Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.16.00116
Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast Paper 1600116
Received 04/07/2016 Accepted 30/03/2017
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Keywords: foundations/geotechnical engineering/piles & piling
Fahmy and El Naggar

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast

ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Ahmed Fahmy PhD, PEng Mohamed Hesham El Naggar PhD, PEng, FEIC, FASCE
Assistant Professor, College of Engineering, Dhofar University, Salalah, Professor and Associate Dean, Faculty of Engineering, Western University,
Oman London, Ontario, Canada (corresponding author: helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca)

A novel piling system is proposed to support solar energy panels: a spun-cast ductile iron (SCDI) tapered pile fitted
with a single helical plate installed by mechanical torque. The proposed pile combines the efficiency of the tapered
cross-section and the construction advantages of helical piles, as well as the competitive cost, effectiveness and
durability of SCDI with a rough surface. This paper presents an investigation of its compressive, uplift and lateral
performance in clay employing three-dimensional non-linear finite-element models. In addition, simulations of other
pile shapes, including tapered and straight shafts, as well as conventional steel helical piles, were performed for
comparison purposes. Effects of the pile length, installation technique and the presence of a top crust on the
pile performance were investigated. The results demonstrated the feasibility of the proposed pile, especially for
applications that impose high uplift and lateral loading. Moment–horizontal force interaction diagrams are provided
to aid in design of the proposed pile when subjected to a combination of moment and horizontal loads.

Notation proposed herein, which combines the efficiency of the tapered

c′ cohesion yield stress (kN/m2) cross-section and the construction advantages of helical piles,
Davg average pile shaft diameter (m) as well as the competitive cost, effectiveness and durability of
Dhelix helix diameter (m) spun-cast ductile iron (SCDI) with a rough surface. The pro-
Dshaft shaft diameter (m) posed system comprises SCDI helical piles with tapered shaft.
Ep pile material Young’s modulus (kN/m2)
Es soil Young’s modulus (kN/m2) Helical piles are installed by applying torque to their head,
Fy yield strength (kN/m2) with minimal vibration, noise and soil spoils. Owing to their
H applied horizontal force (kN) numerous construction advantages, helical piles are gaining
Hult applied horizontal force resulting in 12·5 mm pile wide popularity, especially in projects requiring fast installation
head deflection (kN) and quick loading of the foundation. They are used in a
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest wide range of applications, such as power transmission towers,
M applied moment (kN m) bridges and residential and commercial buildings, which
Mult applied moment resulting in 12·5 mm pile head involve both static and cyclic compressive, uplift and lateral
deflection (kN m) loading (Elsherbiny and El Naggar, 2013).
Nc bearing capacity factor
Su undrained shear strength (kN/m2) For helical piles with a single helix, the capacity is given by the
Suremoulded remoulded shear strength (kN/m2) bearing resistance on the helix and the shear resistance along
α pile–soil interface adhesion factor the pile shaft. Helical piles with slender shafts would have
γ unit weight (kN/m3) limited lateral load capacity compared to other piles of greater
γp pile material unit weight (kN/m3) diameter. However, helical piles with large-diameter shafts
νp pile material Poisson’s ratio have been introduced that offer large axial and lateral
νs soil Poisson ratio capacity (Elkasabgy and El Naggar, 2015; El Sharnouby and
σv′ effective overburden stresses (kN/m2) El Naggar, 2012; Harnish and El Naggar, 2017), but their
φcs critical state angle of internal friction (degrees) installation may cause soil disturbance, which leads to the
ψ dilation angle (degrees) reduction of soil shear strength and consequently the pile
capacity (Bagheri and El Naggar, 2015; Harnish and El
Naggar, 2017; Lutenegger et al., 2014).
1. Introduction
The construction of solar farms to harness solar energy has The lateral capacity of long helical piles can be evaluated
witnessed unparalleled growth in recent years in order to meet using the same techniques as are used for drilled and driven
ever-increasing electricity demands. The foundations of solar cylindrical piles. For shorter piles, the presence of helical plates
panels are subjected to a complex loading scheme owing to the at shallow depth would increase the pile’s lateral capacity in
environmental loads in addition to the panels’ own weight. In clay by 20–50% compared with that of a no-helix straight-shaft
order to withstand these loads, an innovative piling system is pile (Prasad and Rao, 1996). However, tapered piles of

1
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
decreasing circumference with depth have been successfully
used as an efficient alternative to conventional cylindrical piles
in sand (El Naggar and Sakr, 2000; El Naggar and Wei, 1999),
and in fine-grained soils (Khan et al., 2008).
The performance of the proposed system installed in sand sub-
jected to axial and lateral loading was investigated by Fahmy
and El Naggar (2015, 2016, 2017) using field load tests and
numerical modelling. The system’s performance in clay is exam-
ined numerically in the present paper. Non-linear finite-element
analysis of the proposed pile configuration installed in a clay
profile was carried out and the results are summarised. This
includes the performance of single piles subjected to static com-
pression, uplift, lateral and combined lateral–moment loads.
2. Pile configurations
In order to evaluate the performance of the proposed pile in
clay, three-dimensional finite-element analyses were performed
using the commercial software Abaqus (Hibbitt et al., 2008).
Six different configurations of hollow, closed-ended piles, as
shown in Figure 1, were analysed. In addition to the proposed
system (pile A), the rest of the configurations were studied to
assess the contribution of the helix, shaft taper and the pile
length on the piles’ axial and lateral performance.
0·25 m 0·25 m
3·10 m
Helix plate
dia. = 0·39 m
0·20 m 0·20 m
Configuration A Configuration B Configuration C Configuration D
Figure 1. Simulated pile configurations
2
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar
The pile shafts considered in the analysis have 5·5 mm thick
walls. Piles A, B and E are made of ductile iron with a rough
surface. The SCDI are currently produced at lengths up to
6·20 m, but longer segments can also be produced (i.e.
Seamless Pole Inc., 2010). Piles C, D and F are conventional
steel pipe piles of the same average diameter as pile E and
were simulated for comparison purposes.
3. Description of finite-element models
3.1 Axial loading
The soil–pile system is modelled using a three-dimensional (3D)
model. Taking advantage of symmetry, quarter-cylindrical
mesh was utilised for axial loading conditions. The pile was
placed along the axial z-direction and the helix was idealised
as a planar cylindrical disc instead of a true helix. This
approximation is believed to have an insignificant effect on the
model accuracy, while reducing the computational efforts.
Both the soil and pile were simulated employing eight-noded,
first-order and reduced integration continuum solid elements
(C3D8R). Locations of the model boundaries were optimised
through a sensitivity study in order to minimise the effects
of the boundary conditions on the results, while reducing the
computational effort. The optimised model comprised a soil
0·20 m
0·20 m 0·20 m 0·25 m
–0·25 m
Helix plate
dia. = 0·39 m
0·20 m 0·20 m 6·20 m
Helix plate Helix plate
dia. = 0·39 m dia. = 0·39 m
0·15 m 0·20 m
Configuration E Configuration F
 Geotechnical Engineering
cylinder with radius of 2·5 m (i.e. ten times the greatest shaft
diameter) from the centre of the pile shaft. The bottom hori-
zontal boundary was placed 1·95 m below the pile toe, which
is equivalent to five helix diameters.
Mesh refinement at highly stressed/strained zones was necess-
ary to ensure the accuracy of the results. Accordingly, a series
of models was developed where the mesh was incrementally
refined and the results were compared. When the difference
between the results of two consecutive models (i.e. refinements)
became less than 2·5%, the most refined model was considered.
This process resulted in mesh configurations consisting of
25 838/13 893/15 821/9752/24 052/27 894 elements for piles
A/B/C/D/E/F, with maximum side dimension of the elements
ranging from 25/60/33/33/50/33 cm at the model boundaries to
2/3/3/3·5/1·7/2·5 cm at the pile–soil interface, respectively.
A stress-free boundary was considered for the soil top surface.
The translation of the bottom surface of the soil cylinder was
restrained in X, Y and Z directions. The vertical boundaries of
the soil were restrained from translating in the X (Y ) direction
and rotating around Y and Z (X and Z ) where applicable, to
simulate the case of a full model. The back of the soil quarter
cylinder was restrained in the horizontal directions X and Y
and was free to move vertically. Figure 2(a) presents the model
geometry for a single pile of configuration E subjected to axial
loading.
3.2 Lateral loading
The soil–pile system was modelled using a three-dimensional
(3D) half-cylindrical mesh. The same type of elements (con-
tinuum solid elements C3D8R) was employed. The radius of
the soil cylinder extended 3·375 m (i.e. approximately 8·5 times
the helix plate diameter) from the centre of the pile shaft. The
bottom horizontal boundary was placed 1·65 m below the pile
tip, which is approximately equivalent to four helix diameters.
The translation of the bottom surface of the soil cylinder was
restrained in X, Y and Z directions. The vertical boundaries
were restrained from translating in the X direction and rotating
around Y and Z to simulate the case of a full mode. The back
of the soil half-cylinder was constrained in the horizontal
directions X and Y and was free to move vertically.
The mesh refinement process resulted in mesh configurations
consisting of 23 117/13 893/13 821/9750/22 478/30 605 elements
for piles A/B/C/D/E/F, with maximum side dimension of the
elements ranging from 30/60/33/30/50/33 cm at the model
boundaries to 3·4/3/3·5/3/2·5/2·7 cm at the pile–soil interface,
respectively. Figure 2(b) presents the model geometry for a
single pile of configuration A subjected to lateral loading.
3.3 Soil model and properties
A clay profile was assumed where the undrained shear
strength, Su, is determined using the following empirical
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar
correlation (Skempton, 1957)
1: Su =σ 0v ¼ 0
11 þ 0
37PI
where σv′ is the effective overburden stress and PI is plasticity
index. The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, K0, was
estimated by (Massarsch, 1979)
2: K0 ¼ 0
44 þ 0
42PI
A plasticity index PI of 37% was assumed. Accordingly, an
earth pressure coefficient at rest K0 of 0·6 was considered. An
Es/Su ratio of 550 was used, where Es is the soil Young’s
modulus (Duncan and Buchignani, 1976). Undrained clay
Poisson ratio, νs, of 0·45 was used (Briaud, 2013). The above
correlations and assumptions resulted in a soil profile with a
variation of Young’s modulus and undrained shear strength
with depth as shown in Figure 3.
The soil was modelled as an elastic–perfectly plastic isotropic
continuum. The plasticity and failure were simulated using the
Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion, where values of the critical
state angle of internal friction, φcs, cohesion yield stress, c′, and
the dilation angle, ψ, Poisson ratio, νs, and Young’s modulus,
Es, defined the soil elasticity. The linearly changing parameters
with depth were represented by a layered soil profile, as shown
in Figure 3(c). The profile was divided into a number of sub-
layers, each was 1 m thick except the top two layers, which
were 0·5 m thick each to ensure the accuracy of the results,
especially for lateral loading cases.
3.4 Pile model and properties
Piles were modelled as linear elasto-plastic material. The
elastic behaviour was defined by Poisson ratio, νp, and Young’s
modulus, Ep. The plastic behaviour was represented by the
yield strength of the pile material, as found from actual
tension tests. The considered mechanical properties adopted in
the model are summarised in Table 1. Weaker strength par-
ameters were considered for the helix and the base plates
(closing the modelled pile’s toe). These reduced properties were
considered to accommodate the welding defects visually
observed prior to the piles’ installation during the field testing
in silty sand and were validated with field tests results in sand,
as presented in Fahmy and El Naggar (2016).
3.5 Pile–soil interface model
The pile–soil interface was modelled using the tangential be-
haviour penalty-type Coulomb’s frictional model, in which no
relative tangential motion occurs until the surface traction
reaches a critical shear stress value that is a fraction of the soil
shear strength. The soil–pile interface adhesion factor α was
set to 1, considering the assumed clay undrained shear strength
values (CGS, 2006).
3
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

Fixation in Y direction.
Fixed rotation around X
and Z directions

Fixation in X direction.
m

Fixed rotation around Y

95
1·

and Z directions

2·5
m Back of soil: fixation in
X and Y directions

Fixation in X, Y and
Z directions

(a)

3·375 m

Fixation in X direction.
Fixed rotation around Y
and Z directions

Back of soil: fixation

1·65 m

in X and Y directions

Fixation in X, Y and
Z directions

(b)

Figure 2. Finite-element model – applied boundary conditions: (a) configuration E – axial loading; (b) configuration A – lateral loading

4
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

Undrained shear strength, Su: kPa Young’s modulus: MPa

0 10 20 30 0 4 8 12 16 20
Es = 611 kPa, Su = 1·1 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45
Es = 1833 kPa, Su = 3·3 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45
1
Es = 3666 kPa, Su = 6·7 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45
2
Es = 6111 kPa, Su = 11·1 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45
3
Depth: m

Es = 8555 kPa, Su = 15·6 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45

4
Es = 10 999 kPa, Su = 20 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45
5
Es = 13 444 kPa, Su = 24·4 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45
6
Es = 15 888 kPa, Su = 28·9 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45
7
Es = 18 332 kPa, Su = 33·3 kPa, γ = 17 kN/m3, νs = 0·45

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Assumed clay profile: (a) undrained shear strength plotted against depth; (b) Young’s modulus plotted against depth;
(c) average considered parameter in the FE model

Table 1. Pile mechanical properties considered in FE model

Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio, Unit weight, Yield strength,
Component Ep: kN/m2 νp γp: kN/m3 Fy: MPa

Shaft – piles A and D 1·69  108 0·28 77 314

Shaft – piles C and E 2  108 0·28 77 370
Helix/base plate welded connections 2  108 0·28 77 170

3.6 Loading sequence
An initial loading step of geostatic stresses and equilibrium
was applied to consider the initial in situ soil stresses. The geo-
static step was followed by a displacement-controlled loading
analysis step whereby prescribed displacements were applied at
reference points rigidly connected to the top loading plate. The
loading plate was rigidly connected to the pile head.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Axial performance
The load–displacement curves for compression and uplift
loading cases are shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(b), respectively,
for piles A, B, C and D of short length. In both cases, the
curves are characterised by an initial linear region where the
resistance is derived from the developed shaft stresses, followed
by a non-linear plastic zone and finally a global failure zone
with an almost horizontal line (constant resistance). The
results show the superiority of the proposed system (pile A) for
both compression and uplift loading in terms of providing the
stiffest behaviour of all the studied geometries.
The curves presented in Figure 4(a) show that shaft taper
angle has the most influence on increasing the pile compressive
resistance. However, this influence is much less pronounced
than in the case of cohesionless soils (Fahmy and El Naggar,
2017). The uplift results of the helix-less tapered pile B in
Figure 4(b) showed a slightly declining trend (resistance) fol-
lowing the initial linear portion of the curve. This is attributed
to the increase of the gap/separation along the top portion of
the shaft and at the pile toe, underscoring the importance of
the helical plate in avoiding the slippage of tapered shafts in
tension.
Figure 5 shows the load–displacement curves for piles E and
F. The results clearly show that the embedded depth has a pro-
found effect on the pile stiffness and ultimate capacity. It is
also noted that the initial linear parts of the load–displacement
curves for piles E and F are almost identical. This is because
the tapered profile has a small effect on the developed shaft
stresses during the initial (linear) loading phase. This is further
confirmed by comparing the uplift and compressive results,
where similar curve slopes (stiffness) were observed.

5
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

30 Table 2. Pile ultimate static axial capacity (Chin, 1970)

Ultimate axial capacity: kN
25 Uplift-to-compressive
Pile no. Compression Uplift capacity: %
20 Pile A 27 19 70
Load: kN

Pile B 18 11 61
15 Pile C 23 16 70
Pile D 19 11 58
Pile A Pile E 86 70 81
10 Pile F 81 64 79
Pile B
Pile C
5 Pile D

The piles’ ultimate capacity is determined using the method of

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Chin (1970). Here the pile displacement is plotted against the
Displacement: mm displacement-to-load ratio. The inverse slope of the resulting
(a) straight line represents the value of the pile ultimate capacity.
The calculated ultimate static capacities in uplift and com-
30 pression are summarised in Table 2.

25 The proposed system (i.e. pile A) has the highest compressive

and uplift resistance. This confirms the higher axial efficiency
20 of the proposed system compared to other studied geometries,
Load: kN

providing increased compressive and uplift capacities by 42%

15 and 72%, respectively, than the conventional straight steel pile
(pile D).
10
Pile A Comparing the ultimate capacity of piles A and B showed that
Pile B
5 removing the helix decreased the capacity by 9 and 8 kN for
Pile C
Pile D compression and uplift cases, respectively. This implies the
0 helix contribution to capacity may be calculated using bearing
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 capacity factors Nc of 9 to 9·6. These Nc values are consistent
Displacement: mm with the proposed value by Skempton (1951) (Nc = 9) and
(b) later suggested to be used for helical piles design by Perko
(2009).
Figure 4. Load–displacement curves of short piles:
(a) compression tests; (b) uplift tests
The helical plate was found to increase the uplift-to-
compression capacity ratio for both straight and tapered
shafted piles, with the latter geometry providing the maximum
90
values, reaching 70% and 80% for short (pile A) and long piles
80 (pile E), respectively.
70
The ultimate capacity of piles E and F (of the same length and
60 average diameter) are comparable where no significant
Load: kN

50 improvement resulted from the taper angle. That was shown

for both uplift and compression loadings.
40

30 Pile E – compression Measuring the load transferred to the helix plate showed that,
Pile F – compression at the maximum applied displacement (30 mm), the load was
20 Pile E – uplift
Pile F – uplift almost equally carried by the shaft resistance and the end
10
bearing (helix and tip) for piles in compression. For the uplift
0 case, 43% of the load was carried by the helix bearing and
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
57% by the shaft resistance.
Displacement: mm

The developed shaft stresses for piles E and F under both

Figure 5. Load–displacement curves of piles E and F
compression and uplift loading were almost the same. This is

6
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

further illustrated in Figure 6, which displays the variation of
the shaft resistance with depth for both configurations in com-
pression and uplift loading cases.
During uplift loading, soil–pile separation occurred along the
upper part of the piles. The separation increased with loading
covering the top 0·25 m of piles A and E. This separation had a
minor effect on the pile capacity considering its short length
and the low soil shear strength at the top. It was also noted that
the normal (radial) stresses acting on the shaft decreased during
uplift loading due to the taper effect. However, it had a minor
effect on the pile capacity because the shaft resistance depended
on adhesion. The vertical stresses acting over the helix top
surface during uplift loading were smaller near the pile wall,
reaching a minimum value along the pile–helix connection.
During uplift loading, the developed shaft stresses just above the
helix level (approximately 0·65 to 1Dhelix) decreased linearly
until the helix level for all configurations, as shown in Figure 6.
Similar observations were made by Zhang (1999). This behav-
iour is attributed to the bearing failure above the helix.
The region of high strains around the helix plate extended
radially to a distance equal to 0·9 and 1·4 times the helix
expected considering the deep helix plate behaviour where the
plastic zone does not extend to the ground surface. The same
observation was made by Randolph and Wroth (1979), indicat-
ing that at deeper pile penetration the soil primarily displaces
radially. The results show that displacement of 1·5 to 2 mm
(4 to 5% of the helix diameter) was required to mobilise the
helix bearing resistance. At lower displacements, the resistance
was predominantly developed by the shaft resistance.
4.2 Lateral performance
Lateral loading simulations of different pile configurations
were performed considering the free head condition. The com-
puted load–deflection curves for short piles A, B C and D are
presented in Figure 7 and the results for long piles E and F are
shown in Figure 8.
10
9 Pile A
Pile B
8 Pile C
Pile D
7
6
Load: kN

diameter for uplift and compression loading cases, respectively. 5

For uplift loading cases, negligible heave was observed at
4
the ground surface (less than 1 mm). This small value was
3

Developed shaft stresses: kPa 2

0 10 20 30 1
0
0
Gap/separation zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(uplift loading of pile E) Deflection: mm

1
Figure 7. Load–deflection curves – monotonic lateral
loading – piles A, B, C and D
Pile F – uplift
Pile E – compression
2 Pile E – uplift
Pile F – compression 16

14
Depth: m

3 12

10
Load: kN

8
4
6
Helix
location 4
Pile E
5 Pile F
2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
6 Deflection: mm

Figure 6. Variation of the developed shaft stresses with Figure 8. Load–deflection curves – monotonic lateral
depth – single piles in clay loading – piles E and F

7
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
The load–deflection curves of short piles shown in Figure 7
are characterised by an initial linear part followed by a
non-linear zone followed by a global failure region. The results
showed that the tapered profile has significantly improved
the lateral pile resistance, whereas the helix effect was less
significant.
The load–deflection curves of piles E and F, however, were
characterised by a non-linear zone that extends to the end of
loading with no clear global failure region. This difference in
behaviour is attributed to the different failure mechanisms
(long as opposed to short pile behaviour). It should be noted
that, at smaller displacements, piles of the same shaft configur-
ation (i.e. straight or tapered) acted similarly regardless of
their length. This can be attributed to the fixation provided
by the helical plate restraining the bottom of the shorter piles,
hence, resulting in behaviour similar to that of long piles.
However, at higher applied loads, a rigid (short) behaviour pre-
vails where the entire pile rotates and the clay’s low passive
resistance on the helix is not sufficient to restrain the bottom
of the pile.
In contrast, piles E and F exhibited long (flexible) behaviour
where only the upper segment of the pile deflected and the
lower section remained almost un-deformed, as shown in
Figure 9. Piles E and F showed similar deflection profiles, with
the top 3·3 m controlling the displacement (i.e. approximately
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Pile lateral displacement at maximum applied load: (a) pile A; (b) pile C; (c) pile E; (d) pile F
8
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar
16·5 times the average pile diameter). As expected, piles A and
E exhibited a stiffer response compared to piles C and F,
respectively, owing to greater cross-sectional inertia of the
tapered pile at shallow depth, which governs the response of
the pile to lateral load.
The low confining pressure at shallow depths behind the pile
prevented the soil from following the pile deflection and there-
fore a clear gap formed. Although gapping can have a signifi-
cant effect on the pile’s cyclic performance, it is not believed to
affect the pile’s static behaviour.
Two criteria are generally adopted to define the ultimate
lateral pile capacity: the load that corresponds to the inter-
section of tangents to the initial and final linear segments
of the load–deflection curve; and the load that corresponds
to a specific deflection value (typically 6·25 mm or 12·5 mm)
(Prakash and Sharma, 1990). Since the plastic deformation/
failure zone was not reached or well defined for all tested piles,
the first criterion was not considered. The second criterion was
employed herein and the loads corresponding to 6·25 mm and
12·5 mm head deflection were noted.
In order to account for the different average pile diameters
(0·225 m for piles A and B and 0·2 m for piles C, D, E and F),
the results are presented in terms of the pile capacity per
average embedded diameter, as shown in Table 3.
(c) (d)
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

Table 3. Ultimate lateral static capacity and capacity per diameter ratio
Lateral capacity: kN Capacity per diameter: kN/m

Pile no. Load at 6·25 mm deflection Load at 12·5 mm deflection Load at 6·25 mm deflection Load at 12·5 mm deflection

Pile A 4·9 6·8 21·8 30·0

Pile B 4·7 6·5 20·9 28·8
Pile C 4·3 6·0 21·5 30·0
Pile D 4·2 5·9 21·0 29·5
Pile E 5·4 8·4 27·0 42·0
Pile F 4·2 6·6 21·0 33·0

The tapered helical piles provided the maximum lateral Soil pressure: kPa
capacities for short (pile A) and long pile (pile E) compared to –100 –50 0 50 100
the rest of the studied geometries of the same length, confirm- 0
ing the effectiveness of the proposed system in resisting lateral
loading. Pile A
Pile C 1
The results for long piles (E and F) showed that the taper
Pile E
angle increased the capacity per average embedded diameter
by 28%, whereas comparing the results of piles A and E Pile F
showed that increasing the piles’ length, hence changing the 2
behaviour from rigid to flexible, increased the lateral capacity
per average embedded diameter by up to 40%. However, a
minor difference exists between the capacity of piles A and C
3
where short (rigid) behaviour governs and the soil strength
Depth: m

controls the lateral load resistance rather than the piles’ cross-
section.
4
Comparing the results of piles A and B shows that the pres-
ence of the helix, and the associated partial toe fixation, is
found to increase the lateral capacity by approximately 5%.
While Prasad and Rao (1996) suggested more significant 5
improvement, this is believed to be a function of the soil prop-
erties, the number, dimensions and location of the helices.
6
The shaft taper had a greater influence on the lateral resist- Soil behind the pile Loaded side
ance, increasing the lateral capacity by an average of 12% for
short (rigid) piles (i.e. piles A and B compared to piles C to D, Figure 10. Soil pressure distribution at 30 mm pile head lateral
respectively). A greater effect was shown for long (flexible) deflection – piles A, C, E and F
piles where the lateral resistance of pile E is 28% higher than
that of pile F due to the higher flexural rigidity of the tapered
section mainly controlling the piles’ performance.
piles D and E, respectively. The slightly shallower location of
The soil lateral pressure along the pile length upon loading maximum bending moment for the tapered piles is advan-
is shown in Figure 10. Comparable values were observed tageous, as the maximum bending moment is sustained by
along the pile shaft for short piles (A and C) and for long a section of higher inertia. The sustained bending moment by
piles (E and F). Greater passive resistance was developed by pile E with head deflection is shown in Figure 12. The bending
piles E and F (flexible behaviour) compared to piles A and C moment has been shown to increase with head deflection and
(rigid behaviour), as well as greater sustained bending moment the location of the maximum value moves to a deeper location
by the pile cross-section, as shown in Figure 11. For piles A due to the excessive strains in the top soil.
and C, the maximum bending moment occurred at a distance
equivalent to 6 and 7·7 times the average shaft diameter Davg The loading scheme of many of the potential applications for
below the ground surface. For longer piles, the maximum the studied piles’ configurations involves a combination of hori-
sustained bending moment occurred at 8·2 and 8·9Davg for zontal and moment loads. Accordingly, a number of numerical

9
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

Bending moment: kN m Bending moment: kN m

–2 3 8 13 18 –5 0 5 10 15 20
0 0

0·5

1 1·0

1·5

2·0
2
2·5

Depth: m
3·0
Depth: m

3
3·5

Pile A 4·0
Head deflection = 5 mm
4 Pile C
Head deflection = 10 mm
Pile E 4·5
Head deflection = 20 mm
Pile F Head deflection = 30 mm
5·0

5
5·5

6·0

6 6·5

Figure 11. Sustained bending moment distribution at 30 mm pile Figure 12. Variation of sustained bending moment distribution
head lateral deflection – piles A, C, E and F with pile head lateral deflection – pile E

1·0
simulations were conducted considering piles A, C, E and F
0·9
subjected to different combinations of horizontal and moment
0·8 Pile A
loads. The determined interaction diagrams are shown in
0·7 Pile C
Figure 13. Pile E
0·6 Pile F
M/Mult

The plot presents the variation of dimensionless applied 0·5

moment M and horizontal forces H normalised by the values
0·4
of the pure moment and horizontal loads resulting in 12·5 mm
0·3
head deflection, respectively. This normalisation technique
was chosen to reflect the serviceability limits as previously 0·2
used in determining the piles’ capacity, as shown in Table 3. 0·1
The curves show the stiffer performance of the tapered over 0
straight sections of the same length. Also, shorter piles carried 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
greater combinations of normalised moments and horizontal H/Hult
forces due to the fixation provided by the helical plates.
Figure 13. Moment–horizontal force interaction diagrams
It should be noted that, although the actual tension tests
results performed on specimens of SCDI provided the
parameters presented in Table 1, the standard mechanical The lateral performance of piles A, C, E and F was evaluated,
parameters for steel A53 grade B steel (ASTM A53/A53M where a top 0·5 m crust overlay the previously considered
(ASTM, 2012)) were considered for piles C and E in calculat- profile in Figure 14. The resulting load–deflection curves are
ing the interaction diagrams for a more generic design aid. shown in Figure 15. The same trend was observed for both

10
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

Young's modulus: kPa 30

Pile A – with crust
0 5000 10 000 15 000 20 000 Pile A – without crust
0 0 25 Pile C – with crust
Pile C – without crust

20
1 1

Load: kN
Young's modulus
Undrained shear strength 15

2 2 10

5
3 3
Depth: m

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4 4 Displacement: mm
(a)

30
5 5 Pile E – with crust
Pile E – without crust
25 Pile F – with crust
Pile F – without crust
6 6
20
Load: kN

15
7 7
0 10 20 30 40
Undrained shear strength, Su: kPa 10

Figure 14. Considered soil profile – with crust 5

long and short piles compared to the case of no crust. It can
be seen that the positive effect of the crust increasing the
pile lateral resistance was more pronounced for the shorter
piles (A and C) where the lateral capacity is mainly controlled
by the soil yield, compared to the long piles (D and E) where
the capacity is primarily controlled by the piles’ cross-section.
Considering the pile capacity at 12·5 mm head deflection, the
results showed that the presence of the crust increased the
capacities of piles A and C by 150% and 148% compared to
108% and 104% for piles D and E, respectively.
The stiffening effect of the crust was slightly more obvious for
tapered piles (A and D) compared to the straight ones (C and
E), as tapered piles have a greater section modulus along the
crust zone and therefore exhibited greater capacity increase.
4.3 Effects of pile installation
All the aforementioned cases employed a ‘wished in place’
condition where the installation effects are considered to be
minimal and hence are not considered. This may be the case
for piles installed in normally consolidated non-structured clay
where a significant portion of the clay strength is regained fol-
lowing the pile installation due to the soil set-up phenomenon.
However, for structured clay a considerable reduction in clay
strength may occur owing to many factors, including the
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement: mm
(b)
Figure 15. Load–deflection curves – clay profile with crust –
lateral tests: (a) piles A and C; (b) piles D and E
induced excess pore pressures, shaft rotation and rotation of
the helical plates (Bagheri and El Naggar, 2015; Harnish and
El Naggar, 2017). Although a significant portion of the clay
strength may recover over time following the dissipation of the
excess water pressures and thixotropic effects, this process
might take many months (Fahmy et al., 2013). Therefore,
additional models simulating the compressive, uplift and
lateral performance of piles A, C, D and F considering the soil
installation effects were performed.
The approach suggested by Weech and Howie (2001) was con-
sidered where the associated disturbance with the helical pile
installation results in reducing the clay shear strength to the
fully remoulded state at the pile–soil interface. The shear
strength gradually increases to the intact value at a radial dis-
tance equivalent to three times the shaft diameters measured
from the pile centreline.

11
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

Knowing that the sensitivity of most clays ranges from 2 to 4 30

(Terzaghi et al., 1996), a sensitivity of 3 was assumed for the
simulated cases in this study. The soil within a distance of 25
one shaft diameter, Dshaft, next to the pile was divided into
four sub-layers with shear strength Su increasing from the 20
remoulded state at the pile–soil interface (Su/3) to the intact

Load: kN
value at a distance of 1Dshaft. 15

The resulting load–displacement curves are shown in 10

Pile A – wished in place
Pile C – wished in place
Figures 16 and 17 for short (piles A and C) and long piles
Pile A – soil disturbance considered
(piles E and F), respectively. For axial loading cases, the instal- 5 Pile C – soil disturbance considered
lation disturbance had slightly less effect on piles C and F
compared to piles A and E. This is likely due to the fact that 0
shaft resistance contributes more to the overall resistance in 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
tapered piles than it does in straight piles. Nonetheless, the Displacement: mm
tapered helical piles still provide greater ultimate resistance in (a)
both compressive and uplift loading cases.
30
For the laterally loaded piles, similar effects of soil disturbance
on pile capacity were found for both tapered and straight piles;
25
again this highlights the superior performance and greater
developed ultimate capacity of tapered helical piles, even in
20
disturbed soil profiles.
Load: kN

15
It is noted that the reduction in pile axial capacity due to
soil disturbance was more pronounced for longer piles (piles E
10
and F) due to the greater contribution of shaft resistance.
Pile A – wished in place
Conversely, the effect of soil disturbance was less pronounced Pile C – wished in place
5
for longer piles under lateral loading because the effect of the Pile A – soil disturbance considered
larger cross-section along the upper portion of tapered piles on Pile C – soil disturbance considered

the ultimate resistance is more significant than the reduction in 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
soil strength.
Displacement: mm
(b)
To further verify the results of the models, the approach
suggested by Bagheri and El Naggar (2015) to consider for the
disturbance effect on the axial capacity of helical piles was also 10
modelled for pile A. The shear strength along the shaft–soil
interface is limited to the remoulded strength, whereas the 8
shear strength above the helical plate was calculated by
(Skempton, 1950)
6
Load: kN

3: Developed shear strength ¼ Su  0
5ðSu  Suremoulded Þ

4

The resulting load–displacement curves for compressive and 2

Pile A – wished in place
Pile C – wished in place
uplift tests considering the Bagheri and El Naggar (2015)
Pile A – soil distrubance considered
approach are plotted in Figure 18. As shown, the results are Pile C – soil disturbance considered
comparable to the ones based on the Weech and Howie (2001) 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
approach.
Deflection: mm
(c)
4.4 Piles’ torsional capacity
Additional finite-element models were developed considering Figure 16. Load–displacement curves of piles A and C
considering the installation effects: (a) compression tests; (b) uplift
the proposed helical tapered piles configurations and mech- tests; (c) lateral tests
anical properties to determine their torsional capacity. Each

12
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar

90 30
80
25
70
60 20
Load: kN

Load: kN
50
15
40
30 10
Compression – Bagheri and El Naggar (2015) approach
Pile E – wished in place
20 Compression – Weech and Howie (2001) approach
Pile F – wished in place
Pile E – soil disturbance considered 5 Uplift – Bagheri and El Naggar (2015) approach
10
Pile F – soil disturbance considered Uplift – Weech and Howie (2001) approach
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement: mm Displacement: mm
(a)
90 Figure 18. Pile A axial load–displacement curves considering pile
installation effects using the Bagheri and El Naggar (2015)
80
approach
70
60
developed in the pile cross-section. In reality, gradual transfer
Load: kN

50 of the pile stresses to the soil will be provided by the soil along
40 the soil–pile interface. The calculated maximum (capacity)
torque of configurations A and E are 58 and 30 kN m, respect-
30
ively. In addition, for larger solar panels supported by multiple
20 Pile E – wished in place
Pile F – wished in place
piles, the torsional load applied to the panel is transferred to
10 Pile E – soil disturbance considered the piles primarily as lateral loads; hence the resistance to the
Pile F – soil disturbance considered torsional load is provided through the pile lateral load
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 capacity.
Displacement: mm
(b) 5. Conclusions
20 A novel ductile cast-iron tapered helical pile system was investi-
18 Pile E – wished in place gated in this study. Finite-element modelling of the proposed
Pile F – wished in place system in clay was developed along with a straight large diam-
16 Pile E – soil disturbance considered
Pile F – soil disturbance considered eter helical pile for comparison purposes. Compression, uplift
14
and lateral monotonic loading cases were simulated. The main
12 conclusions drawn from this study are as follows.
Load: kN

10
8 (a) The proposed system represents an efficient piling option
6
for both axial and lateral loading cases.
(b) The uplift capacity of the proposed pile in clay is
4
approximately 80% of its axial compression capacity,
2 which makes it suitable for applications that impose high
0 uplift loading.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(c) For long (flexible) piles, the sustained maximum bending
Deflection: mm
moment occurred at a shallower depth for the tapered
(c)
piles compared to the straight-shafted one, that is, at
Figure 17. Load–displacement curves of piles E and F considering a section that has larger cross-sectional inertia.
the installation effects: (a) compression tests; (b) uplift tests; (d) Moment–horizontal force interaction diagrams are
(c) lateral tests provided to aid in design of tapered and straight helical
piles subjected to a combination of moment and
horizontal loads.
simulated pile was subjected to a torque applied at its head (e) The increase in the lateral capacity due to the presence
and full fixation at its toe with no soil along its shaft. This of a top crust was more pronounced for shorter and
condition represented an upper bound for the shear stresses tapered piles.

13
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
( f ) Soil disturbance during installation reduced the axial and
lateral capacity of short, helical-tapered piles by up to
20 and 25%, respectively. Greater disturbance effects
were shown for axially loaded, longer piles due to the
greater contribution of shaft resistance. Conversely, less
significant effects were seen for laterally loaded long piles
where the pile cross-section along the upper portion of
the tapered shaft controls the system’s lateral resistance.
REFERENCES
ASTM (2012) A53/A53M: Standard specification for pipe, steel,
black and hot-dipped, zinc coated, welded and seamless.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Bagheri F and El Naggar MH (2015) Effects of installation disturbance
on behavior of multi-helix piles in structured clays. The Journal of
the Deep Foundations Institute 9(2): 80–91.
Briaud JL (2013) Geotechnical Engineering: Unsaturated and Saturated
Soils. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
CGS (Canadian Geotechnical Society) (2006) Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual, 4th edn. Canadian Geotechnical Society,
Richmond, BC, Canada.
Chin FK (1970) Estimation of the ultimate load of piles from tests
not carried to failure. Proceedings of the 2nd Southeast
Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, Singapore,
pp. 81–90.
Duncan JM and Buchignani AL (1976) An Engineering Manual
for Settlement Studies. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Elkasabgy M and El Naggar MH (2015) Axial compressive response of
large capacity helical and driven steel piles in cohesive soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 52(2): 224–243.
El Naggar MH and Sakr M (2000) Evaluation of axial performance of
tapered piles from centrifuge tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
37(6): 1295–1308.
El Naggar MH and Wei JQ (1999) Axial capacity of tapered piles
established from model tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(6):
1185–1194.
El Sharnouby M and El Naggar MH (2012) Field investigation of axial
monotonic and cyclic performance of reinforced helical pulldown
micropiles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49(5): 560–573.
Elsherbiny ZH and El Naggar MH (2013) Axial compressive capacity
of helical piles from field tests and numerical study. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 50(12): 1191–1203.
Fahmy A and El Naggar MH (2015) Lateral performance of helical
tapered piles in sand. The Canadian Geotechnical Conference
GEOQuebec, Quebec, Canada.
Fahmy A and El Naggar MH (2016) Cyclic axial performance of helical
tapered piles in sand. The Journal of the Deep Foundations
Institute 10(3): 98–110.
Fahmy A and El Naggar MH (2017) Axial performance of helical
tapered piles in sand. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0192-1.
Fahmy AM, de Bruyn JR and Newson TA (2013) Numerical investigation
of the inclined pullout behavior of anchors embedded in clay.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 31(5): 1525–1542.
Harnish J and El Naggar MH (2017) Large diameter helical pile capacity
– torque correlations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0156.
Hibbitt HD, Karlsson BI and Sorensen EP (2008) ABAQUS Standard User’s
Manual. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., Pawtucket, RI, USA.
Khan MK, El Naggar MH and Elkasabgy M (2008) Compression testing
of drilled concrete tapered piles in cohesive-frictional soil.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45(3): 377–392.
14
Downloaded by [] on [23/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Axial and lateral performance of spun-cast
ductile iron helical tapered piles in clay
Fahmy and El Naggar
Lutenegger AJ, Erikson J and Williams N (2014) Evaluating installation
disturbance of helical anchors in clay from field vane tests. In
Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations,
Atlanta, GA, USA. Deep Foundations Institute, Hawthorne, NJ,
USA, pp. 129–138.
Massarsch KR (1979) Lateral earth pressure in normally consolidated
clay. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brighton, UK, vol. 2,
pp. 245–249.
Perko H (2009) Helical Piles: A Practical Guide to Design and
Installation. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Prakash S and Sharma HD (1990) Pile Foundation in Engineering
Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Prasad YVSN and Rao SN (1996) Lateral capacity of helical piles in clay.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122(11): 938–941.
Randolph MF and Wroth CP (1979) An analytical solution for the
consolidation around a driven pile. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 3(3): 217–229.
Skempton AW (1950) Discussion of Cummings et al.: ‘Effect of
driving piles into soft clays’. Transactions of the American Society
of Civil Engineers 115(1): 286–345.
Skempton AW (1951) The bearing capacity of clays. Proceedings of the
Building Research Congress, London, England, vol. 1, pp. 180–189.
Skempton AW (1957) The planning and design of Hong Kong
airport, discussion. Institution of Civil Engineers Proceedings 7(2):
305–307.
Seamless Pole Inc. (2010) Ductile Iron Poles. Seamless Pole Inc.,
Birmingham, AL, USA. See http://www.seamlesspole.com/
(accessed 20/04/2017).
Terzaghi K, Peck RB and Mesri G (1996) Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Weech C and Howie JA (2001) Helical piles in soft sensitive soil –
disturbance effects during pile installation. Proceedings of the
54th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
pp. 281–288.
Zhang DJY (1999) Predicting Capacity of Helical Screw Piles in Alberta
Soils. MSc thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.