BEARING AND FRICTION DESIGN CAPACITY FOR HELICAL ANCHORS AND
PILES
Original Author: Gary L. Seider, P.E., Hubbell Power Systems, Inc./CHANCE, Centralia, MO, USA
Editor: Wayne G. Thompson, PE, CTL|Thompson, Fort Collins, CO
________________________________________________________________
BEARING CAPACITY METHODOGOLY
General
The capacity of a helical anchor/pile is
dependent on the strength of the soil, the
projected area of the helix plate(s), and the
depth of the helix plate(s) below grade. The soil
strength can be evaluated by use of various
techniques and theories (Clemence et al, 1985).
The projected area is controlled by the size and
number of helix plates. For a given helix depth,
two modes of soil failure may occur: shallow and
deep. The terms shallow and deep refer to
the location of the bearing plate with respect to
the earths surface. By definition, shallow
foundations in tension exhibit a brittle failure
mode with general eruption of soil all the way to
the surface and a sudden drop in load
resistance to almost zero. With deep
foundations in tension, the soil fails
progressively, maintaining significant post-
ultimate load resistance, and exhibits little or no
surface deformation. The dividing line between
shallow and deep foundations has been
reported by various researchers to be between
three and eight times the foundation diameter.
It is generally assumed that the soil failure
mechanism will follow the theory of a general
bearing capacity failure. This theory suggests
that the capacity of a helical anchor/pile is equal
to the sum of the capacities of the individual
helix plates. The helix capacity is determined by
calculating the unit bearing capacity of the soil at
each helix and then multiplying the result by the
individual helixs projected area. Friction along
the central shaft is typically not used to
determine capacity, but may be included when
the central shaft is round pipe shaft (Type RS)
and at least 3-1/2 inch (89 mm) in diameter.
See figure 1 for a graphical representation of a
compression application.
A necessary condition for this method to work is
that the helix plates be spaced far enough apart
to avoid overlapping of their individual pressure
bulbs, i.e., stress zones in the soil. This will
prevent one helix from significantly influencing
the performance of another. A preferred
spacing between any two helical plates on a
helical anchor/pile is three times the diameter of
the lower helix. This is consistent with the
findings of others (Bassett, 1977) for multi-belled
concrete piers. For example, the distance
between a 10 inch (254 mm) and 12 inch (305
mm) helix is three times the diameter of the
lower helix, or 10 x 3 = 30 inches (762 mm).
The following is Terzaghis general bearing
capacity equation, which allows determination of
the ultimate capacity of the soil. This equation
and its use form the basis of determining helix
capacity by the software.
Qult = Ah ( CNc + q'Nq + 0.5 'BwN )
where:
Qult = Ultimate capacity of the soil
Ah = Projected helix area
C = Soil cohesion
q' = Effective overburden pressure
Bw = Footing width (base width)
Nc', Nq =and NEffective
are bearing
unit weight of the
capacity soil
factors.
The following is quoted from (Bowles, 1988)
where the various terms of the bearing equation
are discussed:
 1) The cohesion term (CNc) predominates where:
in cohesive soils.
2) The depth term (q'Nq) predominates in Qt = Total ultimate multi-helix
cohesionless soils. Only a small D anchor/pile capacity
(vertical depth to footing or helix plate) Qh = Individual helix capacity
increases Qult substantially.
3) The base width term (0.5 'BwN ) The ultimate capacity of an individual helix is
provides some increase in bearing evaluated using the following equation. An
capacity for both cohesive and upper limit for this capacity is based on the helix
cohesionless soils. In cases where Bw < mechanical strength.
9.8 ft. to 13.1 ft. (3 m to 4 m), this term
could be neglected with little error. Qh = Ah (CNc + q'Nq) Qs
The base width term of the bearing equation is where:
not used since Bw for helical anchors/piles is Ah = Projected helix area
small (< 16 (0.4 m)) and the resulting bearing
Qs = Capacity upper limit, determined
capacity of that term would also be quite small.
by the helix mechanical strength
The effective overburden pressure (q', of
consequence for cohesionless soils) is the Cohesive Soil
product of depth and the effective unit weight of
Determination of helix ultimate bearing capacity
the soil. The water table location may cause a
in a cohesive or fine-grained soil is
reduction in the soil bearing capacity. The
accomplished by using the following equation.
effective unit weight of the soil is its in-situ unit
weight when it is above the water table.
However, the effective unit weight of soil below Qh = AhCNc = AhC9
the water table is its in-situ unit weight less the where:
unit weight of water.
Ah = Projected helix area
C = Cohesion
The case of a fluctuating water table when a
helical anchor/pile installation is terminated Nc = Bearing capacity factor for
above the water table with the likelihood that the cohesive component of soil = 9
water table will rise with time to be above the
helix plates requires special considerations. In The Nc bearing capacity factor when applied to
this situation, the helical plate configuration and helical anchors/piles is often taken as equal to 9,
depth should be determined with the water at its as it is in other deep foundation applications,
highest anticipated level. Then the capacity of The design engineer has the option of overriding
the same helical anchor/pile should be the default clay bearing capacity factor of 9.
determined in the same soil with the water level
below the plate configuration, which will typically
produce higher load capacities and a more Non-Cohesive Soil
difficult installation, i.e., it will require more
Determination of helix ultimate bearing capacity
installation torque. It is sometimes the case that
in a non-cohesive or granular soil is
a larger helical anchor/pile product series, i.e.,
one with greater torque capacity, must be used accomplished by using the following equation.
in order to facilitate installation into the dry
conditions. Qh = Ahq'Nq = Ah 'dNq

This method sums the individual bearing where:

capacity of each helix on a multi-helix Ah = Projected helix area
anchor/pile to determine the total ultimate multi- d = Vertical depth to helix plate
helix anchor/pile capacity (Qt) provided that the
helix spacing along the shaft is 3 helix Nq = Bearing capacity factor for
diameters. non-cohesive component of soil
' = Effective unit weight of the soil
Qt = Qh
The bearing capacity factor Nq is dependent on
the angle of internal friction () of the
cohesionless soil. When a value for the friction
angle is provided the graph (Nq vs ) in Figure 2
can be used to determine the value of Nq.
Angle of Internal Friction
Figure 2
The curve given in Figure 2 is adapted from
work by Meyerhof (1976). It is based on the
following equation, which is Meyerhofs Nq
values divided by two for long term applications.
Nq = 0.5 ( 12 x ) /54
where:
Nq = Bearing capacity factor for non-
cohesive component of soil
= Angle of internal friction
When the angle of internal friction is not known,
but blow counts from ASTM D 1586 Standard
Penetration Tests are available, then the
following relationship can be used to estimate
the angle of internal friction. This relationship is
based on empirical data provided by Bowles
(1968). Again, it is suggested that results be
used with caution.
= 0.28 N + 27.4
where:
= Angle of internal friction
N = Blow count per ASTM D 1586
Standard Penetration Test
The estimated value of the angle of internal
friction from the above relationship and Figure 2
can be used to estimate the bearing capacity
factor Nq.
Mixed or c - Soil
Determination of helix ultimate bearing capacity
in a mixed soil is accomplished by using the
following equation.
Qh = Ah (CNc + q'Nq)
= Ah (CNc + 'dNq)
The terms in this equation are as defined in
above sections. The use of this equation is fairly
uncomplicated when accurate values are
available for both the cohesion and friction terms
of the equation. However, it is recommended
that another approach be taken when accurate
values are not available for both terms of the
equation. One suggestion is to first consider the
soil as cohesive and determine capacity. Then
consider the same soil as cohesionless and
determine capacity. Finally, take the lower of
the two results and use that as the soil bearing
capacity.
APPLICATIONS
Compression
The Total Ultimate Helix Compression Capacity
(Qbc) for a helical pile is calculated as the sum of
the individual helix capacities (Qh). Individual
helix capacity in soil is determined by calculating
the bearing capacity at each helix.
The Recommended Total Ultimate Compression
Capacity (Qhc) is the total ultimate compression
capacity of the helical pile such that no individual
helix exceeds the mechanical strength (Qs) of
the helix plate.
In soft or loose soil conditions (N-value of less
than 4), columnar buckling of the shaft may
control the total ultimate compression capacity.
Tension
The Total Ultimate Helix Tension Capacity (Qbt)
for a helical anchor is calculated the same as for
a helical pile, except the individual helix capacity
(Qh) is determined by calculating the bearing
capacity above the helix.
The Recommended Total Ultimate Tension
Capacity (Qht) is the total ultimate tension
capacity of the helical anchor such that no
individual helix exceeds the mechanical strength
(Qs) of the helix plate.
Alternate Approach
Another common design theory is to take the
bearing area of one helix, and then add the
shear capacity of a cylinder of soil between top
and bottom helix plates.
[Editors note: This section is a late addition and
will need to be expanded upon depending on
group feedback]
INSTALLATION TORQUE
A simple, industry accepted and reasonably
accurate method to estimate the ultimate
capacity of helical anchors and piles is called
installation torque vs. capacity correlation, an
empirical method originally developed by the
A.B. Chance Company over 40 years ago.
Precise definition of the relationship for all
possible variables remains to be achieved.
However, simple empirical relationships have
been used for a number of years. The principle
is: As a helical anchor/pile is installed (screwed)
into increasingly denser soil, the resistance to
penetration, called installation torque, is
measured. The higher the resistance
encountered, the higher the torque required, and
therefore, the higher the axial capacity. The
following torque/capacity relationship is cited by
Hoyt and Clemence (1989):
Qu = Kt x T
where:
Qu = Ultimate uplift capacity (lb. (kN))
-1 -1
Kt = Empirical torque factor (ft (m ))
T = Average installation torque (lb.-ft.
(kN-m))
-1
The value of Kt may range from 3 to 20 ft (10 to
-1
66 m ), depending on soil conditions and
anchor/pile design (principally the shaft size and
shape).
FRICTION CAPACITY METHODOLOGY
The following section describes the theories
generally used to calculate the theoretical
capacity of piles due to friction along the shaft.
In the case of slender shaft (less than 3 inch [76
mm] helical anchor/piles, friction capacity along
the shaft is generally not calculated. However,
friction capacity is significant enough to calculate
when the shaft size exceeds 3-1/2 inch (89 mm).
The general equation is:
Qf = [BfsLf]
Where:
B = Diameter of steel, or concrete pile
column
fs = Sum of friction and adhesion
between soil and pile
Lf = Incremental pile length over which
B and fs are taken as constant
There are several empirical methods available to
calculate skin friction along a pile shaft. Two
design methodologies are explained below:
Gouvenot Method
Gouvenot reported a range of values for skin
friction of concrete/grout anchors and micropiles
both under pressure and without pressure based
on a number of field load tests. Helical piles
with grouted shafts are installed without
pressure. The soil conditions are divided into
three categories based on friction angle () and
cohesion (C). The equations used to calculate f s
are:
Type I: Sands and gravels with 35 < < 45
and C = 0:
fs = otan
Where: o = Mean normal stress for the
concrete/grout column
Type II: Mixed soils; fine loose silty sands with
20 < < 30 and sandy clays with 205 lb/ft < C
2
2
< 1024 lb/ft (9.8 kPa < C < 49 kPa):
fs = osin + C(cos)
2
Type III: Clays and marls with 1024 lb/ft < C <
2
4096 lb/ft (49 kPa < C < 196 kPa)
fs = C
2 2
Where: 1024 lb/ft < C < 2048 lb/ft (49 kPa < C
< 98 kPa)
2
And fs = 2048 lb/ft (98 kPa)
2 2
Where: 2048 lb/ft < C < 4096 lb/ft (98 kPa < C
< 196 kPa) Table 3. Skin Friction Resistance Values for
The Gouvenot Method assumes a uniform shaft Concrete Piles Non-cohesive Soils
diameter for each soil layer. Po Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)
(psf) 20 25 30 35 40
Department of the Navy Design Manual 7 S = Average Friction Resistance on Pile Surface (psf)

Method 500 182 233 289 350 420

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

f s = Ca

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

Steel Piles Non-cohesive Soils
Navy Design Manual 7 provides the following Po Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)
table as recommended values of adhesion to (psf) 20 25 30 35 40
determine ultimate load capacity of piles for S = Average Friction Resistance on Pile Surface (psf)
cohesive soils. 500 137 175 217 263 315
1000 273 350 433 525 629
1500 410 524 650 788 944
Table 2. Navy Method Recommended Values
2000 546 700 866 1050 1259
for Adhesion Cohesive Soils 2500 683 875 1082 1313 1574
PILE TYPE Soil Cohesion, Adhesion, 3000 819 1049 1300 1575 1888
Consistency C (psf) Ca (psf) 3500 956 1244 1516 1838 2203
Timber or Very Soft 0 250 0 250 4000 1092 1399 1732 2101 2517
Concrete Soft 250- 500 250 480 Values shown are 75% of the values given for straight
Medium Stiff 500 1000 480 750 concrete piles in Table 3
Stiff 1000- 2000 750 950
Very Stiff 2000 4000 950 1300
Steel Very Soft 0 250 0 250 Tables 3 and 4 are derived from graphs in the
Soft 250 500 250 460
Medium Stiff 500 1000 460 700
Dept. of Navy Design Manual 7 (1974). A later
Stiff 1000 2000 700 720 edition of DM 7 (1986) limits the depth to 20B at
Very Stiff 2000 - 4000 720 750 which the average overburden pressure is
assumed to increase, where B is the diameter of
the pile. This limit was based on experimental
For Non-cohesive soils: The engineer can use and field evidence as cited in a previous section
the Alternate Method from the 1974 Edition of of this paper. In the case of slender shaft helical
DM 7 per the following equation. anchor/piles, the 20B limit is probably
conservative, but it is not clear what a more
Qf = [B(S)Lf] practical limit should be.
Where:
S = Average friction resistance on pile REASONABILITY CHECKS
surface area = K(Potan) where K
is assumed to equal 1 General
Po = Average overburden pressure on Consideration should be given to the validity of
element Lf the values obtained when determining the
K = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure bearing capacity of the soil. The calculated
theoretical ultimate capacity is no better than the
= Angle of internal friction data used to obtain that value. Data from boring
logs, the water table depth, and load information
The tables below provide the average friction may not accurately represent actual conditions
resistance (S) on straight concrete and steel where the helical anchor/pile must function.
piles in non-cohesive soils. Empirical values that are used and estimates of
strength parameters, etc. that must be made
because of lack of data affect the calculated
bearing capacity value. In those situations where
soil data is insufficient or not available, a helical
trial anchor/pile probe can help determine such
items as, location of bearing strata, location of
soft/loose soil, and the presence of obstructions,
such as, cobbles, boulders, and debris.
Helical Anchor/Pile Spacing
Once the capacity of the helical anchor/pile is
determined, it is important to review the location
of the foundation element with respect to the
structure and to other helical anchors/piles. It is
recommended that the center-to-center spacing
between adjacent anchors/piles be no less than
five times the diameter of the largest helix. The
minimum spacing is three feet (0.91 m). It is
suggested that this latter spacing be used only
when the job can not be accomplished in any
other way and should involve special care during
installation to ensure that the spacing does not
decrease with depth. Minimum spacing
requirements apply only to the helix bearing
plate(s), i.e., the anchor/pile shaft can be
battered to achieve minimum spacing. Spacing
between the helical anchors/piles and other
foundation elements, either existing or future,
requires special.
Group effect, or the reduction of capacity due to
close spacing, has never been accurately
measured with helical piles. However, bearing
capacity theory would indicate that capacity
reduction due to group effect is possible.
Factor of Safety
The equations discussed above are used to
obtain the ultimate capacity of a helical
anchor/pile. An appropriate Factor of Safety
must be applied to reduce the ultimate capacity
to an acceptable design (or working) capacity. It
is the responsibility of the user to determine the
Factor of Safety to be used. In general, a
minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended.
For tieback applications, the Factor of Safety
typically ranges between 1.25 and 2. Project
specific conditions may warrant the use of
higher factors of safety.
DISPLACEMENT
Lateral and vertical displacement of helical piles
is an area that is constantly being studied.
Some pile manufacturers have test data
indicating vertical and horizontal pile deflection
in various soil types. In some case, field load
testing is still the best way to get an accurate
representation of a piles response to load.
[Editors note: This section is also a late addition
and will need to be expanded upon depending
on group feedback]
REFERENCES
BASSETT, 1977, Reference details were not
available at the time of this writing.
CLEMENCE, S. P., Editor, Contributing Authors
ADAMCZAK, Jr., S., CLEMENCE, S. P., DAS,
B. M., FINN, M., HOWARD, R. E., KULHAWY,
F. H., MITSCH, M. P., MOONEY, J. S.,
RAPOPORT, V., VALDES, J. A., YOUNG, A. G.,
1985, Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in
Soil, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York City, New York.
BOWLES, J. E., 1968, Foundation Analysis and
Design, First Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York
City, New York.
BOWLES, J. E., 1988, Foundation Analysis and
Design, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York
City, New York.
MEYERHOF, G. G., 1976, Bearing Capacity and
Settlement of Pile Foundations, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Volume 102, No. GT3, New York City, New
York.
US NAVY DESIGN MANUAL DM7, NAVFAC,
1974, Foundations and Earth Structures,
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
US NAVY DESIGN MANUAL DM7, NAVFAC,
1986, Foundations and Earth Structures,
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
CHANCE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION
TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL, 2007,
published by the Chance Division of Hubbell
Power Systems, Inc. (Bulletin #01-0605),
Centralia, MO.
HOYT, R. L. and CLEMENCE, S. P., 1989, Uplift
Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil, Proceedings
th
of the 12 International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
CADDEN, ALLEN, GOMEZ, JESUS, 2002,
"Buckling of Micropiles", ADSC-IAF Micropile
Committee, Dallas, TX., ADSC, Dallas, TX.

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

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

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

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