747

ARTICLE

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Relationship between installation torque and axial capacities

of helical piles in cohesionless soils
Mohammed Sakr

Abstract: With the rapid growth of the helical piling industry for oil and gas projects and transmission lines, reliable installation
torque estimates and measurements become crucial. This paper presents a theoretical model developed to estimate the torsional
resistance of cohesionless soils to helical pile installation. The theoretical torque model was veried using installation records
collected from different sites. The paper also highlights factors that affect helical pile installation, including soil properties,
uctuation in groundwater levels, shape of pile shaft, pile geometry, and method of helical pile installation. The proposed
torsional resistance model was then used to establish the traditional torque factors to proportionally correlate the axial capacity
of helical pile and the installation torque. The results of the study indicated that the torque factor is a function of the load path
(i.e., tension or compression). Therefore, torque factors in compression and tension, Kc and Kt, respectively, were formulated and
presented in the paper.
Key words: helical piles, screw piles, torque, capacity, cohesionless, sand, compression, tension.
Rsum : tant donn le dveloppement rapide du secteur de production des pieux hlicodaux, utiliss dans les projets
ptroliers et gaziers et dans linstallation de canalisations de transport, il devient essentiel de raliser des estimations et mesures
ables du couple dinstallation de ces pieux. Le prsent article prsente un modle thorique conu pour permettre destimer la
rsistance de torsion de sols non cohsifs a` linstallation de pieux hlicodaux. Le modle thorique de couple a t vri a` laide
de donnes dinstallation collectes sur diffrents site. Larticle souligne galement les facteurs qui inuent sur linstallation de
pieux hlicodaux, en particulier les proprits du sol, les variations du niveau de la nappe phratique, la forme du ft du pieu,
la gomtrie du pieu et la mthode dinstallation du pieu hlicodal. Le modle de rsistance de torsion propos a t ensuite
utilis pour tablir les facteurs de couple traditionnels qui relient proportionnellement la capacit axiale du pieu hlicodal au
couple dinstallation. Les rsultats de ltude ont montr que le facteur de couple est fonction de la voie de contrainte (c.-a`-d. de
tension ou de compression). Ainsi, les facteurs de couple en compression et en tension, Kc et Kt, respectivement, et leur quation
sont prsents dans le prsent article. [Traduit par la Rdaction]
Mots-cls : pieux hlicodaux, pieux visss, couple, capacit, non cohsif, sable, compression, tension.

Introduction
The installation of an -helical pile is typically accomplished in
the eld by applying torque to the pile shaft using a rotary motor
connected to the pile head. A relatively small crowd force (i.e.,
downward force) is usually applied on the pile during installation
to allow for the bottom helix to be engaged into the ground and
start the installation and to maintain advancement of the helical
pile into the soil at constant penetration rate equal to pitch size
per full revolution (Perko 2009). However, crowd force is typically
not measured during installation even though additional crowd
forces are generated during pile installation as a result of engaging helices into soil and as pile advancing into ground. Most of
helical pile manufactures claim that crowd is a small component
to the pile installation, and they recommend neglecting it.
Different types of equipment ranging from bobcats to large
excavators are used for helical pile installation. The selection of
suitable equipment is crucial for the success of helical pile installation. Selecting equipment that is too powerful may result in
overstressing the pile material and possibly damaging piles during installation. On the contrary, underestimating the torque requirements may result in failure to complete pile installation as a
result of using inadequate equipment or can cause a high degree

of soil disturbance, which is likely to reduce pile load carrying

capacities.
Ghaly and Hanna (1991) investigated the installation torque of
model screw anchors into cohesionless soils. In their study, geometrical characteristics of anchor blades were evaluated. The results of their study indicated that installation torque depends on
the geometry of the screw element, soil properties, and installation depth. Perko (2001) proposed a correlation between installation torque and pile capacity based on an energy model similar to
that model for driven piles. However, the main limitation to the
energy model is that it does require numerous parameters, some
of which are not easily measurable during pile installation, such
as crowd force. Tsuha and Aoki (2010) conducted an experimental
program including centrifuge testing and interface direct shear
tests to evaluate the torque required to install helical piles into
medium to dense sand. They correlated pile installation and uplift
loading of piles and proposed a theoretical model to estimate the
torque required to install helical piles. Spagnoli (2013) used the
model of Ghaly and Hanna (1991) by changing helical and shaft
diameter. The results show that the higher the helical/shaft diameter ratio, the higher the installation torque for ratios ranging
between 1.42 and 2.20. Sakr (2014) proposed a theoretical model to
estimate required torque to install helical piles into cohesive soils.

Received 17 October 2013. Accepted 30 September 2014.

M. Sakr.* The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
E-mail for correspondence: mohammed.sakr2011@gmail.com.
*Present address: 2604 Bowen Way, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Can. Geotech. J. 52: 747759 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0395

Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 14 October 2014.

748

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

The main objectives of the present paper include the following:

1. To propose a comprehensive theoretical model to estimate
torque for helical piles installed into cohesionless soils. The
proposed torque model can be used for selecting the suitable
equipment for installation. It can be also used as a quality
control for production piles by estimating and specifying minimum torque requirements based on soil parameters and pile
geometry. The estimated minimum torque can be then used as
eld acceptance criterion; and
2. To qualitatively evaluate the effect of different parameters on
torque factors and to assess their relative importance.

Theoretical model
Figure 1 shows a typical helical pile installation. Torque exerted
during pile installation is a function of numerous factors that
include the following:
1. Soil properties such as frictional resistance angle of soil,
interface friction angle between soil and surface of the helical pile, relative density, effective unit weight of the soil, size
and shape of soil particles, presence of gravel or cobbles, and
groundwater level.
2. Pile conguration such as shaft size, number of helices, diameter of the helices, thickness of the helices, pitch size, and
embedment depth.
3. Shape of pile shaft (i.e., square or round shaft).
4. The shape of the cutting edge of the helical blades (i.e., at,
knifed V shape, square shaped).
5. The surface roughness of pile material (i.e., bare metal, coated
metal, or galvanized surface).
6. The method used for helical pile manufacturing (i.e., cast helices, welded, or bolted).
7. Method of installation such as installing through native soils
or predrilling a pilot hole prior to pile installation; applying
excessive crowd force during pile installation or using pure
torque;
8. Consistency of pile installation by maintaining constant pile
penetration rate equal to the pitch size.
9. The accuracy of measuring torque devices and frequency of
calibrating the torque reader.
The theoretical model assumes that the exerted torque during
helical pile installation into cohesionless soils is resisted by frictional and bearing resistances of pile shaft and helices. Summation of moments due to frictional resistances acting on the surface
area of the helices and shaft yields the moment required to overcome the resisting soil moments during installation (i.e., installation torque). Similarly, summation of bearing resistances acting
on helical blades as suggested by Ghaly and Hanna 1991 produces
the force that resists the downward advancement of the helical
pile. Figure 2 summarizes different resisting moment components
during the installation of helical piles. The main assumptions that
are considered for the development of the proposed torque model
include the following:
1. Crowd force applied on the pile during installation is neglected.
This assumption is to ensure that pile is purely installed due to
torsional forces and not by plunging piles into soils especially
in soft soils.
2. Resisting torque during pile installation is independent of the
speed of the pile head driver. The use of high installation
speed tends to increase the measured torque reading.
3. The soil layer is assumed to be uniform and isotropic and
extends to the full installation depth of helical pile.

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

4. Torsional shear along the pile shaft is equal to the axial unit
shaft friction.
5. The pile is advanced into the soil at a constant penetration rate
equal to the size of the pitch, and soil disturbance is minimal.
6. Installation torque is independent of the shape of the pile shaft.
7. Helices are in a true spiral shape, and their projected area is
equal to the size of a desk with a diameter equal to the helix
diameter.
8. Shape of the leading edge is neglected in the model.
9. For multi-helix piles, the effective stress at the lower helices is
equal to the summation of the effective unit weight of soil
times spacing between helices.
Therefore, the exerted torque during pile installation may be
given by the following expression:
N

T T1

(1)

2j

T3j T4j T5j T6j T7j T8j

j1

where N is the number of helices; T1 is the torsional moment

acting on the pile shaft (kNm); and T2jT8j are the torsional moment components acting on a helix j (kNm).
Forces resisting installation of helical piles by rotation can be
listed following a similar model to that developed by Ghaly and
Hanna (1991). (See also supplementary material.1)
1. Passive lateral earth pressure exerted on the pile shaft (P1). As
shown in Fig. 2, force P1 has two components, P1x and P1y: P1x
produces moment acting on the shaft (T1), and P1y produces
moment acting on the helix (T2j).

d2
4

(2)

T1 vDh1 cos()KpKf

(3)


T2j vj
[Dhj Dh(j1)] sin()Kp tan( )

d2
4

where v is the average effective vertical stress along the pile


is the
shaft; Dh1 is the depth to helix 1 (the upper helix); vj
effective vertical stress at the middle of helix j; Dhj is the depth
to helix j; Kp is the coefcient of passive earth pressure (Kp =
(1 + sin)/(1 sin)); Kf is the coefcient of friction between the
pile shaft material and soil (Kf = tan); is the interface friction
angle between the pile material and soil ( = (2/3)); is the
frictional resistance angle; is the pitch angle ( = tan1(p/(D));
p is the helix pitch; D is the helix diameter; and d is the pile
shaft diameter. The pitch angle is equal to the helix angle
with the horizontal. It should be noted that the main difference between the proposed torque model and the Ghaly and
Hanna (1991) model is that the proposed model utilizes the
effective stresses approach, while the Ghaly and Hanna model
is based on the total stresses approach. This difference is critical especially for full-scale piles where embedment depth is
deep and where groundwater level is relatively high.
2. The resisting moment acting on the helix (T3j) owing to the
force P2y acting on the outer side of the helix j perimeter:
(4)


T3j vj
[Dhj Dh(j1)] sin()Kp tan( )

D2
2

3. The resisting moment acting on the upper surface of the helix

owing to the active earth pressure, Ka (T4j):

Supplementary data are available with the article through the journal Web site at http://nrcresearchpress.com/doi/suppl/10.1139/cgj-2013-0395.
Published by NRC Research Press

Sakr

749

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 1. Typical helical pile installation.

(5)


T4j vj
Ka tan( )

(D3 d3)
12

4. The resisting moment acting on the lower surface of the helix

owing to the passive earth pressure (T5j):
(6)


T5j vj
Kp tan( )

(D3 d3)
12

5. The resisting moment along the circumference of the helix j

(T6j):
(7)


T6j vj
Kpp tan()

D2
2

6. The resisting moment acting on the side surface of outer perimeter of the helix j (T7j):
(8)


T7j vj
KptjKf

D2
2

where tj is the thickness of helix j.

7. Moment due to leading edge penetrating into soil (T8j):
(9)


T8j (D d)Nqtjvj

(D d)
4

where Nq is the bearing factor.

It can be seen from eqs. (2)(9) that there are numerous factors
that affect resisting moments to helical pile installation (or installation torque), including pile conguration and soil properties.
Pile congurations such as shaft size, shape of pile shaft, number
of helices, diameter and thickness of each helix, and pitch size are
some parameters that affect torque measurements. Soil properties and groundwater levels have considerable effects on torque
required to install piles.

As indicated on the model assumptions, the developed theoretical model neglected the effect of installation method on the
torque requirements. Other factors that are hard to quantify may
include soil disturbance due to installation process, operator errors, and accuracy of measurements. Common operator error is
auguring piles, where the pile is advanced at a smaller rate less
than the pitch size, which causes additional soil disturbance and
reduces the measured torque during installation. Installation processes such as applying excessive crowd on the pile and use of
predrilling will be discussed in the next sections.
Sensitivity and accuracy of the torque reader and frequency of
calibration are other factors that affect the quality of measurements. Additionally, torque measurements may be affected by
measurement methods, such as using mechanical devices to measure the differential hydraulic pressure of the rotary pile head
drive or by an electronic load cell attached to the pile head.
Model verication
The estimated torque values using eqs. (1)(9) at different installation depths were compared with the measured torque values for
an -helical pile ST32 with double helices, reported by Sakr (2012),
and the results are presented in Fig. 3. Pile ST32 had a shaft diameter of 406 mm, with two helices, 813 mm in diameter, 25.4 mm in
thickness, spaced at 1.63 m (i.e., two times the helix diameter). The
pitch size for both helices was 152 mm. Soil properties at the pile
ST32 location, as interpreted from piezocone cone penetration
test (CPTU), consisted of dense sand that extended to the end of
CPTU at a depth of 6.7 m. The estimated total unit weight of the
soil layer is 19 kN/m3 and the frictional resistance angle is 36.
Groundwater level was at a depth of about 2.6 m below the existing ground surface.
The torque values were measured using a mechanical graphical
reader that records differential pressures during pile installation.
The estimated torque values using the Ghaly and Hanna model
(Ghaly and Hanna 1991) were also compared in Fig. 3. It should be
mentioned that measured torque at the pile head during pile
installation increased considerably as the upper helix advanced
into the ground. The estimated torsional resistance of the soil
followed a similar trend to the measured values. In general, the
Published by NRC Research Press

750

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 3. Comparison between measured torque and estimated torsional resistance of pile ST32 during installation.

Torque, kN-m
0

100

200

300

400

500

0
1
2

Depth, m

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 2. Proposed theoretical torque model: (a) overall resisting moments; (b) resisting moments at helix level; (c) isometric view. P1x, P1y, P2x,
P2y, passive lateral earth pressure components; T1, T2, T3jT8j, torsional moment components.

ST32
Estimated Torque Ghaly and Hanna 1991
Estimated Torque Sakr 2012

3
4
5
6
7
8
Published by NRC Research Press

Sakr

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

measured and estimated installation torque values using the proposed model agreed reasonably. It can be also seen from Fig. 3 that
the estimated torque values using Ghaly and Hanna approach
were considerably higher than the estimated values using the
proposed model. The higher estimated torque values using the Ghaly
and Hanna model are mainly due to overestimating the torque
contribution of the second helix (as a result of using total stress
approach).
Comparison between measured and estimated
torque values
As indicated in eqs. (2)(9), the exerted torsional resistances
of soil values to pile installation are a function of shaft size (i.e.,
either diameter or width of square shaft helical piles), helix
diameter, helix thickness, pitch size, and number of helices. The
estimated torsional resistance is also a function of soil strength
parameters, including frictional resistance angle, interface friction angles between soil and steel surface, and effective unit
weight of the soil. Moreover, as indicated on the model assumptions, the installation effects are neglected, and it is assumed that
the pile is advanced into the soil at a constant rate equal to the
pitch size.
To compare between measured and estimated torque values, a
total of 52 installation tests were used in the present study. Pile
congurations and soil parameters are summarized in Table 1.
The installation cases were selected to satisfy the following conditions:
1. Pile conguration, including shaft sizes and helix diameters,
covers a wide range of different sizes used in the industry for
different applications. For example, shaft sizes ranged from
square shafts 44 mm in width to round shafts with diameters
up to 508 mm. Helix diameters varied between 200 and
1016 mm. The number of helices varied between 1 and 4.
2. Selected piles were also installed by a number of operators so
that the data reected the variability in installation methods.
3. Installation techniques included standard installation method
and use of predrilled pilot holes.
4. Soils considered for the study varied between very loose silts
to very dense sand, with frictional resistance angles, , varied
between 20 and 45.
The estimated different resisting moment components (i.e.,
T1T8) for round and square shaft piles are presented as a percentage
of the overall estimated torque in Figs. 4a and 4b. It can be seen
from Fig. 4 that for round shaft piles, moment components T1T3
composed most of the torque required to install piles (on average
about 70%), while for square shaft piles, moment components
T1T3 composed a lower portion (on average about 45%). The moment due to shaft (T1) was relatively small for square shaft piles
(i.e., 2%11%) compared with round shaft piles (11%35%). The
lower torsional resistance of pile shaft to installation of square
shaft piles is likely due to their smaller shaft diameter compared
with round shaft piles. For round shaft piles (Fig. 4a), the T2 torque
component was a considerable component (i.e., 6%16%), while T4
was a relatively minor component (i.e., <2%). For square shaft
piles, T2 and T4 moment contributions are insignicant (i.e., <5%). This
comparison clearly indicates that torque estimate is a function of
pile shape, and torque components may have different contribution factors, depending on pile shape, pile conguration, and soil
conditions.
The measured and estimated overall torque values for different
piles were compared in Fig. 5. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the
estimated and measured torque values were within 10% of the
equity line for most cases, with some exceptions. The prediction
ratio, which is the ratio between estimated and measured torque
values, varied between 0.41 and 1.9. The data were also linearly
tted with a standard deviation of 0.87. The wide range of prediction ratios reects the fact that measured torque values are quite

751

sensitive to the installation procedure. For example, in the case of

pile ST2 where the prediction ratio was 0.41, reviewing the installation record of the pile indicated that a predrilling process was
used to facilitate its installation. Moreover, installation notes indicated that pile installation was quite difcult and auguring
effects were observed. Therefore, measured low torque during
installation is likely due to the poor installation method and did
not necessarily represent the hard conditions of the native soil
material. It should be also mentioned that the average prediction
ratios (ratio between measured and estimated torque values) for
round shaft and square shaft piles were 0.97 and 0.95, respectively. The slightly lower average prediction ratio for square shaft
piles is likely due to possible additional soil disturbance during
their installation.
Installation torque axial capacity relationship
The empirical relationship between measured torque at the end
of pile installation and helical pile capacity is widely used in the
industry in North America especially for small-size helical piles.
The empirical relationship is expressed as (Hoyt and Clemence
1989; Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM) 2006;
Perko 2009)
(10)

Q t KtT

where Q t is the ultimate capacity of the screw pile; Kt is the empirical factor; and T is the average installation torque.
The empirical torque capacity relationship, expressed in eq. (10),
assumes a proportional relationship between measured torque at
the end of installation and the axial pile capacity. It should be
noted that the empirical torque factor, Kt, is independent of loading path (i.e., compression or tension). For example, Hoyt and
Clemence proposed a Kt factor equal to 9.8 m1 for 89 mm diameter round shaft helical piles regardless of loading direction. It
should be also mentioned that the Kt values published in literature and adapted in the Canadian Engineering Foundation
Manual (CFEM 2006) were mainly based on the results of pullout
(tension) tests for small-diameter piles. Therefore, the available Kt
values may not be suitable for estimating the axial capacities of
helical piles under compressive loads or for large-diameter helical
piles. The theoretical torque capacity relationships for both axial
tension and compression loading conditions are evaluated and
discussed in the next sections.
Relationship between axial tensile capacity and
installation torque
To separate different torque factors (i.e., compression versus
tension), the torque factor in tension, Kt, is dened as the ratio
between axial tensile capacity of the pile and torque at the end of
installation. Therefore, Kt can be expressed as
N

(11)

Qt
Kt

Qs

hj

j1

where Q s is the ultimate tensile shaft resistance; Q hj is the ultimate tensile capacity of helix j; and N is the number of helices.
As indicated CFEM (2006), the shaft resistance, Q s, can be estimated from the following expression:
(12)

Q s dLqs

where d is the shaft diameter; L is the length of pile shaft; and qs is

the average unit shaft friction of soil.
Published by NRC Research Press

752

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Table 1. Summary of helical pile congurations and soil properties.

Pile ID

Soil type

Shaft
diameter (m)

Helix
diameter (m)

No. of
helices

Depth
(m)

Friction
angle ()

References

ST1
ST2
ST3
ST20
ST21
ST22
ST24
ST25
ST41
C4
C5
C6
T4
T5
T6
C18
C19
C20
T2
T3
Pile 3
Pile 2
Pile 1
Pile 15
Pile 17
Pile 18
Pile 13
Pile 14
Pile 12
Pile 19
V1
V2
V6
V5
Pile C3
Pile C4
Pile T3
Pile T4
Pile C1
Pile T1
PA24
PA24-30
LA16x4B
LA24x4b
A1
A3
A4
A5
A3
A1TB
D4
L1

Compact to dense sand

Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Compact to dense sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Dense sand
Dense sand
Grey silt
Grey silt
Grey silt
Grey silt
Grey silt
Grey silt
Dense ne sand
Dense ne sand
Dense ne sand
Dense ne sand
Poorly graded sand
Poorly graded sand
Poorly graded sand
Poorly graded sand
Lean oil sand
Lean oil sand
Lean oil sand
Lean oil sand
Very dense sand and gravel
Very dense sand and gravel
Loose to compact silty sand
Loose to compact silty sand
Loose to compact silty sand
Loose to compact silty sand
Dense to very dense sand and gravel
Dense to very dense sand and gravel
Dense to very dense sand and gravel
Dense to very dense sand and gravel
Dense to very dense sand and gravel
Dense to very dense sand and gravel
Loose silt
Very loose silt

0.324
0.324
0.324
0.406
0.406
0.508
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.114
0.114
0.114
0.168
0.168
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.0445
0.1778
0.1778
0.1778
0.1778
0.168
0.168
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.089
0.2032
0.203
0.2032
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.508

0.762
0.762
0.762
0.914
0.914
1.016
0.813
0.813
0.813
0.356
0.356
0.356
0.356
0.356
0.356
0.45
0.4
0.4
0.406
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.304
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.508
0.508
0.61
0.76
0.406
0.61
0.34
0.34
0.29
0.34
0.29
0.254
0.25
0.914

2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
4
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2

9
9.5
9.5
6.1
5.7
5.75
5.95
9.7
10.5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
2.1
2.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
10.6
9.7
10
7.3
7.6
6.7
9.4
3.05
3.05
4.27
4.88
5.1
5.3
5.1
4.9
3.1
3.2
9.7
9.7
12.8
11.6
6.6
3.2
4.2
4.1
5.1
3.3
10.1
11.4

35
35
35
35
35
35
34
30
30
32
39
32
32
39
32
25
25
25
41
41
30
30
32
26
26
26
30
30
35
30
35
35
35
35
38
38
38
38
45
45
23
23
30
24
35
35
35
35
45
40
28
20

Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Sakr 2012*
Zhang 1999
Zhang 1999
Zhang 1999
Zhang 1999
Zhang 1999
Zhang 1999
Tappenden (2007)
Tappenden (2007)
Tappenden (2007)
Sakr (2011)
Sakr (2011)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Livneh and El Naggar (2008)
Cerato and Victor (2009)
Cerato and Victor (2009)
Cerato and Victor (2009)
Cerato and Victor (2009)
Sakr (2009)
Sakr (2009)
Sakr (2009)
Sakr (2009)
Sakr et al. (2009)
Sakr et al. (2009)
Hawkins and Thorsten 2009
Hawkins and Thorsten 2009
Hawkins and Thorsten 2009
Hawkins and Thorsten 2009
Adams and Klym (1972)
Adams and Klym (1972)
Adams and Klym (1972)
Adams and Klym (1972)
Adams and Klym (1972)
Adams and Klym (1972)
Kraft et al. (2003)
Dilley and Hulse (2007)

*Predrilled, augured.
Site 1, square shaft (helix diameters 0.2, 0.25, and 0.3 m).
Helix diameters 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, and 0.35 m.

The average unit shaft friction for the cohesionless soils can be
estimated using qs vKs tan, where v is the effective vertical
stress at the mid depth of the pile; Ks is the coefcient of lateral
earth pressure (Ks = 2(1 sin()) for torque driven piles); and and
are the frictional resistance and the interface friction angles,
respectively.
The ultimate uplift capacity of a helix j, Q hj, can be estimated
using eq. (13) (Das 1990):

(13)

Q hj AhjDhjFqj

where Ahj is the projected helix area of a helix j; is the average

unit weight of the soil to helix j depth; Dhj is the depth to a helix j;
and Fqj is the breakout factor of a helix j (Das 1990).
The breakout factor Fqj at helix j is dened as the ratio between
the uplift bearing pressure and the effective vertical stress at helix
Published by NRC Research Press

Sakr

753

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 4. Installation torque components: (a) round shaft piles; (b) square shaft piles. Aver, average; Max, maximum; Min, minimum.

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and estimated torque values.

where m is the coefcient dependent on the soil friction angle; Dhj

is the embedment depth to the top of helix j; D is the diameter of
the helix; KU is the nominal uplift coefcient; is the average
frictional resistance angle for the soils above the helix; and (Dh/D)cr is
the critical embedment ratio.
The breakout factor, Fqj, depends on several parameters such as
the embedment depth ratio (Dhj/D), weight of soil above the helix,
shape of helix, and angles of internal friction for the soils above
the helix. It can be seen from eq. (14), that Fqj increases with
embedment ratio until the critical embedment ratio is reached,
after which Fqj is independent of embedment depth.
For round shaft piles, the net surface area of helix j,
Ahj Dj2 d2/4. Therefore, the torque factor in tension, Kt, can
be estimated as
N

A D F
T T

dLqs
(15)

Kt

hj

i8

j1

i2

j level. The following expression can be used to estimate the

breakout factor (Das and Seeley 1975):
(14)

DD DD K tan;

Fqj 1 2 1 m

hj

hj

where (Dhj /D) (Dhj /D)cr

hj qj

j1

ij

It should be noted that in eq. (15), the interaction between different helices is neglected (i.e., it is assumed that helices were
spaced away enough so that they do not interfere with each
other). Neglecting the interaction between different helices is a
reasonable assumption for most cases where the spacing between
helices is equal to or greater than three times the helix diameter.
However, for the cases where spacing between helices is narPublished by NRC Research Press

754

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and estimated torque factors

in tension.

rower, reduction of helix capacities due to interaction between

different piles should be considered.
Relationship between axial compressive capacity and
installation torque
Similar to torque factor in tension, torque factor in compression, Kc, is dened as the ratio between the axial compressive
capacity and torque at the end of pile installation. The frictional
resistance of pile shaft in compression may be assumed similar to
its value in tension. The axial compressive resistance of a helix j
can be estimated as follows:
(16)

Qhj Ahj(DhjNq 0.5DjN)

where Ah is the projected helix area (for all helices except bottom
one), which is equal to the total helix area (for bottom helix); is
the unit weight of the soil; Dhj is the depth to helical bearing plate;
Dj is the diameter of helical plate; and Nq and N are the bearing
capacity factors for local shear conditions.
Neglecting the interaction between different helices, the torque
factor in compression, Kc, for an -helical pile can be expressed as
N

dLqs
(17)

Kc

A (D N 0.5D N )
T T
hj

hj q

j1

i8

j1

i2

ij

Comparison between theoretical and measured

torque factors
The measured torque factors in tension and compression, Kt
and Kc, respectively, utilizing the results of a total of 52 full-scale
axial compression and tension tests were compared with the estimated values using eqs. (15) and (17). The measured and estimated
Kt and Kc are presented in Figs. 6 and 7. The mean prediction ratio
for torque factors in tension Kt was 1.22, with a coefcient of
variation of 33%, while the mean prediction ratio for Kc was 1.19,
with a coefcient of variation of 30%.
It worth mentioning that the measured pile capacities were
taken from the available information in literature. Variability of
interpretation of failure loads (i.e., use of 5% failure creation, Davison criterion, etc.) may be a contributing factor to the scatter in
results. Other possible reasons for the scattered Kt and Kc values

Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and estimated torque factors

in compression.

may be the variability of helical pile installation methods, which

may have resulted in additional soil disturbance and possible loss
of the axial strength of piles and low accuracy in torque measurement devices. However, factors such soil disturbance and method
of helical pile installation are difcult to quantify, and it is suggested to be addressed in future study.
It should be mentioned that for a specic helical pile, the ratio
Kt/Kc (torque factor in tension / torque factor in compression) is
equal to the ratio between tensile and compressive capacities, as
the installation torque is the same in both cases. The difference
between tensile and compressive capacities of helical piles depends on a number of factors including the following:
(1) Tip resistance of the pile toe, which is only mobilized in compressive loading;
(2) The soil layer(s) under the bottom helix (loaded in compression) and above the bottom helix loaded in tension) may be
different;
(3) Degree of soil disturbance: soil above the helix in the vicinity
of the pile is likely to be disturbed during pile installation,
which may result in changes in soil characteristics. Degree of
soil disturbance is also dependent on the soil initial characteristics and installation procedure (varies considerably); and
(4) Other reasons may include the difference between pile shaft
capacities in compression and tension due to the changes in
mean effective stress levels related to the direction of loading
and Poissons ratio in expansion and contraction of the pile as
discussed by De Nicola and Randolph (1993).

Parameters influencing torque factors

Parameters affecting torque factors in cohesionless soils can be
grouped into seven main groups:
1. Soil properties such as frictional resistance angle of soil, interface friction angles, relative density, shape and size of soil
particles, and unit weight of the soil;
2. Groundwater level at the time of pile installation;
3. Loading path (i.e., tension or compression);
4. Shape of pile shaft (i.e., square or round);
5. Pile congurations (i.e., shaft size, helix diameter, helix thickness, pitch size, number of helices, and embedment depth);
6. Installation method; and
7. Reliability of torque measurements.
Published by NRC Research Press

Sakr

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

With the exception of loading path, different parameters affecting torque factors in compression, Kc, are discussed in the next
sections. It should be noted that the main assumption for evaluating Kc is that soil is uniform and isotropic and extends to a depth
well beyond embedment depth of helical piles. It should be noted
that similar comparisons can be also performed for torque factors
in tension, Kt.
Soil properties
To evaluate the effect of frictional resistance angles on torque
factors, a hypothetical pile conguration was assumed, consisting
of a round shaft pile, 0.324 m in diameter, with a single-helix of
0.762 m in diameter, and with an overall length of 6.1 m. Estimated torque factors in compression, Kc, versus frictional resistance angles for cohesionless soils for both dry and saturated soil
conditions are presented in Fig. 8. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that
Kc values generally increased with increasing frictional resistance
angles. The soil graduation and shape of particles (i.e., round,
subround, or angular) are other factors that inuence the frictional resistance angles of the soil and interface friction angles
between the piles surface and surrounding soils. The presence of
large-size gravel during installation can cause an abrupt increase
in torque reading. Another example is if the helical pile encounters a boulder or a large-size rock during installation, the installation is stalled. Attempting to install the pile further leads to
spinning of the pile and reducing installation torque considerably.
Moreover, helical piles are displacement piles; therefore, soil
densication is expected due to the installation process. For example, for the case of installation of helical piles in very dense
soils, higher torque values may be exhibited to overcome the
increased frictional resistance angles due to sand dilatancy. Therefore, it is suggested to investigate these factors in more detail in a
separate study.

755

Fig. 8. Effect of variation of friction angles on torque factors in

compression, Kc.

Fig. 9. Torque factors: (a) square shaft piles; (b) round shaft piles.

Fluctuation in groundwater level

To evaluate the effect of uctuation of groundwater levels,
Kc values were estimated using eq. (17) for both dry and saturated soil
conditions (Fig. 8). It can be seen from Fig. 8 that torque factors, Kc,
for saturated soil conditions were generally considerably lower
than values for dry soil conditions and were lower by about 50%.
Fluctuation of the groundwater levels is expected to occur during
the life cycle of the structure and may occur between time of
helical pile installation and pile load testing. Cerato and Victor
(2009) investigated the effect of groundwater level uctuation on
installation and axial capacities of helical piles. They monitored
groundwater levels and rainfall data throughout the installation
and testing period (16 March 2007 to 8 August 2007) to quantify the
effects of groundwater level uctuation. They concluded in their
study that the uctuation in the groundwater level during the
study period had led to lowering the pile capacity by threefold.
Therefore, the empirical torque factors may not be accurate to
estimate long-term axial capacity of helical piles and can lead to a
considerable error margin.
Shape of pile shaft
To evaluate the effect of the shape of the pile shaft on torque
factors, the measured and estimated torque factors for square and
round shaft piles are presented in Figs. 9a and 9b. A total of 14 axial
compressive or tensile load tests were plotted for square shaft
piles (Fig. 9a) to access the tension and compression torque factors
(Kt and Kc). A total of 38 tests were plotted for round shaft piles
(Fig. 9b). Comparing Figs. 9a and 9b indicate that torque factors for
square shaft piles were generally higher than those factors for
round shaft piles. The measured Kc and Kt values for square shaft
piles varied between about 10 and 62 m1, with an average value of
36 m1, while Kc and Kt values for round shaft piles varied between
about 3 and 30 m1, with an average value of 12 m1. It can be also
Published by NRC Research Press

756

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 10. Effect of shaft size on torque factors in compression, Kc.

seen from Fig. 9a that for square shaft piles, the measured and
estimated torque factors were quite scattered. However, for round
shaft piles the measured and estimated torque factors (Fig. 9b)
reasonably agreed. The scatter between measured and estimated
torque factors for square shaft piles may be due to the additional
soil disturbance and creating gab around the pile shaft during pile
installation. Therefore, it is proposed to modify the proposed theoretical model to account for the soil disturbance and formation
of gab around the pile shaft during installation for square shaft
helical piles. Another possible reason for high torque factors for
square shaft piles is the low accuracy of mechanical torque devices at low torque levels.
Pile congurations
To evaluate the effect of increasing shaft diameter on torque
factors in compression, Kc, eq. (17) was used to estimate torque
factors for helical piles with a single-helix, 0.763 m in diameter,
installed into cohesionless soil with an average frictional resistance angle of 32 and bulk unit weight of soil of 20 kN/m3. Soil is
assumed to be saturated and the effective unit weight () of soil
equal to 10.2 kN/m3. The shaft diameters were 219, 324, and
406 mm, respectively. The torque factors in compression, Kc, versus embedment depth ratios, dened as the ratio between embedment depth (H) and helix diameter, are presented in Fig. 10. It can
be seen from Fig. 10 that the torque factors, Kc, generally decreased with increasing the embedment depths. The reduction of
Kc factors with embedment depths indicated that the rate of increasing the installation torque with embedment depth is greater
than the rate of increasing pile capacity in compression. For example, for the case of piles ST32, as indicated in Fig. 3, the installation torque to depths of 6 and 7 m were 268 and 360 kNm,
respectively, and the corresponding estimated axial compressive
capacities of pile ST32 were 2660 and 3000 kN, respectively. The
torque factors in compression, Kc, for pile ST32 decreased with
depth from 9.9 m1 at depth of 6 m to 8.4 m1 at depth of 7 m.
As expected, increasing the shaft diameter resulted in reducing
torque factors. For example, at an embedment depth ratio of 7.2,
the torque factors for piles with shaft diameters of 219, 324, and
406 mm were 4.3, 3.8, and 3.4 m1, respectively.

To evaluate the effect of varying helix diameters on the torque

factors in compression, Kc, the torque factors were estimated for a
pile with a shaft diameter of 324 mm equipped with a single helix
installed into cohesionless material ( = 32 and = 10.2 kN/m3).
Helix diameters of 0.61, 0.763, and 0.914 m were considered for the
comparison, and the results are presented in Fig. 11. As seen in
Fig. 11, increasing helix diameter resulted in slightly decreasing
Kc. For example, for piles with helix diameters 0.61, 0.763, and
0.914 m at depth ratio of about 7.0, the estimated torque factors,
Kc, were 4.0, 3.8, and 3.6 m1, respectively. It should be mentioned
also that the ratio between helix to shaft diameter is another
factor that may affect Kc factors. However, for most of the applications the ratios of helix to shaft diameter (D/d) are typically
between 2 and 3 to maintain the structural integrity of the pile.
Torque factors in compression, Kc, for piles with single and
double helices are presented in Fig. 12. The torque factors were
estimated using a pile with shaft diameter of 0.324 m and helix
diameter of 0.763 m. The assumed spacing between helices is 3D,
and pitch size is 152 mm. As seen in Fig. 12, the torque factors Kc
for piles with double helices were considerably higher than those
values for piles with a single helix. For example, at an embedment
ratio of 7.2, the Kc values for piles with double and single helices
were 6.7 and 4.0 m1, respectively. The increased Kc with the use of
a double helix indicated that the increase of pile capacity due to
the additional helix is higher than the increase in torque required
to install the additional helix into the ground. It can be seen also
from Fig. 12 that the torque factor, Kc, had decreased with increasing pile embedment ratio. However, for the case of piles with
double helices, the rate of reduction of torque factor was higher
than that of piles with a single helix. Therefore, it is suggested to
use multi-helix piles due to their increased capacities and improved performance characteristics compared with single-helix
piles.
It can be seen from Figs. 1012 that torque factors in compression, Kc, are quite sensitive to changes in pile conguration. It
should be also noted that parameters affecting Kc are numerous
and interconnected. Therefore, it is suggested to estimate torque
factors for each individual case, including specic pile congurations, soil properties, and groundwater conditions.
Published by NRC Research Press

Sakr

757

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 11. Effect of varying helix diameters (Dia) on torque factors in compression, Kc.

Fig. 12. Torque factors in compression, Kc, for single and double helix piles.

Method of installation
The method of installation is one of the major factors that
affect the measured torque values. In general, methods of installations that cause more soil disturbance reduce the measured
torque and negatively impact the reliability of torque data. For
example, the presence of cobbles or boulders at the location of
piles results in terminating the installation at the depth where the
boulder is encountered. However, if the operator continues pile
installation, the pile spins, and the torque reading is considerably
reduced. In such case, signicant soil disturbance is expected, and
a reduction of the uplift capacity of the installed pile is expected.

Typical installation methods may include applying additional

crowd on pile, a predrilling process, or advancing the pile at a
smaller rate than the pitch size (which is referred to as auguring
piles). Use of excessive crowd force may lead to punching piles
through soils instead of advancing them into soil at steady rate. A
predrilling process is another useful method for installing helical
piles into very dense soils, as it allows for relieving radial stresses
around the pile during installation and reducing the dilatancy
effect. However, soil disturbance is expected due to the process,
and the proposed theoretical method to estimate torque is not
accurate in this case. Auguring effects usually occur during the
Published by NRC Research Press

758

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 13. Effect of method of pile installation on torque

measurements.

Moreover, unied denition of the average torque value at the

end of installation is required. For example, Hoyt and Clemence
(1989) averaged the installation torque over the nal distance of
penetration equal to three times the largest helix diameter. Some
contractors specify the use of average torque over the last 0.3 m,
while others specify that torque should be averaged over the last
1 m of installation. Therefore, there is a need for standard method
of helical pile installation and torque measurements.

Conclusions
This paper presents a theoretical model for predicting torsional
resistance to helical pile installation into cohesionless soils. The
proposed model for predicting torsional resistance was validated
by total of 52 eld installations reported in the literature. The
proposed model shows reasonable agreement with 46 eld installations. The developed torque model was then used to assess
torque factors and the following conclusions may be drawn:

installation of helical piles in dense to very dense sands. Figure 13

shows the measured and estimated torque values versus depth for
an -helical pile ST3 installed in dense sand (see Table 1 for pile
conguration and soil properties). A pilot hole with diameter
equal to pile shaft diameter was predrilled prior to the installation
of pile to depth of about 4 m. The measured torque values, at low
embedment depths up to 3.5 m, were lower than the estimated
values. However, at high depths (about 6 m), the measured torque
reached the maximum head capacity of 211 kNm and the pile
advanced into the ground as the result of the auguring effect. The
theoretical torque required at the end of pile installation at depth
of 9.5 m was about 491 kNm, which is considerably higher than
the measured value of 211 kNm. Therefore, this example demonstrates effect of the installation method on the measured torque.
Reliability of torque readings
Methods of measuring torque during pile installation are mainly
either using a mechanical gauge that measures the differential
pressure across the gear motor, or using an electronic torque
transducer that consists of a series of strain gauges attached to the
drive head. Theoretical torque using differential pressure may be
estimated as
(18)

(P)(CID)(PGR)
(17 701.5)

where P is the differential pressure across the motor (kPa); CID is

the cubic displacement of the hydraulic motor in m3; PGR is the
planetary gear ratio; is the combined motor and planetary gear
efciency; and T is the exerted torque in kNm.
It should be mentioned that, when using torque measuring
method based on differential pressures, the hydraulic gear motor
torque versus differential pressure curves may not reect the
manufacturers stated performance data. Equipment and hydraulic line size may also affect the torque versus differential pressure
curve for the same motor. Deardorff (2011) advocated that installation speed and ow rate at the lower end of differential pressure
curve may also affect the torque versus differential pressure curve
for the same motor and same equipment line setup. Therefore,
the use of torque measurement based on differential pressures is
not very precise and accuracy rating is about 10%30%. Electronic
torque transducers provide more reliable means of measuring
torque during pile installation. Some torque measurement systems claims an accuracy of 1%, which is considerably more precise
compared with hydraulic torque readers. Frequency of calibrating
torque measurement devices is another factor that affects the
reliability of torque measurements.

1. Torque required to install piles into cohesionless soils can be

reasonably assessed for round shaft piles using the proposed
theoretical model. However, for square shaft piles, modications are required to account for soil disturbance and possible
presence of gap around pile during installation.
2. Torque factors are a function of loading type (i.e., compression
or tension). Therefore, relevant torque factors should be considered to assess axial pile capacities in compression or tension. Theoretical torque factors in compression and tension
were proposed for piles installed into cohesionless soils.
3. Parameters that inuence torque factors include soil properties, groundwater conditions, shape of pile shaft, pile conguration, loading path, and installation methods. The proposed
torque model allows for the use of common soil properties
such as frictional resistance angle, interface friction angle,
and effective unit weight of soils. Fluctuation of groundwater
level can also considerably affect the torque requirement and
axial capacities of helical piles.
4. Torque measurements are a function of additional parameters
such as the method of installation, operator experience, and
accuracy of the torque measurements. It is suggested to standardize the method of helical pile installation and torque
measurements and to provide a more consistent and reliable torque readings.
5. In absence of precise installation procedures and quality torque
device measurements, installation torque readings should be
used with caution and may only be used to qualitatively assess
installation.

References
Adams, J.I., and Klym, T.W. 1972. A study of anchorages for transmission tower
foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9(1): 89104. doi:10.1139/t72007.
Cerato, A.B., and Victor, R. 2009. Effects of long-term dynamic loading on uctuating water table on helical anchor performance for small wind tower
foundations. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 23(4):
251261. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000013.
CFEM. 2006. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. 4th ed. Canadian
Geotechnical Society, Technical Committee on Foundations, BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, B.C.
Das, B.M. 1990. Earth anchors. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Das, B.M., and Seeley, G.R. 1975. Breakout resistance of horizontal anchors.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(9): 9991003.
De Nicola, A., and Randolph, M.F. 1993. Tensile and compressive shaft capacity of
piles in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(12): 19521973. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:12(1952).
Deardorff, D. 2011. A comparison of gear motor performance curves for helical
pile installation. Seminar presented at DFI Helical Foundations and Tiebacks
Specialty Seminar, Deep Foundation Institute, March 17, 2011, Dallas, Texas,
USA.
Dilley, L., and Hulse, L. 2007. Foundation design of wind turbines in Southwestern Alaska, a case study. In Proceedings, Arctic Energy Summit, Anchorage,
Alaska 15-18 October 2007. Institute of the North.
Ghaly, A., and Hanna, A. 1991. Experimental and theoretical studies on installaPublished by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CTR on 10/18/16

For personal use only.

Sakr

tion torque of screw anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28(3): 353364.

doi:10.1139/t91-046.
Hawkins, K., and Thorsten, R. 2009. Load test results Large diameter helical
pipe piles. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Foundation Congress and
Equipment Expo, Orlando, Florida, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 185, pp. 488495. doi:10.1061/41021(335)61.
Hoyt, R.M., and Clemence, S.P. 1989. Uplift capacity of helical anchors in soil. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janerio, Brazil, Vol. 2, pp. 10191022.
Kraft, D.C., Davis, J., And Raaf, D.B. 2003. Use of helical piles set into soft rock for
1500-ton screw press foundation. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations, DFI, pp. 209218.
Livneh, B., and El Naggar, M.H. 2008. Axial testing and numerical modeling of
square shaft helical piles under compressive and tensile loading. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 45(8): 11421155. doi:10.1139/T08-044.
Perko, H.A. 2001. Energy method for predicting the installation torque of helical
foundations and anchors. New Technologies and Design Developments in
Deep Foundations, Reston, Va., ASCE, pp. 342352. doi:10.1061/40511(288)24.
Perko, H.A. 2009. Helical piles: a practical guide to design and installation. John
Wiley & Sons. New York.
Sakr, M. 2009. Performance of helical piles in oil sand. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 46(9): 10461061. doi:10.1139/T09-044.

759

Sakr, M. 2011. Helical piles - an effective foundation system for solar plants. In
The 64th Canadian Geotechnical Conference and Pan-AM CGS, Toronto, Ontario, 26 October 2011, Toronto.
Sakr, M. 2012. Installation and performance characteristics of high capacity
helical piles in cohesionless soils. DFI Journal, 6(1): 4157. doi:10.1179/d.2012.
004.
Sakr, M. 2014. Relationship between installation torque and axial capacities of
helical piles in cohesive soils. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. [Online ahead of print.] doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000621.
Sakr, M., Mitchells, R., and Kenzie, J. 2009. Pile load testing of helical piles and
driven steel pipes in Anchorage, Alaska. In The 34th Annual Deep Foundation
Conference, DFI, Kansas City, Mo., October 2023, 2009.
Spagnoli, G. 2013. Some considerations regarding the use of helical piles as
foundation for offshore structures. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 50(3): 102110. doi:10.1007/s11204-013-9219-7.
Tappenden, K.M. 2007. Predicting the axial capacity of screw piles installed in
Western Canadian soils. M.Sc. thesis, The University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Tsuha, C., de, H.C., and Aoki, N. 2010. Relationship between installation torque
and uplift capacity of deep helical piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 47(6): 635647. doi:10.1139/T09-128.
Zhang, D.J.W. 1999. Predicting capacity of helical screw piles in Alberta soils.
M.Sc. thesis, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Published by NRC Research Press