International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Numerical analysis of helical piles in cohesionless

soil

Balu E. George, Subhadeep Banerjee & Shailesh R. Gandhi

To cite this article: Balu E. George, Subhadeep Banerjee & Shailesh R. Gandhi (2017): Numerical
analysis of helical piles in cohesionless soil, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2017.1419912

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1419912

Published online: 29 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20

Download by: [Australian National University] Date: 30 December 2017, At: 13:19
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1419912

Numerical analysis of helical piles in cohesionless soil

Balu E. George, Subhadeep Banerjee and Shailesh R. Gandhi
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The paper presents a numerical investigation carried out for helical pile installed in loose cohesionless Received 14 August 2017
soil with varying density and dimensions of the helical blade/shaft. The analyses are carried out using Accepted 13 December 2017
three-dimensional finite-element software, Plaxis 3D AE. The load–deformation behaviour under axial KEYWORDS
compression and tension is compared with the results from a case study of field investigation and numerical Helical pile; Plaxis 3D;
analysis reported. The model thus calibrated is then used for a parametric study and the results were embedment ratio; parametric
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017

used to arrive at a set of generic equations to estimate the axial capacities. The investigation shows that study; axial capacity
relative density of sand plays an important role in the response of ultimate axial capacities towards various
geometrical variations. Presence of helical blade and its embedment ratio (H/Dh) were found to influence
axial capacity significantly. However, the shaft diameter is found to play a relatively less important role
compared to increase in helical blade diameter while considering ultimate axial load capacities.

Abbreviations: FHWA: federal highway administration; RD: relative density

Introduction and Basu 2005). In general, it employs installation of a closed end

Helical piles are considered to be one of the most significant
advances in foundation engineering of the second half of nine-
teenth century (Perko 2009; Lutenegger 2011) and are extensively
used by engineers and designers. It is a popular foundation choice
in many countries, and generally used for structures like solar pan-
els, light houses and other light structures which are predominantly
subjected to uplift loads. A helical blade facilitates easy installation
along with an increase in bearing area. This results in significant
increase in pile capacity compared to regular bored pile installed
by replacement method (Kenny, Canakci, and Andrawes 1997;
Deeks, White, and Bolton 2005; Lehane and White 2005; Dijkstra
et al. 2008; Jardine et al. 2013; Shalabi and Bader 2014; Meng et al.
2015). Though there were several numerical studies carried out on
the helical piles (Liu, Zubeck, and Schubert 2007; Wei and Wang
2010; Sprince and Pakrastinsh 2010; Woodcock 2012; Krasinski
2014; Papadopoulo, Saraglou, and Papadopoulos 2014), most of
those studies assumed the helical blades to be planar discs (Livneh
and Naggar 2008; EIsherbiny and El Naggar 2013; Salhi et al. 2013).
The studies accommodating its proper geometry are limited to a
few (Kurian and Shah 2009; Spagnoli 2015). However, most of such
studies ignore the effect of installation as they were assumed to be
wished-in-place. In reality, the shaft is usually closed at bottom and
their installations do create sizable lateral displacements increasing
the density of the surrounding soil.
Moreover, considering the above phenomenon, the helical
piles can be classified as partial displacement piles which come
in an intermediate category in terms of soil displacement (Prezzi
or open end pipe to the required founding depth by rotation of
its shaft with a helical blade. During rotation and simultaneous
penetration of closed end casing, the soil is radially displaced
to form a cavity. There were numerous studies reported on the
effect of installation methods on conventional displacement piles
(Dijkstra, Broere, and Heeres2011; Qiu, Henke, and Grabe 2011;
Pucker and Grabe 2012; Engin, Brinkgreve, and van Tol 2015).
However, none of these studies discussed the issues related to
installation of the helical piles in particular. Broere and van-
Tol (2006) approximately simulated the stress increase around
the displacement piles due to installation by expansion of pile
volume before loading. On the other hand, Dung (2009) and
Krasinski (2014) summarised that the effect of installation can
be accounted by varying the soil properties.
The preceding discussion shows that the effects of installa-
tion on the performance of helical piles are not studied in detail
and installation methods limited to various approximations were
attempted. The investigations incorporating installation effects of
piles reported by Basu, Prezzi, and Salgado (2013) and Basu et al.
(2011) were not concentrated on helical piles. Moreover, study by
Krasinski (2014) which tried to incorporate the installation effect
of helical piles in cohesionless soil was using two-dimensional anal-
ysis, assuming axisymmetric condition and idealising the helical
geometry as planar disc. In view of that, the present study focuses
to study the effect of installation method and the actual geomet-
ric profile of the helical blade on the capacity of helical piles. The
responses of axial capacity of helical piles towards various param-
eters are investigated based on the numerical model thus created.

CONTACT  Balu E. George  balueliasgeorge@yahoo.co.in

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2   B. E. GEORGE ET AL.

Present numerical model

Helical piles are modelled in the present study using commer-
cially available three-dimensional finite-element program Plaxis
3D version AE.02. The soil was modelled using 10-node tetra-
hedral elements with a standard Mohr–Coulomb elastoplastic
material. The soil parameters used for the Mohr–Coulomb model
is shown in Table 1.
Pile was modelled using plate elements with linear–elastic
behaviour. The true geometry of the helical blade was adopted
in the analysis as shown in Figure 1.
In order to simulate the frictional interaction between the pile
and soil around it, and also to allow relative displacement and
separation, interface elements were created along the circum-
ference of the pile and the helical blade. Value for the strength
reduction factor or friction factor (Rinter) was taken approxi-
mately equal to the coefficient of friction between the steel and
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017

soil, fine-tuned by calibrating the results of analysis with respect

to the model chosen for validation explained in the following
section. As the interface behaviour is dependent on the den-
sity of the sand, its value was chosen different for three separate
densities for the parametric study explained later in the paper.
The boundaries of the numerical model were placed at a
distance more than 10 times the size of the helical blades. The
bottom boundary was placed at a depth of five times the diame-
ter of helical blade below the pile tip, as recommended by Yang
(2006) for end-bearing piles, to ensure that no change in stress
or displacement observed at the base during the simulation of
load. The boundary surface at bottom of the soil mass was fixed
and the side surfaces were kept on horizontal rollers to allow
vertical deformation. Figure 2 shows the cross section of typical
mesh of soil volume generated with helical piles.
Full-scale helical pile load test (EIsherbiny and El
Naggar 2013)
The results obtained from the full-scale helical pile load tests as
reported by EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013) were selected as
the benchmark problem for the present study. The testing pro-
gram consisted of compression load tests on non-instrumented
piles of different sizes at two sites. Test on single helical piles,
carried out on site with cohesionless deposit, located in northern
Alberta, Canada is considered for the validation purpose in the
present study. The typical soil profile of the test site is shown in
Figure 3. The groundwater table was not observed at the time
of installation.
The piles, manufactured from a single central shaft of steel
pipes of wall thickness from 8.2 to 9.3  mm with welded hel-
ices, were installed using a rotating drivehead equipped with
a torque gauge. The pile referred to as P1 has a shaft diameter
of 273 mm and helical blade diameter of 610 mm installed to
Table 1. Soil parameters used for the analysis.
Parameter Value
Unit weight γ (kN/m3) 20
Young’s modulus E (MPa) 80
Poissons ratio (ν) 0.3
Angle of internal friction φo 30
Friction factor (Rint) 0.4
Figure 1. Part of helical pile created using plate elements.
a depth of 5.5 m below ground surface. The pile referred to as
P2 has a shaft diameter of 219 mm and helical blade diameter
of 508  mm, installed to a depth of 5.6  m below ground sur-
face. The load was applied in increments of approximately one-
tenth of the final load expected with a constant time interval of
5 min. Additionally, a finite-element model was also developed
by EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013) using ABAQUS to simulate
the field pile load testing program. However, the helical blade
was idealised as a planar cylindrical disk. The soil properties used
in the present numerical analysis were based on the properties
reported by EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013). The material prop-
erties of plate elements used for the numerical model discussed
in the present paper (E = 200GPa and Poisson ratio = 0.3) are
also taken from the values reported by EIsherbiny and El Naggar
(2013).
Calculation stages
Four calculation stages are involved in the present numeri-
cal analysis. The first stage simulates initial geo-stress for the
weight of soil, generating the K0 consolidation of the ground
alone, where K0 is assumed to be 1 − sinφ. The second stage
includes simulation of effect of pile installation. The phenom-
enon of installation of displacement piles can logically be
idealised as cavity expansion problem and is essentially a func-
tion of penetration resistance in sand (Salgado, Mitchell, and
Jamiolkowski 1997). The helical blade along with the closed end
shaft will radially displace the soil to form a cavity. As instal-
lation of helical piles in cohesionless soil is associated with the
stress change and densification of the soil mass, application of
cavity expansion by volumetric strain is suitable in modelling
the installation effect (Krasinski 2014). Dung (2010) simulated

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
Figure 2. Cross section of typical mesh of numerical model.
Figure 3. Soil profile reported in EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013).
the installation effect of driven piles by applying prescribed
displacements along the pile–soil boundary, considering hypo-
plastic model. Pucker and Grabe (2012) also used hypoplastic
model for full displacement piles. Basu et al. (2011) modelled
installation of jacked piles in cohesionless soil as a combination
of two modes of deformation, namely cylindrical cavity expan-
sion and vertical shearing along shaft. Basu, Prezzi, and Salgado
(2013) modelled installation of drilled displacement piles as a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3
combination of three deformation modes, namely cavity expan-
sion, vertical shearing and torsional shearing. However, the
increase in stress around the pile can be simulated by expand-
ing the pile cavity before loading by application of positive
volumetric strains (Broere and vanTol 2006; Thiyyakkandi et
al.2014). In the present study, cavity expansion by volumetric
strain was used prior to activation of the pile elements. A col-
lective volumetric strain of 25% radially was found to suit the
results. Figure 4 shows a cross section of typical displacement
contour after cavity expansion carried out in the second stage
of calculation. The soil within the cavity is deactivated and the
plate elements and interface elements are activated in the third
stage of calculation. The final stage simulates the application of
axial load on the pile head.
Comparison of the load–displacement behaviour
Figures 5 and 6 show the load–displacement plots obtained from
the numerical simulations along with the results reported by
EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013). The numerical simulations
were carried out by applying a point prescribed displacement
on top of the pile cap.
It is desirable to obtain the ultimate load of the pile from the
upper limit of the transition non-linear zone and before the onset
of the final linear region (Elkasabgy and El Naggar 2014). In view
of that, Sakr (2009) supports the O’Neill and Reese or Federal
Highway Administration criterion as it provides more practi-
cal displacement levels in field conditions also because in many
cases, design is kept in tune with the allowable displacements.
The ultimate axial capacity is taken as the load corresponding to
a settlement of 5% of the tip diameter, which is the helical blade
diameter for helical piles and the shaft diameter for conventional
prismatic piles. In the present study, this criterion was found to
give ultimate load around the onset of failure, which is the start
of non-linear region, whereas the use of other criteria could point
 4   B. E. GEORGE ET AL.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
Figure 4. Cross section of typical displacement contour after cavity expansion.
Figure 5. Validation of numerical model of pile P1.
to a pre-yield estimation. This was found to be reasonable from
the viewpoint of ultimate pile capacity and is used throughout
in the present investigation. The results of the present numeri-
cal analysis were compared with the experimental observations
and the numerical simulations reported by EIsherbiny and El
Naggar (2013).
Before choosing the appropriate mesh size, a convergence
study was carried out on very coarse, coarse, medium, fine and
very fine meshes and the element distribution of fine mesh
was observed to show very good agreement with the experi-
mental values, without causing much delay in running time
and without any problem associated with the helical geometry.
Mesh discretisation was refined in cases where the software
was unable to properly generate mesh for the curved portion
of the helical blade. As the figures suggest, though there are
certain discrepancies in initial stiffness, the results computed
from present numerical study matches reasonably well with
that reported in the literature. The discrepancies between the
results of numerical analysis by EIsherbiny and El Naggar
(2013) and the present investigation could be due to the dif-
ference in finite-element mesh chosen and the interface model
used. The slight deviation from the load–displacement plot
observed from the field is within the acceptable bounds of
potential error associated with the ambiguity of data available
in literature, heterogeneity in soil property at field conditions,
the degree of uncertainty and limited understanding associated
with precise prediction of engineering properties of in-situ
soil.

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
Figure 6. Validation of numerical model of pile P2.
Parametric study
The numerical analysis was further extended to conduct the par-
ametric study to gather more insight into the mechanisms. Three
different shaft diameters (21.9, 24.6 and 27.3 cm), four different
installation depths (2.5, 5.5, 8.5 and 10.5 m) and four different
helical blade diameters were considered (45.7, 50.8, 55.9 and
61 cm). The range of dimensions chosen here was such that the
difference between consecutive dimensions are equal and ample
enough to exhibit the effect of the parametric variation, the base
dimension being the dimension of the model considered for val-
idation. The pitch of the helical blade was kept constant at 20 cm.
The piles were considered to be embedded in cohesionless soil
of three different relative densities as listed in Table 2. The basic
engineering and index properties were obtained by carrying out
laboratory tests on river sand of particle size less than 4.75 mm.
Direct shear tests were carried (IS 2720 Part 13 1986) to determine
the angle of shearing resistance and elastic modulus. Direct shear
interface test was conducted using a block of steel used as pile
material to find the interface factor. However, the tests were con-
ducted on relative densities of 30 and 50% and the properties for
sand of 40% relative density was taken as the average. The crite-
rion used to find the ultimate axial load is the load corresponding
to 5% of the tip diameter as described in the previous section.
Apart from the general variations in load-carrying capacities,
the influence of different relative densities of sand along with the
different pile and blade geometries is discussed in the following
sections.
Effect of depth of installation (H)
Figure 7a and 7b show respective variation of ultimate load-car-
rying capacity in tension and compression with depth of instal-
lation (H) for a pile of shaft diameter (Ds) of 27.3 cm and helical
blade of diameter (Dh) 61 cm embedded in soils with three dif-
ferent relative densities (RD). Figures show that for both tension
and compression, the ultimate load-carrying capacities increase
with the relative density.
Figure 8a and 8b show respective increase in ultimate tensile
and compressive load of a helical pile with respect to ultimate
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   5
Table 2. Input properties of soil model for the parametric study.
Relative density 30% 40% 50%
Unit weight (γ) kN/m3 15 16.5 18
Young’s modulus (E) kN/m2 4 × 103 5 × 103 6 × 103
Poissons ratio (ν) 0.3 0.3 0.3
Angle of shearing resistance (φ)° 30 31.5 33
Friction factor (Rint) 0.2 0.3 0.4
load of a conventional prismatic pile with no helical blades plot-
ted against the embedment ratio (H/Dh). Figures suggest that the
contribution of helical blade towards the ultimate axial capacity
decrease with the increase in the embedment ratio (H/Dh).
Effect of helical blade diameter (Dh)
Figure 9a and 9b show the variation of ultimate tensile and com-
pressive load, respectively, with installation depth for three different
helical blade diameters, associated with a shaft diameter of 27.3 cm.
Figures indicate that the axial capacity of the piles with helical
blade is significantly greater than that observed piles with uni-
form cross-section. For example, compared to a pile with uniform
cross-section of shaft diameter 27.3 cm, the helical pile with a blade
diameter of 50.8 cm exhibits about 111 and 185% increase in ulti-
mate tensile and compressive load-carrying capacity, respectively.
Figure 10a and 10b show the effect of different relative den-
sity on the percentage increase in ultimate load capacity due to
the presence of helical blade, in tensile and compressive loads,
respectively. It can be seen that the influence of helical blades
is more pronounced in case of low relative density of soil. This
observation sheds light on the idea that the presence of helical
blade could be of more significance in relatively loose soil.
Effect of shaft diameter (Ds)
Keeping all other parameters constant, the geometrical changes
that could be made to a helical pile installed at a particular depth,
towards a potential increase in its axial load capacity could either
be an increase in shaft diameter, or an increase in blade diameter.
Figure 11a and 11b plot the variations of axial capacity for three
 6   B. E. GEORGE ET AL.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017

Figure 7a. Variation of ultimate tensile load with depth for different relative densities of sand (Ds = 27.3 cm, Dh = 61.0 cm).

Figure 7b. Variation of ultimate compressive load with depth for different relative densities of sand (Ds = 27.3 cm, Dh = 61.0 cm).

Figure 8a. Influence of presence of helical blade in tensile load against embedment depth for different relative densities of sand (Ds = 27.3 cm, Dh = 61.0 cm).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   7
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017

Figure 8b. Influence of presence of helical blade in compressive load against embedment depth for different sand densities (Ds = 27.3 cm, Dh = 61.0 cm).

Figure 9a. Variation of ultimate tensile load with depth of installation for three different helical blade diameters, compared to a conventional pile (RD = 30%, Ds = 27.3 cm).

Figure 9b. Variation of ultimate compressive load with depth of installation for three different helical blade diameters, compared to a conventional pile (RD = 30%,
Ds = 27.3 cm).
 8   B. E. GEORGE ET AL.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017

Figure 10a. Effect of relative density (RD) on the percentage increase in ultimate tensile load capacity due to the presence of helical blade (Ds = 21.9 cm, H = 550 cm).

Figure 10b. Effect of relative density (RD) on the percentage increase in ultimate compressive load capacity due to the presence of helical blade (Ds = 21.9 cm, H = 550 cm).

Figure 11a. Variation of ultimate tensile load with depth of installation for three different shaft diameters (RD = 30%, Dh = 50.8 cm).

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
Figure 11b. Variation of ultimate compressive load with depth of installation for three different shaft diameters (RD = 30%, Dh = 50.8 cm).
different shaft diameters with the depth of installation. Figures
suggest that there is no significant change in the ultimate capacity
with the increase in shaft diameter. Similar observation was also
reported by Nazir et al. (2014). Hence, it can be postulated that
an increase in helical blade diameter is more effective in terms
of improvement in axial capacity.
Effect of helical blade pitch
In order to investigate the influence of helical blade pitch on
axial load-carrying capacity, the pitch was varied from 15 to
35 cm, which is in the usual range of helical blade pitch employed
(Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna 1991). Figure 12 shows that there
is no significant change in ultimate compressive load-carrying
capacity with increase in pitch of the helical blade. However, the
figure indicates that the ultimate tensile load capacity slightly
decreases with increase in pitch of the helical blade. Moreover,
the pile with a higher pitch was found to be failing at an inclina-
tion under tensile loading, rather than failing direct vertically,
as observed from the deformation contour (Figure 13). Similar
observation is reported by Kurian and Shah (2009).
Theoretical relation
The parametric study conducted on the numerical model devel-
oped and validated was used for developing a theoretical relation
which can predict the axial compression capacity and tensile
capacity of helical piles in cohesionless soils. The ultimate capac-
ity of piles in soil can be generally predicted using the bearing
capacity theories. The universally accepted Terzaghi’s theory to
estimate the static load capacity of pile was kept as the base and
the result of parametric study carried out on the numerical model
was used to modify this equation.
Bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless soil is limited to
piles installed above the critical depth. The bearing capacity
of piles installed deeper than critical depth should accommo-
date the limiting values of the point resistance and skin friction
using the soil property (Poulos and Davis 1980). In the present
theoretical relation considered, the critical depth is assumed
to be 10 times the diameter of helical blade, to be on the safe
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   9
side (Prakash and Sharma 1990; Rajapakse 2008). The coeffi-
cient of lateral earth pressure (K) depends on pile installation
technique and soil density. Sakr (2014) suggests the value of
K as 2(1 − sinφ) where φ is the angle of shearing resistance of
soil. However, since the effect of installation is already accom-
modated in the formulation of the theoretical equation and is
reflected in the bearing capacity factors, the term K is uniformly
taken as 0.4 in case of axial compressive capacity, the value
decided based on the approximate range of K value for at-rest
and active conditions of three different relative densities con-
sidered for the present study.
Axial compressive capacity
Since the present investigation is limited to single helix piles in
cohesionless soil, the individual plate bearing method suggested
by Mitsch and Clemence (1985) is applicable where the ultimate
axial capacity is the summation of the bearing capacity below the
helix and skin friction along the section of the pile shaft.
The equation for ultimate axial capacity in compression as
obtained from the analysis is shown below.
[( ) ( )]
Qu = 0.5q∗ As tan 𝛿 + Ah 0.7qNq + 0.274𝛾Dh N𝛾
where
q* is the effective overburden pressure, considering critical
depth, As is the circumferential area of pile shaft, γ is the effective
unit weight of soil.
Ah is the area of the helical blade, Dh is the diameter of the
helical blade in plan.
δ is the interface friction angle between soil and pile material,
Nq and Nγ are the bearing capacity factors suggested by Vesic
(1963).
The ultimate capacity of a pile depends mainly on the type of
soil, dimensions of the pile and the method of pile installation.
The first two factors are considered to form the theoretical rela-
tion, based on the exhaustive numerical investigation carried out
on the calibrated model. The third factor is already accounted in
the analysis, albeit within the framework of the present analyses,
and is reflected thereby in the bearing capacity factors.
 10   B. E. GEORGE ET AL.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017

Figure 12. Effect of helical blade pitch on ultimate axial capacities (Ds = 27.3, Dh = 61, H = 5.5 m, RD = 30%).

Figure 13. Deformed pile and associated soil deformation contour for pitch (a) 15 cm and (b) 35 cm under tensile load.

Perko (2009) also recommends the use of individual bearing ( )

method for calculation of axial compressive capacity of helical
piles with single helical blade. He suggested the following equa-
tion for ultimate bearing pressure of helical piles installed in
coarse grain soils, ignoring the third term in Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity relation.
( )
qult = Nq� − 1 q∗
where Nq′ is the combined bearing, shape and depth factor (Perko
2009). He also suggested effective overburden pressure (q*) as
product of soil unit weight and twice the average diameter of
helical blade, given in the following equation.
qult = Nq − 1 2Dh 𝛾
The key difference incorporated in the equation is the reduction
in bearing capacity factor Nq and Nγ by 30 and 45%, respectively.
A similar bearing capacity reduction factor (R) for helical piles
in sand was proposed by EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013) also.
Malik et al. (2016) suggested that the end bearing capacity of
helical pile with same pile bottom area and similar soil con-
dition was less than that of straight pipe pile. They attributed
this to the contraction of pressure distribution under the helical
blade, which resulted in the reduction in the effective area. In this
regard, an area reduction factor was proposed and the value is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   11

reported as 0.84 from the experimental study. Jeffrey (2012) also
reported lower bearing capacity factors for CHD piles in sand.
Axial tensile capacity
Perko (2009) supported the suggestion that soil resistance
mobilised in uplift above the top helix is similar to the bearing
resistance mobilised beneath it by individual bearing method.
He recommends replacing the term (Nq′ − 1) by Nq′, and ignoring
the share taken by the shaft. However in the present paper, the
forces resisting the uplift of helical piles are analysed to arrive at a
relation for ultimate tensile capacity. The failure bulb is assumed
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
to be an inverted truncated cone (Nazir et al. 2014) with semi
cone angle equal to 2/3rd of the angle of internal friction (Figure
14(a)) (Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna 1991). The total volume of
the failure bulb is considered, including the portion occupied
by the hollow pile shaft. In-order to balance this, the self-weight
of the pile is considered for only the length outside the failure
bulb. The error associated with this assumption is found to be
negligible. The failure wedge/bulb is considered to extend to a
height h0, takenas 8.5Dh, slightly higher than the range suggested
by Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna(1991). Moreover, the shaft fric-
tion is assumed to be mobilised only for a length excluding the
length inside the failure wedge. The failure mass is assumed to be

Figure 14. Failure pattern assumed for analysis (a) and observed from numerical analysis (b).

Figure 15. Predicted and measured compressive capacities of helical piles reported in published literature (R2 value = 0.946).
 12   B. E. GEORGE ET AL.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017

Figure 16. Predicted and measured tensile capacities of helical piles reported in published literature (R2 value = 0.807).

Table 3. Identification details of published literatures.

Pile geometry
Compression Tension
ID no Reference Ds (m) Dh (m) H (m) Ds (m) Dh (m) H (m)
1 Sakr (2009) 0.178 0.406 5.2 0.178 0.406 5.2
2 Sakr (2011) 0.324 0.762 9.5 0.406 0.914 5.7
0.406 0.914 6.1      
0.508 1.016 5.75      
3 Papadopoulo, Saraglou, and Papadopoulos (2014) 0.076 0.22 1.6 0.076 0.22 1.6
0.076 0.22 2 0.076 0.22 2
4 Tappenden (2007) 0.114 0.457 5      
0.114 0.4 5      
5 EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013) 0.273 0.61 5.5      
6 Gavin, Doherty, and Tolooiyan (2014) 0.11 0.4 2.6 0.11 0.4 2.6
7 Fahmy and El Naggar (2017) 0.2 0.39 3.1      
8 Tappenden (2007)       0.406 0.762 4.9
      0.273 0.762 5.9
9 Tsuha and Aoki (2010)       0.0643 0.214 3.1
      0.0977 0.326 4.6
      0.132 0.44 6.2
10 Sakr (2011)       0.168 0.406 2.1

projected on the outer edge of the helical blade, an idea supported thickness of the pile shaft used, K is the coefficient of lateral
by Meyerhof and Adams (1968), Sutherland (1965), Clemence earth pressure.
and Veesaert (1977) and Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna (1991). The assumptions were framed to counter the fact that defining
Incorporating the aforementioned assumptions, the ultimate the actual failure surface of helical pile could be too complex to
axial capacity in tension (T) may be given as a sum of three incorporate in a theoretical relation for predicting the tensile
components T1, T2 and T3 capacity.
T1 = Component of shaft friction mobilised above failure bulb
T2 = Weight of soil inside soil bulb, resisting uplift
Comparison with previously published data
T3 = Self weight of the pile
)2 The theoretical relation developed based on the numerical anal-
ysis results was then used to predict the axial compressive load
(
T1 = 1.57Ds H − h0 𝛾K tan 𝛿
T2 = 0.785Dh2 h0 + 0.565Dh h20 + 0.136h30 capacities of helical piles installed in cohesionless soil reported
( ) ( ) ( )
in literature. The relation between predicted and measured values
( )
T3 = 𝜋Ds t H − h0 𝛾steel
of axial compressive capacity and axial tensile capacity is given
where h0 is the height of the failure wedge above helical blade in Figures 15 and 16, respectively. The geometries of the helical
(Figure 14(a)), H is the depth of installation of the pile, t is the piles considered for this are shown in Table 3. Using the results

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
Figure 17. Comparison of measured and predicted compressive capacities.
Figure 18. Comparison of measured and predicted tensile capacities.
of the load test data available in published literature, the above
equation is proved to predict the ultimate load satisfactorily.
It is quite obvious that practical field situation may slightly
deviate from the simplified assumption. However, the equation
when used to predict the capacities of the published results gave a
prediction ratio (i.e. Measured/Predicted) of 1.28 in compression
and 1.33 in tension. This agreement with the published literature
reinforces the fact that the theoretical relation is totally inde-
pendent of the model used to develop the relation. Moreover,
the fact that the theoretical model holds good for field models
validates the dependability of the equation. With the degree of
uncertainty and limited understanding associated with precise
prediction of engineering properties of in-situ soil, an agreement
within this 33% of the measured capacity could be considered
a good result. However, use of the relation suggested by Perko
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   13
(2009) was found to give satisfactory match with the case studies
taken in the present study, only when the critical depth is taken
as ten times the helical blade diameter, with the shape and depth
factors ignored. Figure 17 shows the population of the data plot-
ted against the prediction ratio. It can be seen that the major part
of the predictions by the present method tends to fall in a range
of 1 to 2 prediction ratio, whereas the use of relation suggested
by Perko (2009) seems to give major populations in a prediction
range of 1–3. Hence, the use of twice the helical blade diameter
in calculating the effective overburden pressure (q*) was found
to grossly under predict the axial compressive capacity (Figure
17). However, the theoretical relation suggested by Perko (2009)
to predict the axial tensile capacity was found to be in agreement
with the case studies taken and the relation suggested in the
present paper (Figure 18).
 14   B. E. GEORGE ET AL.
It is worth admitting that the theoretical relation developed in
the present study is a reasonable balance between unreasonable
complexity and questionable simplicity. Depth factor, inclination
factor and shape factor were not considered while attempting to
develop the equation. It is suggested to incorporate such factors
for refined and economical design of helical pile foundations.
Also, while interpreting the results, it should be kept in mind
that the ultimate load is defined as the load corresponding to
settlement of 5% helical blade diameter. The elastic compression
of the pile was neglected while formulating the theoretical rela-
tion, as the dimensions of the laboratory model were such that
the elastic compression of the pile or the bending of helical blade
is negligible. However, it might not be the case for field model
piles. This might be reflected in the slight deviation exhibited by
the field scale model results from the equity line.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
Conclusions
The foregoing discussion shows that despite complexity involved
in actual installation process, by conducting a comprehensive
three-dimensional finite-element analysis, the installation effect
of helical piles in loose cohesionless soil can be approximately
modelled using the positive volumetric strain of the soil within
the pile cavity based on cavity expansion theory. Moreover, axial
capacities computed from the present numerical analysis are
found to be in reasonable agreement with results reported by
EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013).
The study was then further extended to conduct a detailed
parametric study by varying the diameter of shaft (Ds), diameter
of helical blade (Dh), depth of installation (H), pitch of helical
blade and relative density of soil (RD). The following conclu-
sions may be drawn based on the observations made from the
present study.
• Relative density of sand plays an important role in the
response of ultimate axial tensile and compressive capaci-
ties towards various geometrical variations.
• Effectiveness of helical blade depends on the embedment
ratio (H/Dh). Increase in embedment ratio beyond a cer-
tain limit decreases the importance of providing a helical
blade.
• Presence of blade increased ultimate axial load by 2.1–
2.8 times in tension and 2.8–4.1 in compression for the
parameters chosen.
• Increase in shaft diameter is found to play a relatively less
significant role to the increase in helical blade diameter
while considering the ultimate axial load capacities.
Notations
Ah area of the helical blade
As circumferential area of pile shaft
Dh diameter of helical blade
Ds diameter of pile shaft
E Young’s modulus
H depth of pile installation
h0 height of the failure wedge above helical blade
K coefficient of lateral earth pressure
K0 coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
Nq bearing capacity factors suggested by Vesic (1963)
Nq′ combined bearing, shape and depth factor (Perko 2009)
Nγ bearing capacity factors suggested by Vesic (1963)
q* effective overburden pressure, considering critical depth
Rint strength reduction factor
R  bearing capacity reduction factor proposed by
EIsherbiny and El Naggar (2013)
t thickness of the pile shaft used
T ultimate axial capacity in tension
γ effective unit weight of soil
δ interface friction angle between soil and pile material
φ angle of internal friction
Acknowledgements
The facilities provided for numerical analyses at IIT Madras and at Saintgits
College of Engineering, India are also acknowledged.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by a fellowship from MHRD, Govt. of India
towards the research is gratefully acknowledged.
Notes on contributors
Balu E. George is a research scholar at the Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
Subhadeep Banerjee is an associate professor at the Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
Shailesh R. Gandhi is currently the Director of SVNIT Surat, India.
References
Basu, P., D. Loukidis, M. Prezzi, and R. Salgado. 2011. “Analysis of Shaft
Resistance of Jacked Piles in Sands.” International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 35 (15): 1605–1635.
Basu, P., M. Prezzi, and R. Salgado. 2013. “Modeling of Installation and
Quantification of Shaft Resistance of Drilled-Displacement Piles in
Sand.” International Journal of Geomechanics 14 (2): 214–229.
Broere, W., and A. F. vanTol. 2006. “Modelling the Bearing Capacity of
Displacement Piles in Sand.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers Geotechnical Engineering 159 (3): 95–206.
Clemence, S. P., and C. J. Veesaert. 1977. “Dynamic Pull out Resistance
of Anchors in Sand.” Proceedings of International Symposium on Soil
Structure Interaction, Roorkee, India, 389–397.
Deeks, A. D., D. J. White, and M. D. Bolton. 2005. “A Comparison of
Jacked, Driven and Bored Piles in Sand.” Proceedings of the International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 16 (4):
2103–2106.
Dijkstra, J. W., W. Broere, A. Bezuijen,  and A. F. vanTol. 2008.  “Density
Changes near an Advancing Displacement Pile in Sand.” Proceedings of
the Second BGA International Conference on Foundations, ICOF2008,
545–554, Dundee, UK.
Dijkstra, J. W., W. Broere, and O. M. Heeres. 2011. “Numerical Simulation
of Pile Installation.” Computers and Geotechnics 38 (5): 612–622.
Dung, P. H. 2009. “Modelling of Installation Effect of Driven Piles by
Hypoplasticity.” MSc thesis, Section of Geotechnical Engineering

Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands.
EIsherbiny, Z. H., and M. H. El Naggar. 2013. “Axial Compressive Capacity
of Helical Piles from Field Tests and Numerical Study.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 50 (12): 1191–1203.
Elkasabgy, M., and M. H. El Naggar. 2014. “Axial Compressive Response
of Large-Capacity Helical and Driven Steel Piles in Cohesive Soil.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 52 (2): 224–243.
Engin, H. K., R. B. Brinkgreve, and A. F. van Tol. 2015. “Approximation of
Pile Installation Effects: A Practical Tool.” Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers 168 (4): 319–334.
Fahmy, A., and M. H. El Naggar. 2017. “Axial Performance of Helical
Tapered Piles in Sand.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 35 (4):
1549–1576.
Gavin, K., P. Doherty, and A. Tolooiyan. 2014. “Field Investigation of the
Axial Resistance of Helical Piles in Dense Sand.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 51 (11): 1343–1354.
Ghaly, A., A. Hanna, and M. Hanna. 1991. “Installation Torque of Screw
Anchors in Dry Sand.” Soils and Foundations 31 (2): 77–92.
Jardine, R. J., B. T. Zhu, P. Foray, and Z. X. Yang. 2013. “Interpretation of
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 13:19 30 December 2017
Stress Measurements Made around Closed-Ended Displacement Piles
in Sand.” Géotechnique 63 (8): 613–627.
Jeffrey, J.. 2012. “Investigating the Performance of Continuous Helical
Displacement Piles.” Doctoral diss., University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Kenny, M. J., H. Canakci, and K. Z. Andrawes. 1997. “Densification of Granular
Soils during CFA Pile Augering.” In Ground Improvement Geosystems:
Densification and Reinforcement: Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems, London, June 3–5.
Krasinski, A. 2014. “Numerical Simulation of Screw Displacement Pile
Interaction with Non-Cohesivesoil.” Archives of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering 14 (1): 122–133.
Kurian, N. P., and S. J. Shah. 2009. “Studies of the Behaviour of Screw Piles
by the Finite Element Method.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46 (6):
627–638.
Lehane, B. M., and D. J. White. 2005. “Lateral Stress Changes and Shaft
Friction for Model Displacement Piles in Sand.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 42 (1): 1039–1052.
Liu, H., H. K. Zubeck, and D. H. Schubert. 2007. “Finite-Element Analysis
of Helical Piers in Frozen Ground.” Journal of Cold Regions Engineering,
ASCE 21 (3): 92–106.
Livneh, B., and M. H. E. I. Naggar. 2008. “Axial Load Testing and Numerical
Modeling of Square Shaft Helical Piles under Compressive and Tensile
Loading.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45 (8): 1142–1155.
Lutenegger, A. J. 2011. “Historical Development of Iron Screw-Pile
Foundations: 1836–1900.” The International Journal for the History of
Engineering and Technology 81 (1): 108–128.
Malik, A. A., J. Kuwano, S. Tachibana, and T. Maejima. 2016. “End Bearing
Capacity Comparison of Screw Pile with Straight Pipe Pile under
Similar Ground Conditions.” Acta Geotechnica 12 (2): 415–428.
Meng, Z., J. J. Chen, L. Zhang, J. H. Wang, and J. M. Yao. 2015. “Field
Tests to Investigate the Installation Effects of Drilled Displacement
Piles with Screw-Shaped Shaft in Clay.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 141 (12): Technical note: 06015010.
Meyerhof, G. G., and J. I. Adams. 1968. “The Ultimate Uplift Capacity of
Foundations.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 5 (4): 225–244.
Mitsch, M. P., and S. P. Clemence. 1985. “The Uplift Capacity of Helix
Anchors in Sand. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil.”
Proceedings of ASCE, 26–47, New York.
Nazir, R., H. S. Chuan, H. Niroumand, and K. A. Kassim. 2014.
“Performance of Single Vertical Helical Anchor Embedded in Dry
Sand.” Measurement 49: 42–51.
Papadopoulo, K., H. Saraglou, and V. Papadopoulos. 2014. “Finite Element
Analysis and Experimental Investigation of Helical Micropiles.”
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 32 (4): 949–963.
Perko, H. A. 2009. Helical Piles: A Practical Guide to Design and Installation.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Poulos, H. G., and E. H. Davis. 1980. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design.
Sussex: Wiley.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   15
Prakash, S., and H. D. Sharma. 1990. Pile Foundations in Engineering
Practice. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Prezzi, M., and P. Basu. 2005. “Overview of Construction and Design of
Auger Cast-in-Place and Drilled Displacement Piles.” Proceedings of
DFI’s 30th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations, 497–512.
Pucker, T., and J. Grabe. 2012. “Numerical Simulation of the Installation
Process of Full Displacement Piles.” Computers and Geotechnics 45:
93–106.
Qiu, G., S. Henke, and J. Grabe. 2011. “Application of a Coupled Eulerian-
Lagrangian Approach on Geomechanical Problems Involving Large
Deformations.” Computers and Geotechnics 38: 30–39.
Rajapakse, R. 2008. Pile Design for Structural and Geotechnical Engineers.
Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Sakr, M. 2009. “Perfomance of Helical Piles in Oil Sand.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 46: 1046–1061.
Sakr, M. 2011. “Installation and Performance Characteristics of High
Capacity Helical Piles in Cohesionless Soils.” DFI Journal-the Journal of
the Deep Foundations Institute 5 (1): 39–57.
Sakr, M. 2014. “Relationship between Installation Torque and Axial
Capacities of Helical Piles in Cohesionless Soils.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal. 52 (1): 747–759.
Salgado, R., J. K. Mitchell, and M. Jamiolkowski. 1997. “Cavity Expansion
and Penetration Resistance in Sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (4): 344–354.
Salhi, L., O. Nait-Rabah, C. Deyrat, and C. Roos. 2013. “Numerical
Modeling of Single Helical Pile Behavior under Compressive
Loading in Sand.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 18:
4319–4338.
Shalabi, F. I., and T. A. Bader. 2014. “Effect of Sand Densification due to Pile
Driving on Pile Resistance.” International Journal of Civil Engineering 3
(1): 17–30.
Spagnoli, G., and K. Gavin. 2015. “Helical Piles as a Novel Foundation
System for Offshore Piled Facilities.” Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineer, Abudabi,
UAE.
Sprince, A., and L. Pakrastinsh. 2010 . “Helical Pile Behaviour and Load
Transfer Mechanism in Different Soils.” 10th International Conference,
1174–1180Vilnius, Lithuania.
Standard-IS, I. 2720 (Part 13). 1986. Method of Test for Soils, Direct Shear
Test. New Delhi.
Sutherland, H. B.. 1965. “Model Studies of Shaft Raising through
Cohesionless Soils.” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 2, 410–413,
Montréal, Canada.
Tappenden, K. M.. 2007. “Predicting the Axial Capacity of Screw Piles
Installed in Western Canadian Soils.” Doctoral diss., University of
Alberta.
Tappenden, K. M., and D. C. Sego. 2007. “Predicting the Axial Capacity
of Screw Piles Installed in Canadian Soils.” The Canadian Geotechnical
Society (CGS), OttawaGeo2007 Conference, 1608–1615.
Thiyyakkandi, S., M. McVay, D. Bloomquist, and P. Lai. 2014. “Experimental
Study, Numerical Modeling of and Axial Prediction Approach to Base
Grouted Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils.” Acta Geotechnica 9 (3):
439–454.
Tsuha, C. D. H. C., and N. Aoki. 2010. “Relationship between Installation
Torque and Uplift Capacity of Deep Helical Piles in Sand.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 47 (6): 635–647.
Vesic, A. B. 1963. “Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations in Sand.”
Highway Research Record 39: 112–153.
Wei, X., and Y. Wang. 2010. “Simulation of Anti-Flood Spiral Pile Driving
Process Based on ANSYS/LS_DYNA.” World Automation Congress
(WAC), 239–243, Kobe, Japan, September19–23.
Woodcock, J.. 2012. “Finite Element Analysis of Screw Piles.” 1st Civil and
Environmental Engineering Student Conference, Imperial College,
London, UK, June 25–26.
Yang, J. 2006. “Influence Zone for End Bearing of Piles in Sand.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 132 (9): 1229–
1237.