs. Whenever a load had
to be applied on the test pile, pressure was induced in ram and its shaft moved up. The pressure
inducing system of ram/hydraulic jack is shown in figure 15 (a).
62
Figure 15 (a): Pressure inducing system Figure 15 (b): Hydraulic jack
Figure 15. Hydraulic jack system
Like any other loading system, calibration of hydraulics with load is very important as it
is responsible for accurate load application on the test pile. Calibration chart of load with
hydraulic pressure is given in figure (16). Load increases linearly with the pressure and shows a
perfect straight line. Using this calibration plot, the load magnitude can be determined at any
pressure. The load in pounds can be calculated by multiplying pressure magnitude in Psi by
20.694 using equation (38).
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑙𝑏𝑠) = 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 (𝑃𝑠𝑖) × 20.694 (38)
63
2.E+05
2.E+05
Load (lbs)
1.E+05
6.E+04
0.E+00
0 4000 8000 12000
Pressure (Psi)
Figure 16. Calibration chart of AME ram
4.5.3 Static axial compression test
Static axial compression test is terminated when specific predetermined load magnitude is
attained. This load, which can be regarded as the failure load, should not be more than safe or
allowable structural load capacity of foundation as suggested by ASTM D1143. To determine
the failure load for compression test conducted on a test pile, it is important to discuss the
ultimate and allowable structural load capacities of RS2875.203 helical piles.
64
A.B CHANCE & Hubbell Inc specifies nominal/ultimate structural load capacity of
RS2875.203 helical piles as 73.6 kips and allowable structural load capacity of RS2875.203
helical piles as 66.3 kips and 36.8 kips according to load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
and allowable stress design (ASD) method. The difference between LRFD and ASD allowable
loads is due to difference of safety factors in both design methods. Considering the
recommendations of ASTM D1143 standards, the test pile could be loaded to a maximum load
equal to 66.3 kips, as it is the maximum structural allowable load for RS2875.203 helical piles.
However, 66.3 kips may not be the ultimate load of RS2875.203 helical piles as ultimate and
allowable loads of piles are governed by the amount of settlement induced in piles. Deep
foundations are considered failed when they settle more than the permissible settlement. The
permissible amount of settlement depends upon the settlement tolerance of structures as
structures are designed to sustain a certain amount of settlement. If settlement more than the
permissible settlement is induced, this can damage the structural integrity. For most cases, when
designing the structures, 1 inch (25mm) is considered as the maximum accepted value of
settlement (Sakr, 2009). A settlement more than 1 inch can have serious damaging implications
on the superstructure of a building. However, the permissible settlement value also depends on
the soil on which foundation is lying.
Helical piles like other deep foundations carry loads by mobilizing full end bearing
strength of soil and cannot support load beyond this strength. If loaded further, they start to
settle. End bearing strength is fully mobilized at a settlement equal to 10% of helix diameter
(Sakr, 2011). And a pile is considered to have failed if the settlement in pile head reaches 10%
of pile diameter (Viggiani et al., 2014). Thus the settlement that would mobilize full end bearing
65
strength of soil at the tip of RS2875.203 helical pile is 1 inch as helix diameter for this pile is 10
inch.
Considering the above discussion, the permissible settlement for RS2875.203 helical
piles can be fixed at 1inch. Thus, the maximum amount to which the test pile could be allowed to
settle is 1 inch. Therefore, it was decided that the axial static compression test will be terminated
at a load equal to 66.3 kips or load corresponding to a settlement equal to 1 inch, whichever
comes first. This termination criterion served two purposes: safety of loading apparatus and
sufficient data for analysis.
The load was applied in increments of 5% of 66.3 kips and time interval for each load
was kept at ten minutes. Settlement in pile was noted at half, one, two, four, eight and ten
minutes of each loading interval. At the start of test, the load movement curve showed sharp
increase in slope but this slope started decreasing gradually depicting the depleting load capacity
of helical test pile. The test pile attained an average settlement of 0.957 inches at a load of 48.6
kips and the test was terminated at this stage. Load was removed afterwards in eight equal
decrements keeping the time interval of decrements same as it was during loading phase.
The load movement curve of test pile is shown in figure (17). Up to a load magnitude of
12.99 Kips, rate of increase in settlement was low but further loading of pile yielded a higher
settlement rates. Upon removal of load completely, a regain of 0.297 inch was observed and net
settlement was 0.66 inch at zero load. The data revealed that settlements occurred right after
each load increment and remained almost the same till the end of that increment.
66
6.00E+04
4.00E+04
Load (lbs)
2.00E+04
0.00E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Settlement (Inches)
Figure 17. Load movement curve of the test pile
67
4.6 Interpretation of test pile load movement curve
The failure criterions described above have been used to interpret the load movement curve of
the test pile in this section.
4.6.1 Davisson offset limit load
The Davison offset limit load method has been used for load movement curve of a test pile and is
given in figure (18). Elastic compression line is drawn at 20 degrees from the load axis. For
convenience, the graph has been plotted with the pile settlements in millimetres. If the graph had
been in inches, it would have been too small to draw these lines.
68
4.54E+04
PUlt
3.78E+04
3.03E+04
Load (lbs)
2.27E+04
1.51E+04
7.56E+03
0.00E+00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Settlement (mm)
Figure 18. Davisson offset limit load
The offset line is at distance equal to 5.91mm from the elastic compression line. The
ultimate load for the test pile results in 33.55 kips. The allowable load results in 16.77 kips by
applying a safety factor equal to 2. The settlements corresponding to ultimate and allowable load
are about 0.42 inch and 0.093 inch respectively. The ultimate settlement is 42% of permissible
settlement and leave a margin for additional settlement as 58%. The allowable settlement is 9.3%
of permissible settlement and leaves an additional settlement margin equal to 90.7%. Although
69
the ultimate settlement and corresponding additional settlement margin seem appropriate, but
piles are subjected to the allowable load rather than the ultimate load. The allowable load and
settlement is too small. The margin for additional settlement at allowable load is huge 90.7%,
which indicate that Davisson offset limit load criterion results in conservative failure load for
Canadian foundation engineering manual (2006) does not recommend considering skin
friction for shafts having diameter less than 100 mm. Although, the shaft diameter of
RS2875.203 helical pile is less than 100mm but Davisson plot indicates the presence of skin
friction along the shaft of the test pile as elastic compression line intersects the load movement
graph of the test pile.
4.6.2 10%, 8% and 5% failure loads
The settlement corresponding to 10% failure criterion is 1 inch for the test pile. The average total
settlement of the test pile was 0.957 inches, which is close to 1 inch. Hence, 0.957-inch
settlement is considered the settlement corresponding to 10% failure criterion in this research.
Thus, the maximum applied load on the test pile (i.e. 48.63 kips) is the ultimate load
corresponding to 10% failure criterion. The allowable load using a safety factor of 2 results in
24.3 kips and the corresponding settlement is about 0.22 inch. This settlement is 22% of
permissible settlement and leaves an additional settlement margin equal to 78%. The ultimate
settlement corresponding to 10% failure criterion is equal to 1 inch, which is the permissible
settlement for RS2875.203 helical piles. Thus, it can be argued that this failure criterion yields
real value of failure or ultimate load for RS2875.203 helical piles. Also, there is a sufficient
70
margin of additional settlement at allowable loads which ensures the safety of structures. This
indicate that 10% failure criterion yields appropriate values of ultimate and allowable loads
without compromising on safety.
The 8% failure criterion has been used for the test pile and can be seen in figure (19). The
elastic compression line has been drawn in the same way as in Davisson offset limit method. The
offset line did not intersect the load movement curve. The load movement curve was
extrapolated to intersect the offset line drawn at a distance equal to 8% of 10 inches (i.e. 20.32
mm). The ultimate load for this failure criterion comes out to be about 50 kips. The allowable
load results in 25 kips and corresponding settlement is about 0.23 inch. These allowable load and
settlement are appropriate. However, the load movement curve should not be extrapolated to get
the results because of the significant likelihood that load movement curve would not follow the
same path in reality as extrapolated (CFEM, 2006). The extrapolation makes this criterion
dubious and less useful for RS2875.203 helical piles.
The load movement curve of test pile gives an ultimate load of approximately 36.5 kips
corresponding to 5% failure criterion. The corresponding settlement is 0.5 inch which is 50% of
the permissible settlement. The allowable load, with a safety factor equal to 2, results in 18.25
kips. The settlement corresponding to allowable load is approximately 0.12 inch and leaves
additional settlement margin equal to 88%. 5% failure criterion yields conservative ultimate and
allowable loads as compared with 10% failure criterion. This criterion was initially proposed for
uplift loads. The compressive load capacities of helical piles are significantly higher than the
uplift capacities as discussed in section 4.4.2. Thus, conservative results of this failure criterion
71
are justified. This failure criterion is more applicable for the helical piles having higher diameter
helixes because it results in very small settlement for smaller diameter helixes.
6.34E+04 PUlt
5.44E+04
4.53E+04
Load (lbs)
3.63E+04
2.72E+04
1.81E+04
9.06E+03
0.00E+00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Settlement (mm)
Figure 19. 8% failure load
4.6.3 L1-L2 failure load
The L1-L2 plot for test pile is given in figure (20). The approximate values of PL1 and PL2 are
10140 lbs and 25991lbs respectively. The portion of graph between L1 and L2 is all transition
72
zone. As mentioned above that failure of pile occurs at transition region or at L2, load
corresponding to point L2 (PL2) can be considered as ultimate load capacity of test pile. The
ultimate load of this criterion can change if the scale of load movement curve is changed which
is a major drawback of this criterion and make its results highly uncertain.
6.00E+04
4.50E+04
Load (Lbs)
3.00E+04
L2
1.50E+04
L1
0.00E+00
0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Settlement (Inches)
Figure 20. L1-L2 failure plot
73
4.6.4 Chin failure load
This criterion assumes that the piles was loaded till the plunging failure condition. The Chin plot
for test pile is given in figure (21). It is evident that the straight line for this plot does not exist
potentially due to the reason that test pile was not loaded till failure.
2.00E-05
1.50E-05 C2=0.7×10-5
Settlement/correspondig load
1.00E-05 C1= 1.31×10-5
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Settlement (inch)
Figure 21. Chin failure plot
74
In order to achieve straight line for the figure (21), load movement curve of test pile
needed to be extrapolated till the plunging failure load. Because of uncertainties associated with
extrapolation, a best fit straight line was drawn and failure load was determined from this line.
The ultimate/failure load was found to be 76301.61 pounds or 76.3 Kips from this Chin curve.
By applying a factor of safety equal to 2, allowable load capacity becomes 38150.8 pounds or
38.15 Kips. The ultimate load is significantly higher than the maximum applied load on the test
pile. The settlement corresponding to the ultimate load would certainly be significantly higher
than permissible settlement which make this failure criterion invalid for RS2875.203 helical
piles.
4.6.5 Brinch Hansen failure loads
The Brinch-Hansen graph plot is shown in figure (22). The low load data point has been ignored
and only high load points from load movement curve of test pile has been used to plot Brinch
Hansen curve. The calculations show the values of PU and ΔU as 48492.86 pounds and 1.62
inches respectively. It was found that the points 0.8Pu and 0.25Δu did not plot on the load
movement curve of test pile. The potential reason is that the failure was not achieved during
static axial compression testing of test pile. Failure load for the test pile therefore cannot be
determined using Brinch Hansen 80% and 90% criterions.
75
2.50E-05
2.00E-05
(√Settlement)/Test load
1.50E-05
1.00E-05
C2
5.00E-06
0.00E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Settlement (inch)
Figure 22. Brinch-Hansen failure plot
4.6.6 De Beer failure load
De Beer plot for the test pile has been given in figure (23). It can be seen from the plot, just after
the third point, line has changed its course and intersection point can be distinguished. This
intersection point between two lines shows a failure load of approximately 10,000 pounds or 10
Kips.
76
With a safety factor of 2, allowable load becomes 5000 pounds or 5 Kips which is
significantly less as compared with other methods discussed in this chapter. The settlements at
ultimate and allowable load are about 0.038 inch and 0.026 inch respectively. These settlements
are 3.8% and 2.6% of the permissible settlement which are very small and leave huge margins
for additional settlements as 96.2% and 97.4% respectively. Thus, it can be argued that this
failure criterion underestimates the true bearing potential of RS2875.203 helical piles which may
lead to highly uneconomical pile designs and therefore is not recommended for these piles.
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
Load (Lbs)
1.00E+02
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
0.01 0.1 1
Settlement (Inches)
Figure 23. De Beer failure plot
77
4.6.7 Decourt’s failure load
Decourt’s extrapolation for the test pile is given in figure (24). A best fit straight line has been
drawn. A few initial data points of load movement curve were discarded because they were not
lying in straight line. A best fit line is drawn to calculate the ultimate load. From extrapolation,
ultimate load was found to be 62,748.64 pounds or 62.74 Kips. By applying a safety factor equal
to 2, allowable load becomes 31374.32 pounds or 31.37 Kips.
1.60E+05
1.20E+05
Load/Settlement
y = -2.9389x + 184412
8.00E+04 R² = 0.9263
4.00E+04
0.00E+00
1.00E+04 2.00E+04 3.00E+04 4.00E+04 5.00E+04
Load(lbs)
Figure 24. Decourt’s extrapolation
78
The settlement corresponding to allowable load (31.37 kips) is approximately 0.4 inch.
The ultimate load is more than the maximum applied load on the test pile and corresponding
settlement would certainly be higher than permissible settlement which make this failure
criterion invalid for RS2875.203 helical piles.
79
Chapter 5 Estimation of ultimate loads from torque
method and bearing equations
The ultimate loads of installed helical piles were determined from the torque method and are
compared with the ultimate loads estimated using bearing equations and different interpretation
criterions of load movement curve of the test pile. The comparison between these techniques will
provide useful information regarding suitability and soundness of the torque method for
The installation torque is representative of the soil strength. The strength of soil is an
important parameter because it defines the load bearing capacity of foundations. Records of
installed helical piles indicate that each separate pile achieved an identical magnitude of torque at
different depths. Thus, it is justified to say that each pile attained the same load carrying capacity
at different depths. Although, these depths were not same but were close to each other. For
comparison purposes, it is imperative for each pile to have the same torque magnitude at their
toes, in order to ensure that the soil strength is consistent. The test pile has an installation torque
equal to 5257 lb-ft at its toe. Hence, for each pile, final toe depth is considered at a depth where
it achieves a torque equal to 5257 lb-ft. Average torque values to be used in the torque method
are determined considering this final toe depth.
Furthermore, by fixing the depth of each helical pile according to the test pile’s toe
torque, it can be said that the load capacity and strength characteristics of the soil for each helical
pile is similar to the test pile. Thus, the settlement response of each installed helical pile can be
determined from the load movement curve of the test pile (figure 17).
80
The ultimate load values calculated using the bearing equations are also compared with
those calculated using torque method. Bearing equations use the following soil strength
parameters to estimate loading capacities: cohesion and angle of internal friction. These
parameters are determined from soil samples taken from a depth 7ft below the natural surface
level (NSL). Thus, the bearing equations were used to determine the load capacities of installed
helical piles at 7ft from NSL. To be able to compare with the bearing equation results, the torque
method is used to estimate ultimate loads using a pile depth of 7ft. The projected helix area used
in the bearing equations is 0.531ft2 or 0.0493m2 for RS2875.203 (A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell,
2014). This area also includes the shaft area, which reflects the formation of a soil plug inside the
shaft. The projected helix area less the shaft area for RS2875.203 is 0.485ft2 or 0.0451m2.
It is important to mention that the ultimate load of each pile is computed from the torque
method at two different depths: depth corresponding to a torque of 5257 ft-lb and at 7ft. Ultimate
loads at 7ft depth are calculated for comparison with bearing equation’s results. Whereas, loads
at a depth corresponding to the torque of 5257 ft-lb are compared with those of static
compression test and its interpretation criterions.
5.1 Ultimate loads estimated from the torque method and the corresponding
settlements
In order to calculate ultimate load from the torque method, an average torque value is multiplied
by KT. This average torque can be determined by taking average over the entire depth of pile or
taking average over the final length of penetration equal to three times the helix dimeter, as
discussed in section 2.4. The length equal to three times the helix diameter is equivalent to 2.5ft
81
for RS2875.203 helical piles, as they have a single helix with 10inch diameter. For these helical
piles, two torque coefficients can be used as discussed in section 2.4: 9/ft and 10/ft. Both
averages of torque and KT are used to calculate ultimate loads of installed helical piles.
Figure (25) below represents the ultimate loads calculated using torque coefficients equal
to 9/ft and 10/ft respectively. Blue colored bars in these figures depict load values calculated
using torque averaged over entire pile depth, whereas orange bars show ultimate loads using
torque averaged over final 2.5ft of depth. Pile number seven in figure is the pile on which static
axial compression test was conducted, i.e. the test pile. It can be seen that the ultimate load of the
fifth pile shows a considerable dissimilarity from the rest, possibly due to the extraordinary soft
soil layers encountered during its installation. For this reason, fifth pile has been ignored in all
successive sections.
Before discussing the settlement response of installed helical piles, it is imperative to
discuss the permissible amounts of settlement. The structural members of any construction
project are designed based on a certain threshold amount of settlement. This threshold value is
normally taken as 1inch (Sakr, 2009). Aside from the structural design limitations, there is
certain amount of settlement required to mobilize the end bearing capacity of helical piles.
Typically, end bearing capacity is fully mobilized at settlements equal to 10% of the helix
diameter (Sakr, 2011). For RS2875.203 helical piles, this required settlement is equal to 1inch, as
these piles have single helix of 10 inches. Moreover, regardless of this permissible settlement, a
settlement greater than 1inch could damage the superstructure. Thus, 1inch can be regarded as
the maximum permissible amount of settlement for installed helical piles.
82
KT=9/ft
50
41.56
40.29 39.25
40 36.98 38.08
33.55
Ultimate load (kips)
30 26.99
20 18.52 18.66 17.96 17.96

16.34
13.74 12.65
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile no
(a)
KT=10/ft
50 46.18
44.76 43.61
45 42.31
41.08
40 37.28
Ultimate caoacity (Kips)
35
29.98
30
25
20.58 20.73 19.95 19.95
20 18.15
15.27 14.05
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile no
(b)
Figure 25. Ultimate loads calculated from torque method
83
The settlements at loads corresponding to the torque averaged over last 2.5ft are given in
table (2). The maximum ultimate load for KT =10/ft is in pile number 2 which is 46.18 kips, can
be seen in figure (25). Settlement at this load is 0.83 inches as given in table (2). For the other
helical piles, settlements are less than 0.83 inch, which is less than the permissible amount.
Although settlements at calculated ultimate loads are within limits, foundations are only
subjected to the allowable loads which include a safety factor. By applying a safety factor of 2 to
the ultimate load, maximum allowable load is calculated to be 23.09 kips. The settlement at this
allowable load is about 0.19 inch as given in table (2). This settlement is 19% of the permissible
amount, leaving a margin of 81%. Therefore, there is a considerable settlement margin left
behind which ensures the safety of structure.
Table 2: Settlements at ultimate and allowable loads corresponding to the torque averaged over
last 2.5ft
Settlement at ultimate loads (inch) settlement at allowable loads (inch)

Pile no KT =10/ft KT =9/ft KT =10/ft KT =9/ft
1 0.78 0.64 0.18 0.14
2 0.83 0.68 0.19 0.15
3 0.66 0.52 0.15 0.11
4 0.52 0.41 0.12 0.09
5 0.33 0.26 0.07 0.06
6 0.7 0.56 0.16 0.12
Test pile 0.75 0.6 0.18 0.13
When a KT value of 9/ft is used instead of 10/ft, ultimate loads are further reduced. The
corresponding settlements at these reduced loads are less as compared with the settlements at
loads corresponding to KT equal to 10/ft. Thus, results become more safe. Ultimate and
84
allowable settlements of helical piles for KT =9/ft can be seen in table (2). The maximum
ultimate load is 41.56 kips, and the corresponding settlement at this load is approximately 0.68
inch. When safety factor of 2 is applied on this load, the maximum allowable settlement is
estimated as 0.15 inch. This is equal to 15% of 1inch leaving an 85% margin.
When torque averaged over the entire depth of helical pile is used, the maximum ultimate
load using KT as 10/ft and 9/ft is 20.73 kips and 18.65 kips respectively. Settlements at these
loads are determined from the test pile’s load movement curve (figure 17), and are found to be
0.158 and 0.12 inch respectively. When a safety factor of 2 is applied on these ultimate loads,
settlements at resultant allowable loads corresponding to KT =10/ft and 9/ft are 0.037 inch and
0.034 inch. These settlements are 3.7% and 3.4% of the permissible amount, leaving a margin of
96.3% and 96.6% behind. This huge settlement margin indicates that such small ultimate and
allowable settlements are highly uneconomical for designs and will only mobilize a small
fraction of the end bearing potential of soil.
To summarize, when a torque value averaged over the final length equal to three times
the helix diameter is used, the torque method yields ultimate and allowable loads for RS2875.203
helical piles which are realistic, economical and safe for both values of KT (10/ft and 9/ft). The
corresponding settlements for these loads are appropriate and within permissible limits.
However, when torque averaged over the entire depth of pile is used in torque method, resultant
settlements are very small and are not sufficient to utilize true bearing potential of soil. Such
small settlements are highly uneconomical for designs.
85
5.2 Torque method and compression test interpretation criterions
The static axial compression load test gives a complete depiction of a foundation’s
behavior in different soils. Various failure criterions that tend to interpret load movement curve
are discussed earlier in chapter 4. The Davisson offset limit load, 10% and 5% criterions are
most noteworthy methods to interpret a load movement curve. The other criterions discussed are
unable to interpret the load movement curve of a test pile because of various reasons. Brinch
Hansen, Chin and De Beer failure criterions require the pile to be loaded close to the plunging
failure, whereas the compression test was aborted before this stage was reached. Moreover, Chin
and Decourt’s criterions result in loads that are significantly greater than the maximum applied
load on test pile and therefore are not deemed valid for RS2875.203. The comparison of ultimate
loads with Davisson, 10%, 5% and 8% failure criterions are given below. Pile no five is ignored
here as mentioned in section 5.1.
As torque averaged over entire depth of pile results in uneconomical and unrealistic
results, only ultimate loads of helical piles calculated using torque averaged over final 2.5ft are
discussed here. Figure 26(a) compares ultimate loads estimated using the torque method with
KT=10/ft to failure loads corresponding to 10% and Davisson offset limit criterion. Figure 26(b)
compares ultimate loads using KT=10/ft to failure loads corresponding to the 5% and 8%
criterions. “Ultimate loads” refer to the loads calculated using torque method and “failure loads”
refer to those determined by various interpretation criterions.
10% failure load (i.e. 48.63 kips) occurs at a settlement equal to 1inch for installed helical
piles as they have single helix of 10inch dimeter. Since 1inch is maximum permissible settlement
for RS2875.203 helical piles, loads corresponding to 1inch of settlement can be considered as
86
actual ultimate load for RS2875.203 helical piles. This makes the 10% criterion the most
important out of other mentioned criterions for RS2875.203 helical piles. The ratios between
ultimate loads calculated from the torque method versus the 10% failure load range between 0.76
to 0.949, which indicated an agreement between the two methods. However, the 10% failure load
is higher than the ultimate loads, which suggests that the torque method yields safer results.
On the contrary, the Davisson offset failure load is always less than ultimate loads. When
compared with the Davisson offset failure load, calculated ultimate loads are up to 37% and 24%
greater for KT equal to 10/ft and 9/ft respectively. As discussed in section 4.6.1, Davisson failure
criterion results in relatively small and uneconomical loads for RS2875.203 helical pile, while
the torque method seems to provide a good approximation of ultimate loads. The 5% failure load
is relatively close to the ultimate loads, as ratios of ultimate and 5% failure load range from 1.02
to 1.26. Although 5% failure load is less than the ultimate loads, it was proposed for helical piles
loaded in uplift. Uplift load capacities of helical piles are normally less than the compression
load capacities (Livneh & El Naggar, 2008;Narasimha Rao et al., 1991). The lower failure load
of 5% criterion is thus justifiable.
8% failure load is 50 kips, which is very close to the maximum applied load on test pile
(48.63 kips). Ultimate loads calculated using torque method range between 74% to 92% of this
failure load. This failure load represents a good agreement with torque method; however, it is
important to mention that load movement curve was extrapolated to obtain the failure load.
Extrapolation can produce unrealistic results, as the load movement curve might not follow the
extrapolated path in reality and failure could occur before reaching the anticipated load. The
87
50
40
Load (kips)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile no
Ultimate load 10% Davisson
(a)
60
50
40
Load (kips)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile no
Ultimate load 5% 8%
(b)
Figure 26. Comparison of calculated loads for torque averaged over last 2.5ft and failure loads
for KT =10/ft
88
Canadian foundation engineering manual also discourages the extrapolation of a load
movement curve. Validity of 8% criterion in this case is therefore dubious.
A similar to the results corresponding to KT=10/ft is evident for KT=9/ft. Figure (27)
compares the results of static axial compression test criterions to the torque method using
KT=9/ft. Ultimate loads are 69-85.5% of 10% failure load, which are 76-94.9% for KT =10/ft.
Similarly, ultimate loads are up to 23.8% more than the Davisson offset limit load. The ratios of
ultimate loads to 8% failure load range between 0.67 to 0.83. However, loads calculated with
KT=9/ft depict a better understanding with the 5% criterion as their ratios are from 0.91 to 1.13.
60
50
40
Load (kips)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile no
Ultimate load Davisson 10%
(a)
89
60
50
40
Load (kips)
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile no
Ultimate load 8% 5%
(b)
Figure 27. Comparison of calculated loads for torque averaged over final 2.5ft and failure loads
for KT=9/ft
5.3 Estimation of ultimate loads using bearing equations
The basic form of bearing equations is the same for all foundations; however, the bearing factors
used in the equations differ for shallow and deep foundations. Bearing factors suggested by
Terzaghi (1943) and Vesic (1963) have been used to calculate ultimate loads on helical piles.
Meyerhof (1976) and Vesic (1977) bearing equations are also used for this purpose. Table (3)
represents the calculated ultimate loads of installed helical piles at 7ft from NSL. For Terzaghi
(1943) and Vesic (1963), values of Nq * are determined from figure (3) and NC * is taken as 9 as
suggested by CFEM (2006). The ultimate load corresponding to Meyerhof (1976) is also
90
determined and found to be controlled by the limiting value of point/end resistance as discussed
in section 2.5.2.2. Vesic (1977) method is used to compute ultimate load at minimum value of
reduced rigidity index i.e. 10 which is the minimum mentioned value in Das (1999). This
minimum value is used because reduced rigidity index for the airport site could not be
determined due to the research limitations. Results show a slight deviation from each other.
Where the ultimate load upper bound is is 10.74 kips and lower bound is 8.57 kips, governed by
Vesic (1977) and Meyerhof (1976) respectively.
Table 3: Calculated ultimate loads of helical piles at 7ft
Bearing factors Ultimate load (Kips)

Meyerhof (1976) 8.57
Vesic (1977) 10.74
Terzaghi (1943) 9.46
Vesic (1963) 9.06
Ultimate loads corresponding to various combinations of bearing factors as recommended
by A.B.CHANCE & Hubbell (2014) are determined and given in table (4). To calculate Nq,
equation (28) is used. This equation represents values of Nq reduced by 50% (9 in this case) for
a long term application. The non reduced value of Nq i.e. 18 is also used. Similarly, a NC value of
9 represents the recommendation of Canadian foundation engineering manual and 18 is
determined from the equation (23).
The calculated value of ultimate load is appropriate and within the upper and lower
bounds set by Vesic and Meyerhof equations when a value of 9 and 18 is used for NC and Nq
respectively. This combination of bearing factors, using the A.B CHANCE & Hubbell method,
seems suitable to calculate the ultimate load of RS2875.203 helical piles.
91
Table 4: Bearing factor from A.B CHANCE & Hubbell Inc at 7ft
NC Nq QUlt (kips)
9 9 5.65
9 18 8.828
33.36 18 15.53
15.7 9 7.5
5.4 Torque method and bearing equations
In order to compare with the bearing equations, the torque method is used to calculate the
ultimate load of piles at 7ft. This means that the average torque values are determined
considering final depth of 7ft for each pile. The comparison with the bearing equations will
check the soundness of torque method. Although bearing equations used for conventional pile
foundations are also used for helical piles, the comparison of the ultimate loads of these
equations with torque method’s result will provide further understanding to identify the most
appropriate equation for helical piles. The calculated ultimate loads are given in table (5).
Table 5: Ultimate loads of installed helical piles calculated from torque method at 7ft depth
Ultimate loads (kips)

Pile no KT=10/ft KT= 9/ft
1 10.27 9.25
2 9.21 8.29
3 10.41 9.36
4 11.6 10.44
5 9 8.1
6 10.2 9.18
TP 9.89 8.9
92
A comparison of ultimate loads estimated by the torque method and bearing equations at
7ft is given in figure (28). Torque method results using both torque coefficients show a good
correlation with predicted loads calculated from the bearing equations. Ratios between loads
corresponding to different bearing methods and the torque method using both torque coefficients
ignoring pile no 4 are given in table (6). Pile no 4 is neglected because its results are showing
some deviation from the rest and may affect the comparison. Ratios for pile no 4 are given in
table (7). An ultimate load value of 8.828 kips is used for the A.B CHANCE and Hubbell
method in tables (5) and (6).
Vesic (1977) equation always yield higher ultimate loads than those computed with
torque method. However, ultimate loads from other bearing methods are in sound agreement
with those from the torque method. The ratios given in table (6) do not exceed 1 significantly,
which reflects the suitability of torque method with respect to the bearing equations. Moreover,
ultimate loads calculated using a torque coefficient of 9/ft are relatively closer to loads calculated
from bearing equations as indicated by their ratios. Ultimate load of the fourth pile deviates from
the rest piles, and for this reason, its ratios are different.
93
14
12
10
Load (kips)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile no
Kt=9/ft Kt=10/ft Meyerhof (1976) Vesic (1977)
Terzaghi (1943) Vesic (1963) CHANCE
Figure 28. Comparison of loads computed from torque method and bearing equations
Table 6 : Ratios between ultimate loads calculated from bearing equations and torque
method
KT=10/ft KT=9/ft
Terzaghi (1943) 0.90-1.05 1.01-1.16
Meyerhof 0.82-0.95 0.91-1.05
Vesic (1963) 0.87-1 0.96-1.11
A.B CHANCE & Hubbell 0.84-0.98 0.94-1.08
Vesic (1977) 1.03-1.19 1.14-1.32
94
Table 7: Ratios for pile no 4
KT=10/ft KT=9/ft
Terzaghi (1943) 0.81 0.9
Meyerhof 0.73 0.82
Vesic (1963) 0.78 0.86
A.B CHANCE & Hubbell 0.76 0.84
Vesic (1977) 0.92 1.02
When an average of the ultimate loads from the torque method at 7ft for all installed
helical piles except pile no. 4 is taken, their correlation with bearing equation’s results are
reinforced. Table (7) below shows the ratios between average ultimate loads from the torque
method using both KT and loads corresponding to different bearing equations. A KT of 10/ft
depicts a reasonable agreement, but 9/ft proves to be the best suited torque coefficient in this
case since its ratios are approximately equal to 1. Surprisingly when bearing factors
recommended by A.B CHANCE and Hubbell are used to calculate ultimate loads, they show an
excellent correlation with the torque method for KT=9/ft as this ratio is equal to 0.99. These
results indicate that KT=9/ft generates relatively safe results which are equivalent to ultimate
loads predicted by different bearing equations.
Table 8: Ratios between ultimate load calculated from bearing equations and average
ultimate load of helical piles from the torque method
KT=10/ft KT=9/ft
Terzaghi (1943) 0.96 1.06
Meyerhof 0.87 0.96
Vesic (1963) 0.92 1.02
A.B CHANCE & Hubbell 0.89 0.99
Vesic (1977) 1.09 1.21
95
5.5 Numerical modelling of RS2875.203
The process of design for a geotechnical structure are relatively complex. For example, the
design of foundations is comprised of two parts; firstly, a structural design and then a subsequent
geotechnical design. The load carrying capacity of deep foundations/piles is governed by the
geotechnical properties of the soil, because piles are designed structurally to carry enormous
loads so that the soil strength will fail before the structural strength of pile. Deep foundations
sustain their loads through two mechanisms: skin friction and end bearing. Helical piles bear
their loads in same way as a conventional deep foundation; however, the helix the tip enhances
end bearing resistance substantially. Additionally, a third component called cylindrical shear
plane can exist, as discussed in section 2.2.2. In order to account for all these complexities, a
software especially designed for helical piles called HelixPile was used in this research.
HelixPile is developed by Deep Excavations. Deep Excavations is a private organization
which deals with the modern and robust design of deep excavations as well as helical piles.
HelixPile software incorporates all aspects of helical piles that are vital for their analysis and
design. Where any specific helical pile can be chosen from a database; however, users are able to
define their own specifications. This computer program is capable of designing and analyzing
following kinds of helical piles.
 Square shaft helical pile
 Round shaft helical pile
 Square micro pile
96
 Round micro pile
 Pipe grouted shaft with smaller core
Once pile geometry inputs are given, it calculates all parameters such as projected area of
pile and section modulus of helical pile automatically. The soil profiles can be changed to match
the actual soil characteristics in field. Helical piles can be analyzed in different stages while
incorporating different analysis options such as multiple failure modes. HelixPile is also able to
investigate cylindrical failure plane, making this program a unique modern way to analyze
helical piles. Moreover, SPT test records can be inputted in to directly estimate helical pile
capacity.
Helical piles can be analyzed in tension as well as compression. Incorporation of other
effects, such as buckling and installation disturbances enable users to analyze the helical pile in
detail. HelixPile simulates input soil and pile parameters to predict the load settlement behaviour,
and can estimate failure load corresponding to Davisson Offset limit load, New York City
criterion (2011-011) and ICC 358 criterion. This software can also calculate ultimate load using
bearing capacity equations. Various options of bearing capacity factors are available, such as
Meyerhof/Hansen and Vesic. Shaft resistance can also be incorporated.
97
Figure 29. Model of single helix helical pile
A simple model of an installed helical pile created using HelixPile is presented in figure
(29). HelixPile is used to simulate field conditions for installed piles, assuming the same soil
conditions as determined at 7ft depth. Ultimate loads, settlements, stresses and Davisson offset
limit loads are determined at various depths of helical piles and are summarized in table (9). The
depths at which these values have been calculated using HelixPile conform to the depths of the
installed helical piles. 24ft of depth represents the depth of test pile. Similarly, a depth of 17ft
conforms to the pile number 1 and 5, and 18ft to pile number 2. A depth equal to 21ft conforms
to the pile number 3 and 4. And depth equal to 23ft depicts pile number 6. The ultimate
compression loads predicted by HelixPile are significantly less than those calculated from the
torque method. HelixPile gives ultimate compression load and settlement as 24.06 kips and
98
0.67inch respectively at 24ft, which is the same depth to which the test pile was driven. Test pile
has a settlement of about 0.22 inch corresponding to the load equal to 24.06 kips.
It should be noted that the soil strength parameters input to HelixPile at various depths
(given in table (9)) are the same as determined at 7ft. The soil’s strength is significantly
enhanced after 7ft, as indicated by the sudden exceptional increase in torque magnitude of
installed helical piles. Thus, the considerably lower ultimate loads of helical piles and higher
settlement of the test pile predicted by HelixPile are justified.
However, when ultimate load predicted by HelixPile at 7ft is compared with the ultimate
load predicted by the torque method, a sound correlation is seen. Average ultimate loads of
installed helical piles calculated from the torque method at 7ft were 9.83 and 8.84 kips, using KT
values of 10/ft and 9/ft respectively. On the other hand, HelixPile gives ultimate load as 8.27
kips at 7ft as shown in table (9). There is only a minor difference between these loads, which
underscores the fact that HelixPile can predict good approximations of ultimate loads.
Table 9: Simulated results of RS2875.203 helical piles using HelixPile
Settlement
Ultimate Davisson at Davisson Shaft tip
Depth Settlement compression offset load offset load Helix stress stress
(ft) (inch) load (kips) (kips) (inch) (ksi) (ksi)
7 0.24 8.27 8.24 0.25 5.01 5.11
17 0.47 17.44 13.2 0.29 8.97 9.07
18 0.5 18.43 13.77 0.29 9.36 9.46
21 0.58 21.46 15.57 0.31 10.55 10.65
23 0.63 23.54 16.85 0.33 11.34 11.44
24 0.67 24.06 16.69 0.33 11.78 11.88
99
Chapter 6 Conclusions
Helical piles are a type of deep foundations that has potential to provide significant advantages
over other conventional deep foundations. The torque method is the most widely used technique
to estimate the load bearing capacities of helical piles. Generally, the failure of deep foundations
is governed by the amount of settlement induced; however, the torque method does not account
for the induced settlements, rendering its results inaccurate due the possibility of excessive
settlements at calculated loads. In order to minimize the knowledge gap in helical piles, this
research aimed on investigating the torque method for the settlements via installation of helical
piles. Seven (7) helical piles were installed at a site in the Kelowna International Airport. In these
field tests, RS2875.203 helical piles were utilized. In addition, static axial compression test was
conducted on the seventh pile (i.e. test pile). Based on the results and analysis, the following
conclusions are summarized for RS2875.203 helical piles:
1. The torque method can be used to estimate the ultimate compressive loads.
2. Both values of torque coefficients (i.e. 10/ft & 9/ft) can be utilized to calculate
ultimate compressive loads.
3. When installation torque is averaged over the entire depth of pile, the torque
method yields ultimate compressive loads that are drastically low, and the end
bearing potential of the soil remains immobilized. These load values are highly
uneconomical for pile design.
100
4. When installation torque is averaged over a final length of pile equal to three
times the diameter of helix, the torque method yields a good approximation of
ultimate compressive loads. The settlements at calculated loads are appropriate
and are within permissible limits.
5. The bearing factors used for conventional piles give a good approximation of
ultimate loads for helical piles.
6. Torque method yields ultimate compressive loads which are in a good
conjunction with the ultimate compressive loads anticipated using bearing
equations.
7. 10% failure criterion is the best suited criterion to interpret the load movement
curve of the static axial compression test, whereas Davisson offset limit load
criterion yields conservative results.
When the torque is averaged over the entire depth of a helical pile, it depicts the overall
soil strength above the helix. The tensile loads on helical piles are supported by the soil above
the helix. The soil strength above the helix is thus more related to the uplift load capacities. On
the contrary, compressive loads are supported by the soil beneath the helix. Given the small
thickness of helix (i.e. 0.375 inch), the soil just below the helix has virtually the same
characteristics as possessed by the soil which is just above the helix. Thus, the soil which is just
above the helix gains more significance when pile is loaded in compression. Therefore, the
installation torque averaged over the final length of pile equal to three times the helix diameter
can be said to represent the soil strength below the helix. Consequently, this torque average
yields a good approximation of ultimate compressive load capacities.
101
In this research RS2875.203 single helix helical piles were used due to their widespread
availability. The possible directions of future research could be the testing of multihelix helical
piles. The investigation of torque method for the formation of cylindrical shear plane in
multihelix helical piles will provide valuable information and will help to optimize this
technique. Furthermore, helical piles featuring different types and sizes of shaft could be tested
to recognise the soundness of torque method in regards to the skin friction of the shaft.
Moreover, these piles could be tested in different types of soils to reinforce the findings of this
research. Testing a variety of helical piles in various soils will investigate the ultimate limits of
the torque method.
102
References
A.B.CHANCE, & Hubbell. (2003). Helical Screw Foundation System Design Manual for New
Construction. Retrieved from http://www.vickars.com/screwpile_manual.
A.B.CHANCE, & Hubbell. (2014). Technical design manual.
Abdel-rahim, H. H., Taha, Y. K., & Mohamed, W. E. din E. S. (2013). The compression and
uplift bearing capacities of helical piles in cohesionless soil. Journal of Engineering
Science, 41(6), 2055–2064.
Abdelrahman, G. E., Shaarawi, E. M., & Abouzaid, K. S. (2003). Interpretation of axial pile load
test results for continuous flight auger piles. In Proceedings of the 9th Arab Structural
Engineering Conference (pp. 791–802).
ASTMD1143/D1143M. (2013). Standard test method for deep foundations under static axial
compressive load. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West conshohocken, PA.
ASTMD2487-11. (2011). Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System). In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West
conshohocken, PA.
ASTMD3080/D2080M-11. (2011). Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under
consolidated drained conditions. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West conshohocken,
PA.
ASTMD4221-11. (2011). Standard test method for dispersive characteristics of clay soil by
103
double hydrometer. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West conshohocken, PA.
ASTMD4318-10e1. (2010). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index of Soils. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West conshohocken, PA.
ASTMD698-12e2. (2012). Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of
soil using standard effort. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West conshohocken, PA.
Coduto, D. (2001). Deep foundations-Axial load capacity based on analytical methods. In
Foundation Design: Principles and Pratices (2nd ed., pp. 500–509). Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Das, B. (1999). Principles Of Foundation Engineering (4th ed.).
Day, R. W. (2010). Foundation engineering handbook: design and construction with 2009
international building code (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill companies.
Dotson, D. W. (2013). Direct solution of the Brinch-Hansen 90 % pile ultimate failure load. DFI
Journal, 7(1), 18–21. http://doi.org/10.1179/dfi.2013.006
Fellenius, B. H. (1980). Analysis of Results From Routine Pile Load Tests. Ground Engineering,
13(6), 19–31.
Hoyt, R. ., & Clemence, S. . (1989). Uplift Capacity Of Helical Anchors in Soil. In 12th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (pp. 1019–1022,
vol. 2.). 13-18 August 1989. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: A.A. Balkema.
ICC evaluation service, I. (2007). Acceptance criteria for helical foundation systems and devices.
104
Kulhawy, F. H., & Hirany, A. (2009). Interpreted Failure Load for Drilled Shafts via Davisson
and L1-L2. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Foundation Congress and Equipment
Expo (pp. 127–134). http://doi.org/10.1061/41021(335)16
Lambe, T. W., & Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil mechanics. New York: John-Wiley & sons Inc.
Livneh, B., & El Naggar, M. H. (2008). Axial testing and numerical modeling of square shaft
helical piles under compressive and tensile loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(8),
1142–1155. http://doi.org/10.1139/T08-044
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1(1), 16–26.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1976). Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 102(GT3), 197–228.
Meyerhof, G. G., & Adams, J. I. (1968). The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 5(4), 225–244. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/t68-024#.VzDxKvkrI2x
Mitsch, M. P., & Clemence, S. . (1985). The uplift capacity of helix anchors in sand. In Uplift
behaviour of anchor foundations in soil (pp. 26–47). ASCE.
Narasimha Rao, S., & Prasad, Y. V. S. N. (1993). Estimation of uplift capacity of helical anchors
in clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(2), 352–357. Retrieved from
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:2(352)
105
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y. V. S. N., & Dinakara Shetty, M. (1991). The behavior of model
screw piles in cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations (Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering), 31(2), 35–50.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y. V. S. N., & Veeresh, C. (1993). Behaviour of embedded model
screw anchors in soft clays. Geotechnique, 43(4), 605–614.
NeSmith, W. M., & Siegel, T. C. (2009). Shortcomings of the Davisson offset limit applied to
axial compressive load tests on cast-in-place piles. In Contemporary Topics in Deep
Foundations (pp. 568–574). http://doi.org/10.1061/41021(335)71
O’ Neill, M. W., & Reese, L. C. (1999). Drilled Shafts: Construction procedures and design
methods. Office of infrastructure, Federal highway administration. Washington, D.C.
Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025. Retrieved from
http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/011594.pdf
Rodrigo, S., & Junhwan, L. (1999). Pile design based on cone penetration test results. Report no
FHWA/IN/JTRP-99/8. Joint transportation research program Purdue university.
Sakr, M. (2009). Performance of helical piles in oil sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(9),
1046–1061. http://doi.org/10.1139/T09-044
Sakr, M. (2011). Installation and Performance Characteristics of High Capacity Helical Piles in
Cohesive Soils. Journal of Deep Foundation Institute, 5(1), 35–57.
Society, C. G. (2006). Canadian foundation engineering manual.
106
Sprince, A., & Pakrastinsh, L. (2010). Helical pile behaviour analysis in different soils. Scientific
Journal of Riga Technical University. Construction Science, 10, 121–130.
http://doi.org/10.2478/v10137-009-0012-2
Tappenden, K. (2007). Predicting the axial capacity of screw piles installed in Western
Canadian soils. University of Alberta. Retrieved from
http://members.cgs.ca/documents/conference2007/GEO2007/V3/009.pdf
Tappenden, K., & Sego, D. (2007a). Predicting the axial capacity of screw piles installed in
Canadian soils. … Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS), …, 1, 1608–1615. Retrieved from
Tappenden, K., & Sego, D. (2007b). Predicting the axial capacity of screw piles installed in
Canadian soils. In Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS), OttawaGeo2007 Conference (pp.
1608–1615). Retrieved from
Thompson, W. G. (Ed.). (n.d.). Bearing and friction design capacity for helical anchors and
piles. Centralia, MO.USA. Retrieved from http://www.helicalpileworld.com/Helical Pier
design guide.pdf
Trofimenkov, J. G., & Mariupolskii, L. . (1965). Screw piles used for mast and tower
foundations. In The sixth international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering (pp. Volume: 2, pp:328–332). Montreal, Quebec.
Vesic, A. S. (1967). Ultimate loads and settlements of deep foundations in sand. Bearing
107
capacity and settlement of foundations, AS Vesic (ed). Duke university, Durham, North
Carolina. School of engineering.
Vesic, A. S. (1971). Breakout resistance of objects embedded in ocean bottom. Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(9), 1183–1205.
Viggiani, C., Mandolini, A., & Russo, G. (2014). Piles and Pile Foundations (Vol. 6). CRC
Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=F0MqBgAAQBAJ&pgis=1
Willis, D., & Jack., R. (n.d.). How to Design Helical Piles per the 2009 International Building
Code.
Winterkorn, H. F., & Fang, H. Y. (Eds.). (1975). Foundation engineering handbook. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Zhang, D. J. . (1999). Predicting Capacity of Helical Screw Piles in Alberta Soils. University Of
Alberta.
108

Ubc 2016 November Khan Muhammad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ubc 2016 November Khan Muhammad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ubc 2016 November Khan Muhammad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimation of Compressive Load Bearing Capacity of

Helical Piles Using Torque Method and Induced Settlements

Muhammad Umair Shabbir Khan

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE

THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

© Muhammad Khan, 2016

Submitted by Muhammad Khan in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the

Dr. Sumi Siddiqua, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

Dr. Shahria Alam, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

Dr. Zheng Liu, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

Dr. Liwei Wang, Faculty of Applied Science/School of Engineering

August 26, 2016

method and bearing equations correlate well with each other.

 The contents of this research has been submitted to a journal: “Estimation of

Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii

Table of contents .......................................................................................................................... iv

List of figures ................................................................................................................................. x

List of abbreviation and notations............................................................................................. xii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Test program .................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 Literature review .................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Failure modes for helical piles ......................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Individual plate bearing model ................................................................................. 7

2.1.2 Cylindrical shear plane bearing model ..................................................................... 8

2.2 Design of helical piles .................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Indirect method ....................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Torque method ............................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Bearing equations ........................................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 Load bearing equation for shallow foundations...................................................... 18

2.4.2 Load bearing equations for deep foundations ......................................................... 21

2.4.2.1 Bearing factors for pile foundations ................................................................ 22

2.4.2.2 Meyerhof method ............................................................................................ 24

2.4.2.3 Vesic (1977) method ....................................................................................... 26

2.4.2.4 Load bearing equation for helical piles ........................................................... 27

2.5 Pile load tests.................................................................................................................. 30

Chapter 3 Installation of helical piles and site investigation ............................................... 32

3.1 Configuration and material properties of helical piles ................................................... 32

3.2 Soil investigation ............................................................................................................ 37

3.2.1 Soil classification .................................................................................................... 37

3.2.2 Direct shear test....................................................................................................... 39

3.2.4 Unit weight of soil .................................................................................................. 42

Chapter 4 Static axial compression test ................................................................................ 44

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 44

4.2 Types of static axial compression test ............................................................................ 45

4.3 Components and requirements of loading assembly ...................................................... 47

4.4 Interpretation of static axial compression test ................................................................ 49

4.4.1 Davisson offset limit load criterion......................................................................... 50

4.4.2 10%, 8% and 5% failure criterions ......................................................................... 51

4.4.3 L1-L2 failure criterion ............................................................................................ 53

4.4.4 Chin failure criterion ............................................................................................... 56

4.4.5 Brinch-Hansen 80% and 90% failure criterions ..................................................... 57

4.4.6 De Beer failure criterion ......................................................................................... 58

4.4.7 Decourt’s extrapolation criterion ............................................................................ 59