BEARING AND FRICTION DESIGN CAPACITY FOR HELICAL ANCHORS AND

PILES
Original Author: Gary L. Seider, P.E., Hubbell Power Systems, Inc./CHANCE, Centralia, MO, USA
Editor: Wayne G. Thompson, PE, CTL|Thompson, Fort Collins, CO
________________________________________________________________
bearing capacity failure. This theory suggests
BEARING CAPACITY METHODOGOLY that the capacity of a helical anchor/pile is equal
to the sum of the capacities of the individual
General helix plates. The helix capacity is determined by
The capacity of a helical anchor/pile is calculating the unit bearing capacity of the soil at
dependent on the strength of the soil, the each helix and then multiplying the result by the
projected area of the helix plate(s), and the individual helixs projected area. Friction along
depth of the helix plate(s) below grade. The soil the central shaft is typically not used to
strength can be evaluated by use of various determine capacity, but may be included when
techniques and theories (Clemence et al, 1985). the central shaft is round pipe shaft (Type RS)
The projected area is controlled by the size and and at least 3-1/2 inch (89 mm) in diameter.
number of helix plates. For a given helix depth, See figure 1 for a graphical representation of a
two modes of soil failure may occur: shallow and compression application.
deep. The terms shallow and deep refer to
the location of the bearing plate with respect to A necessary condition for this method to work is
the earths surface. By definition, shallow that the helix plates be spaced far enough apart
foundations in tension exhibit a brittle failure to avoid overlapping of their individual pressure
mode with general eruption of soil all the way to bulbs, i.e., stress zones in the soil. This will
the surface and a sudden drop in load prevent one helix from significantly influencing
resistance to almost zero. With deep the performance of another. A preferred
foundations in tension, the soil fails spacing between any two helical plates on a
progressively, maintaining significant post- helical anchor/pile is three times the diameter of
ultimate load resistance, and exhibits little or no the lower helix. This is consistent with the
surface deformation. The dividing line between findings of others (Bassett, 1977) for multi-belled
shallow and deep foundations has been concrete piers. For example, the distance
reported by various researchers to be between between a 10 inch (254 mm) and 12 inch (305
three and eight times the foundation diameter. mm) helix is three times the diameter of the
lower helix, or 10 x 3 = 30 inches (762 mm).
It is generally assumed that the soil failure The following is Terzaghis general bearing
mechanism will follow the theory of a general capacity equation, which allows determination of
the ultimate capacity of the soil. This equation
and its use form the basis of determining helix
capacity by the software.

Qult = Ah ( CNc + q'Nq + 0.5 'BwN )

where:
Qult = Ultimate capacity of the soil
Ah = Projected helix area
C = Soil cohesion
q' = Effective overburden pressure
Bw = Footing width (base width)
Nc', Nq =and NEffective
are bearing
unit weight of the
capacity soil
factors.

The following is quoted from (Bowles, 1988)

where the various terms of the bearing equation
are discussed:
 1) The cohesion term (CNc) predominates where:
in cohesive soils.
2) The depth term (q'Nq) predominates in Qt = Total ultimate multi-helix
cohesionless soils. Only a small D anchor/pile capacity
(vertical depth to footing or helix plate) Qh = Individual helix capacity
increases Qult substantially.
3) The base width term (0.5 'BwN ) The ultimate capacity of an individual helix is
provides some increase in bearing evaluated using the following equation. An
capacity for both cohesive and upper limit for this capacity is based on the helix
cohesionless soils. In cases where Bw < mechanical strength.
9.8 ft. to 13.1 ft. (3 m to 4 m), this term
could be neglected with little error. Qh = Ah (CNc + q'Nq) Qs
The base width term of the bearing equation is where:
not used since Bw for helical anchors/piles is Ah = Projected helix area
small (< 16 (0.4 m)) and the resulting bearing
Qs = Capacity upper limit, determined
capacity of that term would also be quite small.
by the helix mechanical strength
The effective overburden pressure (q', of
consequence for cohesionless soils) is the Cohesive Soil
product of depth and the effective unit weight of
Determination of helix ultimate bearing capacity
the soil. The water table location may cause a
in a cohesive or fine-grained soil is
reduction in the soil bearing capacity. The
accomplished by using the following equation.
effective unit weight of the soil is its in-situ unit
weight when it is above the water table.
However, the effective unit weight of soil below Qh = AhCNc = AhC9
the water table is its in-situ unit weight less the where:
unit weight of water.
Ah = Projected helix area
C = Cohesion
The case of a fluctuating water table when a
helical anchor/pile installation is terminated Nc = Bearing capacity factor for
above the water table with the likelihood that the cohesive component of soil = 9
water table will rise with time to be above the
helix plates requires special considerations. In The Nc bearing capacity factor when applied to
this situation, the helical plate configuration and helical anchors/piles is often taken as equal to 9,
depth should be determined with the water at its as it is in other deep foundation applications,
highest anticipated level. Then the capacity of The design engineer has the option of overriding
the same helical anchor/pile should be the default clay bearing capacity factor of 9.
determined in the same soil with the water level
below the plate configuration, which will typically
produce higher load capacities and a more Non-Cohesive Soil
difficult installation, i.e., it will require more
Determination of helix ultimate bearing capacity
installation torque. It is sometimes the case that
in a non-cohesive or granular soil is
a larger helical anchor/pile product series, i.e.,
one with greater torque capacity, must be used accomplished by using the following equation.
in order to facilitate installation into the dry
conditions. Qh = Ahq'Nq = Ah 'dNq

This method sums the individual bearing where:

capacity of each helix on a multi-helix Ah = Projected helix area
anchor/pile to determine the total ultimate multi- d = Vertical depth to helix plate
helix anchor/pile capacity (Qt) provided that the
helix spacing along the shaft is 3 helix Nq = Bearing capacity factor for
diameters. non-cohesive component of soil
' = Effective unit weight of the soil
Qt = Qh
The bearing capacity factor Nq is dependent on = Angle of internal friction
the angle of internal friction () of the
cohesionless soil. When a value for the friction N = Blow count per ASTM D 1586
angle is provided the graph (Nq vs ) in Figure 2 Standard Penetration Test
can be used to determine the value of Nq.
The estimated value of the angle of internal
friction from the above relationship and Figure 2
can be used to estimate the bearing capacity
factor Nq.

Mixed or c - Soil
Determination of helix ultimate bearing capacity
in a mixed soil is accomplished by using the
following equation.

Qh = Ah (CNc + q'Nq)
= Ah (CNc + 'dNq)

The terms in this equation are as defined in

above sections. The use of this equation is fairly
uncomplicated when accurate values are
available for both the cohesion and friction terms
of the equation. However, it is recommended
that another approach be taken when accurate
values are not available for both terms of the
equation. One suggestion is to first consider the
soil as cohesive and determine capacity. Then
Angle of Internal Friction
consider the same soil as cohesionless and
Figure 2 determine capacity. Finally, take the lower of
The curve given in Figure 2 is adapted from the two results and use that as the soil bearing
work by Meyerhof (1976). It is based on the capacity.
following equation, which is Meyerhofs Nq
values divided by two for long term applications.
APPLICATIONS

Nq = 0.5 ( 12 x ) /54 Compression

where: The Total Ultimate Helix Compression Capacity
Nq = Bearing capacity factor for non- (Qbc) for a helical pile is calculated as the sum of
cohesive component of soil the individual helix capacities (Qh). Individual
helix capacity in soil is determined by calculating
= Angle of internal friction
the bearing capacity at each helix.
When the angle of internal friction is not known, The Recommended Total Ultimate Compression
but blow counts from ASTM D 1586 Standard Capacity (Qhc) is the total ultimate compression
Penetration Tests are available, then the capacity of the helical pile such that no individual
following relationship can be used to estimate helix exceeds the mechanical strength (Qs) of
the angle of internal friction. This relationship is the helix plate.
based on empirical data provided by Bowles In soft or loose soil conditions (N-value of less
(1968). Again, it is suggested that results be than 4), columnar buckling of the shaft may
used with caution. control the total ultimate compression capacity.

= 0.28 N + 27.4 Tension

where: The Total Ultimate Helix Tension Capacity (Qbt)
for a helical anchor is calculated the same as for
a helical pile, except the individual helix capacity The following section describes the theories
(Qh) is determined by calculating the bearing generally used to calculate the theoretical
capacity above the helix. capacity of piles due to friction along the shaft.
In the case of slender shaft (less than 3 inch [76
The Recommended Total Ultimate Tension mm] helical anchor/piles, friction capacity along
Capacity (Qht) is the total ultimate tension the shaft is generally not calculated. However,
capacity of the helical anchor such that no friction capacity is significant enough to calculate
individual helix exceeds the mechanical strength when the shaft size exceeds 3-1/2 inch (89 mm).
(Qs) of the helix plate. The general equation is:

Alternate Approach Qf = [BfsLf]

Another common design theory is to take the Where:
bearing area of one helix, and then add the B = Diameter of steel, or concrete pile
column
shear capacity of a cylinder of soil between top
fs = Sum of friction and adhesion
and bottom helix plates.
between soil and pile
[Editors note: This section is a late addition and
Lf = Incremental pile length over which
will need to be expanded upon depending on
B and fs are taken as constant
group feedback]
There are several empirical methods available to
calculate skin friction along a pile shaft. Two
INSTALLATION TORQUE
design methodologies are explained below:
A simple, industry accepted and reasonably
Gouvenot Method
accurate method to estimate the ultimate
capacity of helical anchors and piles is called Gouvenot reported a range of values for skin
installation torque vs. capacity correlation, an friction of concrete/grout anchors and micropiles
empirical method originally developed by the both under pressure and without pressure based
A.B. Chance Company over 40 years ago. on a number of field load tests. Helical piles
Precise definition of the relationship for all with grouted shafts are installed without
possible variables remains to be achieved. pressure. The soil conditions are divided into
However, simple empirical relationships have three categories based on friction angle () and
been used for a number of years. The principle cohesion (C). The equations used to calculate f s
is: As a helical anchor/pile is installed (screwed) are:
into increasingly denser soil, the resistance to
Type I: Sands and gravels with 35 < < 45
penetration, called installation torque, is
and C = 0:
measured. The higher the resistance
encountered, the higher the torque required, and fs = otan
therefore, the higher the axial capacity. The
following torque/capacity relationship is cited by Where: o = Mean normal stress for the
Hoyt and Clemence (1989): concrete/grout column
Qu = Kt x T Type II: Mixed soils; fine loose silty sands with
20 < < 30 and sandy clays with 205 lb/ft < C
2
where: 2
< 1024 lb/ft (9.8 kPa < C < 49 kPa):
Qu = Ultimate uplift capacity (lb. (kN))
-1 -1 fs = osin + C(cos)
Kt = Empirical torque factor (ft (m ))
2
Type III: Clays and marls with 1024 lb/ft < C <
T = Average installation torque (lb.-ft. 2
4096 lb/ft (49 kPa < C < 196 kPa)
(kN-m))
-1 fs = C
The value of Kt may range from 3 to 20 ft (10 to
-1 2 2
66 m ), depending on soil conditions and Where: 1024 lb/ft < C < 2048 lb/ft (49 kPa < C
anchor/pile design (principally the shaft size and < 98 kPa)
shape). 2
And fs = 2048 lb/ft (98 kPa)
FRICTION CAPACITY METHODOLOGY 2 2
Where: 2048 lb/ft < C < 4096 lb/ft (98 kPa < C
< 196 kPa) Table 3. Skin Friction Resistance Values for
The Gouvenot Method assumes a uniform shaft Concrete Piles Non-cohesive Soils
diameter for each soil layer. Po Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)
(psf) 20 25 30 35 40
Department of the Navy Design Manual 7 S = Average Friction Resistance on Pile Surface (psf)

Method 500 182 233 289 350 420

1000 364 466 577 700 839
The Navy method is well known in the 1500 546 699 866 1050 1259
foundation industry. It provides a simplified, 2000 728 933 1155 1400 1678
straightforward approach to pile foundation 2500 910 1166 1443 1751 2098
3000 1092 1399 1732 2100 2517
design. 3500 1274 1632 2021 2451 2937
4000 1456 1865 2309 2801 3356
For cohesive soils ( Method):

f s = Ca

Where: Ca = Adhesion factor Table 4. Skin Friction Resistance Values for

Steel Piles Non-cohesive Soils
Navy Design Manual 7 provides the following Po Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)
table as recommended values of adhesion to (psf) 20 25 30 35 40
determine ultimate load capacity of piles for S = Average Friction Resistance on Pile Surface (psf)
cohesive soils. 500 137 175 217 263 315
1000 273 350 433 525 629
1500 410 524 650 788 944
Table 2. Navy Method Recommended Values
2000 546 700 866 1050 1259
for Adhesion Cohesive Soils 2500 683 875 1082 1313 1574
PILE TYPE Soil Cohesion, Adhesion, 3000 819 1049 1300 1575 1888
Consistency C (psf) Ca (psf) 3500 956 1244 1516 1838 2203
Timber or Very Soft 0 250 0 250 4000 1092 1399 1732 2101 2517
Concrete Soft 250- 500 250 480 Values shown are 75% of the values given for straight
Medium Stiff 500 1000 480 750 concrete piles in Table 3
Stiff 1000- 2000 750 950
Very Stiff 2000 4000 950 1300
Steel Very Soft 0 250 0 250 Tables 3 and 4 are derived from graphs in the
Soft 250 500 250 460
Medium Stiff 500 1000 460 700
Dept. of Navy Design Manual 7 (1974). A later
Stiff 1000 2000 700 720 edition of DM 7 (1986) limits the depth to 20B at
Very Stiff 2000 - 4000 720 750 which the average overburden pressure is
assumed to increase, where B is the diameter of
the pile. This limit was based on experimental
For Non-cohesive soils: The engineer can use and field evidence as cited in a previous section
the Alternate Method from the 1974 Edition of of this paper. In the case of slender shaft helical
DM 7 per the following equation. anchor/piles, the 20B limit is probably
conservative, but it is not clear what a more
Qf = [B(S)Lf] practical limit should be.
Where:
S = Average friction resistance on pile REASONABILITY CHECKS
surface area = K(Potan) where K
is assumed to equal 1 General
Po = Average overburden pressure on Consideration should be given to the validity of
element Lf the values obtained when determining the
K = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure bearing capacity of the soil. The calculated
theoretical ultimate capacity is no better than the
= Angle of internal friction data used to obtain that value. Data from boring
logs, the water table depth, and load information
The tables below provide the average friction may not accurately represent actual conditions
resistance (S) on straight concrete and steel where the helical anchor/pile must function.
piles in non-cohesive soils. Empirical values that are used and estimates of
strength parameters, etc. that must be made
because of lack of data affect the calculated in various soil types. In some case, field load
bearing capacity value. In those situations where testing is still the best way to get an accurate
soil data is insufficient or not available, a helical representation of a piles response to load.
trial anchor/pile probe can help determine such
items as, location of bearing strata, location of [Editors note: This section is also a late addition
soft/loose soil, and the presence of obstructions, and will need to be expanded upon depending
such as, cobbles, boulders, and debris. on group feedback]
Helical Anchor/Pile Spacing
REFERENCES
Once the capacity of the helical anchor/pile is
determined, it is important to review the location BASSETT, 1977, Reference details were not
of the foundation element with respect to the available at the time of this writing.
structure and to other helical anchors/piles. It is
recommended that the center-to-center spacing CLEMENCE, S. P., Editor, Contributing Authors
between adjacent anchors/piles be no less than ADAMCZAK, Jr., S., CLEMENCE, S. P., DAS,
five times the diameter of the largest helix. The B. M., FINN, M., HOWARD, R. E., KULHAWY,
minimum spacing is three feet (0.91 m). It is F. H., MITSCH, M. P., MOONEY, J. S.,
suggested that this latter spacing be used only RAPOPORT, V., VALDES, J. A., YOUNG, A. G.,
when the job can not be accomplished in any 1985, Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in
other way and should involve special care during Soil, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
installation to ensure that the spacing does not York City, New York.
decrease with depth. Minimum spacing
requirements apply only to the helix bearing BOWLES, J. E., 1968, Foundation Analysis and
plate(s), i.e., the anchor/pile shaft can be Design, First Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York
battered to achieve minimum spacing. Spacing City, New York.
between the helical anchors/piles and other
foundation elements, either existing or future, BOWLES, J. E., 1988, Foundation Analysis and
requires special. Design, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York
Group effect, or the reduction of capacity due to City, New York.
close spacing, has never been accurately
measured with helical piles. However, bearing MEYERHOF, G. G., 1976, Bearing Capacity and
capacity theory would indicate that capacity Settlement of Pile Foundations, Journal of the
reduction due to group effect is possible. Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Factor of Safety Volume 102, No. GT3, New York City, New
York.
The equations discussed above are used to
obtain the ultimate capacity of a helical
US NAVY DESIGN MANUAL DM7, NAVFAC,
anchor/pile. An appropriate Factor of Safety
1974, Foundations and Earth Structures,
must be applied to reduce the ultimate capacity Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
to an acceptable design (or working) capacity. It
is the responsibility of the user to determine the US NAVY DESIGN MANUAL DM7, NAVFAC,
Factor of Safety to be used. In general, a 1986, Foundations and Earth Structures,
minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
For tieback applications, the Factor of Safety

typically ranges between 1.25 and 2. Project CHANCE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION
specific conditions may warrant the use of TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL, 2007,
higher factors of safety. published by the Chance Division of Hubbell
Power Systems, Inc. (Bulletin #01-0605),
DISPLACEMENT Centralia, MO.

Lateral and vertical displacement of helical piles HOYT, R. L. and CLEMENCE, S. P., 1989, Uplift
is an area that is constantly being studied. Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil, Proceedings
th
Some pile manufacturers have test data of the 12 International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
indicating vertical and horizontal pile deflection
Janeiro, Brazil.
CADDEN, ALLEN, GOMEZ, JESUS, 2002,
"Buckling of Micropiles", ADSC-IAF Micropile
Committee, Dallas, TX., ADSC, Dallas, TX.

GOUVENOT, D. , (1973), Essais En France et

a LEtranger sur le Frottement Lateral en
Fondation: Amelioration par Injection, Travaux,
464,Nov, Paris, France.

VICKARS, R. A., VICKARS, J. C. T.,

TOEBOSCH, GARY, United States Patent
5,707,180, Method and Apparatus for Forming
Piles In-Situ, US Patent Office, Washington, DC.