Amalia 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1173 012020

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Numerical Analysis of Horizontal Bearing
The influence of helix diameter configuration on Capacity of Composite Pile Foundation for
Offshore Wind Turbine
helical pile bearing capacity Guo Wen Ting and Wu Yan Chong
- Thermal Stability Evaluation Method

Based on Pile’s Bearing Capacity in a
To cite this article: G Amalia et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1173 012020 Permafrost Region
Guo Chunxiang, Zhang Weijia, Jiang Laiku
et al.
- Applicability analysis of squeezed branch

pile with different embedded depth of
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Boulder
ZHU Wen-tong, LI Hai-qin, ZENG Jun-yan
et al.
This content was downloaded from IP address 171.97.65.138 on 01/02/2024 at 14:41

3rd International Conference on Disaster Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1173 (2023) 012020 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1173/1/012020
The influence of helix diameter configuration on helical pile

bearing capacity
G Amalia1, M M Iqbal2 and R Dewi2

1
The Civil Engineering Departement, Engineering Faculty of Universitas Indo
Global Mandiri, Indonesia
2
The Civil Engineering Departement, Engineering Faculty of Universitas Sriwijaya,
Indonesia
E-mail: ghina@uigm.ac.id
Abstract. Helical pile is an invention of pile foundation that has many advantages. Helical pile
produced bearing capacity greater than other pile foundations. It because The Bearing capacity
of helical pile is contributed by end bearing capacity (Qb), shaft friction bearing capacity (Qs)
and bearing capacity of helix or cylindrical (Qcyc) along pile. On of the Several factors that
influence bearing capacity of helical pile was the configuration of helix diameter arrangement.
This research was a laboratory experiment using a box, sand as the medium and a miniature of
steel pile. The diameter pile test was 1,5 cm and length was 63 cm. Each pile has three helix
along the pile with a configuration of diameter from top to bottom was 10 cm – 8 cm – 6 cm
and from top to bottom 6 cm – 8 cm – 10 cm. The kind of Loading test was used in this research
was Quick Maintain Load (QML). From the research, It was found that the variation wich gave
the most significant influence in remained the greatest bearing capacity was the pile with
diameter configuration of helix from top to bottom 6 cm – 8 cm – 10 cm or pile D6810.
1. Introduction
Helical pile is a modification of pile foundation. Helical pile was invented by Alexander Mitchel in
1833. The difference between helical pile and other pile foundation is helical pile was added some
steel plate named helix along the pile with certain spacing distance between helix which could make
installation process easier. In general, the bearing capacity of pile foundation is a contribution of end
bearing capacity and shaft friction bearing capacity along pile. But in helical pile, the bearing capacity
is not only contributed by end bearing capacity, shaft friction bearing capacity but also by bearing
capacity of helix. The helical pile has resistance of tensile loads, compressive loads, lateral loads and
overturning momen [1,2].
The used of helical pile nowadays widespread especially on problem soils. It was caused helical
pile has many advantages such as the installation process is not depended on climate and weather,
neither need more effort nor cause vibration that can disturb the environment around the helical pile,
do not require maintenance time after installation so that the loading test could be carried out
immediately. But of the all advantages, the more important is helical pile produced bearing capacity
greater than other pile foundation . Hamdy H A et all was said the similar thing that the installation
process of helical pile does not damage the soil condition around helical pile because it does not
remove the original soil [3].
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
Several previous research have been carried out to identify what factors could influenced the
bearing capacity of helical pile. Hamdy H A et al in their research presented the compressive and
tensile bearing capacity of helical pile on sandy soil [3]. In addition, they also research about what
factors were able to increase the value of the compressive and tensile bearing capacity of helical pile.
The results of the laboratory experiment concluded that the bearing capacity value was strongly
influenced and directly proportional to the ratio of the depth of the foundation and the diameter of
helical pile [3].
Sena bayu researched to calculated the value of bearing capacity caused by the increased of number
of helix. Sand and clay was used as a test medium. The test result for the variation in the number of
helix showed that the bearing capacity of the helical foundation has increased by 9.38% in clay soil
and 5.58% in sandy soil due to the increase in the number of helix. While the result in variation of
helix diameter increased of 50% also showed the bearing capacity increased by 19.6% on clay soil and
10.83% on sandy soil.
While likitha et al conducted an experiment to analyse the influence of the helix on the bearing
capacity of helical pile. The experiment was carried out on a laboratory scale in cohesive soils [4]. So
the results of the experiment conducted indicated the bearing capacity of the helical pile was
significantly influenced by the helix diameter size. The value of the bearing capacity of the helical pile
was directly proportional to the increase in the diameter size of the helix [4].
2. Materials and methodology
2.1. Materials
This research used several materials such as:
2.1.1. Sand. Sand was used as testing medium. Before been used, the first step was sand must been
dried. Then, some dried sand was sampled for testing in the laboratory. From laboratory testing, the
parameters of sand properties are obtained in table 1
Table 1. The parameters of sand properties
Soil Properties Value

Specific Gravity, Gs 2.639
Sieve Analysis Cu = 3 dan Cc = 1,5
Total Unit Weight,  (KN/m3) 13.92
Water Content, w (%) 0
Friction Angle, φ 30o
2.1.2. Testing instrument. The test was carried out on a laboratory scale using a test box measuring
210 cm of length, 100 cm wide and 95 cm high. The test box was placed under a load frame which
aims to withstand the force exerted by the hydraulic jack. The hydraulic jack was used as a load on the
test object had a capacity of 2 tons. To measured the settlement, two LVDT were used which placed
on the left and right sides of the load-bearing plate, while to measure the load was used a 5 tons capacity
of load cell. LVDT and Load cell were connected to Data logger TDS-302 series to read the value of
settlement and load [5]. The installation of the testing instrument illustration could been seen in figure
1.
2
Figure 1. The illustration of testing instrument installation.
2.1.3. Helical pile. This research used a helical pile model wich made of steel with a 1.5 cm of pile
diameter and 63 cm of the length. There were three helix along the pile. The helix were also made of
steel plates with the diameter was 10 cm, 8 cm and 6 cm while the thickness was 1 mm. This research
used 6 varies of helical pile as the test object with varying diameters and spacing were used as shown
In table 2 while The illustration of helical pile could been seen in figure 2.
Figure 2. The illustration of helical pile
3
Tabel 2. Variation of the helical pile

Spacing between helix (s) Diameter of Helix (cm)
Pile Notation
(cm) top middle bottom
6 8 10 D6810-10
10
10 8 6 D1086-10
6 8 10 D6810-15
15
10 8 6 D1086-15
6 8 10 D6810-20
20
10 8 6 D1086-20
2.2. Methodology
Before loading test was started, dried sand was put into the test box which was placed under the load
frame. Dried sand was added layer by layer which the thickness of each layer was approximately 30
cm and followed by a little compaction using a plate compactor. When the elevation of sand reached
90 cm, helical pile was inserted by turning it slowly to a predetermined depth of 43 cm. After that, the
retaining plate was fitted on top of the helical pile as a footing for the testing instrument. On the plate
successively arranged hydraulic jacks, load cells, and buffer tubes until they reach the elevation of the
load frame. While LVDT was installed on the left and right sides of the plate. All instruments were
arranged symmetrically so that the resultant load was parallel to the helical pile axis. Illustration of the
installation of the test instrument can been seen in figure 1.
The loading test in this study was carried out using the ASTM D-1143 procedure. The type of
loading test in this study includes the Quick Maintained Loading Test (QML) type of loading test. This
method was relatively faster than other methods required by ASTM. In the QML test, the load increase
was applied gradually every 5% of the design load which has been calculated using the cylindrical
bearing method from Mitsch and Clemence until the load failure was reached. The load increase was
held as fast as 4 minutes but not more than 15 minutes. The Recording was carried out at time periods
of 0, 5, 10, 15, and so on at each multiple of the 5-minute time interval for each load increase. When
the pile had reached failure, the loading test in the study was stopped. ASTM D 1143 stated that the
test is stopped if the load reaches 1.5 to 2x the design load [5].
3. Result and discussion

The loading-settlement curve shape resulting from the loading test generally produces a curve that
showed three phases of change in the behavior of the test object. There were three areas on the curve
each indicating a changed phase of helical pile behavior [6,7,8].
The first phase was the linear-elastic phase whereas the load increases, the settlement that occurs
was still constant so it created a linear curve. The second part was the transition phase of the object’s
behavior from the elastic phase to the plastic phase where in this phase an imbalance begins to occur
between the given load and the settlement that occurs, in this phase the curve begins to take the form
of a parabola. The third phase or linear-plastic phase is indicated by the addition of the same load or
even without the addition of load, the settlement that occurs was very large, in this phase the stiffness
of the test object was reduced or even lost [6,7,8].
Figures 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c) showed the load-settlement curve on the influence of helix diameter
configuration represented by notated test object D06810-10 and D1086-10; D06810-15 and D1086-
15; D06810-20 and D1086-20.
It could be seen in figures 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c) that helix diameter configuration on helix arrangement
along the pile produced a significant difference of bearing capacity each helical pile
4
(a) (b)
(c)
(c)
Figure 3. Load-settlement of d6810 and d1086, (a) spacing between helix 10 cm, (b) spacing between
helix 15 cm, (c) spacing between helix 20 cm.
To get the ultimate bearing capacity value of each test object, in addition to using the empirical
method, a graphical method was also used based on the interpretation of the loading test data. The
graphic method was used in this research was the dee beer method, the chin method and the davisson
method [9,4]
3.1. Bearing capacity of helical pile using empirical method

The test objects used in this research were designed to be qualified the cylindrical failure method where
the specimen has a ratio of S/D ≤3 and used sand as the soil medium. So, this research used the
cylindrical failure method for non-cohesive from Mitsch and Clemence as the empirical method
formula to determine the bearing capacity. The formula was shown in the following [10].
Qult  Qb  Qs  Qcyc (1)
 (D2  d 2 ) (2)
Qb  N q . '.H .
4
5
2 1  (3)
Qs   . d . H eff  .  ' . K s . tan  o 
2 
2 1  (4)
Qcyc   . D . H eff . .  ' . K s . tan  o 
 2 
Where :
Qult : Ultimate bearing capacity (kN)
Qb : End bearing capacity (kN)
Qs : Shaft friction bearing capacity (kN)
Qcyc : Cylindrical bearing capacity (kN)
Nq : Bearing capacity factor
𝛾′ : Submerged unit weight (kN /m3)
D : Helix diameter (m)
d : Pile diameter (m)
H : Depth of bottom helix (m)
Ks : coefficient of active earth pressure
𝜑o : Angle friction
Heff : Bottom helix depth – top helix depth (m)
The table below is a recapitulation of the the empirical bearing capacity for each test object
calculation.
Table 3. Recapitulation of the empirical bearing capacity.

Cylindrical Shear Failure Method (kN)
Pile
Qb Qs Qcyc Qu
D6810-10 1.20 0.03 0.20 1.43
D6810-15 1.20 0.01 0.45 1.67
D6810-20 1.20 0.00 0.81 2.01
D1086-10 0.42 0.02 0.20 0.64
D1086-15 0.42 0.01 0.45 0.88
D1086-20 0.42 0.00 0.81 1.22
3.2. Bearing capacity of helical pile using graphic method

The figure below showed several graphical methods to obtained the bearing capacity value based on
field loading test data. The data interpretation to obtained the carrying capacity on the chin method
was shown in figure 4. The formula below
1
Qu  (5)
c1
Where c1 is the slope of the linier regression line coefficient from the loading test data. Figure 4
showed c1 value was 0.0648. Therefore, the bearing capacity was 15.4 kN and after corrected by the
safety factor the bearing capacity was 12.86 kN.
6
Figure 4. Bearing capacity using Chin method for d6810-10 pile.
Figure 5 showed De Beer interpretation data method. Loading-test data was plotted on double-
logarithmic graph. It produced a graphic seemed to intersect each other. The ultimate bearing capacity
was obtained from that intersection point. Figure 7 showed the ultimate bearing capacity value for the
D6810-10 pile was 8.7 kN.
Figure 5. Helcial bearing capacity using De Beer method for d6810-10 pile.
7
Davisson’s method shown in figure 6 was obtained the ultimate bearing capacity was the
intersection of the second linier line against the loading graph. In the graph above, bearing capacity
for the D6810-10 pile was 2.5 kN.
Figure 6. Bearing capacity using Davisson method for d6810-10 pile.
Table 4. Recapitulation of ultimit bearing capacity using graphic method.

Ultimit Bearing Capacity, Qult (kN)
Pile
De Beer Davisson Chin
D6810-10 8.7 9 12.86
D6810-15 9.3 9.5 14.05
D6810-20 10 9.5 18.08
D1086-10 4 2.8 5.72
D1086-15 4.8 3 8.04
D1086-20 5.7 5.1 8.43
3.3. The influence of helix diameter configuration D810, D1086 variables

The influence of helix diameter configuration were represented by D6810 and D1086 variables will
be known after bearing capacity data of helical pile been analyzed. Table 5 showed the recapitulation
of the ultimate bearing capacity of the helical pile based on the results of empirical calculations and
data interpretation analysis also the ratio of comparison between the ultimate bearing capacity using
the analysis method for interpreting the load testing data and the ultimate bearing capacity using the
empirical cylindrical method.
8
Table 5. Recapitulation of bearing capacity based on empirical method and interpretation data
analysys.
Ultimit Bearing Capacity, Qult (kN)
Empiris Analysis of Load Testing Data Interpretation
Pile
(Cylindrical)
De Beer Davisson Chin
D6810-10 (6.08) (6.29) 12. (8.99)
1.43 8.7 9
86
D6810-15 (5.57) (5.69) 14. (8.41)
1.67 9.3 9.5
05
D6810-20 (4.98) (4.73) 18. (8.99)
2.01 10 9.5
08
Rata-Rata Rasio (5.54) (5.57) (8.80)
D1086-10 (6.25) (4.38) 5.7 (8.94)
0.64 4 2.8
2
D1086-15 (5.45) (3.41) 8.0 (9.13)
0.88 4.8 3
4
D1086-20 (4.67) (4.18) 8.4 (6.91)
1.22 5.7 5.1
3
Rata-Rata Rasio (5.46) (3.99) (8.33)
Note: ( ) = Ratio between ultimate bearing capacity method of data interpretation loading test
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 7. The comparison of ultimit bearing capacity between helix diameter configuratioan
D6810 and D1086, (a) using chin method, (b) using davisson method,(c)using de beer method.
9
Table 6. Persentage of bearing capacity increment due to the influence of helix configuration D1086
and D6810
Persentage of
Persentage of Avarege
Analysis Method Pile Bearing Capacity
Increment
Increment (%)
D1086-10 and D6810-10 125%
Chin D1086-15 and D6810-15 75% 105%
D1086-20 and D6810-20 114%
D1086-10 and D6810-10 221%
Davisson D1086-15 and D6810-15 217% 175%
D1086-20 and D6810-20 86%
D1086-10 and D6810-10 118%
De Beer D1086-15 and D6810-15 94% 96%
D1086-20 and D6810-20 75%
Based on figures 7a, 7b, 7c and table 6, it can be analysed how the influence of the helix diameter
configuration on the ultimate bearing capacity produced by calculating the percentage of bearing
capacity Increment that occurs due to differences in helix diameter configurations. Meanwhile, the
influence of the spacing between helix can be seen visually from the form of the relationship between
the ultimate bearing capacity on each spacing variabel, whether it forms a steep or gentle curve. When
the curve formed stepper, the influence of these variables on the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile
more significant.
The pictures above showed clearly that there was a very big difference between the bearing capacity
produced by the D6810 pile and the bearing capacity of the D1086 pile configuration where the
ultimate bearing capacity curve produced by the D6810 pile was always above the D1086 pile curve.
The average percentage of ultimate bearing capacity increment due to differences in helix
configuration with the Chin, Davisson, De Beer and Empirical methods, respectively was 105%,
175%, 96% and 93%. So that the configuration that was able to gave a very significant infuence on the
helical pile ultimate bearing capacity increment was the D6810 configuration. While the influence
given by the spacing between helix on the helical pile bearing capacity was not significant. This can
be seen from the slope of the ultimate bearing capacity curve that was produced a gentle curve.
If viewed from the total ultimate bearing capacity composition of helical pile with the Cylindrical
Shear Failure method, as previously explained that the end bearing capacity or Qb gave the most
dominant contribution. The end bearing capacity or Qb was strongly influenced by the diameter of the
bottom helix, so that a helcial pile with a large bottom helix diameter will produce larger Qb value.
While Qcyc, the diameter used was the average diameter of the three helix, so that both D6810 and
D1086 will produce the same Qcyc. This was what causes the D6810 pile had a bigger bearing capacity
than the the D1086.
4. Conclusion
This research get the following conclusion such as :
1. There was a very big difference between bearing capacity produced by the D6810 pile
configuration and the bearing capacity of the D1086 configuration where the curve produced
by the D6810 was always far above the D1086 curve. The average percentage of ultimate
bearing capacity increment due to differences in helix diameter configurations using the Chin,
Davisson, De Beer and Empirical methods, respectively was 105%, 175%, 96% and 93%.
2. The most significant influenced variable was the D6810 configuration, this was due to the
value of the end bearing capacity which will increase as the bottom helix diameter increases
[12,12]. While the value of the cylindrical bearing capacity is not affected by the configuration
arrangement of the thread diameter which enlarges downwards (D6810) or shrinks to the
bottom. Or in other words, the effectiveness of the configuration can be seen in the
10
arrangement of the thread diameters, the deeper the thread diameter, the larger the thread
diameter [13].
Reference
[1] Muhajerani A, Bosnak D, mwich D B 2016 The Japanese Geotechnical Society, Souls and
Foundation 56 115-128 [1]
[2] Sprince A and Pakrastinsh L 2010 Helical pile behaviour and load transfer mechanism in
different soils In Proc. 10th International Conference Modern Building Materials, Structures
and Techniques pp.1174-1180 [2]
[3] Hamdy H.A. Abdel-Rahim, Yehia Kamal Taha and Walla El din El sharif Mohamed 2013
J. of Eng. Sci. 41 2055-2064 [8]
[4] Likhitha H, Raghavendra H N, Rakesh K P, Uday Shrihari P 2017 International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 6 (7): 12666 [11]
[5] ASTM.D1143 Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under Static Axial Compressive
Load (Pennsylvania: ASTM International) [3]
[6] Livneh B, El Naggar M H 2008 Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45(8) 1142-1155 [4]
[7] Hardiyatmo H C 2017 Mekanika Tanah I (Bandung: Gajah Mada University Press) [9]
[8] Hardiyatmo H C 2018 Mekanika Tanah II (Bandung: Gajah Mada University Press) [10]
[9] Fatnantaa F, Ongko A 2018 Bearing Capacity Analysis of Helical Pile EDP Sciences [7]
[10] Das B M and Sobhan K 2014 Principle of Geotechnical Engineering (Stamford: CT Cengage
Learning) [6]
[11] Nugroho S A 2011 Jurnal Teknik Sipil ITB 18 31-40 [12]
[12] Yenginar Y 2017 In Proc. 3rd Introductional Soil-Structure Interaction Syimposium-izmir
(Turkiye) pp.692-702 [13]
[13] Birid, Kedar 2017 In: Abu-Farsakh, M., Alshibli, K., Puppala, A. (eds) Advances in Analysis
and Design of Deep Foundations GeoMEast Sustainable Civil Infrastructures (Egypt: Springer,
Cham) [5]
11

Amalia 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1173 012020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Amalia 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1173 012020

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

Amalia 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1173 012020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Thermal Stability Evaluation Method

- Applicability analysis of squeezed branch

This content was downloaded from IP address 171.97.65.138 on 01/02/2024 at 14:41

The influence of helix diameter configuration on helical pile

G Amalia1, M M Iqbal2 and R Dewi2

2. Materials and methodology

Table 1. The parameters of sand properties

Soil Properties Value

Figure 1. The illustration of testing instrument installation.

Figure 2. The illustration of helical pile

Tabel 2. Variation of the helical pile

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Bearing capacity of helical pile using empirical method

Qult  Qb  Qs  Qcyc (1)

Table 3. Recapitulation of the empirical bearing capacity.

3.2. Bearing capacity of helical pile using graphic method

Figure 4. Bearing capacity using Chin method for d6810-10 pile.

Figure 6. Bearing capacity using Davisson method for d6810-10 pile.

Table 4. Recapitulation of ultimit bearing capacity using graphic method.

3.3. The influence of helix diameter configuration D810, D1086 variables

You might also like