International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-023-00893-7 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Effect of the Addition of a Second Helix on the Helical Pile

Performance in Sand
Reza Hoseinpour1 • Mohsen Keramati1 • Cristina de Hollanda Cavalcanti Tsuha2

Received: 22 March 2023 / Revised: 17 July 2023 / Accepted: 1 September 2023 / Published online: 14 September 2023
Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the Iran University of Science and Technology 2023

Abstract
Helical piles have recently become more popular because of their technical, economic, and environmental benefits.
However, the effect of adding a second helix to a single-helix pile on the foundation performance in sandy soils is variable
and still not well understood. This study reports the physical modeling of a 1-g scaled helical pile in dry sand with different
relative densities. Thus, the soil box was prepared with two relative density percentages (i.e., 45% and 95%). During the
tests, researchers investigated how sand relative density and axial load direction (tensile and compressive load) influence
the advantage of adding a second helix to a single-helix pile. The results indicated that the ratio of the bearing pressure
mobilized by the pile helices in tension and compression (qh-T/qh-C) for a pile displacement of 0.1 of helix diameter is
higher for piles in dense sand. In addition, it was found that the values of non-dimensional bearing factors obtained for the
bottom helix of the piles are comparable with the results of previous tests. Further, the addition of a second helix could
increase the capacity for both tensile and compressive loading. The tensile capacity gain was higher, ranging from 54 to
58%, compared to compressive capacity, which was only in the range of 26–28%. Eventually, the results demonstrated that
although the relative gain in pile capacity by adding a second helix is independent of the relative density of the sand, it is
more significant for tensile capacity compared to compressive capacity.

Keywords Helical piles  Screw piles  Physical modeling  Sand  Tensile capacity  Compressive capacity

List of Symbols cd min Minimum dry density (kN /m3)

C Cohesion (kPa) D Helix diameter (mm)
Cc Coefficient of curvature d Shaft diameter (mm)
Cu Coefficient of uniformity D/d Ratio of the helix diameter to the shaft diameter
Dr Relative density of sand (%) Fq Bearing uplift capacity factor
D50 Average grain size (mm) Nq Bearing compression capacity factor
emax Maximum void ratio Qu-t Ultimate tension capacity (N)
emin Minimum void ratio Qu-c Ultimate compression capacity (N)
Gs Specific gravity of solid particles qh-T Helix bearing pressure in uplift (kPa)
cd max Maximum dry density (kN /m3) qh-C Helix bearing pressure in compression (kPa)
S Side of a square shaft
z Pile tip depth
& Mohsen Keramati
keramati@shahroodut.ac.ir f Sand internal friction angle
Reza Hoseinpour
hoseinpour76@outlook.com
Cristina de Hollanda Cavalcanti Tsuha
chctsuha@sc.usp.br 1 Introduction
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Shahrood University of A helical pile (also known as a helical anchor when sub-
Technology, P.O. Box 3619995161, Shahrood, Iran
jected only to pullout load) comprises a central steel shaft
2
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, University of São with one or more circular plates (helix) welded to a central
Paulo at São Carlos, Av. Trabalhador, Sãocarlense, 400,
São Carlos, SP 13566-590, Brazil
steel shaft and installed into the ground by applying torque

123
290
and simultaneous downward pressure. Since 1836, this pile
has been used to rehabilitate and support a variety of civil
engineering structures [1].
This type of foundation has gained recognition around
the world because of its unique features, including quick
and uncomplicated installation and no restrictions in terms
of execution time (all year round and regardless of the
weather, it is applicable). The other features were minimal
vibration and noise during execution and ease of installa-
tion of these piles under the water, a wide range of appli-
cations in different soils, and being economical and
environmentally friendly [2, 3]. In recent years, this
foundation has widely employed helical piles in onshore
and offshore structures worldwide. Given the ability to
provide a large uplift capacity by the anchor effect of the
helix, these piles have been considered an attractive alter-
native to driven piles for offshore foundations [4–10].
Different factors influence helical piles’ tensile and
compressive performance characteristics such as soil type,
helix configuration, number of helices, diameters and
spacing between helices, the pitch of the helix, diameter
and type of shaft, installation angle, and the like [11]. By
performing uplift experiments on helical anchors with
different soil types and inter-helix spacing to helix diam-
eter ratios ranging from 2.1 to 3.6, researchers found that
each helix behaves independently of the other because of
their considerable distance apart [12]. In these cases, the
sum of the individual bearing capacities of all helical plates
and the shaft resistance can estimate the tension capacity of
the multi-helix anchor. This hypothesis is known as the
individual bearing method [13]. On the other hand, it is
assumed that the uplift capacity of a multi-helix pile is the
sum of the bearing capacity of the upper helix and the shear
resistance of a cylinder of soil formed between the upper
and lower helices. This hypothesis is known as the cylin-
drical shear method. Both methods can also be used for
piles under compression; however, the soil zone below the
helices and the pile tip resistance are considered in this
case. During the field loading tests conducted on single-
and double-helix piles in sand, it was observed that the
failure mechanism of double-helix piles with a spacing of
3D (where D is the diameter of the lower helix) was
achieved through the individual bearing mechanism [14].
Therefore, the individual bearing method is more appro-
priate for estimating the axial capacities of helical piles in
the sand with inter-helix spacing greater than 3D.
1.1 Installation Effect
For the calculation of helical pile capacity, the installation
effect of the helix penetration on the soil should also be
taken into consideration. During pile installation, helices
cut through the soil and displace material to allow the helix
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302
to advance, causing disturbance to the soil [15]. This dis-
turbance affects the uplift behavior of helical piles, as
observed by various researchers [15–21]. Different studies
have demonstrated that the effects of pile installation vary
with soil properties and pile geometry [15–19, 22, 23]. The
installation of a small-scale helical pile was studied, and
the researchers found that the soil above the helix moved
upward, while the soil near the shaft was pulled down by
the shaft friction [24]. The installation of a helical pile in
dense sand was simulated by researchers who observed a
decrease in the surrounding soil’s relative density from 80
to 55% [25]. Another study was conducted on the zone of
soil disturbance, and the results indicated that the zone of
soil disturbance would be slightly larger than the helix
diameter [26]. Additionally, other researchers concluded
that the annular disturbed soil zone around the helix should
increase with the increase in the helix area [19].
The level of sand disturbance caused by pile installation
depends on the number of times spent on soil penetration.
With double-helix piles under tensile loading, the soil mass
above the top helix, mobilized by the uplift movement
imposed on the pile, was traversed by the bottom and top
helices during installation and consequently disturbed
twice. In contrast, the soil mobilized above the bottom
helix was disturbed once during pile installation. With
double-helix piles under compressive loading, only the soil
below the top helix is disturbed during installation while
the soil below the bottom helix can be intact.
1.2 Addition of a Second Helix to a Single Helix
Pile
Few studies have investigated the effect of adding a second
helix on the helical pile performance under tensile and
compressive loading. Table 1 presents a summary of pre-
vious experimental works which have tested single and
double-helix piles (most of them with the inter-helix
spacing of 3D), where d, s, D, and z represent shaft
diameter, side of a square shaft, helix diameter, and pile tip
depth, respectively. In addition, Qu-T, Qu-C, f, and Dr
denote pile tensile capacity, pile compressive capacity,
sand internal friction angle, and sand relative density,
respectively.
Based on the results Table 1 the gain in tensile capacity
by adding a second helix seems to have increased with the
decrease in helix diameter and to be more important for
piles in looser sands. Figure 1 compares the relationship
between gain in tensile capacity and helix diameter using
the results (Table 1). This figure also incorporates findings
from a study conducted by the University of Dundee;
however, the inter-helix spacing of the double-helix piles is
2D only in these cases, and this has probably influenced the
gain in tensile capacity caused by including a second helix
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302 291

Table 1 Gain in capacity by adding a second helix observed from previous experimental studies
Study Sand conditions Test type d or s* D z Failure Qu-T 1- Qu-T 2- Gain Qu-C 1- Qu-C 2- Gain
(mm) (mm) (m) criteria helix helix tension helix helix comp
(kN) (kN) (%) (kN) (kN)

Clemence Medium dense Full scale *51 300 6.1 Maxim 195.7 266.9 36 – – –
et al. [30] / * 33° to 34o tests load
Sakr [14] Dense to very Full scale 177.8 406 5.8 0.1D 620 720 16 1250 1580 26%
dense oil sand tests
/ peak = 50o
/ res. = 38o
Lotenegger Uniform Full scale *38 203 3.0 0.1D 48.8 97.9 100 – – –
[31] medium to tests
coarse sand
/ = 33.5o
**Tsuha et al. Dr = 85% Centrifuge 64.3 214 3.1 Maxim 60 88 47 – – –
[32] / = 41o tests 97.7 326 4.6 (peak) 177 234 32 – – –
load
132.0 440 6.2 413 475 15 – – –
Dr = 56% 97.7 326 4.6 46 83 80 – – –
/ = 31o 132.0 440 6.2 69 108 57 – – –
***Davidson Very dense sand Centrifuge 0.88 1.7 13.0 0.1D 11,310 11,760 4 23,630 34,900 48%
et al. [27] Dr = 82% tests
***Bittar Medium dense Full scale 139.0 384 2.7 Maxim 139 178 28 – – –
et al. [28] sand tests load
*s side of a square shaft
**The failure load in this work is related to the uplift helix bearing capacity (no shaft resistance included)
***The inter-helix spacing of double-helix pile is of 2D

Fig. 1 Relationship between gain in tensile capacity by adding a second helix and helix diameter

[27, 28]. Figure 1 displays the possible effects of helix
diameter and sand relative density on the pile capacity
gain.
The only two published cases that demonstrate the
benefits of adding a second helix in enhancing compressive
capacity were conducted by researchers who conducted
full-scale and centrifuge tests respectively in 2009 and
2022. Table 1 presents the data obtained from these tests.
Some researchers constructed double-helix piles with dif-
ferent inter-helix spacing (3D and 2D, respectively), thus a
comparison between the results cannot be representative
[14, 27, 29].
The model tests conducted on a single-helix and double-
helix pile fabricated with a helical spacing of 3D helped us
investigate the effect of adding a second helix to a single-
helix pile on the tensile and compressive pile behavior.

123
292 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302

Table 3 Sand properties used in test

Parameter Value Unit

D10 0.76 mm
D30 1.076 mm
D50 1.318 mm
Cu 1.889 –
Cc 1.061 –
emax 0.96 –
emin 0.66 –
cd max 15.69 kN/m3
cd min 13.23 kN/m3
Fig. 2 Large-scale dynamic device of Shahrood University of
Technology cd (Dr=45%) 14.22 kN/m3
cd (Dr=95%) 15.4 kN/m3
Model pile tensile and compressive loading tests were ms (Poisson’s ratio) 0.3 –
performed in dry sand using two conditions of relative Gsoil (shear modulus) & 30 MPa
density (45% and 95%). The results are presented and u (Dr = 45%) 31.5 –
discussed in this paper. u (Dr = 95%) 38.1 –
C (Dr = 45%) 0.80 & 0 kPa
C (Dr = 95%) 3.91 & 0 kPa
2 Testing Procedure

A physical modeling device (for 1-g tests) available at

Shahrood University of Technology, with dimensions of
1200 9 1000 9 1270 mm [(length 9 width 9 height),
Fig. 2], was used to perform this experiment. More details
of the physical modeling box and the loading system have
been presented in [33]. Sixteen loading tests were
conducted in this study (8 repeat tests), the details of which
are listed in Table 2. The tensile and compressive loading
tests have been performed twice to confirm the repeata-
bility and reproducibility of the experimental results.
These experiments were designed to evaluate the effect
of adding a second helix to a single-helix pile in the sand of

Table 2 Tensile and compressive loading tests on helical pile models in sand of different densities
Test ID Load type Helical pile model Sand relative density (Dr) (%)

T1h*-45% Tension Single-helix 45

T1h-45%(R) Tension (repeat test)
T2h**-45% Tension Double-helix
T2h-45%(R) Tension (repeat test)
C1h-45% Compression Single-helix
C1h-45%(R) Compression (repeat test)
C2h-45% Compression Double-helix
C2h-45%(R) Compression (repeat test)
T1h-95% Tension Single-helix 95
T1h-95%(R) Tension (repeat test)
T2h-95% Tension Double-helix
T2h-95%(R) Tension (repeat test)
C1h-95% Compression Single-helix
C1h-95%(R) Compression (repeat test)
C2h-95% Compression Double-helix
C2h-95%(R) Compression (repeat test)
*1 h = Single-helix
**2 h = Double-helix

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302
Fig. 3 Helical pile models
different relative densities (loose and highly dense) and
axial load direction (tension and compression) on the pile
performance.
This experiment utilized Firoozkooh sand with the brand
name (D11). The physical and mechanical properties of the
test sand are presented in Table 3. Based on the unified soil
classification method, the sand used in the experiment is
poorly-graded sand (SP). The experiments were conducted
in a sandbox using two different relative densities. The box
is once filled with a relative density of 45% and again with
a relative density of 95%, and then tension and compres-
sion tests are performed according to the existing test
program. The target relative density in each test was
Fig. 4 Schematic of the sandbox with pile models: a Single-helix and b double-helix
293
achieved by determining the sand’s minimum and maxi-
mum dry specific weight and using Eqs. (1) and (2). The
box was filled with soil in 5 layers after obtaining the
required amount in the specified volume. The soil was
compacted until achieving the intended volume and rela-
tive density percentage. Accurately controlling the soil’s
relative density percentage is difficult, and slight changes
may have occurred during box movement and pile instal-
lation, specifically in loose sand. By measuring soil level
changes and using Eqs. (1) and (2) to calculate soil volume
reduction changes, the error amount was determined after
moving the box and pile installation. These changes were
approximately less than 2%, which had minor effects on
123
294
changes in the relative density percentage. This approach
has been employed in another investigation [34].
ð1=cd min Þ  ð1=cd Þ
Dr ¼ ; ð1Þ
ð1=cd min Þ  ð1=cd max Þ
Ws
cd ¼ : ð2Þ
V minute to have smooth and smooth progress on the ground
This study tested two models of helical piles (single-
helix and double-helix piles). The single-helix pile was
fabricated with a helix diameter (D) of 80 mm and helix
pitch of 23 mm, welded to a steel rod of 700 mm length
and diameter (d) of 26 mm. Moreover, the double-helix
pile model was fabricated with the distance between the
two helices of 240 mm (3D) (Fig. 3). The ratio of the
diameter of the helix to the shaft (D/d) was 3.07, which is
in the range used in the practice of helical foundations. The
typical ratios of the helix to shaft diameters (D/d) vary
from 1.7 to 5.9, 1.8 to 10.1, and 2.5 to 4.9 in the United
States, Canada, and Brazil, respectively [35].
The single-helix and double-helix model piles were
installed in a sandbox of 1270 9 1000 9 1000 mm
(Figs. 2 and 4) by applying torque and a simultaneous
downward force. The final depth of the lower helix in the
Fig. 5 a, b Sand preparation, c pile installation, d load cell installation, and e pile tests
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302
sand mass was 630 mm (& 7.9 D). To prevent boundary
effects on the test results, the distance of the installed
bottom helix from the floor and the box walls was greater
than five times and three times the helix diameter,
respectively (Fig. 4). Helical piles are usually installed on
the ground with a rotation speed of 5–20 revolutions per
[13]. Therefore, for the current experiments, the model
piles were installed vertically into the soil with a drill
machine that used a connector to conjoin the piles with the
drill machine at a rate equal to one helix pitch per rotation,
with a speed of 16 rpm. After installation, it subjected the
model piles to compression and tension loadings at a speed
of 0.3 mm/s (18 mm/min).
The axial compression and tension loading tests on
helical piles were performed according to the following
steps:
1. Filling the box with the Firoozkooh sand (D11) using
the sand rainfall technique to provide the desired
density
2. Installing the helical pile model by applying torque and
a simultaneous downward force in the desired location
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302 295

Fig. 6 Load–displacement curves of the tensile loading tests on a Single-helix and b double-helix

Fig. 7 Load–displacement curves of compressive loading tests on a Single-helix and b double-helix

123
296 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302

Table 4 Results of tensile and compressive capacities

Sand relative density (Dr) Test ID Helical pile Test type Qu-T(0.1D) and Mean values of Qu-T(0.1D) and Gain by adding a
Qu-C(0.1D) Qu-C(0.1D) (N) second helix (%)
(N)

45% T1h-45% Single-helix Tension 294.30 313 58

T1h-45%(R) Single-helix Tension 330.68
T2h-45% Double-helix Tension 524.12 494
T2h-45%(R) Double-helix Tension 464.64
C1h-45% Single-helix Compression 847.47 867
C1h-45%(R) Single-helix Compression 886.16 26
C2h-45% Double-helix Compression 1014.98 1094
C2h-45%(R) Double-helix Compression 1173.14
95% T1h-95% Single-helix Tension 1326.44 1301
T1h-95%(R) Single-helix Tension 1276.14 54
T2h-95% Double-helix Tension 1948.67 2006
T2h-95%(R) Double-helix Tension 2063.12
C1h-95% Single-helix Compression 2092.56 2137 28
C1h-95%(R) Single-helix Compression 2180.90
C2h-95% Double-helix Compression 2666.03 2730
C2h-95%(R) Double-helix Compression 2793.16

3. Connecting the pile top to the load cell and performing installation causes the difference in tensile and compres-
the tests at 18 mm/min speed sive capacity. The performance of helical piles in tensile
4. Performing the loading tests according to the test and compressive tests shows that, in the tension, the helix
program described in Table 2. moves on the above-disturbed soil; and in the compression,
the helix moves on undisturbed soil. Therefore, the ulti-
Figure 5 illustrates the steps of helical pile installation
mate capacity under compression is greater than that under
and testing. Steps 1–4 were performed for single- and
tension. The behavior of helical piles during tensile and
double-helix piles in the sandbox filled with sand with
compressive tests depends on the relative density and
relative densities of 45% and 95% (for tension and com-
number of helixes. The ultimate capacity of piles in tensile
pression loading tests).
and compressive increases due to the increase in soil
density and adding a second helix, because of the stronger
adhesion between the pile helixes and the soil. The ultimate
3 Results and Discussions
compressive capacity of a single-helix helical pile increa-
ses by approximately 30% when it becomes a double-helix
The results of the tensile and compressive pile load tests
helical. On the other hand, the ultimate tensile capacity of a
are provided in Figs. 6 and 7 in the form of load–dis-
single-helix helical pile increases by more than 50% when
placement curves. This study presented the values of pile
it becomes a double-helix helical. This result shows that,
tensile and compressive capacities, assumed as the load
despite the second helix’s movement in above disrupted
equivalent to a pile displacement of 0.1D (Table 4). Fig-
soil during the tensile test, it was highly advantageous to
ures 8 and 9 compare the results of the load tests conducted
use this type of pile for uplift. Moreover, adding an extra
in loose sand and highly dense sand. The results revealed
helix is an extremely cost-effective way to improve the
that for both conditions of sand relative densities, the
capacity of helical piles.
compressive capacity is extremely higher than the tensile
capacity for single- and double-helix piles. Other studies
3.1 Gain in Capacity by Adding A Second Helix
have also confirmed this finding [36, 37]. The soil above
the helixes supporting tensile loading is disturbed during
Table 4 presents the gain in capacity by adding a second
pile installation, which makes tensile capacity prediction
helix for loose and highly dense sand, as well as tensile and
challenging and more uncertain compared to the com-
compressive loading. The results demonstrated that this
pressive capacity. Soil disturbance above the helixes during
gain is greater for tensile capacity (from 54 to 58%)

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302 297

Fig. 8 Load–displacement curves of the pile model load tests in loose sand (Dr = 45%), a Single-helix piles, b double-helix piles

Fig. 9 Load–displacement curves of the pile model load tests in highly dense sand (Dr = 95%), a single-helix piles, b double-helix piles

compared to compressive capacity (from 26 to 28%); capacity, and the difference between the individual
however, it seems to be independent of the relative density capacity of the two helices is more significant based on the
of the sand. This difference occurs because the intact soil results of the instrumented piles [38, 39].
below the bottom helix resisted most of the compressive

123
298 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302

Table 5 Results of helix bearing pressure in uplift (qh-T) and in compression (qh-C)
Sand Dr (%) Test ID Qu-T(0.1D) (N) Qu-C(0.1D) (N) qh-T (kPa) qh-C (kPa)

45 T1h-45% 312.49 – 69.5 –

T2h-45% 494.38 – 55.0 –
C1h-45% – 866.81 – 172.4
C2h-45% – 1094.06 – 114.9
95 T1h-95% 1301.29 – 289.5 –
T2h-95% 2005.89 – 223.1 –
C1h-95% – 2136.73 – 425.1
C2h-95% – 2729.59 – 286.7

The current results of gain in tensile capacity (Table 1)
are in the range of the previous works (Fig. 1). Addition-
ally, the gain of &28% in compression capacity is similar
to that obtained for double-helix piles with the inter-helix
spacing of tested 3D [14].
3.2 Uplift and Compression Bearing Pressure
Mobilized on Helix
qh-C. The values of uplift and compressive capacities
related to a pile displacement of 0.1D [Qu-T (0.1D) and
Qu-C (0.1D)] were used for the estimation of qh-T and qh-
C.
For the case of double-helix piles, the values of qh-T
and qh-C are assumed as the average values of bearing

Assuming that the shaft resistance of the helical pile

models (the shaft of small length and diameter) can be
irrelevant, the pile capacities can be considered equal to the
helix bearing resistance for a single-helix pile case and the
sum of the two helices bearing resistance for double-helix
piles. In the case of compressive capacity, the mobilized
zone of the bottom helix includes the area of the pile tip.
Therefore, to evaluate the effect of the number of heli-
ces, sand density, and load type (tension and compression)
on the helix bearing resistance of helical piles, the values of
helix uplift bearing pressure in uplift (qh-T) and com-
pression (qh-C) were calculated considering the projected
net contact area of the helices with the upper soil in tension
and the lower soil in compression (including the pile tip Fig. 11 Effect of the number of helices and sand’s relative density on
area). Table 5 and Fig. 10 present the results of qh-T and the ratio qh-T/qh-C

Fig. 10 Helix bearing pressure in a uplift (qh-T) and b compression (qh-C)

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302
resistances found for the two helices. The helix-bearing
pressure of helical piles in compression is normally higher
than in tension because, in compression, intact soil resisted
the loading in the bottom helix. Figure 10 confirms that the
gain in helix bearing pressure by adding a second helix is
more advantageous for tensile capacity compared to the
case of compressive capacity.
3.3 Ratio of Tension to Compression Helix
Capacity
One parameter to evaluate the helical pile behavior is the
ratio of tension to compression capacity. This study com-
pared the values of bearing pressure mobilized on a helix in
tension (qh-T) and compression (qh-C) by measuring the
qh-T/qh-C ratio (Fig. 11). Previous studies on helical piles
represented that the ratio of tension to compression is
typically inferior to one. Different studies indicated that the
ratio of tension to compression for single- and multi-helix
helical piles on stiff clay or dense sand varies from 0.45 to
0.94 [14, 15, 40–43].
The results (Fig. 11) showed that the qh-T/qh-C ratio
increases with the number of helices and the relative den-
sity of the sand. This increase is because, for a single-helix
pile, the intact soil below the helix only resisted the com-
pressive load, and in tension, it is resisted by a disturbed
soil state (due to pile installation). In contrast, for a double-
helix pile, the compressive load on the upper helix is
resisted by the soil disturbed by installing the bottom helix.
Therefore, for a single-helix pile, the difference between
compressive and tensile capacity is greater.
Figure 11 also displays that the qh-T/qh-C ratio
increases with the sand’s relative density (from 0.40 to 0.48
in loose dense sand and from 0.68 to 0.78 in highly dense
sand), indicating that the difference in tension and com-
pression capacities is lower for piles installed in the soil of
higher density; therefore, the installation effect on the soil
caused by the helix installation was less significant. Further
investigations are necessary to clarify this difference.
Table 6 Bearing capacity factors in uplift (Fq) and compression (Fq)
Sand relative Fq Nq
density
Bottom Upper Bottom Upper
helix helix helix helix
45% 7.6 7.1 19.2 8.9
95% 29.4 25.4 43.1 21.4
299
3.4 Bearing Capacity Factors in Uplift
and in Compression
Bearing capacity factors in uplift (Fq) and compression
(Nq) are normally used for the prediction of the tensile and
compressive helix bearing capacities of single- and double-
helix piles in the sand by the individual bearing method.
Equations (3) and (4) can estimate these values for the
helix of a single-helix pile and the bottom helix (H1) of
double-helix piles:
For single-helix piles in tension:
qh1T
FqH1 ¼ 0 : ð3Þ
c H1
For single-helix piles in compression:
qh1C
NqH1 ¼ 0 ; ð4Þ
c H1
where c^{\prime} is the effective weight of the soil above
the helix, and H1 represents the depth of the helix of a
single-helix pile.
By used Eqs. (5) and (6) To estimate the bearing factors
FqH2 and NqH2 for the upper helix of double-helix piles, the
values of helix uplift bearing pressure in uplift and com-
pression related to the upper helix, qh2-T and qh2-C
respectively, were estimated by the difference between the
values of the pile capacities of single- and double-helix
piles:
qh2T
FqH2 ¼ 0 ; ð5Þ
c H2
Q Q
where qh2T ¼ HT ð2helixÞAh HT ð1helixÞ , and Ah helix is the pro-
jected area. In addition, H2 denotes the depth of the helix of
the upper helix of a double-helix pile.
For the upper helix of a double-helix pile in
compression:
qh2C
NqH2 ¼ 0 ; ð6Þ
c H2
Q Q
where qh2C ¼ HCð2helixÞAh HCð1helixÞ . Further, Ah and H2 rep-
resent the helix projected area and the depth of the helix of
the upper helix of a double-helix pile, respectively.
The values of bearing factors for the bottom and upper
helices are presented in Table 6 and Fig. 12. The value of
FqH1 found for a single-helix pile in highly dense sand
(& 29.4) is similar to that found from centrifuge tests on
single-helix piles at the French Institute of Science and
Technology for a similar condition of the helix-embedment
ratio in highly dense sand [19]. Additionally, the FqH1
value of & 7.6 found for the single-helix pile in the sand
with a relative density of 45% (/ = 31.5°) is also compa-
rable to the breakout factor values Fq for deep square and
circular anchors in the sand with a friction angle of 30°
[44].
123
300 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302

Fig. 12 Bearing capacity factors a uplift (Fq) and b compression (Nq)

Table 6 and Fig. 12 show that the bearing factors are 4 Conclusions
considerably influenced by the sand’s relative density.
Moreover, the bearing factor of the upper helix is smaller The importance of environmental issues and the swift
compared to the bottom helix for tension (Fq) and com- progress of countries make it essential to employ novel and
pression (Nq) cases. The values of uplift bearing factors are practical methods to accomplish goals. The current study
almost constant after H/D C 5 (where H is the helix evaluated the influence of adding a second helix to a single-
embedment depth), thus the difference in tension results helix pile installed in dense and loose sand subjected to
from the fact that the helix penetrated the soil above the tensile and compressive loading. The main findings are as
upper twice during installation, while it only penetrated the follows:
soil above the bottom helix once, causing the degree of soil
(a) The ultimate pressure mobilized on the helix, and the
disturbance to be greater [45]. However, the disturbance
bearing factors in tension and compression increased
effect of a second penetration of a helix in the soil is less
while the sand’s relative density changes from loose
important for the pile in looser sand (Fig. 12a), as in this
to dense.
case, the modification of sand relative density caused by
(b) The ratio of the helix bearing pressure in tension and
the second helix penetration is less significant compared to
compression increased, while the sand’s relative
the denser sand case.
density changes from loose to dense and the single-
In compression, the difference between the bearing
helical pile turns to the double-helix.
factors of the upper and bottom helices is greater and
(c) The compression capacity of helical piles is greater
occurs because intact soil supported the bottom helix, while
than their tension capacity because undisturbed soil
the disturbed soil by installation supported the upper helix.
transmits the load during compression, and disturbed
The Nq value found for the bottom helix in the sand with
soil transmits the load during tension caused by pile
Dr = 95% (/ = 38.1°) is similar to the value obtained in
installation.
centrifuge tests for the helical pile in the sand with /
(d) The results of the non-dimensional uplift and com-
= 40.4o (they obtained an Nq value around 40 for a single-
pression bearing factors obtained for the bottom
helix pile) [27, 46]. There are no results of the measured
helix of the piles tested in the current study are
bearing factors related to the upper helices of helical piles
comparable to the values found in the literature at
in the literature (with a relative depth of 5D) to compare
similar helix-embedment ratio conditions and rela-
with the current results. However, this study contributes to
tive sand densities.
demonstrate that the difference of the bearing factors for
(e) By including a second helix, both tensile and
the bottom and upper helices of double-helix piles in
compressive loading capacity represented an
compression is more significant compared to the tension
improvement. The tensile capacity increased
case, confirming that the advantage of adding a second
between 54 and 58%, whereas the compressive
helix is greater for tensile capacity.
capacity only increased from 26 and 28%.
(f) The addition of a second helix to a single-helix pile
was found to be advantageous for the tensile and

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302
compressive capacities independent of the sand’s
relative density; however, the current tests show that
a second helix is more beneficial for tensile capacity.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the reviewers
and the editor of this paper, who have greatly helped improve the
article’s scientific level with their comments and opinions.
Data availability Data will be made available on request.
References
1. Lutenegger AJ (2011) Historical development of iron screw-pile
foundations: 1836–1900. Int J Hist Eng Technol 81:108–128.
https://doi.org/10.1179/175812109x12547332391989
2. Livneh B, El Naggar MH (2008) Axial testing and numerical
modeling of square shaft helical piles under compressive and
tensile loading. Can Geotech J 45:1142–1155. https://doi.org/10.
1139/t08-044
3. Mohajerani A, Bosnjak D, Bromwich D (2016) Analysis and
design methods of screw piles: a review. Soils Found
56:115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.01.009
4. Al-Baghdadi TA, Brown MJ, Knappett JA, Ishikura R (2015)
Modelling of laterally loaded screw piles with large helical plates
in sand. In: Frontiers in offshore geotechnics III: proceedings of
the 3rd international symposium on frontiers in offshore
geotechnics (ISFOG 2015). Taylor & Francis Books Ltd.,
pp 503–508
5. Spagnoli G (2013) Some considerations regarding the use of
helical piles as foundation for offshore structures. Soil Mech
Found Eng 50:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11204-013-
9219-7
6. Spagnoli G, Gavin K (2015) Helical piles as a novel foundation
system for offshore piled facilities. In: Abu Dhabi international
petroleum exhibition and conference. OnePetro. https://doi.org/
10.2118/177604-ms
7. Byrne BW, Houlsby GT (2015) Helical piles: an innovative
foundation design option for offshore wind turbines. Philos Trans
R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 373(2035):20140081. https://doi.org/
10.1098/rsta.2014.0081
8. Heshmati Rafsanjani AA, Salehzadeh H, Nuri H (2021) Evalu-
ating scale effects and bearing portions in centrifuge modeling of
helical anchors: sand. Acta Geotech 16:2917–2932. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11440-021-01156-2
9. Spagnoli G, de Hollanda Cavalcanti Tsuha C (2020) A review on
the behavior of helical piles as a potential offshore foundation
system. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 38:1013–1036. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1064119x.2020.1729905
10. Sharma A, Guner S (2020) System-level modeling methodology
for capturing the pile cap, helical pile group, and soil interaction
under uplift loads. Eng Struct 220:110977. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.engstruct.2020.110977
11. Clemence SP, Ghaly A (2013) A review of model-scale labora-
tory investigations of helical anchors and screw piles. In: 1st
International geotechnical symposium on helical foundations,
pp 25–45
12. Adams JI, Klym TW (1972) A study of anchorages for trans-
mission tower foundations. Can Geotech J 9:89–104. https://doi.
org/10.1139/t72-007
13. Perko HA (2009) Helical piles: a practical guide to design and
installation. Wiley, New York
14. Sakr M (2009) Performance of helical piles in oil sand. Can
Geotech J 46:1046–1061. https://doi.org/10.1139/t09-044
301
15. Lutenegger AJ, Tsuha CDH (2015) Evaluating installation dis-
turbance from helical piles and anchors using compression and
tension tests. In: XV Pan-American conference on soil mechanics
and geotechnical engineering, Buenos Aires. Proceedings of the
XV Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and geotechni-
cal engineering, pp 373–381
16. Weech C, Howie JA (2001) Helical piles in soft sensitive soil–
disturbance effects during pile installation. In: Proceedings of the
54th Canadian Geotechnical Conference. Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Society, pp 281–88
17. Bagheri F, El Naggar MH (2015) Effects of installation distur-
bance on behavior of multi-helix piles in structured clays. DFI J J
Deep Found Inst 9:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1179/1937525515y.
0000000008
18. Tsuha CDHC, dos Santos Filho JMSM, Santos TDC (2015)
Helical piles in unsaturated structured soil: a case study. Can
Geotech J 53:103–117. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0017
19. Perez ZA, Schiavon JA, Tsuha CDHC, Dias D, Thorel L (2018)
Numerical and experimental study on influence of installation
effects on behaviour of helical anchors in very dense sand. Can
Geotech J 55:1067–1080. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0137
20. Mitsch MP, Clemence SP (1985) Uplift capacity of helix anchors
in sand. In: Clemence SP (ed) Unknown host publication title.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), pp 26–47
21. Dickin EA (1988) Uplift behavior of horizontal anchor plates in
sand. J Geotech Eng 114:1300–1317. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)0733-9410(1988)114:11(1300)
22. Bak HM, Halabian AM, Hashemolhosseini H, Rowshanzamir M
(2021) Axial response and material efficiency of tapered helical
piles. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 13:176–187. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jrmge.2020.04.007
23. Annicchini MM, Schiavon JA, Tsuha CDHC (2023) Effects of
installation advancement rate on helical pile helix behavior in
very dense sand. Acta Geotech 18:2795–2811. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11440-022-01713-3
24. Komatsu A (2007) Development on battered pile with screw pile
method (NS-ECO pile). Advances in deep foundations. CRC
Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203938416-23
25. Cerfontaine B, Ciantia M, Brown MJ, Sharif YU (2021) DEM
study of particle scale and penetration rate on the installation
mechanisms of screw piles in sand. Comput Geotech 139:104380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104380
26. Elkasabgy M, El Hesham M, Naggar. (2013) Dynamic response
of vertically loaded helical and driven steel piles. Can Geotech J
50:521–535. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2011-0126
27. Davidson C, Brown MJ, Cerfontaine B, Al-Baghdadi T, Knappett
J, Brennan A et al (2022) Physical modelling to demonstrate the
feasibility of screw piles for offshore jacket-supported wind
energy structures. Géotechnique 72(2):108–126. https://doi.org/
10.1680/jgeot.18.p.311
28. Bittar E, Lehane B, Richards D, Blake A, White D, Brown M,
Davidson C (2022) Field investigation to evaluate the uplift
capacity and installation performance of screw piles in sand. In
20th International conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical
engineering. Australian Geomechanics Society, pp 3195–3200
29. Arabameri M, Eslami A (2021) Microstructure and strength
effect on bearing capacity of helical piles installed in golestan
loess. Int J Civ Eng 19:923–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-
021-00602-2
30. Clemence SP, Crouch LK, Stephenson RW (1994) Prediction of
uplift capacity for helical anchors in sand. In: Proceedings of the
2nd geotechnical engineering conference, Cairo, Egypt, vol 1,
pp 332–343
31. Lutenegger AJ (2011b) Behavior of multi-helix screw anchors in
sand. In: Proceedings of the 14th Pan-American conference on
soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Toronto, Ont
123
302
32. Tsuha CDHC, Aoki N, Rault G, Thorel L, Garnier J (2012)
Evaluation of the efficiencies of helical anchor plates in sand by
centrifuge model tests. Can Geotech J 49(9):1102–1114. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t2012-064
33. Moradi Moghaddam H et al (2021) Experimental evaluation of
the effects of structural parameters, installation methods and soil
density on the micropile bearing capacity. Int J Civ Eng
19:1313–1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00629-5
34. Moshtaghi M et al (2023) Experimental study on thermome-
chanical behavior of energy piles in sands with different relative
densities. J Clean Prod 403:136867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2023.136867
35. Schiavon JA, Tsuha CDHC, Neel A, Thorel L (2019) Centrifuge
modelling of a helical anchor under different cyclic loading
conditions in sand. Int J Phys Model Geotech 19:72–88. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.17.00054
36. Fateh AMA, Eslami A, Fahimifar A (2018) A study of the axial
load behaviour of helical piles in sand by frustum confining
vessel. Int J Phys Model Geotech 18:175–190. https://doi.org/10.
1680/jphmg.16.00007
37. Nowkandeh MJ, Choobbasti AJ (2021) Numerical study of single
helical piles and helical pile groups under compressive loading in
cohesive and cohesionless soils. Bull Eng Geol Env
80:4001–4023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02158-w
38. Mahmoudi-Mehrizi ME, Ghanbari A (2021) A review of the
advancement of helical foundations from 1990–2020 and the
barriers to their expansion in developing countries. J Eng Geol
14(5):37–84. https://doi.org/10.52547/jeg.14.5.37
39. Elsawy MK, El Naggar MH, Cerato A, Elgamal A (2019) Seis-
mic performance of helical piles in dry sand from large-scale
shaking table tests. Géotechnique 69:1071–1085. https://doi.org/
10.1680/jgeot.18.p.001
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2024) 22:289–302
40. Merifield RS (2011) Ultimate uplift capacity of multiplate helical
type anchors in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137:704–716.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000478
41. Ghaly A, Hanna A (1994) Ultimate pullout resistance of single
vertical anchors. Can Geotech J 31:661–672. https://doi.org/10.
1139/t94-078
42. Tappenden KrM, Sego DC (2007) Predicting the axial capacity of
screw piles installed in Canadian soils. In: The Canadian
Geotechnical Society (CGS), OttawaGeo2007 Conference,
pp 1608–1615
43. Gavin K, Doherty P, Tolooiyan A (2014) Field investigation of
the axial resistance of helical piles in dense sand. Can Geotech J
51:1343–1354. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0463
44. Das BM, Shukla SK (2013) Earth anchors. J. Ross Publishing,
Plantation
45. Salehzadeh H, Nuri H, Rafsanjani AAH (2022) Failure mecha-
nism of helical anchors in sand by centrifuge modeling and PIV.
Int J Geomech 22(8):04022111. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.
1943-5622.0002422
46. Angurana DI, Yadav JS, Khatri VNK (2023) Estimation of uplift
capacity of helical pile resting in cohesionless soil. Transp
Infrastruct Geotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-023-
00299-x
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.