DOI 10.

1007/s11204-020-09640-9
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 1, March, 2020 (Russian Original No. 1, January-February, 2020)

DESIGN

IN-SITU CUSTOMIZATION OF THE HELICAL PILE

DESIGN PROCEDURE USING PLAXIS 2D

UDC 624.131.524.4
A. G. Alekseev1,2 and S. G. Bezvolev1*
1
Gersevanov Research Institute of Bases and Underground Structures (JSC Research
Center "Stroitelstvo"), Moscow, Russia; 2National Research Moscow State University
of Civil Engineering, Moscow, Russia,
*Corresponding author Email: compgeo@yandex.ru.

The present paper substantiates the relevance of the scientific and technical task of design-
ing effective helical pile constructions under conditions of insufficient development of exist-
ing standards. An adapted computer design technique was developed on the basis of com-
parison and analysis of the calculation results and field tests for multi-helix helical piles in
cohesive and cohesionless soils using an elastic-plastic model. Recommended optimal val-
ues for the pile-soil interaction factors for the proposed methodology are presented.

Introduction
The issue of applying contemporary helical pile (HP) designs in construction is of a great rele-
vance [1, 2]. Modern single- and multi-helix helical piles (Fig. 1) are characterized by high bearing
capacity, installation efficiency, and manufacturability.
Russian scientists, in particular V. N. Zhelezkov, L. G. Mariupolskiy, and Yu. G. Trofi-
menkov [3], have made a significant contribution to the development and implementation in build-
ing practice of effective helical pile designs, along with methodological approaches for their effec-
tive design.
However, current regulatory guidelines in the field of designing helical piles, in particular the
recommendations presented in [4], are not adequate to ensure the efficient use of promising HP designs.
Thus, in [4], an empirical formula developed in 1960 is presented for simulating a pull-out test of a sin-
gle-helix HP, for use in compression calculations taking a safety margin into account. For HP of other
types or sizes, however, field tests under static load and "nonlinear analysis calculations using certified
soil models" are required [4].
In order to address these lacunae, we present a methodology for calculating the HP bearing
capacity for a wide range of soils using the PLAXIS 2D software package according to the Mohr-
Coulomb model [5]. The proposed computer-based technique is adapted for practical design by means of
a comparative analysis combining the results of numerical calculations and field test data.

Static Field Tests

According to procedure [6], different types of HP field tests by the compressing and pulling out
load were carried out at three characteristic sites: No. 1 − silt-loam soils from high-plastic to medium-
hard [2]; No. 2 − moderately firm and hard cohesionless soils; and No. 3 − mixed section of low-plas-
tic and medium-hard cohesive soils locally underlain by sandy subsoils (Table 1).

Translated from Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 1, pp. 23-28, January-February, 2020.
©
0038-0741/20/5701-0077 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 77
 a b c d e f

Fig. 1. The main helical pile types applied in Russia and their design features: a) single-helix, wide
helix (d/D < 0.6); b) multi-helix cylindrical (with the same helice diameter), wide helix;
c) multi-helix conical (with different diameter helices); d) single-helix with a conical pilot
point and conical spiral; e) single-helix, narrow helix (d/D = 0.6...0.8) with a single-helical
thread; e) id. with multi-helical thread; 1 - single-helical thread helix; 2 - multi-helical
thread helix; 3 - cap with drive lugs; 4 - miter pilot point; 5 - conical pilot point; 6 - open
serrated pilot point; 7 - open flat pilot point; 8 - miter pilot point cap.

TABLE 1
Site Soil Soil Water Bulk Void ratio Index of Index of Specific Internal Elasticity Poisson
num- Unit content density e plasticity liquidity IL cohesion friction modulus E, ratio v
ber W γ, kN/m3 IP c, kPa angle ϕ, o
MPa
6a 0.26 18.9 0.82 0.130 0.13 25 22 15.5 0.35
1 6b loam 0.28 19.0 0.84 0.124 0.37 18 19 12 0.36
6c 0.30 18.5 0.92 0.112 0.61 14 16 8 0.37
1 fine sand 0.15 21.0 0.45 - - 6 38 35 0.30
2
medium
2 0.04 18.7 0.48 - - 3 38 39 0.30
sand
33.3 0.25 19.7 0.72 0.20 0.34 25 15 15.0 0.35
28.3 loam 0.20 20.7 0.59 0.16 0.39 17 17 16.8 0.35
28.2 0.13 21.7 0.40 0.12 0.11 36 17 24.4 0.35
21.1 silty sand 0.04 17.3 0.59 - - 5 32 23 0.32
3
20.1 fine sand 0.04 17.3 0.59 - - 3 34 33 0.31
medium
19.1 0.05 18.0 0.54 - - 2 38 40 0.30
sand
gravel
16.1 sand 0.05 18.3 0.52 - - 1.3 40 38.5 0.30

In total, the application of eight and eleven standard-sized HPs in sand (see Fig. 1b) and silt-loam
soils, respectively, was considered. As a rule, the size of each corresponded to two compression and pull
out tests.
According to [3], the bearing capacity of piles obtained in the field static soil tests is estimated
by the Fu,n pile standard ultimate tensile strength, determined using the "applied load − stabilized dis-
placement" plot. Taking into account the HP specifics, since it is accepted in [4], used in foreign practice
[7], and recognized as the best of other criteria [8], the Fu,i partial ultimate tensile strength of the HP to
vertical compression or pulling out load, hereinafter referred to as the HP critical tensile strength, was
assumed as the load, under the influence of which a single HP receives vertical displacement (settling
during compression or rise (exit) when pulling out) of wu = 0.05D, where D is the diameter of the pile
helices. In order to obtain data in consistancy with the with step-stress test given in [4, 9], wu = 0.1D was
used in tests with continuous loading.

78
PLAXIS Calculation Procedure
In [2], the choice of the PLAXIS Mohr-Coulomb [5] model was substantiated with the detailed
characteristics provided.
Using the finite element method (FEM), the program generates a model of the soil loading tak-
ing the engineering and geological conditions into account by sequentially forming its natural stress
state from its own weight and at the stages of pile installation and loading. The geometric model is
described by a finite element grid and special contact "interfaces".
In the Mohr-Coulomb elastic-to-perfectly-plastic model, five soil input parameters are applied: Ep
longitudinal elasticity modulus, vp Poisson ratio, cp specific cohesion, ϕp internal friction angle, and the
ψp dilatancy angle.
A linear-elastic model was used for the shaft and helices of HP by setting two parameters: Es
Young's modulus and vs Poisson ratio of the steel.
Considering [3], the bottom of the computational domain for a single HP was lower than the
pilot point by the largest of the 3D and l/2 values. The radius of the computational domain was taken
to be equal to the largest of the l and 6D values.
The possibility of concentrating the shear deformations and localization of the soil plastic flow
was considered using contact ("interface") elements at the HP - soil interface and, additionally, by con-
centrating the final dividing elements at the soil zones adjacent to the helices and the perimeter of the
potential shear column covering the zone "cut through" by the helices.
To regulate the division taking into account the effect of soil displacement by the HP shaft dur-
ing installation, as well as the discontinuities and volumetric deformations of the soil caused by shear
cutting by the helices, individual clusters were selected in the cut area for setting soil parameters taking
these factors into consideration. Additionally, an intermediate cluster zone with a width and depth of
D/2 was allocated around the soil column.
In the HP − soil interfaces, the strength parameters of the soil were taken considering the γa
"steel by soil" Coulomb friction coefficient [10...12]: 0.45 for gravel and cobble soils; 0.70 and 0.56 for
medium and fine sand above and below the ground water level, respectively; 0.54 for silt sand and loam
sand; 0.52 for loam sand; 0.50 for loam soil.
According to the data of static test computer simulation, the Fˆu estimated critical tensile strength
was determined at the wu = 0.05D calculated critical displacement.
As soil input parameters, the E elasticity modulus and the v Poisson ratio, as well as the c and
ϕ strength characteristics of the consolidated drained shear, were used in terms provided by the standard
(normative) survey program.
Ee and ve reference characteristics of a linear-elastic deformation, as well as the ψ dilatancy
angle, formed additional data inputs. For silt-loam and sand soils, the values were Ee = kE with k coef-
ficient [13] and ve = v/(1.22 − 0.22v) values [14]. Based on [5], ψ = ϕ − 30° and ψ = −1° for sands and
loams, respectively.
When assigning the input deformation parameters in a real soil foundation, the values were con-
sidered to vary depending on the level of operating stresses in different zones of the computational
domain.
The intermediate and cut zones adjacent to the regions of concentrating the shear deformations
correspond to Ep = E50 and vp = v50, where E50 and v50 are secant modulus of longitudinal strain and
Poisson ratio, determined according to the results of triaxial compression tests under the action of a half
failure load. The E50 and v50 parameters are similar conceptually and in quantity to those E and v used
in Russian practice. Against this background, Ep = E and vp = v in the zones under consideration. In the
peripheral part of the computational domain, Ep = Ee and vp = ve.
Within the entire computational domain, ϕp = ϕ, cp = kcc, and ψp = kψψ, where kc and kψ are coef-
ficients depending on the type of soil and the zone of the calculation region. In the peripheral and inter-
mediate zones, kc was set to 1 and kψ was equal to 1 and 0.2 for sand and loam, respectively.

79
 In the cut zone, kc = kc1/i0.2 and kψ = kψ1/i0.2, where i is the number of HP helices cutting the con-
sidered zone of the soil column; kc1 and kψ1 are the coefficients for a single cutting helix, taken as 0.75
and 0.5 for sand and 0.35 and 0.1 for loam, respectively.
The initial stress state of the soil mass was formed by specifying the bulk density and initial lat-
eral pressure coefficient K0 of soils, determined taking their natural compaction due to soil mass gene-
sis into account.
To this end, in the peripheral zone according to [15]:

K0 = (1 − sinϕp)Rocsinϕ = K0x, (1)

where Roc is the overcompaction coefficient equal to 1 and 1.1 with a safety margin for sand and loam,
respectively.
In the cut area:
K0 = 1 − (sinϕp − ψ0) = K0n, (2)

where ψ0 is the angle of the initial dilatancy (when the HP is inserted), ψ0 = ψi0.2.
In the intermediate zone, K0 = K0c = (K0x + K0n)/2.

Determination of Pile− −Soil Interaction Factor Ensuring the Accuracy of Calculation Results
The proposed methodology for calculating the in-soil bearing capacity of HP was completed by
carrying out a comparative analysis of the calculation results and field test data using statistical pro-
cessing, in particular, the critical tensile strength of helical piles installed experimentally (Fu) and deter-
mined by computational modeling ( Fˆu ). The Fˆu error was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively
according to γˆ u = Fˆu / Fu [16, 17].
Depending on the type of soil, the initial comparison of the total array of observed Fu and calculated
Fˆu (Fig. 2a) demonstrated significant deviations of dangerous overestimation or significant underestima-
tion of the calculated Fˆu from that recorded in experiments. Thus, in Fig. 2a, calculated Fˆu for HP in
cohesionless soils mainly located much lower ( γˆ u = Fˆu / Fu  1) from the central bisector corresponding to
perfect match ( γˆ u = 1); while for HP in cohesive soils, the calculated values are significantly higher than
those of the central bisector ( γˆ u  1). The direction of the load (down when pressed in and up when
pulled out) does not have a significant effect. It should be noted that, according to [4], the minimum
values from two tests of the same type were accepted as experimental Fu.
Thus, according to the results of the initial statistical processing, it is recommended that two
groups be distinguished: 1 − medium-firm and hard sand soils; 2 − cohesive plastic and medium-hard
slit-loam soils. Group 0 combines all the data [3].
The regression comparison of experimental data and primary calculated results for groups 1, 2,
and 0 is shown in Fig. 2.
In order to ensure proper accuracy of the proposed methodology for adjusting the critical F'u, it
is recommended that γu pile-soil interaction factors be introduced.

F'u = Fˆu /γu. (3)

The estimated γ u = γ gγ u , presenting the upper limit of the confidence interval for the regression line,
is determined based on the average reliability coefficient (γg) for γˆ u taking into account the α = 0.95 confi-
dence probability ( γˆ u and γg were determined according to [18]). A similar approach is described in [3].
According to statistical processing data, normative γˆ u amounted to 0.87, 0.40, and 2.27 for
groups 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The calculated γu0, γu1, and γu2 comprised 1.37, 0.56, and 1.55, respec-
tively, with one-sided confidence probability of α = 0.975. Similarly, at α = 0.95, the values were 1.03,
0.50, and 1.47, respectively.

80
Fˆu , kN Fˆu , kN
1500
a 4 1200
b
3
1000
1 1
1000 800

2 4
600
3
500 400 2

200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Fu, kN 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Fu, kN

Fˆu , kN
1500
c
4 2

1000 3 1

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Fu, kN
Fig. 2. Regression analysis results for the primary array of calculated Fˆu and experimental
F u critical tensile strength of HP: a) group 0 soils; b) group 1; c) group 2;
1 - experimental line; 2 - regression line; 3 and 4 - 95% and 97.5% confidence
limits, respectively; , - compression and pulling out, respectively; - experimental
(min) values; - excluded (max) experimental values; - group 1 data; - group 2 data.

The obtained γu at α = 0.975 were used for the control calculation of the corrected critical ten-
sile strength values (Fig. 3, Table 2).
An analysis of the calculation results for options 1.1 and 1.2 (Table 2, Fig. 3) shows that com-
bining all the data into conditional group 0 on average provides a protective underestimation of HP crit-
ical tensile strength, though the main defect of this heterogeneous group involves a large spread of the
results inconsistent with statistical requirements for the v and ccor variation and correlation coefficients,
respectively (Fig. 2a). With α = 0.95, the estimated share in cases of dangerous overestimation of the HP
calculated tensile strength exceeds 30%. Nevertheless, the corresponding to this probability γu = γu0 = 1.03
are consistent with the use of the normative [3] soil reliability coefficient γc,g = 1.4...1.5 when assessed
by tabular or computer calculations of the pile bearing capacity.
More rational values of γu can be used for relatively homogeneous groups 1 and 2, characterized by
a single trend in the ratio between the calculated and experimental data (see Fig. 2b, c) and an acceptable
statistical spread. Thus, for calculation options 2.1 and 2.2 (see Table 2), the coefficients of v variation and
ccor correlation are 0.3 and 0.95, respectively. A comparison of the various options for the control calcula-

81
Fˆu , kN Fˆu , kN
1200 1200 1
a b
1000
1 1000 4

800 3 800 2

600
2 3
600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Fu, kN 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Fu, kN
Fig. 3. Control regression analysis results for Fˆu and experimental Fu HP tensile strength: without (a) and taking
into account (b) the differences in the pile-soil interaction factors for group 1 ( ) and 2 ( ) soils; 1 - experimental
line; 2 - regression line; 3 and 4 - 95% and 97.5% confidence probability limits, respectively; , - compression
and pulling out, respectively; - experimental (min) values; - excluded (max) experimental values.

TABLE 2
Calcula- Type of control Fˆu γ = γg γ u Coefficients of
n n Fˆu
tion calculation γu = ∑( )i / n u γ u′ = ∑ ( )i / n variation ccor
option i =1 Fu i =1 Fu′
v
γu = γu0 = 1.37
1.1* 0.64 1.5 1.0
(α =0.975)
0.56 0.84
γu0 = 1.03
1.2* 0.85 1.2 1.0
(α =0.95)
γu1 = 0.56; γu2 = 1.55
2.1 0.76 1.3 1.0
(α =0.975)
0.30 0.95
γu1 = 0.50; γu2 = 1.47
2.2 0.88 1.1 1.0
(α =0.95)
Comment: *The conditional option of the calculation, which does not meet the statistical
requirements for the values of the variation and correlation coefficients.

tion demonstrates the option 2.1 to be optimal (see Table 2). When determining the Fd permissible load on
the helical pile for group 1 and 2 soils, according to computer calculations (according to [3], taking Fd = F'u),
a γc,g = 1.3, a reliability soil coefficient can be applied close to those established for field tests.

Conclusions
The proposed computer methodology for calculating the bearing capacity and settlement of heli-
cal piles was tested by comparing the calculation results and field test data.
In general, the developed technique for helical pile design using [5] demonstrates reliable results
confirmed by field tests. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the differences between the calculated and
experimental data provided for recommendation of the γu pile-soil interaction factors, optimal in terms of
reliability and rationality. The γu1 = 0.56 and γu2 = 1.5 factors are recommended for calculating the critical
tensile strength of helical piles installed in group 1 (moderate firm and hard sand) and group 2 (plastic
and medium hard loam) soils. When determining the permissible load on the helical pile for these
groups, a γc,g = 1.3 soil reliability coefficient value, close to that established for field tests, is recom-
mended. For other types of soil, it is necessary to accumulate relevant experimental data and carry out
both the comparative calculations and statistical analysis using the proposed method.

82
 The development of a rational and reliable method for calculating contemporary helical pile
designs for a wide range of soil conditions, as well as its inclusion in the current regulatory documents,
will contribute to the effective use of helical piles in construction practice.

REFERENCES

1. A.G. Alekseev, S.G. Bezolev, P.M. Sazonov, and A.A. Zvezdov, "About necessity of investigation of
screw piles operation and actualization of standards of design of screw pile foundations," Prom. i
Grazhd. Stroit., No. 1, 43-47 (2018).
2. A. G. Alekseev, S. G. Bezolev, and P. M. Sazonov, "Experience of Using Multi-Blade Screw Piles in
Silt-Loam Soil Foundation," Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 55, 387–393 (2019).
3. Yu. G. Trofimenkov and L. G. Mariupol'skiy, "Screw piles as foundations of supports and towers of
transmission lines," Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 1, 232–239(1964).
4. Rules and Regulations 24.13330.2011 Pile Foundations [In Russian], Moscow (2010).
5. PLAXIS 2D Finite Elements Code for Soil and Rock Analysis, Balkema, (2002; 2008).
6. State standard GOST 5686-2012 Soils Field Test Methods for Piles [In Russian] Moscow, Standartinform,
(2012).
7. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) Design Method for Drilled Shafts, Department of
Transportation, Washington (1999).
8. Yu. Xinbao et al., "Evaluation of resistance factors for axial load capacity," 35th Southw. Geotech.
Eng. Conf., Louisiana (2010).
9. ICC-ES 2007 Acceptance Criteria for Helical Foundation Systems and Devices, Evaluation Services
Inc. (2007).
10. Rules and Regulations 39.13330.2012 Dams from Soil Materials [In Russian], Moscow (2011).
11. R. B. J. Brinkgreeve and R. F. Shen, Structural Elements & Modeling Excavations in Plaxis, Delf
(2011).
12. J. G. Potyondy, "Skin friction between various soils and construction materials," Geotechnique, 11,
No. 4, 309-353 (1961).
13. A Guide to the Design of Foundations of Buildings and Structures (to SNiP 2.02.01-83) [In Russian],
Stroyizdat, Moscow (1986).
14. S. G. Bezolev, "Method of accounting for the deformability of an inhomogeneous elastoplastic bed in
analyzing foundation slabs," Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 39, 162–170 (2002).
15. B. Schmidt, "Discussion of Earth pressures at-rest related to stress history," Can. Geotech. J., 3, No. 4,
239-242 (1966).
16. S. S. Vyalov, Rheological Foundations of Soil Mechanics [In Russian], Moscow, Vysshaya shkola
(1978).
17. V. G. Fedorovskiy and S. G. Bezolev, "Prediction of shallow-foundation settlements and selection of
bed models for slab analysis," Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 37, 114–123 (2000).
18. State standard GOST 20522-2012 Soils Methods of Statistical Processing of Test Results [In Russian],
Moscow, Standartinform, (2014).

83