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

net/publication/347762390

Design parameters and behavior of helical piles in cohesive soils—A review

Article  in  Arabian Journal of Geosciences · November 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s12517-020-06165-1

CITATIONS READS

8 1,213

2 authors:

Vignesh Venkatesan Muthukumar Mayakrishnan

VIT University VIT University
4 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Geotechnical Investigation on Compacted Clay Liner Blended with Reactive Material View project

Helical pile behavior under combined loading conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muthukumar Mayakrishnan on 12 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2020) 13:1194
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06165-1

REVIEW PAPER

Design parameters and behavior of helical piles in cohesive

soils—A review
Venkatesan Vignesh 1 & Muthukumar Mayakrishnan 1

Received: 4 March 2020 / Accepted: 26 October 2020

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2020

Abstract
The emphasis of this review is to do a parametric analysis for the design of helical piles used in cohesive soils. Also, the
enactment of helical piles’ behavior when placed in cohesive soils under various independent loading conditions like compres-
sion, uplift, and lateral loads has been discussed. Through a vast gathering of various literatures which is relevant to the design of
helical piles, relations were obtained that would be ultimately valuable for future influences associated with the choosing of
design parameters and behavioral studies on helical piles. In addition to design parameters, design methods were also considered
and comparisons were made. Furthermore, attention is also sought from researchers on the need for further exploration of helical
piles subjected to combined loadings and the significance of design parameters.

Keywords Helical piles . Offshore foundations . Uplift loads . Lateral loads

Introduction article and design essentials. Subsequently, the various design

Helical piles are driven steel solid or hollow piles in which
helical plates are welded in a consecutive and ordered pattern
to the circular or square shafted piles. Helical piles have been
used as a proficient technique to resist the uplift forces in both
land and offshore structures such as tunnel support systems,
transmission tower foundations, excavation bracing, and
guyed towers. In marshy soil conditions and in field situations
with a high groundwater table, the use of this type of anchor is
convenient and economical. Because of its ease in installation,
grouting is not required. Helical piles are ideal and economi-
cal, especially under water to keep the moorings on station, to
provide stability for sea bed pipelines, and to enhance the
carrying capacity of deadweight anchors.
The literature and historical background of helical piles are
discussed in the first section followed by the objective of the
Responsible Editor: Zeynal Abiddin Erguler
* Muthukumar Mayakrishnan
mmuthukumar@vit.ac.in
Venkatesan Vignesh
vignesh.venkatesan@vit.ac.in
1
School of Civil Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT),
Vellore, India
methods adopted to analyze the performance of helical piles in
clayey soil under various loads and then optimization of var-
ious design parameters are deliberated. Finally, the review
concludes with comparisons of various design methods,
models, and parameters for which careful recommendations
are suggested.
Review of literatures
The helical piles are in vogue from the year 1836 when they
were first designed and utilized by Alexander Mitchell in
England for supporting Lighthouses (Perko 2009). However,
the efficiency was considered poor since more manpower was
required to drive it into the soil by a steam hammer which was
a method used to drive a pile during that period. As days
passed on, new technologies gave birth to hydraulic torque
drives which made the driving of piles easier and later were
used to structures which could resist lateral and compressive
loads (Livneh and Naggar 2008). It also resisted overturning
moments with tensile, compressive, and lateral loads (Schmidt
and Nasr 2004).
Figure 1 shows the basic components of helical piles. It
was recognized from literatures that the common analysis
for helical piles was first proposed by Trofimenkov and
Maruipolshii (1965); they did an analysis for single helix an-
chors by individual plate bearing method. While Adams and
1194 Page 2 of 14
DIAMETER OF PILE SHAFT, d
EXTENSION
SHAFT
EMBEDMENT DEPTH
OF PILE, H
DIAMETER OF
HELICAL PLATE, D
LEAD
SPACING
HELICAL PLATES
BETWEEN
HELIXES, S
PILOT POINT
Fig. 1 Typical cross-section of the helical pile and its components
Klym (1972) adopted the same method for multi-helix an-
chors, Mooney et al. (1985) and Mitsch and Clemence
(1985) introduced a method of failure named the cylindrical
shear method. In the cylindrical shear method, it is considered
that all helical bearing plates are acting together, but in the
former method, it acts individually and therefore it is called
the individual bearing method. The current review paper in-
spects the relationship between these methods based on their
design parameters and especially for helical piles embedded in
cohesive soils only. The various parameters such as embed-
ment ratio, spacing ratio, and diameter of helical plate are
considered for comparison.
Inference and current situation of helical piles
The installation of helical piles instead of traditional piles is
becoming a renowned technique off late in the construction
field, predominantly for offshore and onshore structures,
where the uplift loads matter in the design of a foundation.
These types of piles have more advantages when compared to
the traditional ones as they can be easily installed in places
with minimal vibration and noises; loading can be quickly
followed after installation, are appropriate for the field of con-
struction with limited access, require minimum dewatering,
and can be installed where the difficulties of water table arise.
They offer satisfactory compression capacities and high ten-
sile capacities. They can also be installed in the slopes and
have also been found to be cost-effective (Zhang et al. 1998;
Livneh and Naggar 2008; Schmidt and Nasr 2004; Sakr 2009,
2011). But the soil strata consists of rocky soil, bed rock, and
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194
boulders which are all unfavorable or disadvantageous soil
conditions for the helical piles (Schmidt and Nasr 2004).
However, helical piles with pointy toe surfaces can be adopted
to infiltrate hard surfaces to some extent in the rock (Arup
Geotechnics 2005).
At present, the failure mechanism of helical piles is studied
by several numerical modeling. For instance, small strain axi-
symmetric finite element simulation was carried out by
Merifield (2011) with deeply embedded, horizontal, cast-in-
place, circular plates at varying spacing to diameter ratio (S/
D). It is found that at S/D = 1.58, the failure mechanism
changed from cylindrical shear model to individual plate bear-
ing failure.
Later, plenty of researches aimed at verifying the numerical
modeling results with experimentally or field obtained data to
define the load transfer behavior and failure mechanism using
various software such as MIDAS GTS NX software package,
ABAQUS, Plaxis 3D Foundation suite, Helix pile software,
and LPILE (Stanier et al. 2013; Papadopoulou et al. 2014;
Mittal and Mukherjee 2015; Salhi et al. 2013; Todeshkejoei
et al. 2014; Knappett et al. 2014; Rawat and Gupta 2017;
Demir and Ok 2015; Polishchuk and Maksimov 2018; Sakr
2018).
Objectives
This review paper has a key objective to provide clear infor-
mation about the design parameters that can be used for helical
piles to yield maximum efficiency. The paper also intends to
clarify the design methods that exist for studying the perfor-
mance of helical piles embedded in clayey soils. In addition to
the above, it also aims to show the relationships and compar-
isons between the various design methods. Increased demands
of helical piles are evident since they have gained popularity
among the geotechnical engineers as a result of their immense
usage and advanced findings (Pack 2000). The guidelines to
improve helical pile usages have been developed, since these
piles have become more predominant in the civil engineering
construction field, although more work is needed to under-
stand them thoroughly (Perlow 2011). Therefore, the objec-
tive of this extensive review is to clarify further the helical pile
foundation design and to create an awareness of using helical
piles effectively.
Prerequisite of the design process
Before dealing with the screw pile design, it is important to
know the essential steps in the design process to understand
the way by which the design gets affected. They are the in-
stallation process of helical pile, the load transfer mechanism,
the use of cone penetrometer test (CPT), standard penetration
test (SPT) data, and different methods of design.
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194
Effect of the installation process
The design of helical piles is usually affected by the process
by which the helical piles are installed. Aydin et al. (2011)
discussed earlier that the installation of piles into soil is an
advantageous one, and it will not affect the design process
when the standard procedures are followed. The standard pro-
cedure includes advancing helical pile into the soil with the
help of hydraulic torque motors. The installation of the pile
becomes easy when the pitch of each helix is the same, as the
same path will be followed by each successive helix (Livneh
and Naggar 2008).
To increase the buckling resistance, grouting techniques
can be used to increase the adjacent soil resistance (Livneh
and Naggar 2008). Grout is injected into the helical piles to fill
the space between the shafts and helix or by pumping it into a
predrilled hole before pile installation—any of these methods
can be utilized (Perko 2009). Also, the bearing capacity of the
normal screw piles was found to be almost half the bearing
capacity of grouted screw piles (Vickars and Clemence 2000).
Zhang et al. (1998) reported that the helical piles cannot be
installed only by installation torque; it also required down-
ward pressure called crowd. Vito and Cook (2011) asserted
that the effect of crowd relative, to the design process, is not
found in literatures. However, increasing this downward pres-
sure can allow some piles to reach their needed depth while
not surpassing torque capacity on piles.
The net ultimate capacity of an anchor may get affected and
it might get reduced when the piles are installed too close to
each other, since the failure zones in soil of each anchor will
interfere with each other. Das (1990) did an experimental
project on model piles to evaluate the ultimate capacity due
to group effect on helical piles and found that the center to
center spacing between two adjacent piles for non-interference
of failure zone should be 6D and 10D for piles in loose and
dense sand respectively.
Trofimenkov and Maruipolshii (1965) conducted a field
load test on helical piles consisting of 12 pile groups, each
having three small piles in rows placed at a spacing of 1.5D
to 5D. The helical plate is placed at a depth of 8D. The exper-
imental result showed that the uplift resistance of a multi-an-
chored, deep installed helical pile group kept at a distance
larger than 1.5D will be equal to that of a single pile kept at
the same depth in the same soil.
Load transfer mechanism (axial and lateral)
Nasr (2004) states that the forces on the helical pile during
loading get transferred to the neighboring soil, thus asserting
the characteristics of nearby soil to formulate the pile bearing
capacity. Eventually, this confirms that the soil properties are
important in considering internal friction factor (ϕ), effective
Page 3 of 14 1194
unit weight of soil (γ′), adhesion factor (α), and cohesion (c)
which influence shear strength of soil.
The design of deep foundation is based on the response of
that foundation when the external load is applied (Nasr 2009).
Thus, information is needed to know the mechanism of load
transfer of helical piles. The bearing resistance from the helix
plate is noted to be very high than the shaft resistance from
pile shaft during the transfer of load from pile to soil (Aydin
et al. 2011).
When the pile is subjected to lateral loads, the lateral resis-
tance will act in the direction of loading beyond the point of
rotation and in the direction opposite to the pile movement
until the point of rotation (Prasad and Narasimha Rao 1996).
Howard (2003) observed that the helical pile lateral capacity is
dependent on the strength of the shaft and the nearby soil
conditions as identified by Schmidt and Nasr (2004).
Application of SPT and CPT tests
The number of blows N value obtained from the SPT test can
be related to soil density and impediment caused due to any
hard strata. This is helpful to decide the speed of installation,
embedment depth of pile, and ultimate capacity of screw pile
(Pack 2000). Whereas, the soil stratigraphy and measured
penetration resistance, obtained from the CPT test, can be
useful for deciding the installation torque, tensile, and com-
pressive capacity of the helical pile (Zhang et al. 1998).
The engineering properties of the soil, settlement of foun-
dations, and bearing capacity are associated with the SPT test
results. The SPT tests are based on the penetration resistance
of the soil noted as N value and the overview of soil under
analysis is provided by CPT tests (Budhu 2011). In order to
design the screw piles, SPT and CPT results were crucial to
determine the geotechnical properties related to soil stratigra-
phy (Sakr 2011).
Thus, conducting SPT and CPT tests and knowing the soil
profile and in situ geotechnical properties are always consid-
ered as prerequisites for carrying out the design process of
helical piles.
Design methods: uplift, compression,
and lateral capacity of helical piles
Cylindrical shear method
Mitsch and Clemence (1985) introduced the cylindrical shear
model for helical piles embedded in sand and later Mooney
et al. (1985) applied the same for helical piles embedded in
clay and silt. This method is used to estimate the ultimate
compression and uplift capacities. Figures 2a and b show cy-
lindrical shear model for compression and uplift loads respec-
tively. In this model, the failure surface is formed in the form
1194 Page 4 of 14 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194

Fig. 2 a Mode of cylindrical Qc Ultimate Compression

Capacity
Qc Ultimate Uplift Capacity
shear failure under compression
(Nasr 2004). b Mode of cylindri-
cal shear failure under uplift (Nasr G.L G.L

Depth to Top Helix, H

2004)
Shaft Friction

H1
Shaft Friction

Uplift Bearing
Resistance
Cylindrical
Shearing

Helix Spacing, S
Resistance

Cylindrical
Shearing
Resistance

Compressive
Bearing
Resistance

(a) Mode of Cylindrical shear (b) Mode of Cylindrical shear

failure under compression (Nasr, 2004) failure under uplift (Nasr, 2004)

of a cylindrical shape between bottom and top helical plate.

The total axial capacity is derived by adding the shaft friction
Qc ¼ Qhelix þ Qbearing þ Qshaft ð1Þ
(above the top plate), end bearing resistance (above bottom
helical plate for tension and below the helical plate for com-
where
pression), and the shear resistance along the failure surface
(Zhang et al. 1998; Sakr 2009 2011; Tappenden et al. 2009; Qc Ultimate axial capacity of helical pile (kN)
Livneh and Naggar 2008; Hawkins and Thorsten 2009). Qhelix Shearing resistance mobilized along the cylindrical
The equations formulated for the cylindrical shear failure surface (kN)
method are dependent on the pile geometry, number of Qbearing End bearing capacity of a pile in compression (kN)
helices, the helical spacing, and soil conditions (Nasr Qshaft Resistance developed along the steel shaft (kN)
2009). The various equations derived for the cylindrical
shear method depend on the type of soil—cohesive or Therefore,
cohesionless soil as well as the type of forces (compres-
sion or tension forces). Considering these parameters, a Qc ¼ S f ðπDLc Þ þ AH cu N c þ πdH eff αcu ð2Þ
separate equation has been developed for helical pile Where
under uplift or compression loading for cohesionless
and cohesive soil (Nasr 2009, Mohajerani et al. 2016). Sf Spacing ratio factor
D Diameter of helical plate (m)
Compressive loading on cohesive soils AH Area of the helical plate (m2)
d Diameter of pile shaft (m)
As mentioned earlier, this paper has focused on helical Lc Spacing between the extreme helical plates (m)
piles embedded in clayey soils only, and the equations α Adhesion factor of soil
which have been derived by various researchers for Heff Embedded length of pile above top helical plate (Heff =
helical piles in cohesion soil are described here. To H − D) in (m)
express the compressive capacity of the helical piles in H Embedment depth of pile to top helical plate (m)
clayey soil, Narasimha Rao and Prasad (1993) and Nc Compressive bearing capacity factor
Mooney et al. (1985) established Eq. (2). These equa- cu Undrained shear strength of soil (kN/m2)
tions show that the ultimate axial capacity is the func-
tion of the mobilized shear resistance along failure Due to the shadowing effect that is the loss in the shaft
plane, the end bearing of the pile, and the resistance adhesion on top of the helix, the effective shaft length (Heff)
developed along the soil-shaft interfaces, as expressed is reduced by approximately the diameter of the helical plates
in Eq. (1). (Adams and Klym 1972; Narasimha Rao and Prasad 1993;
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194 Page 5 of 14 1194

Meyerhof and Adams 1968; Zhang 1999; Tappenden et al.
2009).
The compressive bearing capacity factor (Nc) varies from 6
to 9 for clayey soils based on the diameter of the pile (Nasr
2004). The Nc values for varying D of helical pile are given in
Table 1.
Budhu (2011) suggested that when the undrained shear
strength value is Cu ≤ 25 kPa, then Nc can be taken as 6.
For helical pile installed at shallow depths, the shaft friction
above the top helix is negligible, and hence Eq. (2) reduces to
Qc ¼ S f ðπDLc Þ þ AH cu N c ð3Þ
Nasr (2004) claims that the footing is considered to be
shallow footing when the embedment ratio H/D < 3.
Uplift (tensile) loading on cohesive soils
The uplift or tension capacity of the helical piles is derived by
taking into account the properties of the disturbed soil; where-
as in compression capacity, only the undisturbed soil proper-
ties are considered.
Therefore,
Qu ¼ S f ðπDLc Þcu þ AH ðcu N u þ γ 0 H Þ þ πdH eff αcu ð4Þ
where
Qu Ultimate uplift or tension capacity of helical pile (kN)
γ′ eff. unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
Nu Uplift bearing capacity factor
Nu can be determined by the following Eq. (5) suggested by
Tappenden et al. (2009) and Meyerhof (1976).
H1
N u ¼ 1:2 ≤9 ð5Þ
D turbed soil above it. While under compression loading, it is the
where H1 is the depth of uppermost helix (m) shown in Fig 2a.
When the shaft friction is considered negligible, then Eq.
(4) is reduced to
Qu ¼ S f ðπDLc Þcu þ AH ðcu N u þ γ 0 H Þ ð6Þ
Lutenegger (2009) also proposed an equation for the cylin-
drical shear method considering the undrained shear strength
of helical pile in clay and also assumed that no disturbances
could be caused to the soil even though the installation would
disturb the soil structure.
Qu ¼ Qs þ Qe þ W s þ W a ð7Þ
where
Qs Cylindrical shear strength = (πDLc)cu
Qe End bearing of the uppermost helical plate = Ae9cu
Ae Helix bearing plate area (m2)
Ws Soil weight between helical plates (kN)
Wa Steel weight (kN)
Therefore, it is evident that the helical piles having two or
more helical plates undergo cylindrical shear method, and for
the other method called individual plate bearing method, more
number of helices are needed.
Individual plate bearing method
As mentioned earlier, the common analysis of helical pile as
expressed by Trofimenkov and Maruipolshii (1965) for uplift
capacity of a helical plate is a function of non-dimensional
factor. Later, Adams and Klym (1972) revealed that each he-
lical plate behaves individually irrespective of the others when
the interspacing between each helix is large enough. The over-
all capacity is formed by the summation of all capacities of
individual helices along the shaft resistances (Hawkins and
Thorsten 2009; Livneh and Naggar 2008; Zhang et al. 1998;
Sakr 2009).
This method is valid for both tension and compressive
loadings. Under tension loading, the bearing capacity is affect-
ed by parameters such as the bearing plate area and the dis-
bearing plate area and the undisturbed soil below it. Figure 3
shows the individual bearing failure model under
compression.
Various equations for the individual bearing method as
expressed by diverse researchers are discussed below:

Uplift loading on cohesive soils by Chance (1993) and Nasr

(2009)
Table 1 Nc for varying
helix diameters (Nasr Helix diameter, D (m) Nc values
2004) As mentioned earlier, the total uplift capacity of the helical
< 0.5 9 pile in clayey soil is equal to the summation of bearing capac-
0.5–0.6 8.5 ity of each individual helical plate (Chance 1993). Thus,
0.6–0.7 8
0.7–0.8 7.5 Qt ¼ ΣQh ð9Þ
0.8–0.9 7
where
0.9–1 6.5
> 1.0 6 Qt Total uplift capacity of helical pile (kN)
Qh Individual helical plate bearing capacity (kN)
1194 Page 6 of 14 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194

Ultimate Compressive and uplift loading on cohesive soils by Aydin

Compression
Capacity
et al. (2011)

Aydin et al. (2011) formulated an equation which deals with

G.L both uplift and compression loading in cohesive soils. Here,
the bearing capacity is calculated on a single helix pile based
on Osterberg Cell Load Test. It is noticed that the bearing
capacity of helical plate and shaft friction is also considered
for formulating the total capacity.
Shaft Friction
Qu ¼ AH ðcu N c þ γ 0 H Þ þ Ps αcu L f ð13Þ

where Lf is the total shaft length (m) and Nc is the uplift

bearing capacity factor when uplift load is applied, and com-
Individual
pressive bearing capacity factor when compressive load is
Helix Bearing
Capacity, Qh applied.

Lateral performance of helical pile in cohesive soil

Puri et al. (1984) developed a mathematical model with

minor modifications to the elastic theory proposed by
(Matlock and Reese 1962) in order to consider the instal-
lation effect and other characteristics of helical piles.
Individual They suggested that helical piles work well against lateral
Helix Bearing
loads providing significant resistance and are dependent
Capacity, Qh
on extension shaft diameter (Sakr 2010; Mittal et al. 2010;
Fig. 3 Individual bearing model under compression load (Sakr 2009) Naggar et al. 2007).
Prasad and Narasimha Rao (1996) carried out an ex-
perimental work on multi-helix helical pile that was sub-
jected to lateral loads and derived an equation used to
formulate lateral capacity. The various resisting forces


Qh ¼ Ah 9cu þ qN q ≤Qs ð10Þ (upon applying lateral load on helical piles) are bearing
resistance on the bottom of the helical plate, lateral resis-
where tance from soil on the pile shaft, frictional resistance on
Ah Projected area of the helix (m2) the surface of helical plates, and uplift resistance on top of
q eff. overburden pressure (kN/m2) the helical plate.
Qs Helix strength Considering all the resisting forces, the following equations
were formulated for a helical pile having four helical plates.
Chance (1993) modified the above equations to calculate The ultimate load is given by
the uplift capacity of the helix pile embedded in clayey soils as
H u ¼ cu d ð18X −10:5d−9LÞ ð14Þ
Qh ¼ Ah 9cu ð11Þ
where X is the point of rotation and is given by
It is to be noted that Chance (1993) did not consider the h
0:5 i
effect of shaft friction that helical pile will experience during X ¼ −e þ 324d 2 e2 þ 36dM =18d ð15Þ
uplift loading. On the other hand, Nasr (2009) included the
effect of shaft friction and derived the capacity equation. where M is the moment and is given by
The expression given by Nasr (2009) is
M ¼ 10:5d 2 e þ 9Led þ 10:5d 3 þ 4:5dL2
Qt ¼ Qbearing þ Qshaft ð12Þ
þ K 2 ðpu1 þ pu2 þ pu3 þ pu4 þ pb1 þ pb2 þ pb3 þ pb4 Þ
Here, the effect of shaft friction is taken into account so that =cu K 1 αðh4 þ h3 −h2 −h1 Þ
all the resisting forces are acting upon while axial loads are ð16Þ
being considered.
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194
where


K 1 ¼ 2π R2 −r 2
ð17Þ
 
K 2 ¼ 2 R4 =4 þ r4 =3−r4 =4−rR3 =3 =ðR−rÞ ð18Þ
where
R Radius of helical plate (m)
d Shaft diameter (m)
r Shaft radius (m)
L Embedded length of pile (m)
h1, h2, h3, h4 Embedment depth of first (top),
second, third, and fourth (bottom)
helixes respectively in (m)
pu1, pu2, pu3, and pu4 Ultimate uplift resistances of
four helical plates respectively
pbl, pb2, pb3, and pb4 Ultimate bearing resistance of
four helical plates
Similarly, in the case of helical piles having three, two, or
single plate, the derived formula is reduced accordingly. Prasad
and Narasimha Rao (1996) claimed that the lateral capacity of
helical piles formulated by this model provides satisfactory
results.
Design parameters for helical piles
The design of helical piles includes the complexities of the
process of installation, the application of CPT and SPT test
results, load transfer mechanism, and behavior of helical pile
under various loading, viz., uplift, compression, and lateral.
Further individual bearing and cylindrical shear method have
also been discussed in detail in the previous section.
The bearing capacity of helical pile can be determined by
any of the derivations discussed earlier. Also, we know that
there is an interplay between the failure methods regarding
which failure mechanism occurs and the parameters on which
the axial capacity of helical piles depends and under what
circumstances. So, in this section, the design parameters, var-
iations, and dependence of bearing capacity on these parame-
ters under the failure mechanism were discussed.
Spacing ratio
The ratio between the spacing of two adjacent helical plates to
the mean diameter of the helical plates is known as a spacing
ratio (Narasimha Rao et al. 1991; Zhang et al. 1998; Sakr
2009). The bearing capacity is dependent on several parame-
ters such as helical spacing, the embedment depth of piles, soil
conditions, helical diameter, and length of the pile. The vari-
ations in helical diameter and shaft length of helical piles lead
to the manufacturing of different types of helical piles. The
arrangement of these parameters has increased the utilization
Page 7 of 14 1194
of helical piles in practical application (Livneh and Naggar
2008; Mitsch and Clemence 1985; Livneh, 2008). Zhang
et al. (1998) reported that the spacing ratio depends on the
interchange between the failure mechanisms.
Lutenegger (2009) conducted the field uplift capacity test
on helical piles in cohesive soil and the estimated value of
helical spacing was found to be 3 using individual plate bear-
ing and cylindrical shearing failure mechanism. The study
implied that the change from cylindrical shear to individual
plate bearing failure occurred at a spacing ratio of around 2.25.
The cause of this difference was expected since the distur-
bance caused due to installation and mobilized shear strength
was reduced between the helical plates. Also, the behavior of
helical pile was controlled by an individual plate bearing mod-
el after a helix spacing ratio of 1.5, which is the same as the
result obtained through an experimental investigation on mod-
el helical piles by (Prasad and Narasimha Rao 1996).
Hird and Stanier (2010) investigated the helical pile behavior
in clay using transparent soil. He found that the three helical
plated pile yielded higher capacity at a spacing ratio of 1.5 and
a good compressive load-deflection response than a single-plated
helical pile.
Aydin et al. (2011) and Hubble Power Systems Inc. (2003)
both found that the change of failure mechanism occurred at a
spacing ratio of 3. Similarly, it was found to be 3 times the shaft
diameter of adjacent helical plate spacing by Tappenden et al.
(2009). Nasr (2009) suggested that the spacing ratio of 2 pro-
vided reasonably accurate values of the ultimate capacity of
helical pile based on the individual bearing failure mode. To
avoid the overlapping of failure mechanism, Livneh and
Naggar (2008) recommended that adjacent spacing of helical
piles should be 4D under compression and 5D for the piles
under tension. And in his study for the helical pile under com-
pression, the maximum extent of influence zone was found to be
2D and for the pile under tension, it was 2.5D. The above sug-
gestion was given to mobilize the full capacity of the pile and to
avoid intrusion between the influence zones of adjacent piles.
Merifield (2011) did numerical simulations considering
small strain finite element for the ultimate capacity of circular
plated anchor plates embedded deeply in clay under uplift load
by varying SR ratio to show the interchange of failure mech-
anism from cylindrical shear model to individual plate bearing
at SR of 1.58. However, it is worth noticing that in the axi-
symmetric analysis, the impact pile shaft during the installa-
tion process is not considered on the ultimate capacity but on
the true helical pile which is non-axisymmetric in geometry.
Comparison is made between Merifield (2011),
Narasimha Rao et al. (1991), and Mooney et al. (1985),
to check the validity of the theories discussed earlier. The
comparison is made with data of diameter of shaft (d) and
helical plates (D), number of helical plates (n), spacing
ratio (SR), embedment depth (H/D), and soil consistency
that is the soil resistance to deformation which varies based
1194 Page 8 of 14 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194

on the amount of water content added while preparing the capacity theory and the obtained capacity values through
soil bed. numerical simulation which is quite acceptable with the
The experimental and calculated readings are reported in experimental data. Furthermore, the prediction by Mooney
Tables 2 and 3. Qcalculated/QExperimental versus SR graph has et al. (1985) is also in good agreement. The drawbacks in the
also been plotted and presented in Fig. 4. From Fig. 4, it is previous research are rectified by Narasimha Rao and Prasad
clear that from the Narasimha Rao et al. (1991) data, the cal- (1993), as they introduced a reduction factor called spacing
culated capacity seems to be acceptable for helical piles with ratio factor (Sf), which is considered for estimating the ultimate
less spacing ratio, that is, up to 1.5 with ± 10% of measured bearing capacity for a pile having S/D values up to 4.6.
capacity, which can be used for design purpose. But for the
helical piles having a higher spacing ratio, the capacity values  9
For S <1 Sf ¼ 1
 >
>
S >
D
were overestimated up to 70% and hence demonstrates that the  >
=
cylindrical shear failure method should be used with caution. For 1:5 ≤ S D ≤ 3:5 S f ¼ 0:683 þ 0:069 3:5−
D ð19Þ
 >
>
However, Merifield (2011) embraces the complex relation-  S >
>
ship between the geometry of anchor, soil properties, and For 4:6 ≤ S D
≤ 3:5 S f ¼ 0:7 þ 0:148 4:6− ;
D
various failure mechanisms instead of considering bearing

Table 2 Various parameter considerations and test results for comparison

Author Diameter of shaft Soil n SR H/D Experimental Calculated Calculated/experimental

and plate (mm) consistency (KN) (KN)
Mooney et al. D = 72, 63.5, 50.8 0.21 3 3.4 0.2 0.576 0.576 1.00
(1985) 3 3.4 4 0.846 0.873 1.03
3 3.4 8 0.864 0.925 1.07
D = 290,250,200 0.3 3 3.4 8 51.22 49 0.96
3 3.4 10 48.83 50.2 1.03
3 3.4 12 48.6 51.38 1.06
Diameter of shaft Soil consistency n SR H/D Narasimha Rao et al. (1991) Merifield (2011)
and plate (mm) Experimental Calculated Calculated/ Calculated Calculated/
(KN) (KN) experimental (KN) experimental
d = 44; D = 100 0.696 2 4.6 0 0.84 1.45 1.73 0.85 1.01
3 2.3 0 0.97 1.45 1.49 1.3 1.34
4 1.5 0 1.34 1.45 1.08 1.46 1.09
0.596 2 4.6 0 0.67 1.09 1.63 0.66 0.99
3 2.3 0 0.91 1.09 1.20 0.99 1.09
4 1.5 0 0.97 1.09 1.12 1.11 1.14
0.492 2 4.6 0 0.55 0.75 1.36 0.47 0.85
3 2.3 0 0.63 0.75 1.19 0.7 1.11
4 1.5 0 0.73 0.75 1.03 0.78 1.07
d = 60; D = 150 0.596 2 3.1 0 1.48 1.62 1.09 1.23 0.83
3 1.5 0 1.67 1.62 0.97 1.67 1.00
4 1.0 0 1.72 1.62 0.94 1.75 1.02
d = 25; D = 75 0.545 2 4.0 6 0.69 0.99 1.43 0.699 1.01
3 2.0 6 0.83 0.99 1.19 0.84 1.01
4 1.3 6 0.9 0.99 1.10 0.86 0.96
d = 25; D = 75 0.545 2 1.7 6 0.65 0.77 1.18 0.56 0.86
3 0.8 6 0.71 0.77 1.08 0.55 0.77
d = 25; D = 75 0.714 2 4.0 6 1.52 2.16 1.42 1.5 0.99
3 2.0 6 1.86 2.16 1.16 1.8 0.97
4 1.3 6 2.13 2.16 1.01 1.84 0.86
2 1.7 6 1.19 1.67 1.40 1.2 1.01
3 0.8 6 1.48 1.67 1.13 1.19 0.80
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194 Page 9 of 14 1194

Table 3 Various parameter considerations and test results for comparison (considering spacing ratio factor by Narasimha Rao et al. (1993)

Diameter of shaft and plate Soil n SR H/ Narasimha Rao et al. (1993) Merifield (2011)
(mm) consistency D
Experimental Calculated Calculated/ Calculated Calculated/
(KN) (KN) experimental (KN) experimental

Type A1 d = 13.8; D = 33 0.28 2 4.6 0 0.0323 0.0324 1.00 0.03 0.93

2 4.6 1 0.0446 0.0447 1.00 0.045 1.01
2 4.6 2 0.0517 0.0513 0.99 0.052 1.01
2 4.6 3 0.0549 0.0549 1.00 0.057 1.04
2 4.6 4 0.06 0.0622 1.04 0.061 1.02
2 4.6 6 0.0666 0.0704 1.06 0.065 0.98
2 4.6 8 0.073 0.0794 1.09 0.065 0.89
2 4.6 10 0.0798 0.0884 1.11 0.065 0.81
Type A2 d = 13.8; D = 33 0.28 3 2.3 0 0.0427 0.044 1.03 0.045 1.05
3 2.3 1 0.0548 0.056 1.02 0.062 1.13
3 2.3 2 0.0616 0.063 1.02 0.069 1.12
3 2.3 3 0.0652 0.066 1.02 0.074 1.13
3 2.3 4 0.0706 0.074 1.04 0.078 1.10
3 2.3 6 0.0769 0.082 1.06 0.082 1.07
3 2.3 8 0.0834 0.091 1.09 0.083 1.00
3 2.3 10 0.0901 0.100 1.11 0.083 0.92
Type A3 d = 13.8; D = 33 0.28 4 1.5 0 0.0461 0.0464 1.01 0.051 1.11
4 1.5 1 0.0584 0.0587 1.00 0.065 1.11
4 1.5 2 0.0658 0.0652 0.99 0.072 1.09
4 1.5 3 0.0688 0.0689 1.00 0.077 1.12
4 1.5 4 0.074 0.0762 1.03 0.081 1.09
4 1.5 6 0.0803 0.0843 1.05 0.085 1.06
4 1.5 8 0.0868 0.0933 1.08 0.086 0.99
4 1.5 10 0.094 0.1024 1.09 0.086 0.91
Type A4 d = 13.8; D = 33 0.28 5 1.1 0 0.0462 0.0463 1.00 0.053 1.15
5 1.1 1 0.0587 0.0586 1.00 0.065 1.11
5 1.1 2 0.0661 0.0652 0.99 0.072 1.09
5 1.1 3 0.0688 0.0688 1.00 0.077 1.12
5 1.1 4 0.0736 0.0761 1.03 0.081 1.10
5 1.1 6 0.0805 0.0843 1.05 0.085 1.06
5 1.1 8 0.0869 0.0933 1.07 0.086 0.99
5 1.1 10 0.0933 0.1023 1.10 0.086 0.92

Narasimha Rao and Prasad (1993) did an experimental
work on four model pile, namely A1, A2, A3, and A4 having
a spacing ratio of helical plates as 4.6, 2.3, 1.5, and 1.1 respec-
tively with the same plate diameter of 33 mm and shaft diam-
eter of 13.8 mm as shown in Table 3. The result obtained after
introducing the spacing ratio factor in their study, a compari-
son was made with average mean and standard deviation (SD)
of each type of pile as shown in Fig. 5.
From Fig. 5, it is clear that the calculated capacity values
after applying the spacing ratio factor have not deviated much
from the measured value when compared to previous research
where 70% of the overestimated result was obtained. In
addition, the obtained results show that the ultimate capacity
of helical piles having a spacing ratio beyond 1.5 can be cal-
culated using Eq. 2 as mentioned earlier.
Inclusive of the considerations of helical spacing, Zhang
et al. (1998) found that the helical spacing provided for a pile
under tension had no effect on the ultimate capacity of the
helical pile. However, inter-helix spacing controls enhanced
the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the helical pile under
compression. Also proved that the helical pile in cohesive
soils under compression produced smaller bearing capacities
with smaller spacing ratios than those with larger helical spac-
ing ratio.
1194 Page 10 of 14 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194

Fig. 4 Comparison of Merifield 1.80 Qcalculated/QExperimental versus SR

(2011), Narasimha Rao et al. 1.70
(1991), and Mooney et al. (1985) 1.60 Merifield (2011)
results

Qcalculated/Qmeasured
1.50
1.40 Rao et al.(1991)
1.30
1.20 Mooney et al.(1985)
1.10
1.00 Linear (Merifield
(2011))
0.90
Linear (Rao et
0.80 al.(1991))
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
SPACING RATIO SR

Considering lateral resistance in designing of helical pile
against lateral loads, the spacing ratio is the important factor to
be considered. Mittal (2010) concluded that the lateral capac-
ity increased from 1.2 to 1.4 while comparing with normal pile
and the increment depended on embedment length, number of
plates, and the inter-helix spacing. Abdrabbo and Wakil
(2016) did a lateral load test on helical pile in sand by taking
various parameters into consideration such as helical diameter,
number of helical plates, and spacing ratio, and found the
effective helical spacing of 3d or 0.4D, where d = helical pile
diameter and D = helix plate diameter. At this stage, the inter-
action between helices seemed to decrease and tended to per-
form independently.
Number of helical plates
Choosing the number of helices is not that contentious as the
spacing ratio, since the number of helices in helical piles has
no effect on their behavior (Woodcock 2012). Lutenegger
(2009) expresses that the ultimate capacity of the individual
plate bearing model does get affected by the number of helical
plates, but not much by helical spacing.
Considering the lateral capacity, Mittal (2010) concluded
that while comparing with plain shaft pile, the lateral capacity
increased from 1.2 to 1.4 times with an increase in embedment
length and number of plates. Prasad and Narasimha Rao
(1996) did an experimental analysis on the helical pile model
and investigated the pile behavior for lateral loads and found
that the lateral capacity increased by increasing the number of
helices and it was 1.2 to 1.5 times the capacity of the conven-
tional straight shafted pile.
Perko (2000) developed a model to support the capacity
and torque empirical relationship for a helical foundation.
The model was compared with the findings of Hoyt and
Clemence (1989) which was based on the capacity-torque
ratio. In this study, anchors with 9- and 22-cm-diameter pile
models and square bars of 3.8, 4.5, and 5.1 cm were used. The
number of helical plates varied up to 14, starting from 2 and
the plate diameter up to 51 cm starting from 15 cm. The model
was developed on the basis of energy produced during the
installation process and the energy needed to induce

Fig. 5 Result after the modified Qcalculated/QExperimental versus SR

bearing capacity equation in 1.20
Narasimha Rao et al. (1993)
Qccalculated/QExperimental

1.10 Type A1 Mean=1.04,SD = 0.044

Type A2 Mean=1.05; SD=0.035

1.00
Type A3 Mean=1.01; SD=0.010

0.90
Type A4 Mean=0.97; SD=0.040

0.80
0 1 2 3 4 5
SR
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194
deformation. The predicted value of K (capacity-torque ratio)
is independent of helix pitch, the number of helical plates,
final installation torque, and the downward force during in-
stallation. He also found that the value K was strongly affected
by the helix thickness and hub diameter and moderately by the
radius of the helical plate. However, the selection of number
of helical plates to a pile decides the helical spacing to be
provided and care has to be taken while designing the helical
pile.
Embedment depth ratio
The embedment depth ratio (ratio of the depth between top
helix and ground level to the top helical plate diameter) is
another vital parameter in the helical piles designing (Zhang
et al. 1998).
Trofimenkov and Maruipolshii (1965) demonstrated
through their test results that in a single screw pile foundation,
the rupture of soil depends on the embedment depth ratio (H/
D). The critical H/D is defined as the pile plate when placed at
a certain depth causes failure inside the groundmass. When
the pile plate is placed at H/D which is more than the critical
H/D value, then the failure which takes place inside the
ground is not accompanied by any surface heave or rise.
And in this case, the load gets transferred to soil from the pile
through helical plate and shaft, and the bearing capacity de-
pends on plate depth. When the H/D is less than critical
H/D, there is a heave of soil mass above the plate at its
ultimate condition. The value of critical H/D is depen-
dent on the soil conditions and the load type that is
either uplift or compression. The critical H/D is found
to be between 4 and 5 for clay soil and between 5 and
6 for sandy soil while conducting uplift test by
Trofimenkov and Maruipolshii (1965).
Narasimha Rao et al. (1993) did a number of tests to eval-
uate the effect of embedment ratio on helical pile capacity. As
Fig. 6 Comparison between the
works of Narasimha Rao et al.
(1993) and Merifield (2011)
through Qcalculated/Qexperimental
versus H/D values
Qcalculated/QExperimental
Page 11 of 14 1194
a result, the helical pile was categorized into 3 types based on
embedment ratio namely, shallow pile having H/D ≤ 2, tran-
sition piles having embedment ratio of 2 < H/D ≤ 4, and pile of
H/D ≥ 4 that have been termed as deep anchors. However, the
validity of this experimental test was cross-checked with the
Merifield (2011) data and comparison has been made.
Figures 6 and 7 show the comparisons between the works of
Narasimha Rao et al. (1993) and Merifield (2011) through
Qcalculated/Qexperimental versus H/D values and uplift capacity
versus H/D values respectively.
Figure 6 clearly illustrates that from Narasimha Rao et al.
(1993) data, the ratio of capacities up to H/D = 2 increases
significantly and the pile is considered as shallow anchor pile
and at this stage, the resistance developed along the shaft is
considered to be zero. Then, up to H/D = 4, the pile anchor is
considered a transition anchor; a significant increase in the
resistance is seen. For deep anchors (H/D ≥ 4), there is a
continuous increase in capacity ratio; whereas, the data of
Merifield (2011) shows a decrease in the capacity ratio value
for the piles having H/D > 4. Also, the curve with spacing ratio
of SR = 4.6 seems divergent from the other curves. This un-
derestimation may be due to the transition effect of the failure
mechanism from cylindrical to individual plate. In that case,
the expression for the critical spacing ratio is given by the
researcher to estimate the limiting bearing capacity for a deep
anchor system with adequate accuracy. The compatibility of
this proposed theory is still uncertain for he did not consider
the impact of pile shaft, the disturbance caused to the soil due
to anchor installation, and the true geometry (non-
axisymmetric) of helical plates in numerical simulations.
However, the bearing capacity theory used by Narasimha
Rao et al. (1993) is solid and can be used to design the helical
piles.
From Fig. 7, it is clear that the embedment depth ratio plays
a vital role in increasing the uplift capacity. An increase in H/
D ratio increases the bearing capacity in both the studies;
1.20
1.15
Rao et al.1993 (SR=4.6)
1.10 Merifield, 2011(SR=4.6)
1.05 Rao et al.1993 (SR=2.3)
Merifield, 2011(SR=2.3)
1.00
Rao et al.1993 (SR=1.5)
0.95
Merifield, 2011(SR=1.5)
0.90 Rao et al.1993 (SR=1.1)
0.85 Merifield, 2011(SR=1.1)
0.80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
H/D
1194 Page 12 of 14
Fig. 7 Comparison between the 0.1
works of Narasimha Rao et al.
(1993) and Merifield (2011)
through uplift capacity versus H/ 0.09
D values
0.08
Uplift capacity KN
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0 2
however, the graph obtained for data by Merifield (2011)
seems flattened after H/D = 4. The author found that when
H/D equals spacing ratio, the estimated value is overly con-
servative. It is addressed by introducing the term “equivalent
embedment ratio” to obtain a good estimate of break-out fac-
tors for the deep anchors. And this estimate is validated only
for the cases having S/D ≤ 3.
Narasimha Rao et al. (1993) and Zhang et al. (1998) em-
phasize that the increase in the bearing capacity of the helical
piles in cohesive soils under tension and compressive loading
conditions depends on the embedment ratio. Similarly, Sakr
(2009, 2011) found that the embedment ratio, frictional resis-
tance around the shaft which is developed against uplift load,
and the resistance on top of helical plate increases with an
increasing embedment depth of the helical pile. Perko
(2009) suggested that the embedment depth should be suffi-
ciently deep so that the shallow failure would not occur since
the bearing helical plate is placed too close to the soil surface.
Soil conditions
The varied equations discussed earlier in the cylindrical shear
and individual plate bearing model clearly show us that the
design of helical piles and bearing capacity calculations are
dependent on soil conditions. The equations have various soil
parameter inputs like bearing capacity factor, adhesion factors
of soil, cohesion of soil, angle of internal friction, the un-
drained shear strength, and effective unit weight. The helical
pile capacity in compression or uplift is the same when em-
bedded in cohesive soil, since frictional resistance is influ-
enced in both cases. But in cohesionless soil, the bearing ca-
pacity will differ between tension and compression loads and
it is a bit higher for piles under compressive load owing to the
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194
Rao et al.1993 (SR=4.6)
Merifield, 2011(SR=4.6)
Rao et al.1993 (SR=2.3)
Merifield, 2011(SR=2.3)
Rao et al.1993 (SR=1.5)
Merifield, 2011(SR=1.5)
Rao et al.1993 (SR=1.1)
Merifield, 2011(SR=1.1)
4 6 8 10
H/D
influence of end bearing resistance (Zhang et al. 1998). The
differences in properties of soil which is disturbed above the
helix plate and the undisturbed soil below the helix can vary
the bearing capacities of helical pile under compression and
tension.
Prasad and Narasimha Rao (1996) conducted an experi-
mental investigation on helical pile model and also examined
the pile behavior for lateral loads and found that the lateral
capacity of helical pile increases by increasing the H/D ratio as
well as the soil strength. And it was found to be 1.2 to 1.5
times the load-carrying capacity of the conventional straight
shafted piles without helices. Thus, it indicated that soil prop-
erty influences the capacity of helical piles. Sakr (2011) elu-
cidated further fact that the piles under tension would have
lower bearing capacity when compared to piles in compres-
sion. It was due to the fact that the bottom helix surface area
was involved in compression, whereas the upper surface of the
bottom-most helical plate’s surface area was considered for
tension.
Recommendations and conclusion
This review has focused on the literatures related to behavioral
studies on helical piles under tension, compression, and lateral
loads and design parameters which affect the ultimate axial
and uplift capacity of helical pile. Comparisons were made
between various types of failure models that were proposed
by the researchers and the essential design parameters were
discussed later which affected the bearing capacity calcula-
tions. The explicit conclusions drawn after the detailed litera-
ture are as follows:
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194
& The ultimate load-carrying capacity of the helical piles is
mainly dependent on three factors namely spacing ratio,
embedment depth, and soil conditions, based on failure
mode (cylindrical shear model or individual plate bearing
failure).
& The spacing ratio, i.e., the shift occurrence from cylindri-
cal shear failure to individual bearing failure mechanism,
is still a controversial parameter and not clearly defined by
authors. Further research is required to find an ideal spac-
ing ratio parameter.
& The number of helical plates does not explicitly describe
the helical pile behavior and the ultimate capacity under
the individual bearing failure model remains unaffected.
& In cohesive soils, the bearing capacity of the pile seems to
increase when the embedment depth ratio is increased
under tension and compressive loads. While under ten-
sion, the increase in capacity of loads is more when com-
pared to compressive loads.
& Since the equation to find bearing capacity of helical pile
comprises of a vast soil properties’ parameter, the ultimate
capacity is massively affected by soil conditions. And also
the difference in undisturbed and disturbed soil properties
below and above top helices is the key variable in the
ultimate capacity of helical pile under tension and com-
pressive loadings.
& The helical piles can effectively resist lateral forces and are
exclusively controlled by shaft diameter.
& The lack of detailed research in combined loading is ob-
served, viz., lateral—compression, lateral—uplift in that
lateral load as static or dynamic deters the validity of the
design. Since the onshore and offshore buildings are sub-
jected to these kinds of combined loadings, further inves-
tigation with more correlated data with increased accuracy
is recommended for future utilization of the available de-
sign methods for such kinds of structures.
& Also, a lag in settlement analysis of helical piles has been
found when helical piles are designed to resist heavy loads
and in this case, the settlement behavior has to be identi-
fied to utilize the helical pile effectively. It is therefore
recommended that further examination with accuracy
should be done to elucidate the validity of design methods.
Currently, the failure mechanism of helical piles is be-
ing studied by several numerical finite element modeling
through advanced software packages. It is hereby sug-
gested that conducting various FEM analyses by changing
various parameters that were discussed earlier might bring
a solution for an optimized parameter value and one can
conduct a number of analyses in these software and might
increase the validity of using helical piles in various cir-
cumstances and further enlighten the usage and designing
of helical piles.
Page 13 of 14 1194
References
Abdrabbo FM, Wakil A (2016) Laterally loaded helical piles in sand.
Alexandria Eng J 55:3239–3245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.
2016.08.020
Adams JI, Klym TW (1972) A study of anchors for transmission tower
foundations. Can Geotech J 9(1):89–104
Arup Geotechnics (2005) Design of screw piles: assessment of pile de-
sign methodology. Ove Arup & Partners Ltd, London
Aydin M, Bradka T, Kort D (2011) Osterberg cell load testing on helical
piles. Geo-Frontiers 2011:66–74
Budhu M (2011) Soil mechanics and foundations, 3rd ed. John Wiley &
Sons Inc, USA. Canadian Geotechnical Society, 2006. Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th ed., 488 pp
Chance (1993) Basic guidelines for designing helical piers for underpin-
ning. A.B Chance Company, USA
Das BM (1990) Helical anchors. In: Das BM (ed) Earth anchors. Elsevier
Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 169–192
Demir A, Ok B (2015) Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in
cohesive soil. Geomech Eng 8(4):615–630
Hawkins K, Thorsten R (2009) Load test results - large diameter helical
pipe piles. In: Contemp top deep foundation. International
Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo, Orlando, Florida,
United States, pp 488–495. https://doi.org/10.1061/41021(335)61
Hird CC, Stanier SA (2010) Modeling helical screw piles in clay using a
transparent soil. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
on Physical Modeling in Geotechnics, Zurich, Switzerland, 28
June–1 July. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp. 769–774
Howard P (2003) Lateral capacity and buckling resistance of helix pier
foundations. In: Foundations technology seminar - Helical
Foundations and Tiebacks, Deep Foundation Institute, Helical Pile
Committee, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, pp 1–8
Hoyt RM, Clemence SP (1989) Uplift capacity of helical anchors in soil.
In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 2. Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, pp. 1019–1022
Hubble Power Systems Inc. (2003) Industry standards based on
CHANCE multi-helix anchor specs. Bulletin 040301, Centralia,
Macao
Knappett L, Brown MJ, Brennan AJ, Hamilton L (2014) Optimising the
compressive behavior of screw piles in sand for marine renewable
energy application. In: Proceedings of DFI/EFFC 11th international
conference on piling and deep foundations. Deep foundations
Institute
Livneh B, Naggar MHM (2008) Axial testing and numerical modelling of
square shaft helical piles under compressive and tensile loading. Can
Geotech J 45(8):1142–1155
Lutenegger A (2009) Cylindrical shear or plate bearing? — uplift behav-
ior of multi-helix screw anchors in clay. In: Contemporary topics in
deep foundations. International Foundation Congress and
Equipment Expo, Orlando, Florida, United States, pp 456–463.
https://doi.org/10.1061/41021(335)57
Matlock H, Reese LC (1962) General solutions for laterally loaded piles.
Trans Am Soc Civil Eng 127(Part 1):1220–1247
Merifield RS (2011) Ultimate uplift capacity of multiplate helical type
anchors in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron 137(7):704–716
Meyerhof GG, Adams JI (1968) The ultimate uplift capacity of founda-
tions. Can Geotech J 5(4):225–244
Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile founda-
tions. ASCE J Geotechn Eng 102(GT3):197–224
Mittal S, Ganjoo B, Shekhar S (2010) Static equilibrium of screw anchor
pile under lateral load in sand. Geotech Geol Eng 28:717–725.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9342-4
Mittal S, Mukherjee S (2015) Behaviour of group of helical screw an-
chors under compressive loads. Geotech Geol Eng 33(3):575–592
 1194 Page 14 of 14
Mitsch MP, Clemence SP (1985) Uplift capacity of helix anchors in sand.
In: Proceedings of a session held in conjuction with the ASCE con-
vention, Detroit, MI, England. pp 26–47
Mohajerani A, Bosnjak D, Bromwich D (2016) Analysis and design
methods of screw piles: a review. Soils Found 56(1):115–128
Mooney JS, Adamczak S, Clemence SP (1985) Uplift capacity of helix
anchors in clay and silt. In: Proceedings of a session held in
conjuction with the ASCE convention, Detroit, MI, England, pp
48–72
Naggar MH, Youssef MA, Ahmed M (2007) Monotonic and cyclic lat-
eral behaviour of helical pile specialized connectors. Eng Struct
29(10):2635–2640
Narasimha Rao S, Prasad YVSN, Veeresh C (1993) Behaviour of em-
bedded screw anchors in soft clays. Geotechnique 43:605–614
Narasimha Rao S, Prasad YVSN (1993) Estimation of uplift capacity of
helical anchors in clays. J Geotech Eng 119(2):352–357
Narasimha Rao S, Prasad YSVN, Shetty MD (1991) The behaviour of
model screw piles in cohesive soils. J Soil Foundation 31(2):35–50
Nasr MH (2004) Large capacity screw piles. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference: Future Vision and Challenges for Urban
Development. Cairo, Egypt, 20–22 December, pp. 1–15
Nasr MH (2009) Performance-based design for helical piles. In:
Contemporary topics in deep foundations. Internation Foundation
Congress and Equipment Expo, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp 496–503
Pack JS (2000) Design of helical piles for heavily loaded structures. In:
New technological and design developments in deep foundations.
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 353–367. https://doi.org/
10.1061/40511(288)25
Papadopoulou K, Saroglou H, Papadopoulos V (2014) Finite element
analyses and experimental investigation of helical micropiles.
Geotech Geol Eng 32:949–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-
014-9771-6
Perko HA (2009) Helical piles: a practical guide to design and installa-
tion, 1st edn. Wiley, USA
Perko H (2000) Energy method for predicting installation torque of heli-
cal foundations and anchors. In: Proceedings of Geo-Denver 2000,
Denver, Colorado, United States, pp 342–352
Perlow M Jr (2011) Helical pile acceptance criteria, design guidelines and
load test verification. In: Geo-frontiers 2011. Advances in
Geotechnical Engineering, pp 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1061/
41165(397)11
Polishchuk AI, Maksimov F (2018) Improved design for settlement of
helical pile in clay. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 451. https://doi.org/
10.1088/1742-6596/451/1/012110
Prasad YVSN, Narasimha Rao S (1996) Lateral capacity of helical piles
in clays. J Geotech Eng ASCE 122(11):938–941
Puri V, Stephenson R, Dziedzic E, Goen L (1984) Helical anchor piles
under lateral loading. In: Langer J, Mosley E, Thompson C (eds)
STP835-EB laterally loaded deep foundations: analysis and perfor-
mance, pp 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP36822S
Rawat S, Gupta AK (2017) Numerical modelling of pullout of helical soil
nail. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(4):648–658
View publication stats
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1194
Sakr M (2011) Installation and performance characteristics of high capac-
ity helical piles in cohesionless soils. Deep Foundations (DFI) 5(1):
39–57
Sakr M (2010) Lateral resistance of high capacity helical piles: case study.
In: Proceedings of the 63rd Canadian Geotechnical and 6th
Canadian Permafrost Conference. Calgary, Alberta, 12–16
September, pp. 402–412
Sakr M (2009) Performance of helical piles in oil sand. Can Geotech J
46(9):1046–1061
Sakr M (2018) Performance of laterally loaded helical piles in clayey soils
established from field experience. DFI J 12:28–41. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19375247.2018.1430481
Salhi L, Nait-Rabah O, Deyrat C, Roos C (2013) Numerical modeling of
single helical pile behavior under compressive loading in sand.
Electron J Geotech Eng 18:4319–4338
Schmidt R, Nasr M (2004) Screw piles: uses and considerations.
Structural Magazine 29–31
Stanier SA, Black JA, Hird CC (2013) Modelling helical screw piles in
clay and design implications. Proc ICE-Geotechn Eng 167(5):
447e60
Tappenden K, Sego D, Robertson P (2009) Load transfer behavior of full-
scale instrumented screw anchors. In: Contemporary topics in deep
foundations. International Foundation Congress and Equipment
Expo, Orlando, Florida, United States, pp 472–479. https://doi.org/
10.1061/41021(335)59
Todeshkejoei C, Hambleton JP, Stanier SA, Gaudin C (2014) Modelling
installation of helical anchors in clay. In: Proceedings of the 14th
international conference of the international association for comput-
er methods and advances in geomechanics, 22–25 September,
Kyoto, Japan, pp 917–922
Trofimenkov JG, Maruipolshii LG (1965) Screw piles used for mast and
tower foundations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol.
2, pp. 328–332
Vickars R, Clemence SP (2000) Performance of helical piles with grouted
shafts. In: New technological and design developments in deep
foundations. American Society of Civil Engineers, USA, pp 327–
341
Vito D, Cook T (2011) Highly loaded helical piles in compression and
tension applications: a case study of two projects. In: Proceedings of
the Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference, pp 1–4
Woodcock J (2012) Finite element analysis of screw piles. In:
Proceedings of the 1st civil and environmental engineering student
conference, London, pp 1–5
Zhang DJY, Chalaturnyk R, Robertson PK, Sego DC, Cyre G (1998)
Screw anchor test program (Part I & II): instrumentation, site char-
acterization and installation. In: Proceedings of the 51st Canadian
Geotechnical Conference, Edmonton
Zhang DJY (1999) Predicting capacity of helical screw piles in Alberta
soils (M.S. thesis). Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta