Magnum Helix Manual 1.15.10 - Web Version

Helical Pile
Technical Reference Manual
HelicalPile
TechnicalReferenceManual
TheinformationcontainedinthisdocumentistheintellectualpropertyofMagnumPiering,Inc.andis
disclosed solely for the purpose of providing design tools and guidance in specifying Magnum Piering
products. All material contained herein and designs based on the information herein should be
reviewed and approved by the Engineer of Record prior to construction. Copying, distributing, or
disclosingthisinformationforanypurposeotherthanprojectbiddingisexpresslyforbidden.
MagnumPiering,Inc.
6082SchumacherParkDrive
WestChester,OH45069
8008227437
www.magnumpiering.com
Table of Contents
SECTION 1000 INTRODUCTION
Introduction Letter from Dr. Howard Perko
Page
1000-1
About Magnum Piering
1000-2
About Magnum Geo
1000-3
Why Specify Magnum Piles
1000-4
SECTION 2000 - SPECIFING HELICAL PILES

GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
2000-1
Checklist for Foundation Drawings
2000-2
CSI Prescriptive Specifications
2000-4
State DOT Performance Specifications
2000-20
SAMPLE CAD DRAWINGS

Foundation Repair & Augmentation Examples
Slope Stabilization Examples
New Construction Examples
Excavation & Shoring Examples
EXAMPLE SOILS REPORT
2000-25
2000-26
2000-45
2000-54
2000-86
2000-89
Sample Soils Report

INSTALLATION & TESTING
2000-90
2000-102
Sample Installation Records
2000-103
Sample Axial Load Test Log
2000-104
Sample Lateral Load Test Log
2000-109
SECTION 3000 - DESIGN TOOLS

DESIGN BASICS
3000-1
Pros and Cons of Different Foundation Types
3000-2
1 2 3s of Helical Pile Foundations
3000-3
DESIGN CHARTS
3000-7
Magnum Piering Helical Pile Specification Chart
3000-8
Helical Pile Sizing Charts for MH3 Series
3000-9
Helical Pile Sizing Chart for MH4 Series
3000-12
Helical Pile Sizing Chart for MH6 Series
3000-15
Lateral Performance for MH3 Series
3000-18
3000-22
3000-26
TECHNICAL PAPERS
3000-32
Energy Method for Predicting Installation Torque
3000-33
Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil
3000-44
Summary of Earth Retaining Methods
3000-48
Lateral Capacity and Buckling
3000-56
Helical Anchor Piles Under Lateral Loading
3000-64
Introduction to Corrosion and Galvanizing
3000-84
Helical Pile Bibliography
3000-91
SECTION 4000 - PRODUCT QUALITY

ICC-ES Draft Report
4000-1
SECTION 1000
INTRODUCTION
MAGNUM HELICAL PILES

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL
Introduction
by Howard A. Perko, Ph.D., P.E.
Director of Engineering
Magnum Geo-Solutions, LLC
Product Support and Design Solution Center for Magnum Piering, Inc.
The Magnum Helical Pile Technical Reference Manual was developed specifically for architects,
geotechnical engineers, and structural engineers. It contains considerable details regarding the use and
specification of helical anchors and helical piles. The guide contains introductory information as well as
advanced concepts so that it may serve as a useful reference for the unfamiliar and the experienced.
Information regarding the pullout and bearing capacity of helical piles, corrosion rates, lateral resistance,
and connection to structures is provided herein. Sample details, plans, reports, inspections, and
specifications are included. Technical specifications for the Magnum Helical Pile product line are
supplied, as well as the test procedures and results used to obtain these specifications.
Helical piles and anchors have an established heritage of over 150 years and have been used to support
structures throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and many other countries of the
World. The frequency of their application for repairing existing foundations and for new foundations has
increased dramatically in the last 25 years. Their present popularity is due to a number of factors
including capacity determination through torque correlations, economics of rapid installation,
applicability to a wide range of soil and subsurface conditions, and the quality assurance of a factory
manufactured product.
There are presently over 50 different helical pile and anchor manufacturers throughout the world. Product
quality varies significantly between manufacturers. Depending on the requirements of a particular
project, an engineer or architect may specify minimum product quality standards such as hot-dip
galvanizing, minimum structural section modulus, and/or minimum number and size of helical bearing
plates. However, to ensure you are getting the best products available, it is imperative to specify a
Magnum Helical Piles.
Howard A. Perko, Ph.D., P.E.

Director of Engineering
Magnum Geo-Solutions, LLC
Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

All Rights Reserved
Page 1000-1
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 1000-2
Rev. 12-09
About Magnum Geo-Solutions

Magnum Geo-Solutions is the technical support
group associated with Magnum Piering. Our staff
consists of professional engineers licensed in 18
states. Our office is located in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Magnum Geo-Solutions will assist engineers,
architects, installers, contractors, Magnum dealers,
home owners, and business owners.
Magnum Geo-Solutions provides:

Technical Seminars

Project Submittal Support

Preliminary Design Support

Sample Specifications

CAD Plans and Details

Load Test Observations

Torque Motor Calibration

Design/Build Support

Design tools and aids
With more than 20 years combined engineering experience, we have
provided engineering services and support for projects across the U.S.
and Canada.
We are ready to assist you. Call us at:
800.822.7437 x 250
All Rights Reserved
Page 1000-3
Rev. 12-09
Why Specify Magnum

OVER 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Magnum Piering was founded in 1981; we have gained the expertise that newer
companies just dont have. We have provided engineering support, foundation
products, installation observation and load testing for a variety of diverse
projects. Our projects range from residential tract homes to high-rise commercial
developments, industrial gas compressors, deep excavation shoring, membrane
tension structures and NASA launch pads. Our experience has resulted in an
extensive and encompassing product line to meet the diverse needs of our
clients.
MODERN FACILITY
Magnum operates a state of the art 30,000 sf facility boasting overhead cranes,
robotic welding, and CNC laser cutting system. With an in-house CAD design
department we have the capability to produce specialty items and large orders
with a quick turnaround time.
LEADERS IN THE HELICAL PILE INDUSTRY
We have employees who are setting the trends in helical pile manufacturing
through improved helical pile designs and by setting the standards by which
helical piles are rated. Our marketing director Bill Bonekemper served as
chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee of Helical Foundation Manufactures that
created ICC-ES document AC358. Our director of engineering, Dr. Howard
Perko, authored the only book currently available on helical pile installation and
design, issued by a world-renowned publisher, John Wiley & Sons. Dr. Perko
also authored helical pile additions to the 2009 IBC and was an expert consultant
on writing of the NYC DOB code on helical piles. Having Magnums experts on
your team will give you piece of mind.
MEETING MODERN STANDARDS
Magnum is one of the first manufacturers to apply for ICC-ES evaluation under
the new AC358 criteria. Magnums products have been have been designed to
meet or exceed ICC-ES AC358 criteria and have been tested by an IAS
accredited laboratory in accordance with AC358. The ICC-ES evaluation under
the new AC358 criteria means that you will be specifying products that meet or
exceed the most up-to-date industry standards, which gives you a high level of
assurance that the product will perform as designed.

All Rights Reserved
Page 1000-4
Rev. 12-09
QUALITY CONTROL
Along with ICC-ES evaluation and quality standards, Magnums manufacturing
quality control system is in substantial compliance with ISO 9001: 2008 certified.
Due to the high level of quality control, our customers frequently comment that
Magnums products meet or exceed manufacturer ratings more often than other
manufacturers products.
PATENTED DUAL CUTTING EDGE HELIX

Magnums patented dual cutting edge (DCE) helix out performs standard circular
helical bearing plates in difficult soil and bedrock conditions. The DCE helix
offers a truer installation, tracks better, cuts through difficult soils such as gravel,
cobbles, construction debris, or trash, and will penetrate medium hard bedrock
formations with an SPT blow count up to 100 blows per foot, or 50 for 6 inches.
The DCE helix gives you a better chance of getting through tough soil and
bedrock situations without the need for pre-drilling.
HIGH STRENGTH ROUND SHAFTS
Magnum offers only round high-strength structural steel tube shafts with rigid
couplings because round shafts generally have greater torsional capacity,
greater buckling capacity, and greater lateral capacity than square or rectangular
shafts. This means that helical piles can be used in new construction for
structures with lateral wind and seismic loads. It also means that you can
compute buckling conventionally and can use helical piles in soft soils without the
need for grout around the shaft.
EXPERT TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Magnum Piering understands the importance of providing excellent technical
support so we created an engineering support group that can assist you with
technical questions. Magnum Geo-Solutions, LLC was established in early 2009.
So whether you have questions about the suitability of helical piles for a
particular project or you need assistance in engineering the piles, Magnums
technical support group can help. Having an excellent technical support group
will save you time and money on your project.

All Rights Reserved
Page 1000-5
Rev. 12-09
SECTION 2000
SPECIFYING HELICAL PILES
Guide Specifications

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-1
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
Model Specifications Helical Piles and Helical Anchors
CHECKLIST FOR FOUNDATION DRAWINGS

HELICAL PILES AND HELICAL ANCHORS
The following list describes items that should be included in engineering drawings
involving helical piles or anchors.
Helical Pile and Helical Anchor Elevations, Locations, Spacing, Orientations, and
Inclinations
Bracket Assembly Type, Elevation, and Orientation
Bracket Assembly minimum concrete cover or connection to structure
Minimum concrete cover is governed by concrete shear, punching, and reinforcing steel
location and can be determined by typical ACI pile cap calculations. Connection of brackets to
wood can be determined by NDS codes considering crushing, bolt bearing, and shear. Due to
the uncertainties associated with existing structures, the connection of repair Bracket
Assemblies to existing structures can be made by the contractor. The contractor and the
engineer should require each of these connections to be load tested to 1.5 times the required
allowable load shown on the drawings.
Helical Pile and Helical Anchor Allowable Capacity

Allowable capacity should be the allowable dead load plus live load combinations with
building code live load reductions.
All Known Public and Private Utilities

Requirements for Quality Assurance Observations
The Drawings should contain a schedule of required quality assurance observations.
Helical Pile and Helical Anchor inspections may be part-time (10% to 30% of installations
observed) or full-time (100% of installations observed) depending on local practice, building
codes, and the experience level of the contractor.
Maximum Plausible Bearing Capacity (Optional)

Maximum Plausible Bearing Capacity is used to place minimum constraints on helical
bearing plate sizing. It is important not to be overly conservative when sizing helical bearing
plates to reduce the risk of refusal prior to the minimum length, if any.
Recommended Bearing Stratum

The bearing stratum should be the most stable soil or bedrock layer that is within practical
depth limits for the project. Helical piles generally exhibit less than 1 inch of deflection at the
allowable load in soils with a standard penetration resistance blow count greater than 15
blows/ft. Deflections are typically less than inch at the allowable load when bearing directly
on competent bedrock. When bearing in softer material with blow count less than 15 blows/ft,
excessive deflections must be accounted for in the design. One alternative for accounting for
excessive deflections is pre-loading. Another alternative is to use a higher factor of safety
between ultimate and allowable load.
Minimum Depth
For axial compression, the minimum depth is the frost depth, depth to planned bearing
stratum, depth of unknown fill, depth of the active zone in expansive soils, or depth of soft
soils, whichever is greater, as applicable. For axial tension, the minimum depth is 5 times the
maximum helical bearing plate diameter in clay soils, 10 times the maximum helical bearing
plate diameter in sand soils, or the depth of the bearing stratum, whichever is greater.
Number of Load Tests and Proof Load Tests Required (optional)

Generally, load tests and proof load tests are not required for Magnum Helical Piles and
Helical Anchors when capacity is verified through installation torque and a factor of safety of
2.0 is used. If load tests are performed and installation torque is used to verify capacity, a
factor of safety of 1.5 can be considered. In the later case, at least 2 piles/anchors should be
tested for each pile/anchor configuration in each bearing stratum. If installation torque is not
used to verify capacity or if products are used that do not have a known capacity to torque
ratio, then at least 10% of all anchors/piles should be load tested and a factor of safety of 3.0
should be considered.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-2
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
Model Specifications Helical Piles and Helical Anchors
Allowable Deflection for Load Testing (optional)

Locations of Load Tests and Proof Load Tests (optional)
Post Tensioning of Helical Anchors (optional)
Post tensioning is used to reduce deflection by pre-loading a structure. It is beneficial for
designing earth retention structures and can reduce the required flexural strength of a wall
facing.
Requirements for Design Calculations (optional)

If desired, the Engineer can request design calculations for the supplied helical anchor or
helical pile system. This is sometimes useful when downdrag, buckling, lateral loading,
corrosion or other items are a concern.
Number and Size of Helical Bearing Plates (optional)

In most cases, the number and size of helical bearing plates will be determined by the
contractor. If desired, the Engineer can specify a combination of helical bearing plates based
on experience or individual bearing calculations. An example would be specifying a single
helical bearing plate with a minimum pile length equal to the depth of the bedrock if the helical
pile is to bottom on hard bedrock rather than in the overburden.
Maximum Length (optional)

Specifying a maximum length is used to prevent the contractor from generating excessive
fees for helical pile or anchor installation using too few or undersized helical bearing plates. It
is also used in cases where helical piles are to be supported in a stronger upper bearing
stratum. For helical anchors, it may be necessary to specify a maximum length due to
property line or right-of-way geometric site restrictions.
Planned Length (optional)
The planned length is specified when the Contract payment is based on unit length so that
all Contractors bid the same length. A planned length specification is not necessary when
payment terms will be based upon a per unit basis where one unit is a Helical Pile or Helical
Anchor. In order to ensure similar bids, planned length might be used with a planned helical
bearing plate configuration specification.
Final Installation Torque (optional)

Final installation torque is typically determined by the contractor using the allowable
capacity shown on the plans and Magnum's recommended capacity to installation torque ratio.
In some cases, the Engineer may elect to specify the final installation torque perhaps to reduce
mathematical errors in the field or for other reasons.
Special Considerations
Helical Piles and Helical Anchors can penetrate most soil and sedimentary bedrock
stratum provided the Standard Penetration Test blow count is less than 50 blows/6 inch
increment. Installation of Helical Piles and Helical Anchors is difficult in soils with blow count
greater than 50/6 inches or soils with excessive cobble, boulders, and or large debris.
Dual cutting edge helical bearing plates are recommended on sites with occasional
cobble, debris, or thin layers of cemented material. Dual cutting edge (DCE) helical bearing
plates are also recommended for projects using hand installation equipment because they tend
to track better and require less crowd for proper installation.
A corrosion engineer should be consulted and special corrosion protection should be used
in soils with resistivity below 2,000 ohm-cm, with pH below 5, with organic content above 100
ppm, in mine or industrial waste, or other severely corrosive soils.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-3
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
CSI Format Model Specifications for Magnum Helical Piles and Helical Anchors
SECTION 31 66 13
HELICAL PILES AND HELICAL ANCHORS
PART 1 GENERAL
1.01
Description
This work pertains to furnishing and installing Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Bracket
Assemblies shown in the Contract in accordance with the Drawings and this
specification. Each Helical Pile and Helical Anchor shall be installed at the location and
to the elevation, minimum length, installation torque, and allowable capacities shown on
the Plans or as established. This work also pertains to load testing and pre-loading
Helical Piles and Helical Anchors (if required on the Drawings).
1.02
Related Work
Section 31 23 33 Trenching, Backfilling and Compacting

Section 31 23 00 Excavation and Fill
1.03
Referenced Codes and Standards
This specification is based on nationally recognized codes and standards including the
references listed below. In case of a conflict between the reference and this
specification, this specification shall govern.
A.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME):

1.
C.
ASTM A36/A36M Structural Steel

ASTM A123-02 Standard Specification for Zinc (Hot-Dip Galvanized)
Coatings on Iron and Steel Products
ASTM A153-05 Standard Specification for Zinc Coating (Hot Dip) on Iron
and Steel Hardware
ASTM A513/A513M-07 Standard Specification for General Requirements
for Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Tubes
ASTM D1143/D1143M-07 Standard Test Method for Piles Under Static
Axial Compressive Load
ASTM D3689 Standard Test Method for Individual Piles Under Static Axial
Tensile Load
ASTM D3966-07 Standard Test Method for Piles Under Lateral Loads
ANSI/ASME Standard B18.2.1-1996, Square and Hex Bolts and Screws,

Inch Series
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):

1.
Excavation Safety Guidelines

31 66 15-1
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-4
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
D.
ICC-Evaluation Services, Inc.:

1.
E.
AC358 Acceptance Criteria for Helical Foundation Systems and Devices
American Welding Society

1.
ANSI/AWS B2.1-00 Standard for Welding Procedure and Performance
Qualification
1.04
Definitions
A.
Helical Pile: Manufactured steel foundation with one or more helical bearing
plates that is rotated into the ground to support structures.
B.
Helical Anchor: Same as a Helical Pile. Term generally used when axial tension
is the primary service load.
C.
Engineer: Individual or firm retained by Owner or General Contractor to verify

Helical Pile and Helical Anchor quality assurance with the Contract, the
Drawings, and this specification.
D.
Allowable Bearing Capacity: Ultimate bearing capacity of the bearing stratum

divided by a factor of safety.
E.
Lead Section: The first section of a Helical Pile or Helical Anchor to enter the
ground. Lead Sections consist of a central shaft with a tapered end and one or
more helical bearing plates affixed to the shaft.
F.
Extension Section: Helical Pile or Helical Anchor sections that follow the Lead
Section into the ground and extend the Helical Lead to the appropriate depth.
Extension Sections consist of a central shaft and may have helical bearing plates
affixed to the shaft.
G.
Brackets: Cap plate, angle, thread bar, or other termination device that is bolted
or welded to the end of a Helical Pile or Helical Anchor after completion of
installation to facilitate attachment to structures or embedment in cast-in-place
concrete.
H.
Augering: Rotation of the shaft with little or no advancement. It can occur when
the helical bearing plates pass from a relatively soft material into a comparatively
hard material. Augering can also result from insufficient crowd or downward
pressure during installation. In some cases, augering may be (temporarily)
necessary in order to grind through an obstruction.
I.
Pile Design Professional: Individual or firm responsible for the design of Helical
Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets.
31 66 15-2
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-5
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
1.05
Qualifications
A.
Due to the special requirements for manufacture and quality control of Helical
Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets, all Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and
Brackets shall be obtained from Magnum Piering, Inc.
A request to substitute any other manufactured Helical Pile and Helical Anchor
products for use on this project must be submitted to the Engineer for review not
less that seven (7) calendar days prior to the bid date. The request must
include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
B.
A product catalog and all necessary technical data sufficient to qualify the
proposed product substitution.
Evidence showing manufacturer has at least ten (10) years experience in
the design and manufacture of Helical Piles and Helical Anchors.
Current ICC-ES product evaluation report or complete description of
product testing and engineering calculations used to assess product
capacity.
Current ISO9001 certificate or manufacturing quality assurance program
documentation showing methods used to asses and maintain product
quality.
Due to the special requirements for installation of Helical Piles, Helical Anchors,
and Brackets, all Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets shall be installed
by an organization specializing in the installation of those products. Contractor
shall be an authorized Magnum Piering Installer and shall have completed
training from Magnum Piering, Inc. in the proper methods of installation of Helical
Piles and Helical Anchors and the mounting of Brackets.
Any Contractor desiring to bid as the Helical Pile and Helical Anchor installer for
this project that is not trained and authorized by Magnum Piering, Inc. shall
submit a request to the Engineer for review not less than seven (7) calendar
days prior to the bid date. The request must include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A recent company brochure indicating experience in this type of work.

Evidence of having installed Helical Piles and Helical Anchors on at least
ten (10) projects, including project name, number and type of Helical Piles
or Helical Anchors, project location, and client contact information.
Resume of Contractors foreman including experience in the oversight of
Helical Pile and Helical Anchor installation on at least five (5) projects in
the last five (5) years, including project name, number and type of Helical
Piles or Helical Anchors installed, project location, and client contact
information.
List of installation and testing equipment and detailed description of
proposed method of installation and load testing Helical Piles and Helical
Anchors (if testing is required).
Current ANSI/AWS welding certificate and documentation of welder
experience within the last 5 years (if welding is required).
31 66 15-3
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-6
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
C.
Due to the special requirements for design of Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and
Brackets, all Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets shall be designed by
Magnum Geo-Solutions, LLC.
Contractors desiring to use other Pile Design Professionals shall submit a
request to the Engineer for review not less than seven (7) calendar days prior to
the bid date. The request must include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The curriculum vitae of the designated Pile Design Professional indicating

at least ten (10) years experience in this type of work as well as graduate
education in structural and/or geotechnical engineering.
Evidence of Pile Design Professional having designed Helical Piles and
Helical Anchors on at least ten (10) projects, including project name,
number and type of Helical Piles or Helical Anchors, project location, and
client contact information.
Professional errors and omissions liability insurance certificate.
Evidence of current license to practice engineering in the project state.
D.
Prior to bidding by any installer that is not trained and authorized by Magnum
Piering, Inc., using a manufactured Helical Pile and Helical Anchor system that is
not produced by Magnum Piering, Inc., or using a Pile Design Professional that
is not Magnum Geo-Solutions, LLC, written approval to bid must be received
from the Engineer. Engineer shall grant approval based on compliance with
specific criteria herein. The Engineers decision is final.
1.06
Submittals
Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Engineer for review and approval,
Shop Drawings and specifications for the Helical Piles and Helical Anchors
intended for use on the project at least 14 calendar days prior to planned start of
installation. The Shop Drawings shall include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Helical Pile and Helical Anchor product identification number(s) and

designation(s)
Maximum allowable mechanical compression and tensile strength of the
Helical Piles and Helical Anchors
Number of Helical Piles and Helical Anchors and respective design
allowable capacities from the Drawings
Planned installation depth and the number of lead and extension sections
Preliminary helical configuration (number and diameter of helical bearing
plates)
Manufacturers recommended capacity to installation torque ratio
Minimum final installation torque(s)
Product identification numbers and designations for all Bracket
Assemblies and number and size of connection bolts or concrete
reinforcing steel detail
31 66 15-4
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-7
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
9.
B.
Corrosion protection coating on Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and

Bracket Assemblies
Contractors Pile Design Professional shall submit to the Engineer design

calculations for the Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets intended for use
on the project at least 14 calendar days prior to planned start of installation. The
Shop Drawings shall include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reduction in shaft dimension and strength by the sacrificial thickness

anticipated based on corrosion loss over the design life for project soil
conditions.
Considerations for downdrag, buckling, and expansive soils (as
appropriate).
Minimum installation depth to reach bearing stratum and to achieve
pullout capacity (if required).
Soil bearing and pullout capacity.
Lateral resistance of the shaft (if required).
Estimated pile head movement at design loads.
C.
Contractor shall submit to the Engineer calibration information certified by an

independent testing agency for the torque measurement device and all load
testing and monitoring equipment to be used on the project. Calibration
information shall have been tested within the last year of the date submitted.
Calibration information shall include, but is not limited to, the name of the testing
agency, identification number or serial number of device calibrated, and the date
of calibration.
D.
If load tests or proof load tests are required on the Drawings, the Contractor shall
submit for review and acceptance the proposed load testing procedure. The
proposal shall provide the minimum following information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Type and sensitivity of load equipment

Type and sensitivity of load measuring equipment
Type and sensitivity of pile-head deflection equipment
General description of load reaction system, including description of
reaction anchors or bearing plate
Calibration reports for equipment, including hydraulic jack, pressure
gauges, and deflection dial gauges
E.
Manufacturer shall provide a one year warranty against manufacturing defects

on Helical Pile, Helical Anchor, and Bracket products. Any additional warranty
provided by the Contractor shall be issued as an addendum to this specification.
F.
Work shall not begin until all the submittals have been received and approved by
the Engineer. The Contractor shall allow the Engineer a reasonable number of
days to review, comment, and return the submittal package after a complete set
has been received. All costs associated with incomplete or unacceptable
submittals shall be the responsibility of the Contractor.
31 66 15-5
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-8
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
1.07
Shipping, Storage, and Handling
A.
All Helical Pile, Helical Anchor, and Bracket Assemblies shall be free of structural
defects and protected from damage. Store Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and
Bracket Assemblies on wood pallets or supports to keep from contacting the
ground. Damage to materials shall be cause for rejection.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.01
Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets
A.
All Helical Pile, Helical Anchor, and Bracket Assemblies shall be manufactured
by Magnum Piering, Inc. Unless noted otherwise, it is the Contractors Pile
Design Professionals responsibility to select the appropriate size and type of
Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets to support the design loads shown
on the Drawings. These specifications and the Drawings provide minimum
requirements to aid the Contractor in making appropriate materials selections.
The size and number of helical bearing plates must be such that the Helical Piles
and Helical Anchors achieve the appropriate torque and capacity in the soils at
the site within the minimum and maximum length requirements. Failure to
achieve proper torque and capacity shall result in Contractor replacing Helical
Piles and Helical Anchors as appropriate to support the required loads. All
material replacements shall be acceptable to Engineer.
B.
The design strength of the helical bearing plates, shaft connections, Brackets,
and the pile shaft itself shall be sufficient to support the design loads specified on
the Drawings times appropriate service load factors. In addition, all Helical Piles
and Helical Anchors shall be manufactured to the following criteria.
1.
2.
Central Shaft: The central shaft shall be 3-inch, 4.5-inch, or 5.72-inch

outside diameter (O.D.) high strength structural steel tube meeting the
requirements of ASTM A513 Grade 65. The central shaft shall have
design wall thicknesses of 0.125, 0.25, 0.31, 0.37, or 0.46 inches.
Helical Bearing Plates: One or more helical bearing plates shall be affixed
to the central shaft. Helical bearing plates shall be 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20,
or 24 inches in diameter depending on required bearing area. Helical
bearing plates mounted to 3-inch, 4.5-inch, or 5.72-inch O.D. shafts shall
have a minimum thicknesses of 3/8, 5/8, or 7/8 inches, respectively, and
shall meet the requirements of ASTM A36. Helical bearing plates shall be
attached to 3-inch, 4.5-inch, or 5.72-inch O.D. shafts via 3/16, 5/16, or
7/16 inch fillet welds, respectively, continuous on top and bottom and
around the leading edges. Helical bearing plates shall be cold pressed
into a near perfect helical shape that when affixed to the central shaft are
perpendicular with the central shaft, of uniform pitch, and such that the
leading and trailing edges are within 3/8 inch of parallel. Average helical
pitch shall be within plus or minus 1/4 inch of the thickness of the helical
bearing plate plus 3 inches.
31 66 15-6
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-9
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
C.
Corrosion Protection: Depending on project requirements and soil

corrosivity, Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Brackets shall be bare
steel, powder coated, or hot-dip galvanized (per ASTM A123 or A153 as
applicable).
Shaft Connections: The Helical Pile and Helical Anchor shaft connections
shall consist of an external sleeve connection or a welded connection.
External sleeve connections shall be in-line, straight and rigid and shall
have a maximum tolerable slack of 1/16-inch. Welded connections shall
consist of a full penetration groove weld all-around the central shaft.
Shaft connections shall have a flexural strength at least as great as the
shaft itself.
Bolts: External sleeve connections for 3-inch, 4.5-inch, or 5.72-inch O.D.
shafts shall be made via one, two, or three bolts, respectively. Bolts shall
be either 7/8, 1, 1-1/4, or 1-1/2-inch diameter as required for strength.
Bolt holes through the external sleeve and central shaft shall have a
diameter that is 1/16th inch greater than the bolt diameter. Bolts and nuts
used to join Helical Pile and Helical Anchor sections at the shaft
connections shall be bare steel, epoxy coated, or zinc coated to match
the corrosion protection used for the central shaft. Bolts shall be ASME
SAE Grade 8 for MH325R piles or ASME SAE Grade 5 for all other piles.
All Helical Pile and Helical Anchor bolts shall be securely snug tightened.
Plug Welds: Alternatively, external sleeve connections may be made
using plug welds matching the diameter and number of bolt holes.
External sleeve: External sleeve Helical Pile and Helical Anchor shaft
connections shall consist of a 3.375-inch diameter by 0.13-inch thick wall,
3.625-inch diameter by 0.25-inch thick wall, 3.75-inch diameter by 0.31inch thick wall, 5.25-inch diameter by 0.31-inch thick wall, or 6.77-inch
diameter by 0.46-inch thick wall high strength structural steel tube outer
sleeve meeting the requirements of ASTM A513 Grade 65. The outer
sleeve shall be welded to the central shaft via a continuous fillet weld allaround. The fillet weld shall have a throat thickness equal to the external
sleeve tube thickness.
Reinforced connections: Reinforced shaft connections shall have a 2.75inch diameter by 0.125-inch thick wall, 2.500-inch diameter by 0.25-inch
thick wall, 4-inch diameter by 0.25-inch thick wall, 3.88-inch diameter by
0.25-inch thick wall, 5.22-inch diameter by 0.25-inch thick wall, 4.97-inch
diameter by 0.375 thick wall, or 4.80-inch diameter by 0.46-inch thick wall
high strength structural steel tube inner sleeve meeting the requirements
of ASTM A513 Grade 65. The inner sleeve shall be welded to the central
shaft via plug welds oriented 90 degrees from and located slightly below
the bolt holes.
Helical Piles and Helical Anchors shall be fitted with a manufactured Bracket that
facilitates connection to the structure. Brackets shall be rated for the design
loads shown on the Drawings. Brackets shall be affixed to the end of Helical
Piles and Helical Anchors via bolts, plug welds, or continuous penetration welds
meeting the requirements for shaft connections given previously in these
specifications.
31 66 15-7
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-10
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01
Examination
A.
Contractor shall take reasonable effort to locate all utilities and structures above
and underground in the area of the Work. Contractor shall pot hole to determine
the exact location of underground utilities and buried structures within a distance
from a Helical Pile or Helical Anchor equal to three times the maximum helix
diameter. Contractor is responsible for protection of utilities and structures
shown on the Drawings. Costs of avoiding, relocating, or repair of utilities not
shown on Drawings shall be paid by Owner as extra work.
B.
Contractor shall review Drawings and soil borings in the Contract Documents to
determine subsurface conditions for sizing and installation of Helical Piles and
Helical Anchors. In addition, Contractor shall make a site visit to observe
conditions prior to the start of Work.
C.
Contractor shall notify Engineer of any condition that would affect proper
installation of Helical Piles and Helical Anchors immediately after the condition is
revealed. Contractor shall halt installation work until the matter can be resolved
upon mutual satisfaction of Contractor, Owner, and Engineer. Costs associated
with construction delays, product substitutions, pile or anchor relocations, or
other related costs shall be the responsibility of the Owner if the result of an
unforeseen condition that could not be inferred by a reasonable Contractor from
the Drawings and Construction Documents.
D.
If the number and size of helical bearing plates required for the project is not
shown on the working drawings, the contractor shall have the option of
performing subsurface tests using methods subject to the review and acceptance
of the Owner. The data collected along with other information pertinent to the
project site shall be used to determine the required helical bearing plate
configuration.
E.
If excavation is required for proper installation of Helical Piles and Helical

Anchors, Contractor shall make safe excavations in accordance with OSHA
standards. All excavations greater than 20 feet in depth or not in strict
accordance with OSHA standard details shall be designed by a registered design
professional specializing in the design of excavations and shoring. The costs of
all excavations, shoring, and related design shall be born by the Contractor
unless noted otherwise in the Contract.
F.
Contractor shall notify Engineer at least 24 hours prior to installation of Helical

Piles or Helical Anchors to schedule quality assurance observations required on
the Drawings.
3.02
Installation Equipment
31 66 15-8
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-11
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
A.
Torque Motor: Helical Piles and Helical Anchors should be installed with high
torque, low RPM torque motors, which allow the helical plates to advance with
minimal soil disturbance. The torque motor shall be hydraulic power driven with
clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation capability. The torque motor shall be
adjustable with respect to revolutions per minute during installation. Percussion
drilling equipment shall not be permitted. The torque motor shall have torque
capacity equal to or greater than the minimum final installation torque required
for the project. The connection between the torque motor and the installation rig
shall have no more than two pivot hinges oriented 90 degrees from each other.
Additional hinges promote wobbling and affect lateral capacity.
B.
Installation Equipment: The installation equipment shall be capable of applying

adequate crowd and torque simultaneously to ensure normal advancement of
the Helical Piles and Helical Anchors. The equipment shall be capable of
maintaining proper alignment and position.
C.
Drive Tool:
The connection between the torque motor and Helical Pile and
Helical Anchor shall be in-line, straight, and rigid, and shall consist of a
hexagonal, square, or round kelly bar adapter and helical shaft socket. To
ensure proper fit, the drive tool shall be manufactured by the Helical Pile
manufacturer and used in accordance with the manufacturers installation
instructions.
D.
Connection Pins: The central shaft of the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor shall be
attached to the drive tool by ASME SAE Grade 8 smooth tapered pins matching
the number and diameter of the specified shaft connection bolts. The connection
pins should be maintained in good condition and safe to operate at all times.
The pins should be regularly inspected for wear and deformation. Pins should
be replaced with identical pins when worn or damaged.
E.
Torque Indicator: A torque indicator shall be used to measure installation torque

during installation. The torque indicator can be an integral part of the installation
equipment or externally mounted in-line with the installation tooling. The torque
indicator shall be capable of torque measurements with a sensitivity of 500 ft-lb
or less. Torque indicators shall have been calibrated within 1-year prior to start
of Work. Torque indicators that are an integral part of the installation equipment
shall be calibrated on-site. Torque indicators that are mounted in-line with the
installation tooling shall be calibrated either on-site or at an appropriately
equipped test facility. Indicators that measure torque as a function of hydraulic
pressure shall be re-calibrated following any maintenance performed on the
torque motor. Torque indicators shall be re-calibrated if, in the opinion of the
Engineer, reasonable doubt exists as to the accuracy of the torque
measurements.
3.03
Installation Procedures
A.
Unless shown on the Drawings, the number and size of helical blades shall be
determined by the Contractors Pile Design Professional in order to achieve the
31 66 15-9
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-12
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
required torque and tensile/bearing capacity for the soil conditions at the site.
The ratio of design load to the total area of the helical bearing plates shall not
exceed the Allowable Bearing Capacity.
B.
Connect the lead section to the Torque Motor using the Drive Tool and
Connection Pins. Position and align the Lead Section at the location and to the
inclination shown on the Drawings and crowd the pilot point into the soil.
Advance the Lead Section and continue to add Extension Sections to achieve
the Termination Criteria. All sections shall be advanced into the soil in a smooth,
continuous manner at a rate of rotation between 10 and 40 revolutions per
minute. Snug tight all coupling bolts.
C.
Constant axial force (crowd) shall be applied while rotating Helical Piles and
Helical Anchors into the ground. The crowd applied shall be sufficient to ensure
that the Helical Pile and Helical Anchor advances into the ground a distance
equal to at least 80% of the blade pitch per revolution during normal
advancement.
D.
The torsional strength rating of the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor shall not be
exceeded during installation. For Magnum Piering products, the torsional
strength ratings are listed below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
MH313 4,000 ft-lbs; MH313R 6,000 ft-lbs

E.
Bolt hole elongation due to torsion of the shaft of a Helical Anchor at the drive
tool shall be limited to inch. Helical Anchors with bolt hole damage exceeding
this criterion shall be uninstalled, removed, and discarded.
F.
When the Termination Criteria of a Helical Pile or Helical Anchor is obtained, the
Contractor shall adjust the elevation of the top end of the shaft to the elevation
shown on the Drawings or as required. This adjustment may consist of cutting
off the top of the shaft and drilling new holes to facilitate installation of Brackets
to the orientation shown on the Drawings. Alternatively, installation may
continue until the final elevation and orientation of the pre-drilled bolt holes are in
alignment. Contractor shall not reverse the direction of torque and back-out the
Helical Pile or Helical Anchor to obtain the final elevation.
G.
The Contractor shall install Brackets in accordance with Helical Pile

manufacturers details or as shown on the Drawings.
H.
All Helical Pile and Helical Anchor components including the shaft and Bracket
shall be isolated from making a direct electrical contact with any concrete
31 66 15-10
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-13
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
reinforcing bars or other non-galvanized metal objects since these contacts may
alter corrosion rates.
I.
After installation, Helical Anchors shall be pre-tensioned if indicated on the

Drawings.
3.04
Termination Criteria
A.
Helical Piles and Helical Anchors shall be advanced until all of the following
criteria are satisfied.
B.
1.
Axial capacity is verified by achieving the final installation torque as

shown on the Drawings, as provided by the Pile Design Professional, or
as specified here. Helical Pile and Helical Anchor capacity in soil and on
bedrock depends on the geometric configuration of the helical bearing
plates and the subsurface conditions. The torque applied during
installation provides a verification of axial capacity. An ultimate capacity
to torque ratio of 8 ft-1, 5.7 ft-1, and 4.6 ft-1 shall be used to verify capacity
for 3-inch, 4.5-inch, and 5.72-inch O.D. shafts, respectively. A minimum
factor of safety of 2.0 shall be used to determine allowable capacity.
Hence, all Helical Piles and Helical Anchors shall be advanced until a
final installation torque is achieved equal to the design loads shown on
the Drawings times a factor of safety of 2.0 divided by the capacity to
torque ratio (e.g. final installation torque, ft-lbs = design loads, lbs x 2.0 /
capacity to torque ratio, ft-1).
2.
Minimum depth is obtained. The minimum depth shall be as shown on

the Drawings, that which corresponds to the planned bearing stratum, or
the depth at which the final installation torque is measured, whichever is
greater. In addition, Helical Anchors shall be advanced until the average
torque over the last three (3) feet equals or exceeds the required final
installation torque.
If the torsional strength rating of the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and/or the
maximum torque of the installation equipment has been reached or Augering
occurs prior to achieving the minimum depth required, the Contractor shall have
the following options:
1.
Terminate the installation at the depth obtained subject to the review and
acceptance of the Engineer and Owner.
2.
Remove the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and install a new one with
fewer and/or smaller diameter helical bearing plates or with dual cutting
edge helical bearing plates. The new helical configuration shall be
subject to review and acceptance of the Engineer and Owner.
3.
Remove the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and pre-drill a 4-inch diameter
pilot hole in the same location and reinstall the anchor/pile.
31 66 15-11
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-14
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
C.
4.
If the obstruction is shallow, remove the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and
remove the obstruction by surface excavation. Backfill and compact the
resulting excavation and reinstall the anchor/pile.
5.
Remove the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and relocate 1-foot to either
side of the installation location subject to the review and acceptance of
Engineer and Owner.
6.
Reverse the direction of torque, back-out the Helical Pile or Helical

Anchor a distance of 1 to 2 feet and attempt to reinstall by decreasing
crowd and Augering through the obstruction.
7.
Remove the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and sever the uppermost
helical bearing plate from the Lead Section if more than one helical
bearing plate is in use, or reshape the helical bearing plates to create the
patented Magnum dual cutting edge shape by cutting with a band saw.
Reinstall the anchor or pile with revised helical bearing plate
configuration.
If the final installation torque is not achieved at the contract length, the
Contractor shall have the following options:
1.
Until the maximum depth is achieved (if any), install the Helical Pile or
Helical Anchor deeper using additional Extension Sections.
2.
Remove the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and install a new one with
additional and/or larger diameter helical bearing plates.
3.
Decrease the rated load capacity of the Helical Pile or Helical Anchor and
install additional Helical Piles or Helical Anchors. The rated capacity and
additional unit location shall be subject to the review and acceptance of
the Engineer and Owner.
3.05
Allowable Tolerances
A.
Helical Piles and Helical Anchors shall be installed as close to the specified
installation and orientation angles as possible. Tolerance for departure from
installation and orientation angles shall be +/- 5 degrees.
B.
Helical Piles, Helical Anchors, and Bracket Assemblies shall be installed at the
locations and to the elevations shown on the Plans. Tolerances for Bracket
Assembly placement shall be +/- 1 inch in both directions perpendicular to the
shaft and +/- 1/4 inch in a direction parallel with the shaft unless otherwise
specified.
3.06
Quality Assurance
31 66 15-12
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-15
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
A.
The Contractor shall provide the Engineer and Owner copies of installation
records within 48 hours after each installation is completed. These installation
records shall include, but are not limited to, the following information:
1.
Name of project and Contractor
2.
Name of Contractors supervisor during installation
3.
Date and time of installation
4.
Name and model of installation equipment
5.
Type of torque indicator used
6.
Location of Helical Pile or Helical Anchor by grid location, diagram, or

assigned identification number
7.
Type and configuration of Lead Section with length of shaft and number
and size of helical bearing plates
8.
Type and configuration of Extension Sections with length and number and
size of helical bearing plates, if any
9.
Installation duration and observations
10.
Total length installed
11.
Final elevation of top of shaft and cut-off length, if any
12.
Final plumbness or inclination of shaft
13.
Installation torque at minimum three-foot depth intervals
14.
Final installation torque
15.
Comments pertaining to interruptions, obstructions, or other relevant

information
16.
Verified axial load capacity
B.
Unless specified otherwise on the Drawings or by local codes, the Engineer, the
Pile Design Professional, or an inspection agency accepted by the Engineer
shall observe and document at least 10 percent of Helical Pile and Helical
Anchor installations.
3.07
Load Testing
A.
Helical Pile Compression Tests

31 66 15-13
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-16
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
Contractor shall perform the number of compression tests shown on the

Drawings, if any
Compression tests shall be performed following the quick test procedure
described in ASTM D1143 specifications
Load tests shall be observed and documented by the Engineer
Unless otherwise shown on the Drawings, the maximum test load shall be
200% of the allowable load shown on the Drawings
The locations of Helical Piles to be tested shall be determined by the
Contractor, unless noted on the Drawings
Installation methods, procedures, equipment, products, and final
installation torque shall be identical to the production Helical Piles to the
extent practical except where otherwise approved by the Owner or
Engineer
A load test shall be deemed acceptable provided the maximum test load
is applied without Helical Pile failure and the deflection of the pile head at
the design load is less than 1-inch unless noted otherwise on the
Drawings. Failure is defined when continuous jacking is required to
maintain the load.
Helical Anchor Tension Tests

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
C.
Contractor shall perform the number of proof load tests shown on the
Drawings, if any
Proof load tests shall be performed following the procedure described in
ASTM D3689 specifications
Proof load tests shall be observed and documented by the Engineer
150% of the allowable load shown on the Drawings
The locations of Helical Anchors to be tested shall be determined by the
Contractor, unless shown on the Drawings
Installation methods, procedures, equipment, products, and final
installation torque shall be identical to the production anchors to the
extent practical except where otherwise approved by the Owner or
Engineer
A proof load test shall be deemed acceptable provided the maximum test
load is applied without helical anchor failure. Failure is when continuous
jacking is required to maintain the load.
Helical Pile Lateral Load Tests

1.
2.
3.
4.
Contractor shall perform the number of lateral load tests shown on the
Drawings, if any
Lateral load tests shall be performed following the free head procedure
described in ASTM D3966 specifications
Lateral load tests shall be observed and documented by the Engineer
200% of the allowable lateral load shown on the Drawings
31 66 15-14
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-17
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
5.
The locations of test Helical Piles shall be determined by the Contractor,

unless shown on the Drawings
Installation methods, procedures, equipment, products, and final installation
torque shall be identical to the production piles to the extent practical except
where otherwise approved by the Owner or Engineer
A lateral load test shall be deemed acceptable provided the lateral deflection
of the pile head measured at the ground surface at the maximum test load is
equal to or less than 1-inch.
6.
7.
D.
If a load test fails the forgoing acceptance criteria, the Contractor shall modify the
Helical Pile or Helical Anchor design and/or installation methods and retest the
modified pile or anchor, as directed by the Owner or Engineer. These
modifications include, but are not limited to, de-rating the load capacity,
modifying the installation methods and equipment, increasing the minimum final
installation torque, changing the helical configuration, or changing the product
(i.e., duty). Modifications that require changes to the structure shall have prior
review and acceptance of the Owner.
Any modifications of design or
construction procedures, and any retesting required shall be at the Contractors
expense.
E.
The Contractor shall provide the Owner and Engineer copies of load test reports
confirming configuration and construction details within 1 week after completion
of the load tests. This written documentation will either confirm the load capacity
as required on the working drawings or propose changes based upon the results
of the tests. At a minimum, the documentation shall include:
1.
Name of project and Contractor
2.
Date, time, and duration of test
3.
Location of test Helical Pile or Helical Anchor by grid location, diagram, or

assigned identification number
4.
Test procedure (ASTM D1143, D3689, or D3966)
5.
List of any deviations from procedure
6.
Description of calibrated testing equipment and test set-up
7.
Type and configuration of Helical Pile or Helical Anchor including lead

section, number and type of extension sections, and manufacturers
product identification numbers
8.
Load steps and duration of each load increment
9.
Cumulative pile-head movement at each load step
31 66 15-15
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-18
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
10.
Comments pertaining to test procedure, equipment adjustments, or other

relevant information
PART 4 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

4.01
Helical Piles, Helical Anchors and Bracket Assemblies
A.
Per Unit: Payment will be at a per unit price with one unit consisting of the labor,
equipment, and materials required to furnish and install a Helical Pile or Helical
Anchor and associated Bracket at the location and to the elevation, orientation,
inclination, length, and capacity shown in the Drawings. Unless established in
the Contract, there shall be no payment for additional Helical Pile or Helical
Anchor length.
B.
Per Load Test: Payment will be at a per unit price with one unit consisting of the
labor, equipment, and materials required to perform each required load test.
END OF SPECIFICATION
NOTE: Because Magnum has a policy of continuous product improvement, we reserve
the right to change design and specifications without notice.
Printed in U.S.A. Copyright 2009 Magnum Piering, Inc., West Chester, OH
31 66 15-16
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-19
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
DOT Format Model Specifications for helical Piles and helical Anchors
SECTION 552
HELICAL ANCHORS AND HELICAL PILES
DESCRIPTION
552.01 This work pertains to furnishing and installing helical anchors and helical piles shown in the Contract in
accordance with the Drawings and these specifications. Each helical anchor and helical pile shall be installed at the
location and to the elevation, minimum length, and installation torque indicative of the design allowable capacities
shown on the Plans or as established. In addition, helical piles and helical anchors shall be load tested and posttensioned as specified. These specifications are to be used in conjunction with Federal Highway or State
Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
MATERIALS
552.02 Guarantees and Insurance
Helical anchor and helical pile manufacturer shall furnish a guarantee for a period of ten (10) years from date of
delivery against defects due to manufacturing of helical anchors, helical piles, and bracket assemblies. Helical
anchor and helical pile manufacturer must carry product liability insurance. Refer to General Conditions for
additional insurance requirements.
552.03 Prequalification Requirements
Due to the special requirements for design and manufacture of helical anchors and helical piles, and the
requirements for proper performance of the structural system, as a whole, helical anchors and helical piles shall be
obtained from an organization specializing in the design and manufacture of helical anchors and helical piles. The
following manufacturers products are prequalified for use on this project:
Magnum Piering, Inc.
A request for using any other manufactured helical anchor and helical pile products desired for use on this project
must be submitted to the Project Manager and Foundation Engineer for review not less that seven (7) calendar days
prior to the bid date. The request must include:
1.
2.
3.
A catalog or recent brochure describing the manufacturer.

Evidence showing manufacturer has at least ten (10) years experience in this area of work.
Current ISO9001 certificate and ICC-ES product evaluation reports or complete description of product
testing and manufacturing quality assurance programs used to assess and maintain product quality.
Prior to bidding by any installer using a manufactured helical anchor and helical pile system that is not prequalified,
written approval to bid must be received from the Project Manager upon consultation with the Foundation Engineer.
Project Manager shall grant approval based on compliance with specific criteria herein. The Project Managers
decision is final.
552.04 Minimum Material Requirements
Helical anchor and helical piles shall have a tubular round shaft and shall have the required number of helical blades
so as to provide for adequate load carrying capacity. The strength of the helical blades, shaft connections, bracket
assembly, and the shaft itself shall be sufficient to support the design loads specified on the Plans. Helical anchors,
helical piles, and bracket assemblies shall be designed in accordance with modern standards for steel construction.
Design capacity shall take into account corrosion over a 75 year design lifespan. Helical piles and helical anchors
shall be protected from corrosion by hot-dip galvanizing per ASTM A123 or A153, as applicable.
The helical anchor and helical pile shaft connections shall be in-line, straight and rigid and shall have a maximum
tolerable slack of 1/16-inch or as acceptable to Foundation Engineer. Bolts used to join helical anchor and helical
pile sections at the shaft connections shall be zinc coated or galvanized and shall be the grade and size specified by
the helical anchor and helical pile manufacturer. All helical anchor and helical pile bolts shall be securely snug
552-1
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-20
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
tightened.
Helical anchors shall be fitted with an adjustable bracket assembly that facilitates both post-tensioning and proof
load testing. Helical piles shall be fitted with a manufactured bracket assembly rated for the design loads shown on
the Plans and the strength of the concrete or other structure they support.
MATERIAL SELECTION
552.05 Design and Application
A list of all helical anchor, helical pile, and bracket materials to be used on this project shall be submitted with the
bid package. The list shall clearly state the allowable mechanical capacity of all materials. The list shall be certified
by the manufacturers engineer. It is the helical anchor and helical pile installation contractors responsibility to
select the appropriate size and type of helical anchors, helical piles, and bracket assemblies. These specifications
and the Plans provide minimum requirements to aid the contractor in making appropriate materials selections. The
size and number of helical blades must be such that the helical anchors and helical piles achieve the appropriate
torque and capacity in the soils at this site within the minimum and maximum length requirements. Failure to
achieve proper torque and capacity shall result in contractor replacing helical anchors and helical piles as
appropriate to support the required loads. All installation procedures, materials, and replacements shall be
acceptable to Foundation Engineer.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
552.06 Warranty and Insurance
Helical anchor and helical pile installation contractor shall furnish a warranty for a period of ten (10) years from date
of installation against defects due to workmanship on installation of helical anchor, helical pile, and bracket
assemblies. Helical anchor and helical pile installer must carry general liability insurance. Refer to General
Conditions for additional insurance requirements.
552.07 Prequalification Requirements
Due to the special requirements for installation of helical anchors and helical piles, and the requirements for proper
performance of the structural system, as a whole, helical anchors, helical piles, and bracket assemblies shall be
installed by an organization specializing in the installation of helical anchors and helical piles. The following
installation contractors are prequalified for work on this project:
< Insert Name of Authorized Magnum Installer Here >
Any other contractor desiring to bid as the helical anchor and helical pile installer for this project shall submit a
request to the Project Manager and Foundation Engineer for review not less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the
bid date. The request must include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A recent company brochure indicating experience in this type of work.

Evidence of having installed helical anchors and helical piles on at least ten (10) projects, including project
name, location, and client contact information.
Detailed description of helical anchors and helical piles, brackets, and connections of bracket to structure
proposed for use on this project.
Proposed method of installation/ load testing pile and bracket.
Prior to bidding by any installer that is not prequalified, written approval to bid must be received from the Project
Manager upon consultation with the Foundation Engineer. Project Manager shall grant approval based on
compliance with specific criteria herein. The Project Managers decision is final.
552.08 Installation Equipment
Each helical anchor and helical pile shall be advanced into the ground by application of rotational force using a
hydraulic torque converter. Installation equipment shall include a direct means of determining the installation
torque being applied to the helical anchor and helical pile. Where post-tensioning and capacity testing are required,
552-2
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-21
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
installation equipment also shall include a means for applying and measuring loads and deflections of helical piles
and helical anchors. Acceptable methods of post-tensioning and load testing include a calibrated hydraulic jack or
other means acceptable to the Foundation Engineer. Current evidence of calibration of Contractors load testing,
post-tensioning, and torque monitoring equipment shall be provided upon request of Foundation Engineer.
552.09 Equipment and Material Acceptance
All helical anchor and helical pile installation equipment and materials shall be acceptable to the Foundation
Engineer prior to delivery to the site. Acceptance will be based upon submission of records and data, as discussed in
Sections 552.02 through 552.08. Once accepted, changes in installation equipment and materials will not be
permitted without additional acceptance, and will be considered only after Contractor has submitted any and all
information requested by Foundation Engineer.
552.10 Installing helical Anchors and helical Piles
Loads shown on the Plans are unfactored design loads. A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 shall be used to
determine the required ultimate tensile capacity of the helical anchors and compressive capacity of helical piles with
regard to their interaction with soil and bedrock. Helical anchor and helical pile capacity in soil and on bedrock
depends on the geometric configuration of the helical blades about the lead section and the subsurface conditions.
The torque applied during installation provides an indirect verification of axial capacity. Manufacturers
recommendations should be followed regarding the torque and the tensile/bearing capacity relationship for the
particular helical anchor and helical piles selected. The number and size of blades shall be determined by the
Contractor so as to achieve the required torque and tensile/bearing capacity for the soil conditions at the site.
However, the ratio of design allowable capacity to the total area of the helical blades shall not exceed the allowable
subsurface material bearing capacity.
Helical anchors and helical piles shall be advanced into the ground until the required torque is achieved to
accommodate the ultimate tensile and bearing capacity plus an additional distance to ensure proper embedment. For
the helical anchors, the embedment length shall be achieved by continuing advancement while maintaining or
exceeding the required torque for a distance of at least three (3) feet. For the helical piles on bedrock, the
embedment length shall be that required to achieve practical refusal.
Constant normal pressure shall be applied while screwing helical anchors and helical piles into the ground. The
pressure applied shall be sufficient to ensure that, during each revolution, the helical anchor and helical pile progress
into the ground a distance equal to at least 80% of the blade pitch. Rate of helical anchor and helical pile rotation
shall not exceed 30 revolutions per minute.
The minimum and maximum length of the helical anchors shall be as shown on the Plans. The minimum length of
the helical piles shall be such that the lowest helical bearing plate is at or below the elevation of the bearing stratum
shown in the soil borings contained in the Geotechnical Report. The minimum depth of helical anchors below
ground surface shall be 5 times the largest helix diameter. The minimum length of helical anchors behind a shoring
or earth retention structure shall be this distance plus the distance behind the wall facing to the soil plane depicting
the active earth pressure.
Helical anchors and helical piles shall be installed as close to the specified installation angle as possible. Tolerance
for departure from installation angle shall be 5 degrees unless noted otherwise on the Plans.
Helical anchors, helical piles, and bracket assemblies shall be installed at the locations shown on the Plans.
Tolerances for bracket assembly placement shall be 1 in both directions perpendicular to the anchor shaft and in
a direction parallel with the anchor shaft unless otherwise specified.
All helical anchor and helical pile components including the shaft and bracket assembly shall be isolated from
making a direct electrical contact with any concrete reinforcing bars or other non-galvanized metal objects since
these contacts may alter corrosion rates.
552-3
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-22
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
552.11 Static Load Capacity Testing

A static load capacity test shall be performed on the helical anchors and helical piles after installation in accordance
with the Plans. The static load capacity test shall be conducted one at a time and shall consist of the following. An
initial axial setting force of 5,000 lbs shall be applied to the helical anchor or helical pile. Load increments of 10 to
15% of the design allowable load shall be subsequently applied with a constant time interval between each
increment, in accordance with ASTM D 1143 Quick Load Test Method for Individual Piles, until the proof load
specified on the Plans is reached. After the final hold period, the maximum pile head displacement shall be
recorded. The test shall be deemed successful provided helical anchor and helical pile maximum pile head
displacement is less than three quarter (3/4) inch at the design load. In the event of an unsatisfactory test, the helical
anchor or helical pile shall be installed to additional length and torque until a successful proof load capacity test has
been completed. Axial load shall be applied to the helical anchor and helical pile during the proof load capacity test
utilizing the final bracket assembly configuration. Through the duration of installation and testing, the horizontal
movement of the structure to which the helical anchors are attached shall be limited as shown on the Plans.
552.12 Post-Tensioning
Upon completion of installation and proof load capacity testing, all helical anchors shall be post-tensioned in
accordance with the Plans.
552.13 Field Modifications
Field welding, if required, shall be in accordance with the Code for Welding in Building Construction of the
American Welding Society. Welding of galvanized steel can produce toxic gases and should be done in adequate
ventilation and with appropriate gas detection, breathing gear, and other safety equipment per OSHA regulations.
Modification of manufactured helical anchor and helical pile shaft, helical blades, bracket assemblies, and shaft
connections is prohibited and shall not be performed without approval of product manufacturing company and
acceptance by Foundation Engineer.
552.14 Quality Assurance Observation
Installation of helical anchors and helical piles shall be observed by Foundation Engineer or Foundation Engineers
representative/agent to verify the length, final installation torque, proof load capacity tests, and post-tensioning.
Contractor shall notify Foundation Engineer or Foundation Engineers representative/agent at least 24 hours prior to
installation work.
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
552.15 Helical anchors and helical piles will be measured on a per unit length basis with one unit equal to the
equipment, materials, including bracket assembly, and labor required for proper installation and post-tensioning (if
required) of one lineal foot of helical anchor or helical pile at the required final installation torque, capacity,
location, elevation, and minimum length specified. Static load capacity testing will be measured on a per unit basis
with one unit equal to the equipment, materials, including reaction piles and load frame, and labor required for
obtaining a successful static load test.
BASIS OF PAYMENT
552.16 The accepted quantities will be paid for at the unit price per unit of measurement for each of the pay items
listed below that appear in the bid schedule.
552-4
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-23
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
Payment will be made under:

Pay Item
Pay Unit
Helical Anchor and Bracket Assembly, Installed

Helical Pile and Bracket Assembly, Installed
Static Load Test, Successful
per foot
per foot
per test
Compensation will not be made for installation of helical anchors and helical piles where static load capacity tests
failed to meet the required criteria. It is the Contractors responsibility to select, furnish, and install the helical
anchors and helical piles with the appropriate number and size of helical blades so as to achieve successful static
load tests, to anticipate the required length of the helical anchor and helical piles, and include these costs in the bid
price.
552-5
Revised 11/10/09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-24
Rev. 12-09
Sample CAD Drawings

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-25
Rev. 12-09
Foundation Repair & Augmentation CAD Examples

The purpose of these examples is to provide guidance in the design of foundation repair
and augmentation projects, and to illustrate the diverse uses for helical piles. These are
only examples and should not be used for any project other than the project the plans
were engineered for. Pile size, placement, orientation, capacity, and helix size should be
designed on a per project basis and should be approved by a licensed engineer in the
project jurisdiction. All of the examples provided in this section are also available on the
Magnum Piering website:
http://www.magnumpiering.com/engineers/cad_drawings.aspx
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Page
Augmentation of Select Interior Columns of a Warehouse
2000-26
Foundation Augmentation with Battered Piles for Lateral

Loads for a University Bldg.
2000-28
Seismic Retrofit for Commercial Building
2000-31
Partial Foundation Underpinning for Airport Hanger
2000-34
Complete Foundation Augmentation for Residence
2000-37
Partial Foundation Underpinning with Slope Stabilization for Residence
2000-39
Complete Foundation Underpinning Including New Patio for Residence
2000-43

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-26
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-27
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-28
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-29
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-30
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-31
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-32
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-33
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-34
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-35
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-36
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-37
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-38
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-39
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-40
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-41
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-42
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-43
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-44
Rev. 12-09
Slope Stabilization CAD Examples

The purpose of these examples is to provide guidance in the design of slope stabilization
projects, and to illustrate the diverse uses for helical piles. These are only examples and
should not be used for any project other than the project the plans were engineered for.
Pile size, placement, orientation, capacity, and helix size should be designed on a per
project basis and should be approved by a licensed engineer in the project jurisdiction.
All of the examples provided in this section are also available on the Magnum Piering
website: http://www.magnumpiering.com/engineers/cad_drawings.aspx
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Page
Stabilization of Existing Concrete Retaining Walls for Residence
2000-45
Stabilization of Failed timber Crib Wall for Residence
2000-49

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-45
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-46
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-47
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-48
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-49
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-50
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-51
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-52
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-53
Rev. 12-09
New Construction CAD Examples

The purpose of these examples is to provide guidance in the design of new construction
projects, using helical piles. These are only examples and should not be used for any
project other than the project the plans were engineered for. Pile size, placement,
orientation, capacity, and helix size should be designed on a per project basis and
should be approved by a licensed engineer in the project jurisdiction. All of the
examples provided in this section are also available on the Magnum Piering website:
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Page
Reinforced Concrete Structure with Cantilever Walls

for Water Fountain
2000-54
Reinforced Concrete Matt Foundation for Water Cistern
2000-57
Column Pad and Grade Beam System for Health Club
2000-59
Heavy Reinforced Matt for 6-Story Apartment Building
2000-61
Grade Beam and Slab-on-grade System for 7-Story

Apartment Building
2000-63
Heavy Foundation Loads with Multiple Pile Caps for 6-Story

Parking Garage
2000-68
Trex Decking Over Drop Beams for Boardwalk
2000-70
Wood Deck Over Flitch Beams for Pedestrian Bridge
2000-71
Adjustable Galvanized Steel Abutment System for Bridge
2000-72
Cast-In-Place Concrete Abutment for Bridge
2000-73
Continuous Concrete Grade Beam Foundation in Seismically

Active Area for Residence
2000-74
CIP Walls with Structural Floor in Expansive Soil Area for Residence
2000-76
123 sf Room Over Patio for Residence
2000-78
260 sf and 468 sf Concrete-less Additions for Residence
2000-80
355 sf Addition with Crawlspace and 472 sf Addition with

Basement for Residence
2000-82
500 sf Concrete-less Room and 340 sf Deck Addition for Residence

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-54
2000-84
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-55
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-56
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-57
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-58
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-59
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-60
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-61
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-62
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-63
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-64
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-65
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-66
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-67
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-68
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-69
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-70
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-71
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-72
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-73
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-74
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-75
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-76
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-77
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-78
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-79
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-80
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-81
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-82
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-83
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-84
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-85
Rev. 12-09
Excavation & Shoring CAD Examples

The purpose of these examples is to provide guidance in the design of excavation and
shoring projects, and to illustrate the diverse uses for helical piles. These are only
examples and should not be used for any project other than the project the plans were
engineered for. Pile size, placement, orientation, capacity, and helix size should be
designed on a per project basis and should be approved by a licensed engineer in the
project jurisdiction. All of the examples provided in this section are also available on the
Magnum Piering website:
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Page
Shotcrete with Tie-Backs for Underground Research Facility
2000-86
Soldier Pile and Lagging with Tie-backs for Deep

Basement Excavation
2000-87

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-86
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-87
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-88
Rev. 12-09
Example Soils Report

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-89
Rev. 12-09
Example Soils Report

December 11, 1996
Archdiocese of Colorado
200 Vine Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
Subject:
Additions to Saint Joseph Seminary

South Main Street and East Tennessee Avenue
Denver, Colorado
Job No. 96-274
This letter presents the results of our Soils and Foundation Investigation for the
proposed four-story, stair tower addition and the masonry portal addition to Saint Joseph
Seminary, in Denver, Colorado. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate
subsurface conditions at the site, assist the Structural Engineer in foundation design and
provide foundation, slab-on-grade and subsurface drainage recommendations for the
proposed construction. Our recommendations were developed based on data from our
field and laboratory investigations, experience with similar projects, and our
understanding of the proposed construction.
Site Conditions
Saint Joseph Seminary is located between East Tennessee Avenue and East Texas
Avenue and between South Main Street and South Rose Street in Denver, Colorado
(Fig.1). The Seminary consists of several buildings. The additions will be constructed to
the Catholic Pastoral Center building which is located in the south portion of the site and
was built around 1956. We understand the existing building is founded on footings
reportedly penetrating 6 inches into the underlying bedrock. Interior building columns
are founded on shallow piers. The building has a full basement with slab-on-grade
construction. Areas surrounding the building are irrigated grass with some concrete
sidewalks and asphalt pavement. The site slopes gradually away from the building on all
sides. An approximately 7 feet deep areaway runs along the south side, outside of the
existing building, and has an underground service tunnel beneath it. The existing
building is a concrete block structure with brick veneer. We observed no cracks in the
walls of the existing building and basement floor slabs and slab bearing partition walls
showed no signs of distress. Representatives from the Archdiocese of Colorado reported
no history of water problems in the basement area. There is no knowledge of a soil report
for the existing building.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-90
Rev. 12-09
Proposed Construction
The existing entryway and stairway at the north side of the existing building will
be demolished and a new four-story stair tower constructed in its place. Information
provided by the Structural Engineer indicates the stair tower addition will be supported
by the existing footing foundations and four new helix piers underpinning the existing
grade beams. We were informed that the existing entryway and stairway are founded on
footing pads with 26 x 6 dimensions. The Structural Engineer estimated there is
currently about 15,000 psf footing pressure on each footing pad and the footing pressure
would be increased to about 17,000 psf after construction of the new stair tower. The
Structural Engineer plans to use helix piers to carry the additional loads and control the
new loads on the existing footings lower than the existing loads.
A masonry portal addition will be built on the south side of the existing building.
The portal will be separate from the existing building and connected only with horizontal
cross members. The Structural Engineer plans to integrate the portal with the existing
areaway below-grade wall to increase lateral resistance of the wall. It is planned that the
portal be founded on drilled piers penetrating the bedrock.
We anticipate that the new additions will be constructed using concrete masonry
units with brick veneer. Some site grading and extensive repaving will be performed
surrounding the additions. A representative from the Archdiocese of Colorado has
informed us that they do not require recommendations regarding the repaving work.
Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling one exploratory boring in the
area of each proposed addition to depths of 25 and 30 feet. Locations of the exploratory
borings are shown on Fig. 1. Graphic logs of the soils and bedrock found in our borings
and results of field penetration resistance tests are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Soil and
bedrock samples were returned to our laboratory where they were visually classified and
tested. Tests included natural moisture content and dry density, swell consolidation and
unconfined compression tests. Results of the laboratory testing are presented on Figs. 4
through 5 and summarized on Table I.
Soils encountered in our borings included 5 feet of fill near the masonry portal
addition and no fill in the area of the stair tower addition. Native soils in both borings
consisted of stiff, sandy clays overlying sandstone, claystone and interbedded sandstone
and claystone bedrock. Clay samples tested showed low swell to slight compression.
Claystone samples tested in laboratory showed low and moderate swell. Ground water
was encountered at depths of 14 feet and 17 feet during drilling. Bedrock depth is likely
to vary between borings.
ARCHDIOCESE OF COLORADO
EXAMPLE SOIL REPORT, 96-274

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-91
Rev. 12-09
Additions Foundations
We understand the proposed stair tower addition is planned to be supported on the
existing footings and new helix piers and the portal addition to be supported on new drill
piers bottomed in bedrock. Our investigations indicate the clays and claystone bedrock
under the site are low to moderately expansive. Drilled piers and helix piers can be used
to support the additions. Piers should penetrate below the zone of probable moisture
variation and be designed and constructed to resist the swelling pressure. Footings
founded on the expansive soils and bedrock need to maintain high deadload pressure to
resist the swelling pressures. Normally, footings have higher risk of heave than the piers.
Considering the existing building footing foundations have performed reasonably well,
we believe the new addition can also be supported on these footings provided similar
footing deadload and total load pressures are maintained after construction. Differential
movements between the additions and existing building will occur due to either
settlements of new foundations or rebound and reloading of the existing footings under
the addition. A slip joint should be provided where possible at the connection to reduce
the potential damages associated with the differential movements. Foundation design and
construction criteria are as follows:
Helix Piers
1. The end bearing pressure is dependent on the properties of the helix size
selected and the torque applied to install the piers. The bedrock under the site
can provide an ultimate end bearing pressure of 90,000 psf. This value does
not include a factor of safety. Helix piers should penetrate a minimum of 4
feet into relatively unweathered bedrock. Piers should be advanced to a
torque required to accommodate the end bearing pressure specified by the
structural engineer. Manufacturers recommendations regarding the torque and
bearing relationship should be followed. A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 is
required. The pier should be placed as close to vertical as possible.
2. The connection between the pier and grade beam should be designed to resist
lateral earth pressure (if any) against the grade beams. The connection should
be designed by a structural engineer. The helix piers should be attached to the
existing grade beam using brackets that allow the pier to be pre-loaded during
construction. The helix piers should be loaded so that the deadload on the
existing footing foundation remains approximately the same before and after
construction.
3. Twisting of the shaft can occur during the installation process. We
recommend the structural engineer evaluate the effect twisting of the shaft has
on the capacity of the helix pier.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-92
Rev. 12-09
4. Installation of helix piers should be observed by a representative of our firm to

confirm the depth and installation torque of the helix piers are adequate.
Drilled Piers Bottomed In Bedrock

1. Piers should be designed for a maximum allowable end bearing pressure of
30,000 psf and an allowable skin friction value of 2,500 psf for the portion of
the pier in bedrock. Skin friction should be neglected for the portion of the
pier within 3 feet of the bottom of the foundation walls and grade beams.
2. A skin friction value of 2,000 psf can be used for uplift calculations.
Additional bedrock penetration may be necessary to resist uplift.
3. Piers should be designed to maintain deadload pressure as high as possible.
4. Piers should penetrate at least 6 feet into relatively unweathered bedrock and
have a minimum length of 18 feet. Depending on loading, the minimum
penetration may need to be increased.
5. Piers should be reinforced their full length with Grade 60 reinforcing bars
having a cross-sectional area equal to or greater than 0.005 times the end area
of the pier. For 12 inch piers, minimum reinforcing with at least 2, No. 6 bars
is recommended. Reinforcement should extend into grade beams and
foundation walls.
6. Piers should be carefully cleaned prior to placement of concrete. Ground
water was encountered at the time of this investigation. We believe casing
may be necessary for proper cleaning and dewatering of the pier holes.
7. Concrete used in cased piers should have sufficient slump so it will fill the
pier holes and will not hang on the sides of the casing during the extraction.
We recommend a slump in the range of 5 to 7 inches if casing is used. To
facilitate temporary casing installation and dewatering, piers should be
designed with the diameter of 12 inches.
8. Piers should have center to center spacing of at least 3 pier diameters or they
should be designed as a group. When checking this spacing, the largest
diameter pier in the group should be used. If it is necessary to have the piers
close together, we can provide criteria for group design on individual cases.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-93
Rev. 12-09
9. Installation of drilled piers should be observed by a representative of our firm

to identify the proper bearing strata.
Lateral Loads
We anticipate that no new basement construction will be part of this renovation.
It may be necessary to re-analyze the below-grade, retaining wall at the areaway on the
south side of the existing building for lateral earth pressures. We anticipate that the
retaining wall will be restrained so that deflections are minimal. An at rest equivalent
fluid pressure of 50 pcf may be used in design calculations providing wall backfill
consists of on-site soils. Loads due to surcharges and hydrostatic pressure should be
added to the above distribution. Hydrostatic pressure may be alleviated by providing
weep holes at the base of the retaining wall. If the entire retaining wall is reconstructed
or a portion of it, we recommend a gravel drain behind the wall to reduce the hydrostatic
pressure. The drain should consist of at least 12 inches of reasonably well graded clean
sand and gravel backfill to within 2 feet of the ground surface. The top 2 feet should be
compacted on-site soils. A manufactured drain such a Mira Drain may be substituted for
the drain gravel. Manufactured drains should be installed following the manufacturers
recommendations. Weep holes should be at least 4 inches in diameter and spaced 10 feet
on center with no less than 3 weep holes provided for each wall. The back of the weep
holes should be protected from clogging. Wall backfill should be placed in 8-inch
maximum loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum and
compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density.
We anticipate foundation piers will be designed to resist lateral loads applied to
the structure through wind, seismic, and lateral earth pressures. Several methods are
available to analyze laterally loaded piers. For helix piers and drilled piers with a length
to diameter ratio of 7 or greater, we believe the method of analysis developed by Matlock
and Reese is most appropriate. The method is an iterative procedure using applied lateral
load movement, vertical load, and pier diameter to develop deflection and movement
versus depth curves. Software developed by Reese can be used to calculate deflection for
various pier diameters and loading conditions anticipated by the structural engineer.
Movement versus depth curves developed from these analyses to aid the structural
engineer and optimizing the location of reinforcement. Other procedures require input of
horizontal modules subgrade reaction Kh. For purposes of design, we recommend the
following horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction:

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-94
Rev. 12-09
(For Bedrock)
Kh = 400/D (tons/ft3),
(For Soils)
Kh = 50/D (tons/ft3 where D = shaft diameter in feet)
These designs values do not include a factor of safety.
Exterior Slabs
We do not anticipate any new slab-on-grade floor construction. Any new exterior
flatwork and sidewalks should be separated from the structures. Movement of slabs-ongrade should not be transmitted to the foundations of the structures. Frequent control
joints should be provided according to ACI or PCA criteria to relieve problems
associated with shrinkage or cracking.
Concrete
A soluble sulfate concentrate of 0.003 percent was measured in a sample of the
on-site soils. Our experience with other sites in this area indicated a low risk of sulfate
attack as does this measurement. We believe a Type I of Type II cement can be used for
concrete in contact with the soils.
Surface Drainage
Performance of foundation is influenced by subgrade moisture conditions. The
risk of wetting the subsoils can be reduced by carefully planned and maintained surface
drainage. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the construction is completed.
1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavation should be avoided.
2. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped
to drain away from the buildings in all directions. We recommend a minimum
slope of at least 6 inches in the first 10 feet if possible.
3. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
wall backfill. Splash blocks and downspout extenders should be provided.
Roof drainage should not be directed below the building.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-95
Rev. 12-09
4. Plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground surface

immediately surrounding buildings. These membranes tend to trap moisture
and prevent normal evaporation from occurring. Geotextile fabrics can be
used to control weed growth and allow for evaporation.
Limitations
Our borings were used to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the subsurface
conditions. The borings are representative of conditions only at the exact boring
locations. Our analysis and recommendations apply to the proposed construction and soil
conditions outlined in this letter. Should construction details change or differing soil
conditions be encountered, we should be contacted to evaluate our recommendations.
We believe this report was prepared using methods and procedures consistent with other
professional practicing geotechnical engineering in this area at this time. No other
warranty, express or implied, is made.
If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report or in our
analysis of the influence of the subsoil conditions on the design of the structures, please
call.
Sincerely,
Howard A. Perko
Geotechnical Project Engineer

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-96
Rev. 12-09
Texas Avenue
Rose Street
Main Street
TH-1
TH-2
Tennessee Avenue
Boring Locations
No Scale
Example Geotechnical Report

96-274
All Rights Reserved
Fig. 1
Page 2000-97
Rev. 12-09
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING TH-1

SITE
Saint Joseph Seminary
Fig. 2
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
H. Perko
PROJECT
Proposed Additions
SPT - N
BLOWS / FT.
MOISTURE, %
DRY DENSITY
PCF
TYPE
FILL, CLAY AND SAND, SILTY

Medium stiff to stiff, moist to wet,
brown/tan/red, occasional debris
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TESTS
USCS SYMBOL
DEPTH (FT)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLES
FILL
SPT
13
17.8
105
FILL
SPT
20.9
103
CL
SPT
10
11.6
110
3550
BRCS
SPT
58
14.5
112
10,500
BRSS
SPT
65
9.8
118
BRSS
SPT
85
10.1
117
BRCS
SPT
67
13.2
109
UNCONFINED
STRENGTH
PSF
CLIENT
CLAY, SANDY
Stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown
10
15
SANDSTONE AND CLAYSTONE

Dark Brown/Rust, slightly moist, hard
20
25
BOTTOM OF BORING
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES

BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
BORING STARTED
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

WL
14'
W.D.
BORING COMPLETED
RIG
WL
WL
APPROVED
Checked 24 hrs. A.B.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-98
CME-55
HP
10/5/1996
10/5/1996
FOREMAN
JOB NO.
DS
96-274
Rev. 12-09
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING TH-2

SITE
Saint Joseph Seminary
Fig. 3
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
H. Perko
PROJECT
Proposed Additions
DRY DENSITY
PCF
15
MOISTURE, %
10
SPT - N
BLOWS / FT.
TYPE
CLAY, SANDY
Stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
TESTS
USCS SYMBOL
DEPTH (FT)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLES
CL
SPT
11
12.5
106
CL
SPT
10.8
104
BRCS
SPT
55
12.2
110
BRSS
SPT
58
11.1
114
BRCS
SPT
65
12.6
107
BRSS
SPT
85
9.8
112
BRCS
SPT
67
11.5
109
UNCONFINED
STRENGTH
PSF
CLIENT
8,900
SANDSTONE AND CLAYSTONE

Dark Brown/Rust, slightly moist, hard
20
BOTTOM OF BORING
25
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES

BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
BORING STARTED
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

WL
17'
W.D.
BORING COMPLETED
RIG
WL
WL
APPROVED
Checked 24 hrs. A.B.

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-99
CME-55
HP
10/5/1996
10/5/1996
FOREMAN
JOB NO.
DS
96-274
Rev. 12-09
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT

PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
COMPRESSION % EXPANSION
-1
-2
-3
-4
1.0
0.1
100
10
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of
From
NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT=
CLAY, SANDY (CL)

TH- 1 AT 9 FEET
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT=
110
11.6
PCF
%

-1
-2
-3
-4
10
1.0
0.1
100
Sample of
From
CLAYSTONE
TH- 1 AT 14 FEET

All Rights Reserved

Page 2000-100
112
14.5
PCF
%
Swell Consolidation
Test Results Rev. 12-09
FIG. 4

-1
-2
-3
-4
1.0
0.1
100
10
Sample of
From
CLAYSTONE
TH- 2 AT 9 FEET
110
12.2
PCF
%

-1
-2
-3
-4
10
1.0
0.1
100
Sample of
From
CLAYSTONE
TH- 2 AT 19 FEET

All Rights Reserved

Page 2000-101
107
12.6
PCF
%
Swell Consolidation
Test Results Rev. 12-09
FIG. 5
Installation & Testing

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-102
Rev. 12-09
Helical Pile Installation

Observation Record
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE OF INSTALLATION
PILE DESIGNATION
ANGLE
ELEV
GRID LOCATION
PLANNED
TOP OF PILE
MEASURED
TOP OF PILE
PLANNED
INCLINATION
MEASURED
INCLINATION
LENGTH
PLANNED
MINIMUM
INSTALLED
BEARING
STRATUM
FINAL
TORQUE
TORQUE MEASURMENTS
CONFIGURATION
ABOVE GROUND
SHAFT
DESIGNATION
ISO/ICC TAG
HELIX TYPE
HELIX
DIAMETER(S)
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
REQUIRED
MEASURED
PLANNED
OBSERVED
INSTALLATION EQUIPMENT
TORQUE MEASUREMENT DEVICE
NOTES
CALIBRATION DATE
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
REVIEWER

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-103
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-104
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-105
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-106
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-107
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-108
Rev. 12-09
LATERAL LOAD TEST (ASTM D3966-07 "Standard Method")

MAGNUM PIERING
FREE HEAD
PILE A
FIXED HEAD
PILE B
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
DESIGNATION
TEST DATE
DESIGN LOAD=
Target
Load1
kips
Target
Hold
Time
(min)
0%
2
5%
25%
50%
75%
LOADING
100%
125%
150%
170%
180%
TEST LOAD
190%
200%
UN- LOAD
150%
100%
50%
0%
kips
Load
Actual
Time
Ram
(psi)
TECHNICIAN
Pile A
Cell
(kips)
Dial
(in)
Optical
(in)
Pile B
Dial
(in)
Optical
(in)
Notes
na
na
0
5
10
0
5
10
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0
15
30
45
60
0
5
10
0
5
10
0
5
10
0
15
30
Percent of design load

Not required in ASTM

All Rights Reserved
Page 2000-109
Rev. 12-09
SECTION 3000
DESIGN TOOLS
Design Basics
Copyright2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-1
Rev. 12-09
PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT FOUNDATION TYPES

Geologic, Subsurface,
and Site Conditions
Spread Footing
Concrete Caisson
Dry to Moist Sand, No

Geologic Hazards
Cost Effective
More Costly Than a Footing

Foundation, May Require Cassing to
Prevent Caving of Holes, Drill Spoil
Must Be Handled
More Costly Than a Footing

More Costly Than a Footing Foundation
Foundation, Low Capacity for the Cost
Sand Soils, High

Groundwater, No
Geologic Hazards
Cost Effective
Requires Casing to Prevent Caving,

Requires Concrete Pump Truck to
Displace Water, Costly and Slow
Installation Process
High Mobilization Cost, Not Practical for

More Costly Than a Footing Foundation
Small Structures, Subject to Corrosion
Driven Pile
Magnum Helical Pile
Very Plastic Clay Soils,

High Groundwater, No
Geologic Hazards
Requires Casing and Dewatering Using High Mobilization Cost, Not Practical for Supports from below Depth of Seasonal
14 to 28 Day Concrete Curing Time,
Mud Bucket, Costly and Slow
Small Structures, Subject to Corrosion,
Moisture Content Changes, High
Subject to Movement Due to Expansion
Installation Process, Drilling Equipment Pile Driving Equipment Can Not Enter Quality of a Manufactured Foundation,
and Contraction of Clays with Seasonal
Can Not Enter Foundation Excavation
Foundation Excavation during
All Weather Installation, Corrosion
Changes in Moisture Content
during Unfavorable Weather
Unfavorable Weather
Resistant Galvanization
Wet Fine Sand or Silt in

Earthquake Risk Area
Subject to Liquefaction and Settlement

during Earthquake, Risk of Damage to
Structure
Difficult to Install, May Require

Concrete Pump Truck to Displace
Water, Poor Slenderness Ratio,
Transmits Large Accelerations to
Structure
Subject to Pullout During Large

Earthquake Events, High Mobilization
Cost, Not Practical for Small Structures
High Slenderness Ratio Promotes

Dampening of Motion During
Earthquake, Reduced Damage to
Structure, Helical Blades Resist Pullout
Requires Large Equipment to Install,

High Mobilization Cost, Pile Driving
Equipment May be Unable to Enter
Unfavorable Weather
No Delays, No Curing Time, Cost

Effective when Time Savings are
Considered, All Weather Installation
Same as Above
Same as Above plus Small Shaft

Circumference Results in Decreased
Heave Forces on Foundation, Efficient
Anchoring Design
Often Practical Although May Be

Difficult to Install if Bedrock is Very
Shallow or Very Deep
Often Practical to Bottom at Surface of

Bedrock, Very Hard Bedrock with
Standard Penetration Blow Count
Greater Than 50 blows / 6 inches may
Cause Refusal
Eliminates Drill Spoil, May be Practical

on Large Structures although More
Expensive than Footings
Eliminates Drill Spoil, Practical on All

Size Structures although More
Expensive than Footings
Limited Access may make Installation Noise and Vibrations Adversely Affect
Difficult, Hard to Get Very Near Existing Nearby Existing Structures, Limited
Structures
Access may make Installation Difficult
Smaller, More Maneuverable

Installation Equipment, Easy to Install
Very Close to Existing Structures
May be Costly if Caving Soils or Ground
Water Problems are Present, 14 to 28

Uncompacted Fill or Soft
Subject to Settlement, Risk of Damage Day Concrete Curing Time, Drilling
Soils Over Stable Bearing
to Structure
Equipment May be Unable to Enter
Stratum
Unfavorable Weather
Cost Effective, Subject to Same Ground
Expansive Clays Over
Subject to Heave, Risk of Damage to
Water and Unfavorable Weather
Stable Bearing Stratum in
Structure
Problems as Above although Less
Semi-Arid Climate
Likely in Semi-Arid Climate
Often Practical Although May Require
Unstable Soils over Very Subject to Movement, Risk of Damage

Rock Core Barrel to Achieve Minimum
to Structure
Hard Bedrock
Penetration
Contaminated Soils
Cost Effective if Practical
Building Site Near

Existing Structures,
Limited Access
Cost Effective if Practical
Structure with Heavy

Lateral Loads
Lateral Load Resistance is Limited By

Friction Under Footing and Passive
Earth Pressure Along Foundation Wall
Temporary Application
on Remote Site
Limited Geotechnical
Information Available
Drill Spoil Must Be Hauled and

Disposed, Environmental Hazard
Equipment may be Necessary for
Construction Personnel
Lateral Load Resistance is Limited By

Size and Rigidity of Caisson and
Passive Earth Pressure Along
Foundation Wall
Heavy Lateral Loads Can Be Resisted

by Pile Installation At Batter Angle
Heavy Lateral Loads Can Be Resisted

by Helix Foundation Installation At
Batter Angle
Impractical to Remove, Not ReRemovable but Impractical to Re-Use,

Useable, Requires Concrete be
Requires Concrete be Transported to Transported to Site, Usually Requires
Site
Heavy Installation Equipment with Low
Maneuverability
Difficult to Remove, Requires More

Material than Helix Piers, Very Heavy
Installation Equipment with Low
Maneuverability
Easily Removed and Re-Used,

Requires No Concrete, Light and
Maneuverable Installation Equipment
Pile Driving Resistance Provides

Indication of Soil Bearing Strength
Installation Torque Provides Indication

of Soil Bearing Strength
Highest Risk Alternative, Least

Resistant to Movement caused by
Unknown Conditions

All Rights Reserved
Impractical to Design without Sufficient

Geotechnical Information
Page 3000-2
Rev. 12-09
MAGNUM HELICAL PILE FOUNDATIONS
12
s of Helical Pile Engineering
An Engineering Executive Summary

Although there are many intricacies regarding helical pile foundation
applications and engineering, the general process of specifying helical
pile foundations on most projects is fairly straightforward and can be
summarized as follows.
STEP 1.
Obtain subsurface soil information and
determine if helical piles are a suitable
and reasonable foundation alternative
for your project.
Helical pile foundations can be used in
practically any soil and subsurface
conditions provided the SPT blow count is
less than about 50/6. Their installation
is not affected by groundwater nor caving
soils. Helical pile foundation installation
equipment is usually small and
maneuverable and can reach areas having limited access. They can even
be installed using hand-operated equipment. Helical pile foundations do
not produce drill spoil. The simplicity and time savings associated with
helical pile foundation use makes them economical compared to almost
any other foundation except spread footings.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-3
Rev. 12-09
STEP 2.
Compute building live and dead loads, layout
helical pile, and specify required design
(allowable) capacities. Use Magnums design
charts to determine the pile sizes needed.
The most economical foundation plan is
one that optimizes spacing based on the
maximum allowable capacity of manufactured
helical pile foundations.
Magnum Helical piles
are available in three
series that are rated for
maximum
allowable
loads of 51, 97, and 191 kips. Sample plans are
shown in the specifying helical piles section.
STEP 3.
Identify the proper bearing
stratum for the piles. For
prescription specifications, use
Magnums design charts to
determine required helical
bearing plate sizes.
The proper bearing stratum for
helical piles is the most competent material at an easily obtainable depth.
Bedrock is the most preferable stratum for compression applications
followed by dense sand and gravel. Many large diameter helical bearing
plates can be used in softer soils to achieve required capacity. Helical
bearing plate size and number are essentially functions of the bearing
capacity of the soil or rock.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-4
Rev. 12-09
STEP 4.
If subsurface conditions merit or if
tension loads are required, select a
minimum depth for your helical
piles.
There are many instances in which
specification of a minimum depth is
required such as helical pile
foundations subject to tensile loads or
expansive soils. Typically a minimum
depth of ten helix diameters is
sufficient
for
tensile
load
applications.
STEP 5.
Draw a reinforcing steel detail for
connection of the helical pile to the
structure. Use Magnums product
catalog to specify a pile cap.
Magnum Piering, Inc. supplies predesigned, manufactured, bare steel
and galvanized helical pile foundation
caps for tensile and compression
applications.
Examples
of
conventional reinforcing-steel details
are provided in the Specifying Helical
Piles Section of this guide.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-5
Rev. 12-09
STEP 6.
Compose specifications or general notes for helical pile foundation
mechanical strength, galvanization, and other preferred details. For
performance specifications, specify that the pile installers engineer is
responsible for providing
engineering calculations, sizing,
and design of the helical piles.
Example written specifications are
provided in the Specifying Helical
Piles section; Guide Specifications
sub-section.
Magnums technical support group can provide engineering for your

project, which includes calculations for shaft buckling, corrosion, lateral
stability, and other calculations related to pile design. Magnum Piering,
Inc. also offers technical literature, engineering seminars, and one-on-one
consultation with general contractors, engineers, and architects. We want
you to be completely comfortable specifying and using helical pile
foundations on any of your projects.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-6
Rev. 12-09
Design Charts

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-7
Rev. 12-09
Magnum Piering
Helical Pile Specifications
System Ratings & Capacity Specifications
Magnum
Helical Pile Products
*Shaft
*Design
Wall Min.
Shaft
Design
O.D.
Gauge
(in)
(in)
Structural Capacity
(Tension & Comp)
Approx
Weight
(plf)
Ultimate
(tons)
Bare / Galv
Allowable
(tons)
Bare / Galv
Capacity by Torque
(Tension & Comp)
Maximum
Torque
(ft-lbs)
Capacity
to
Torque
Ratio
(ft-1)
Ultimate
(tons)
Allowable
(tons)
Helix Sizes
(available in
standard & dual
cutting edge)
(in)
Helix
Gauge
(in)
Bolted (B)
or
Welded (W)
Connection
Hot Dip
Galvanized
ASTM
A153
Standard
Section
Lengths
(custom sizes
available)
(ft)
6, 12, 24
MHL313
0.13
3.00
3.8
26 / 35
13 / 17
4,000
8.0
16
8,10,12,14
0.375
B (1)
standard
MHL313R
0.13
3.00
3.8
26 / 35
13 / 17
6,000
8.0
24
12
8,10,12,14
0.375
B (1)
standard
6, 12, 24
MHL325
0.25
3.00
7.3
60 / 68
30 / 34
8,700
8.0
35
17
8,10,12,14
0.375
B (1)
standard
6, 12, 24
MHL325R
0.25
3.00
7.3
60 / 68
30 / 34
12,700
8.0
51
25
8,10,12,14
0.375
B (1)
standard
6, 12, 24
MHL425
0.25
4.50
11.6
93 / 105
47 / 53
24,000
5.7
68
34
10,12,14,16
0.625
B (2)
optional
7, 10, 24
MHL425R
0.25
4.50
11.6
93 / 105
47 / 53
28,000
5.7
80
40
10,12,14,16
0.625
B (2)
optional
7, 10, 24
7, 10, 24
MHL431
0.31
4.50
14.3
118 / 131
59 / 65
29,000
5.7
83
41
10,12,14,16
0.625
B (2)
optional
MHL431R
0.31
4.50
14.3
118 / 131
59 / 65
34,000
5.7
97
48
10,12,14,16
0.625
B (2)
optional
7, 10, 24
MHL625
0.25
5.72
15.0
120 / 136
60 / 68
40,000
4.6
92
46
12,16,20,24
0.875
W or B (3)
optional
6, 9, 18, 24
MHL625R
0.25
5.72
15.0
120 / 136
60 / 68
45,000
4.6
104
52
12,16,20,24
0.875
W or B (3)
optional
6, 9, 18, 24
MHL637
0.37
5.72
21.2
180 / 196
90 / 98
58,000
4.6
133
67
12,16,20,24
0.875
W or B (3)
optional
6, 9, 18, 24
MHL637R
0.37
5.72
21.2
180 / 196
90 / 98
65,000
4.6
150
75
12,16,20,24
0.875
W or B (3)
optional
6, 9, 18, 24
MHL646
0.46
5.72
27.2
238 / 253
119 / 127
74,000
4.6
170
85
12,16,20,24
0.875
W or B (3)
optional
6, 9, 18, 24
MHL646R
0.46
5.72
27.2
238 / 253
119 / 127
83,000
4.6
191
95
12,16,20,24
0.875
W or B (3)
optional
6, 9, 18, 24
Improved Penetration into Dense & Cobble Soils, Cuts Through Many Fills/Trash,
Eliminates Wobble, Maintains Plumbness, Less Soil Disturbance
Magnum Patented Dual-Cutting Edge Blades

Available on All Products
*Nominal diameter and wall thickness are typically 0.002" larger
R = Reinforced
Magnum's patent pending reinforced helical pile to torque motor connection design increases the torsional capacity of the pinned connection to the torque motor and therefore increases the pile's
ultimate capacity by approximately 10%.
Notes and Specifications
All Magnum helical pile products are manufactured using minimum 65 ksi minimum yield strength structural tubing, or better, for the shaft and ASTM A36 plate steel, or better, for the helical
bearing plates. As Magnum is committed to testing and improving products, these specifications are subject to change. Additional product specifications available at www.magnumpiering.com
and in the Magnum Helical Pile Engineering Manual available upon request. Structural capacity is for piles in firm soil with fully braced pile cap. Structural capacity takes into account corrosion
over IBC design life in moderate to high corrosive soils based on ICC-ES AC358. Consult a Magnum corrosion engineer for severe corrosive soils.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-8
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH3 Series Helical Pile Sizing Chart

Non-Cohesive Soils
Sand Soil Classification
very
loose
loose
medium dense
dense
Required Ultimate Helical Pile Capacity (kips)
110
Mechanical Limit of MH325BR Pile
100
Helix Diameters =
5-14S
90
Legend:
Single Cutting Edge
Dual Cutting Edge
80
5-12S
12S14S14S
Mechanical Limit of MH325B Pile
70
10S12S14S
60
10D12D14D
50
8D10D12D
10D12D
40

30
8D10D
12D
20
10
HELICAL PILE SIZING CHART

FOR NON-COHESIVE SOILS
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Standard Penetration Resistance Blow Count

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-9
Rev. 12-09

Cohesive Soils
Clay Soil Classification
very
soft
soft
medium
stiff
stiff
medium hard
very stiff
110
100
Helix Diameters =
90
Legend:
Single Cutting Edge
Dual Cutting Edge
80
5-14S
5-12S
70
12S14S14S
60
10S12S14S
50
10D12D14D
40
8D10D12D
30
10D12D
8D10D
12D
20
10

FOR COHESIVE SOILS
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-10
Rev. 12-09

Sedimentary Bedrock
Bedrock Classification
medium hard
very
hard
hard
110
Mechanical Limit of MH325BR
100
90
8"&10"&12"
80
10"&12"
Mechanical Limit of MH325B
70
8"&10"
60
12"
50
Possible Refusal
of Helical Pile
beyond This Point
(SPT > 50/6)
10"
40
= Helix Diameters
30
20
Legend:
Dual Cutting Edge
10

FOR SEDEMENTARY BEDROCK
0
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-11
Rev. 12-09

Non-Colhesive Soils
Sand Soil Classification
very
loose
loose
medium dense
dense
200
Mechanical Limit of MH431R Pile
180
Mechanical Limit of MH431 Pile
160
5-16S
Helix Diameters =
5-14S
140
14S16S16S
Legend:
Single Cutting Edge
Dual Cutting Edge
120
14D16D16D
100
12D14D16D
80
14D16D
12D14D
60
40
14D
20

0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-12
Rev. 12-09

Cohesive Soils
Clay Soil Classification
very
soft medium
soft
stiff
stiff
very stiff
medium hard
200
180

160
Helix Diameters =
5-16S
5-14S
140
Legend:
Single Cutting Edge
Dual Cutting Edge
120
14S16S16S
12S14S16S
100
12D14D16D
80
14D16D
12D14D
60
40
14D
20

FOR COHESIVE SOILS
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-13
Rev. 12-09

Sedimentary Bedrock
medium hard
very
hard
hard
200
180

160
Helix Diameters =
140
14"&16"
120
12"&14"
100
16"
Possible Refusal
of Helix Foundation
beyond This Point
(SPT > 50/6)
80
14"
60
12"
40
Legend:
Dual Cutting Edge
20

0
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-14
Rev. 12-09

Non-Cohesive Soils
Coarse Grain (Sand) Soil Classification
very
loose
loose
medium dense
dense
400
360
320
Helix Diameters =
5-24S
5-20S
280
Legend:
Single Cutting Edge
Dual Cutting Edge
240
20S24S24S
16S20S24S

200
16D20D24D
20D24D
160
16D20D
120
80
20D
40

0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-15
Rev. 12-09

Cohesive Soils
Fine Grain (Clay) Soil Classification
medium
very
soft
stiff
soft
medium hard
very stiff
stiff
400
360
320
Helix Diameters =
5-24S
280
Legend:
Single Cutting Edge
Dual Cutting Edge
240
5-20S
20S24S24S
16S20S24S
200
16D20D24D
20D24D
160
16D20D
120
80
20D
40

FOR COHESIVE SOILS
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-16
Rev. 12-09

Sedimentary Bedrock
medium hard
very
hard
hard
400
360
320
Helix Diameters =
20D24D
280
240
16D20D
200
24D
Possible Refusal
of Helical Pile
Beyond This Point
(SPT > 50/6)
160
20D
120
16D
80
Legend:
Dual Cutting Edge
40

0
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105

(blows/12 inches)

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-17
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH313
Lateral Performance in Clay1
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Area Moment of inerta (in4)
Gross Area (in2)
3
0.125
1.17
1.13
Soil Type
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
70
90
110
120
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
0
30
0
100
0
500
0
1000
Strain 50
200
400
800
1500
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005
Minimum Pile Depth, h

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Stiff
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Soft
28d
24d
Very Soft
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
Cohesion
(psf)
Free Head Condition
Fixed Head Condition
Applied Lateral Load, P (kips)
Stiff.
Stiff
Medium.
Medium
Soft.
Soft
Very Soft.
Very Soft
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
These charts are for Magnum helical piles only as lateral performance is highly dependant on helical pile connector rigidity
and shaft properties. It is Magnum's opinion that these graphs represent a reasonable approximation of the average
performance of helical piles in the indexed soils. Using the average performance is reasonable for multiple redundant
structures (e.g. buildings, bridges, marina piers, etc.). Magnum recommends an additional factor of safety of 2 for single
redundant (non-redundant) systems (e.g. fences, signs, poles, etc.).
2
IBC2006 states the allowable lateral capacity of a pile is half the load causing 1" of displacement. Many practitioners take
this to be nearly the same as the lateral load predicted at 1/2" displacement. The graph presented here can be used to
evaluate capacity for either condition as well as to judge lateral performance under other displacement criteria and codes.
The design allowable displacement is the responsibility of the engineer of record.
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-19
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH325
Lateral Performance in Sand1
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
3
0.25
1.99
2.1
Soil Type
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Unit Weight
(pcf)
70
90
110
120
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
25
5
29
25
33
90
39
225
Strain 50
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Dense
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Loose
28d
24d
Very Loose
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
Cohesion
(psf)
Free Head Condition
4
Dense.
Dense
Medium.
Medium
Loose.
Loose
Very Loose.
Very Loose
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
Displacement , (in)
0.75
1.00
These charts are for Magnum helical piles only as lateral performance is highly dependant on helical pile connector
rigidity and shaft properties. It is Magnum's opinion that these graphs represent a reasonable approximation of the average
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-20
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH325
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
3
0.25
1.99
2.1
Soil Type
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
Unit Weight
(pcf)
70
90
110
120
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
0
30
0
100
0
500
0
1000
Strain 50
200
400
800
1500
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Stiff
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Soft
28d
24d
Very Soft
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
Cohesion
(psf)
Free Head Condition
Stiff.
Stiff
Medium.
Medium
Soft.
Soft
Very Soft.
Very Soft
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
rigidity and shaft properties. It is Magnum's opinion that these graphs represent a reasonable approximation of the
average performance of helical piles in the indexed soils. Using the average performance is reasonable for multiple
redundant structures (e.g. buildings, bridges, marina piers, etc.). Magnum recommends an additional factor of safety of 2
for single redundant (non-redundant) systems (e.g. fences, signs, poles, etc.).
2
IBC2006 states the allowable lateral capacity of a pile is half the load causing 1" of displacement. Many practitioners
take this to be nearly the same as the lateral load predicted at 1/2" displacement. The graph presented here can be used to

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-21
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH425
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
4.5
0.25
7.33
3.24
Soil Type
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
70
90
110
120
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
25
5
29
25
33
90
39
225
15
13
12
Strain 50
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Dense
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Loose
28d
24d
Very Loose
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
14
Cohesion
(psf)
11
Free Head Condition
10
9
h
8
7
6
5
4
Dense.
Dense
Medium.
Medium
Loose.
Loose
Very Loose.
Very Loose
3
2
1
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-22
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH425
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
4.5
0.25
7.33
3.24
Soil Type
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
Unit Weight
(pcf)
70
90
110
120
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
0
30
0
100
0
500
0
1000
15
13
12
Strain 50
200
400
800
1500
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Stiff
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Soft
28d
24d
Very Soft
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
14
Cohesion
(psf)
11
10
Free Head Condition
9
h
8
7
6
5
4
Stiff.
Stiff
Medium.
Medium
Soft.
Soft
Very Soft.
Very Soft
3
2
1
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-23
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH431
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
4.5
0.31
8.85
4.02
Soil Type
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
70
90
110
120
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
25
5
29
25
33
90
39
225
15
13
12
Strain 50
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Dense
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Loose
28d
24d
Very Loose
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
14
Cohesion
(psf)
11
10
Free Head Condition
9
8
7
6
5
4
Dense.
Dense
Medium.
Medium
Loose.
Loose
Very Loose.
Very Loose
3
2
1
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-24
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH431
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
4.5
0.31
8.85
4.02
Soil Type
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
Unit Weight
(pcf)
70
90
110
120
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
0
30
0
100
0
500
0
1000
15
13
12
Strain 50
200
400
800
1500
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Stiff
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Soft
28d
24d
Very Soft
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
14
Cohesion
(psf)
11
10
Free Head Condition
9
8
7
6
5
4
Stiff.
Stiff
Medium.
Medium
Soft.
Soft
Very Soft.
Very Soft
3
2
1
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-25
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH625
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
5.72
0.25
13.79
3.68
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
70
90
110
120
Cohesion
(psf)
Strain 50
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Dense
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Loose
28d
24d
Very Loose
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Type
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
25
5
29
25
33
90
39
225
Free Head Condition

P
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
Dense.
Dense
Medium.
Medium
Loose.
Loose
Very Loose.
Very Loose
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
evaluate capacity for either condition as well as to judge lateral performance under other displacement criteria and codes. The
design allowable displacement is the responsibility of the engineer of record.
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-26
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH625
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
5.72
0.25
13.79
3.68
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
70
90
110
120
Cohesion
(psf)
Strain 50
200
400
800
1500
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Stiff
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Soft
28d
24d
Very Soft
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Type
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
0
30
0
100
0
500
0
1000

P
Free Head Condition

P
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
Stiff.
Stiff
Medium.
Medium
Soft.
Soft
Very Soft.
Very Soft
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-27
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH637
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
5.72
0.375
19.94
5.54
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
70
90
110
120
Cohesion
(psf)
Strain 50
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Dense
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Loose
28d
24d
Very Loose
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Type
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
25
5
29
25
33
90
39
225
Free Head Condition
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
Dense.
Dense
Medium.
Medium
Loose.
Loose
Very Loose.
Very Loose
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-28
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH637
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
5.72
0.375
19.94
5.54
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
70
90
110
120
Cohesion
(psf)
Strain 50
200
400
800
1500
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Stiff
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Soft
28d
24d
Very Soft
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Type
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
0
30
0
100
0
500
0
1000
Free Head Condition
0.00
0.25
0.50
Displacement , (in)
0.75
Stiff.
Stiff
Medium.
Medium
Soft.
Soft
Very Soft.
Very Soft
1.00
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-29
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH646
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
5.72
0.46
25.3
7.31
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Unit Weight
(pcf)
70
90
110
120
Cohesion
(psf)
Strain 50
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Dense
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Loose
28d
24d
Very Loose
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Type
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
25
5
29
25
33
90
39
225
Free Head Condition
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
Dense.
Dense
Medium.
Medium
Loose.
Loose
Very Loose.
Very Loose
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-30
Rev. 12-09
Magnum MH646
Pile Properties
Shaft O.D., d (in)
Wall thickness (in)
Gross Area (in2)
5.72
0.46
25.3
7.31
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
70
90
110
120
Cohesion
(psf)
Strain 50
200
400
800
1500
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005

Fixed
Soil Type
Free Head
Head
Stiff
40d
34d
Medium
30d
28d
Soft
28d
24d
Very Soft
24d
20d
Est. Allowable
Lateral Capacity2
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Type
Soil Properties
Angle of
p-y Modulus
Friction
(pci)
(deg)
0
30
0
100
0
500
0
1000
Free Head Condition
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
Stiff.
Stiff
Medium.
Medium
Soft.
Soft
Very Soft.
Very Soft
1.00
Displacement , (in)
1
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-31
Rev. 12-09
Technical Papers

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-32
Rev. 12-09
Revised August 10, 2001. Original published in New Technological and Design Developments in Deep
Foundations, Proceedings of GeoDenver 2000, Norman D. Dennis, Jr., Ray Castelli, and Michael W.
ONeill, Eds., Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE Press, Reston, VA
Energy Method for Predicting Installation Torque

of Helical Foundations and Anchors
Howard A. Perko, PE, Associate Member1
Abstract
A theoretical model is developed to support the well known empirical
relationship between capacity and torque for helical foundations and anchors. The model
is based on energy exerted during installation and that required to displace the helical
foundation or anchor once in place. Through the equivalence of energy, the model
relates bearing and pullout capacity directly to installation torque. Downward force
during installation, helical blade geometry, multiple helices, blade pitch per revolution,
and hub radius are taken into account.
The model is applied to determine the capacity and installation torque for several
helical foundations and anchors of different geometric configurations. Theoretical
predictions are shown to correlate with previously published field and laboratory
measurements.
Introduction
Helical foundation and anchor capacity has been empirically related to installation
torque (Hoyt and Clemence, 1989). The coefficient of proportionality, K, between
capacity and torque is known to vary for helical foundations and anchors of different
geometric configurations. Previous research indicates that K may depend on depth
(Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna, 1991b). Other research indicates that K is independent of
helical blade radius and highly dependent on hub diameter (Hoyt and Clemence, 1989).
Still other literature indicates that K is weakly correlated with number of helical blades
(Hargrave and Thorsten, 1992).
In addition to the empirical method involving installation torque, the capacity of
a helical foundation or anchor (also commonly called a helix pier) can be estimated by
two different methods of limit state analysis. One method involves failure of a cone or
cylinder of soil surrounding and above the helices, while the other involves individual
bearing capacity failure of each helix (Ghaly and Clemence, 1998; A.B.Chance, Co.,
1995; Ghaly, Hanna and Hanna, 1991a; Rao, Prasad, and Veeresh, 1993; Mitsch and
Clemence, 1985; Rao, Prasad, and Shetty, 1991; Clemence and Pepe, 1984; Hoyt and
Clemence, 1989; Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna, 1991b; and Rao and Prasad, 1993). The
Manager, Secure Products, LLC, 727 Laporte Ave., Ft. Collins, CO 80521
howie@engr.colostate.edu, phone: 970-472-5068, fax: 970-472-0264
1
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-33
Perko
Rev. 12-09
difficulty with limit state analysis for helix piers is that it requires prior knowledge of the
soil strength and the ability to determine the probable mode of failure.
Torque measurements taken during installation of a helix pier are indicators of
soil shear strength at the depth through which the helical blades are passing. Due to the
complex interaction of the blades with the soil, it is difficult to relate torque
measurements with angle of friction and cohesion of the soil. In order to avoid this
difficulty, a model is proposed, wherein the capacity of a helix pier is directly related to
the installation torque by energy equivalence. This method accounts for downward
pressure during installation, helical blade geometry, multiple helices, blade pitch per
revolution, and hub radius. Predictions based on the model are compared with data from
previous studies.
Model Derivation
The energy model for predicting helix pier capacity/torque relationships is based
on the following postulate.
Postulate:
For local shear, penetration energy is proportional to the volume

of soil displaced times the distance displaced.
Justification for this postulate is derived from the characteristic soil stress-displacement
function shown in Fig. 1. The initial portion of this function is approximately linear. A
new constitutive parameter, P, is defined as the slope of the stress-displacement function.
Penetration energy is simply
(1)
where 1 is displacement, is final displacement, ) is stress, and A is penetrator area.
Replacing ) in Eq. (1) by P and integrating results in
(2)
Since area times displacement is just the volume of soil displaced, A can be replaced
by V and the penetration energy is
(3)
Thus, the penetration energy is proportional to the volume of soil displaced times the
distance displaced. The proportionality factor, P, is constant for small displacements
typical of local shear.
2
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-34
Perko
Rev. 12-09
Fig. 1 Typical Soil Stress-Displacement Function

The first step in the derivation of the energy model is to determine the
constitutive parameter, P. This was accomplished by equating the energy exerted during
installation of a helix pier with the appropriate penetration energy and losses due to
friction.
(4)
Helix pier installation typically involves rotating the pier into the ground and
applying a downward force. Energy required to rotate an object is equal to the torque
times the angle of rotation. Energy exerted by the downward force is just the force times
the distance over which the force acts. For one full rotation, the downward distance
moved is equal to the pitch of the blades. Thus, installation energy per revolution is
given by
(5)
where T is torque, F is downward force, and p is pitch.
Penetration energy can be determined according to Eq. (3). For one revolution,
the volume of soil displaced by the helix pier is equal to the sum of the volumes of all the
individual cutting blades plus the volume of soil displaced by the hub in moving
downward the distance of the pitch, as shown in Fig. 2. Provided the pitch is small, the
volume of a helical plate is nearly the same as the volume of a circular plate with the
same radius. Furthermore, as a penetrator moves through the soil, the soil is split and
displaced to sides. As shown in Fig. 3, the average distance, , required to displace the
soil for helical blade insertion is approximately equal to half the thickness of the blades.
Whereas, for hub penetration, this distance is approximately equal to the radius of the
hub. Hence, the penetration energy for helix pier installation from Eq. (3) is given by
(6)
where n is the number of cutting blades and the other parameters are defined in Fig. 2.
3
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-35
Perko
Rev. 12-09
Fig. 2 Helix Pier Installation
Fig. 3 Various Displacement Distances

Energy losses due to friction can be estimated by converting soil shear stress into
torque and multiplying by the angle of twist, 2%. As the helix pier is being turned in the
ground, soil shear stress is mobilized along the helical blades and hub. The shear stress
developed is a fraction, , of the penetration stress, ). Torque due to shear along the
hub is ) times the surface area of the hub and the moment arm (r). Wobbling often
causes the recession of upper soils from around the hub, therefore it is suggested that the
length of hub experiencing friction be limited to a length represented by . For square
hubs, which push most of the soil away, is approximately equal to the pitch, p. Torque
due to the blades is ) times the sum of the blade surface areas times the moment arm.
Since the surface area and consequently the shear force increase by r2, the moment arm
for the resultant force is equal to the distance to the geometric centroid of a paraboloid,
given by 2/3 R. Therefore, the energy loss due to friction upon one revolution of a helix
4
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-36
Perko
Rev. 12-09
pier is given by
(7)
where m is the total number of blades even if they follow the same path. However, )
can be replaced by P in accordance with the penetration energy postulate. By
incorporating the appropriate values of for the blades and the hub, Eq. (7) can be
written in the form
(8)
The constitutive parameter, P, can be found by incorporating Eqs. (5), (6), and (8) into
Eq. (4) and solving for P in terms of torque.
The next step in the derivation of the model is to formulate an equation for the
capacity of a helix foundation or anchor in terms of P. There are two predominant
methods of determining helix foundation or anchor capacity based on limit state analysis.
Limit state conditions can require considerable displacements in order to mobilize shear
strength and for general bearing capacity failure. For practical purposes, the allowable
movement of foundations and anchors is typically limited to small displacements. The
capacity for small displacements can be determined using the penetration energy
postulate and an energy balance between the energy exerted during loading and the
appropriate penetration energy of each of the supporting blades.
(9)
In Eq. (9), it is assumed that energy losses due to friction along the hub are negligible,
because only a fraction of the shear strength is mobilized for small displacements. Also,
the capacity in uplift is approximately equal to the bearing capacity, since small
movements in either the upward or downward direction should only depend on the
effective confining stress around the blades.
The energy during loading can be determined by integrating the applied force
over a specific helix pier displacement. For a linear force-displacement function, the
energy during loading is given by
(10)
where Q is the final capacity and d is the vertical movement.
Penetration energy during loading can be determined according to Eq. (3). The
volume of soil displaced by the helix pier is equal to the sum of the areas of the blades
and the end area of the hub times the displacement distance, d. This assumes that the
end of the hub is closed to prohibit soil entry. Penetration energy is given by
(11)
Substitution of Eqs. (10) and (11) and the result for P from step one into Eq. (9) yields
an expression for capacity in terms of installation torque, applied downward force, pier
5
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-37
Perko
Rev. 12-09
displacement, and the geometry of the helix pier, given by

(12)
Model Comparison
The model was compared with capacity-torque ratios found empirically by Hoyt
and Clemence (1989). Their study involved anchors with 1-1/2, 1-3/4, and 2-in square
hubs and 3-1/2 and 8-5/8-in diameter round hubs. The number of helices varied from 2
to 14, and their diameters varied from 6 to 20 in. According to Hoyt and Clemence, the
capacity/torque ratio depends predominantly on the diameter of the hub. The ratio is
believed to be largely independent of number of helical blades and helix diameter. They
found an average capacity/torque ratio, K, equal to 10 ft -1 for all square hub anchors that
were tested, 7 ft-1 for the 3-1/2-in diameter round-hub anchors, and 3 ft-1 for the 8-5/8-in
diameter round-hub anchors.
The actual configurations of the helix piers studied by Hoyt and Clemence is
proprietary information and could not be obtained. Consequently, it was necessary to
assume a variety of helix pier configurations as shown in Table 1. The ratio of side shear
to penetration stress, , was set equal to 0.6, the effective hub length, , was set equal
to the blade pitch, and the displacement at failure, d, was assumed to equal 1 in. Results
of the model match Hoyt and Clemence fairly well. A capacity/torque ratio, K, of
approximately 11, 8, and 1 ft-1 were obtained for square hub anchors, the 3-1/2-in
diameter round-hub anchors, and the 8-5/8-in diameter round-hub anchors, respectively.
This ratio is independent of blade pitch, number of helices, downward force applied
during installation, and final installation torque.
The model predicts that K decreases with increasing values of R, which is
contrary to the findings of Hoyt and Clemence. The model also predicts a decrease in
K with increasing hub radius, r, which is consistent with the findings of Hoyt and
Clemence. Model predictions are a helix pier displacement of 1 inch. It is unknown
whether what displacement was used to designate failure in the study by Hoyt and
Clemence.
To further verify the model, it was compared with other previously published
field and laboratory data. Using descriptions of the helix pier geometries from the
literature, the model was used to calculate theoretical capacity/torque ratios. Model
predictions are compared with actual measured values in Fig. 4. The diagonal line in the
figure represents a 1:1 correlation between predicted and measured capacity/torque ratio,
K. As described in the legend on the right side of the figure, the helix piers tested in
previous literature have a variety of sizes and styles. Measured values of K ranged from
4 to 39 ft-1. Predicted values of K based on the model match the general range and trend
of field measurements quite well. The fact that model predictions compare well with
measurements for a wide variety of helix pier sizes and geometries from small scale
laboratory models to full scale field tests indicates that the energy method for torque to
capacity ratio determination has merit as a first approximation.
6
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-38
Perko
Rev. 12-09
Table 1. Example Capacity/Torque Ratio Model Predictions

Number of
Cutting
Blades
n
Total
Number of
Blades
m
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Blade
Radius
R
(in)
Hub
Radius
r
(in)
Blade
Pitch
p
(in/rev)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
5
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Effective
Capacity
Hub
Blade
to Torque
Length Thickness
Ratio

t
K
-1
(in)
(in)
(ft )
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.5
0.75
0.375
0.375
0.375
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
12.4
12.6
12.7
13.7
13.0
11.8
10.6
11.8
9.1
6.2
10.2
9.1
8.0
The diamond symbol in Fig. 4 represents an field test by Rupiper and Edwards
(1989), which consisted of measuring the installation torque and bearing capacity of a
square-hub helix pier with a single 14-in diameter helical blade. According to their
paper, the pier exhibited a maximum capacity at a displacement of only 0.15 in. Both the
model and the field test indicate a low capacity to torque ratio for such a small
displacement.
The open circle symbols in the figure correspond to a laboratory investigation
that was performed by Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna (1991) which involved uplift capacity
testing of several small helix anchors. Each anchor had a round hub with a single 2-in
diameter helical blade. Blade pitch varied from 3/8 to 3/4 inch per revolution.
Installation torque varied from 17 to 30 ft-lbs. The model indicates a weak dependance
of K on pitch and generally matches the laboratory results. Their investigation also
included unsymmetrical and parallel-blade, variable-pitch anchors. It is considerably
more difficult to apply the model to these types of anchors; consequently, they were not
analyzed.
Referring again to Fig. 4, the open triangle symbols represent full scale field tests
performed by Mitsch and Clemence (1985) on square hub piers with triple 11-in diameter
helical blades, while the open square symbols represent laboratory tests performed by the
same investigators on 1/3 scale models. Some of the models had uniform diameter triple
7
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-39
Perko
Rev. 12-09
helical blades. Others had single blades. The model predicts nearly the same value of
K for single and multiple blade helix pier geometries. Most of the variations in K
predicted by the model are the result of different values of measured helix pier
displacement. For example, the set of open square symbols on the left side of the graph
correspond to helix piers that reached peak capacity at a displacement of about 0.1 in,
while the same symbols in the middle of the graph correspond to helix pier displacements
of 0.2 in and the same symbols near the top right corner of the graph correspond to helix
pier displacements of 0.4 in.
Another set of data in Fig. 4, shown by the star symbols, are associated with field
tests performed by Hargrave and Thorsten (1992) using square hub helix piers with
single 10-in diameter helical blades. The model matched the results of their field tests
with nearly 1:1 correspondence. Field tests were also conducted on helix piers with
multiple radii, double blades, and again these data were omitted to avoid complexity.
These more complicated geometries will be the subject of a forthcoming theoretical
study not yet completed.
Rupiper and Edwards (1989): 14-in
diameter single helix, 1.5-in square hub
pier
Measured Capacity/Torque Ratio (1/ft)
40.0
Ghaly, Hanna, and Hanna (1991): 2-in

diameter single helix, multi-pitch
laboratory models
Mitsch and Clemence (1985): 12-in
diameter triple helix, square hub pier
30.0
Mitsch and Clemence (1985): 4-in

diameter single and triple helix laboratory
models
20.0
Hargrave and Thorsten (1992): 10-in

diameter single helix, square hub pier
Chance (1994): 10-14 in diameter single
and multiple helix, square hub piers
10.0
Chance (1994): 12-14 in single and

multiple helices on 3.5 diameter round
hub
Atlas (1995): 8-in diameter single helix, 13/4-in square shaft hub pier
0.0
0
10
20
30
Predicted Capacity/Torque Ratio

(1/ft)
40
Atlas (1995): 12 and 14 in double helices,

2-7/8 in diam round shaft pier
Magnum Piering (2001): 8" & 12" double
helices cut-out for moment balancing, 3"
diameter round-shaft pier
Fig. 4 Model Comparison with Measured Values

Discussion
As a point of clarification, the difference between the number of cutting blades,
n, and the total number of blades, m, has to do with whether or not the blades are
mounted to the hub in a manner that allows each blade to follow the path cut by the
foregoing blade. If each blade cuts its own path through the soil then n is equal to m.
8
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-40
Perko
Rev. 12-09
In practical applications, helical blades do not often follow the path cut by one another
due to accidental augering and slipping during installation.
In applying the model, the effective length of the hub was assumed to equal the
pitch of the helical blades. For square shaft helix piers, this assumption is based on the
square hub creating a round hole and displacing the soil away from the hub within one
revolution. For round-shaft helix piers, the value of is less evident. The magnitude of
predicted values of K has a significant dependance on the effective hub length, , that is
assumed. Larger values of correspond with smaller values of K. As consistent with
square-shaft hubs, a value of equal to the blade pitch provides the closest match to the
K value measured by Hoyt and Clemence and in other field tests. This indicates that
much of the soil separates from the hub during installation due to wobbling.
In developing the model, the friction generated along the blades and sides of the
hub during installation was assumed to be proportional to the penetration resistance, and
a proportionality factor, , was introduced. For the model predictions presented herein,
was set equal to 0.6. Justification for this value is based on the following.
As the soil moves to the side to allow for helical blade insertion, the penetration
resistance, ), is left acting in a direction approximately normal to the surface of the
blade, as shown in Fig. 5. The penetration resistance is the major principle stress in the
soil about the helical blades and leading end of the hub during installation. If the friction
angle between galvanized steel and soil is 30 degrees, then the friction generated along
the blades and hub is equal to 0.6 ). Note that this does not require the assumption that
) is uniform. Instead, ) is related to the distance of soil displacement and the volume
of soil displaced during penetration in accordance with Eq. (1). There may be some
dependence of and K on soil consistency, but this dependence is expected to be small
because the friction coefficient between steel and soil is largely independent of soil
density (Das, 1990).
Fig. 5 Side Friction to Soil Penetration Resistance Relationship

Conclusions
A model was developed for determining the capacity/torque ratio for a helical
foundation or anchor based on considerations of energy exerted during installation and
that required to induce displacement once the helix pier is embedded in the soil.
9
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-41
Perko
Rev. 12-09
Predictions based on the model correlate well with previous field and laboratory
measurements. The model indicates that the capacity/torque ratio, K, is largely
independent of downward force during installation, final installation torque, number of
independent cutting blades, total number of helical blades, and blade pitch. The model
indicates that K is moderately affected by helical blade radius and strongly affected by
hub diameter and blade thickness. These predictions generally match measurements cited
in previous literature.
Acknowledgments
The funding for this research program was provided by Secure Products, LLC.
Appreciation is extended to Dr. Samuel P. Clemence of Syracuse University for his
review and comments.
Nomenclature

V

1
)
A
d
Epenetration
Einstallation
Elosses
Eloading
F
K
n
m
P
r
Rn
Rm
tn
tm
T
Q
ratio of side shear stress to penetration resistance

soil displacement during penetration (m)
volume of soil displaced during penetration (m3)
length of hub experiencing side friction (m)
internal angle of soil friction (deg)
penetration resistance (Pa)
penetrator area (m2)
displacement during helix pier loading (m)
penetration energy (J)
energy exerted during helix pier installation (J)
energy lost due to side friction (J)
energy exerted during helix pier loading (J)
downward force exerted during helix pier installation (N)
capacity/torque ratio
number of helical cutting blades
total number of helical blades
slope of soil stress-displacement constitutive relationship
radius of helix pier hub (m)
radius of nth cutting blade (m)
radius of mth helical blade (m)
thickness of nth helical blade (m)
thickness of mth helical blade (m)
installation torque (N-m)
helix pier or anchor capacity (N)
References
A.B. Chance, Co. (1995). Sample Calculations for Helical Pier Application. Manufacturer Technical
Support Document, Centralia, MO.
Clemence, S.P. (1985). Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil. Proceedings of a Session
Sponsored by the Geotechnical Eng. Div. of ASCE, Detroit, MI.
Clemence, S.P. and Pepe, F.D. Jr. (1984). Measurement of Lateral Stress Around Multihelix Anchors
in Sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 7, No. 3, Sept. 1984, pp. 145-152.
10
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-42
Perko
Rev. 12-09
Das, B.M. (1990) Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 2nd Edition, PWS-Kent Publishing Company,
Boston.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M. (1991a). Uplift Behavior of Screw Anchors in Sand. I: Dry
Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, pp. 773-793.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M. (1991b). Installation Torque of Screw Anchors in Dry Sand
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, pp. 77-92.
Hargrave, R.L., and Thorsten, R.E. (1992). Helical Piers in Expansive Soils of Dallas, Texas 7th
International Conference on Expansive Soils.
Hoyt, R.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1989). Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil. Proceedings of
the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Mitsch, M.P., Clemence, S.P. (1985). The Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors in Sand. Proceedings of
a Session Sponsored by the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE Convention, Detroit,
MI, October 24, pp. 26-47.
Rao, S.N., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Shetty, M.D. (1991). Behavior of Model Screw Piles in Cohesive
Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 35-50.
Rao, S.N., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Veeresh, C. (1993). Behaviour of Emebedded Model Screw Anchors
in Soft Clays. Geotechnique, 43, No. 4, pp. 605-614.
Rupiper, S. and Edwards, W.G. (1989). Helical Bearing Plate Foundations for Underpinning.
Proceedings of Foundation Engineering Congress/SCE/CO Div., Evanston, IL, June 25-29.
11
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-43
Perko
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-44
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-45
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-46
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-47
Rev. 12-09
Summary of Earth Retaining Methods Utilizing Helical Anchors

by Howard A. Perko, PE
Consulting Engineer for Magnum Piering, Inc.
March 4, 1999
(Revised November 11, 1999 and July 24, 2001)
Abstract
A summary of helical anchor use in retaining wall systems is presented. The summary
includes engineering analysis of helical anchor capacity and an example retaining wall design.
Previous research is discussed particularly regarding effects of inclination angle on pullout
capacity, performance in soft clays, performance in sands, and stress-strain behavior.
Introduction
Tie-back, earth retaining walls are
commonly restrained using grouted anchors.
Another technology for retaining wall restraint is
the use of helical anchors. A helical anchor
consists of one or more helically shaped,
galvanized steel blades attached to an elongate,
central, galvanized steel shaft with square,
tubular or round cross-section. A schematic
diagram of an example helical anchor is shown in
Fig. 1. The shaft is turned into the ground by
application of torsion using a truck mounted
auger or a torque head attached to a backhoe or
front-end loader. Once the blades are advanced
to the appropriate depth, they offer significant
pull-out resistance. Tensile loads as high as 100
kips are achievable for particular anchors in
certain soils. Most non-grouted manufactured
helical anchors have a maximum ultimate pullout capacity of between 35 and 80 kips.
Helical anchors offer numerous
advantages over conventional grouted anchors.
Installation of helical anchors progresses rapidly,
and post tensioning can be immediately
performed without waiting for grout to set. A
helical anchor installed in an incorrect location
can be easily removed and reinstalled. Likewise,
helical anchors can be removed and salvaged if
desired, such as in the case of a temporary
bracing. Helical anchors can be installed in any

weather and in limited access situations with
commonly available equipment and smaller
crews.
Fig. 1 Example Helical Anchor

-1-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-48
Rev. 12-09
Helical Anchor Capacity

The pullout capacities of horizontally
oriented helical anchors for retaining wall
restraint can be determined the same way the
uplift capacities of vertically installed helical
piers are found (Ghaly and Clemence, 1998,
A.B. Chance, 1993). There are three methods
for predicting pullout capacity, namely
cylindrical shear, individual bearing, and an
empirical method based on installation torque.
It has been shown that the empirical method
yields more consistent results (Hoyt and
Clemence, 1989). However, it is suggested that
the cylindrical shear and individual bearing
methods be used to determine minimum
allowable blade areas and the installation torque
method be used as a field verification of
capacity. For retaining walls in critical areas
where human life may be jeopardized by a
failure, the capacity of helical anchors should be
checked through post-tensioning.
Individual Bearing Method

The assumed failure mechanism in the
individual bearing method consists of each
helical blade displacing the overburden soil in a
logarithmic spiral mode. Thus, the capacity of
each blade can be estimated using the wellknown Terzaghi bearing capacity equation.
Contributions of soil unit weight are ignored for
uplift. Total ultimate pullout capacity is the sum
over N blades, given by (modified from A.B.
Chance, 1995)
(2)
where An is blade area. All other parameters
have been defined previously.
In both Eq. (1) and (2), it is important
that capacity not increase with depth of
embedment to impossible values.
It is
recommended that effective vertical soil pressure
be limited to that imposed by soil about 15 times
the average blade diameter above the helical
blades in accordance with standard practice for
deep bearing members (Bowles, 1988).
Cylindrical Shear Method

In the cylindrical shear method, the
entire volume of soil between the helical blades
is assumed to be mobilized. Ultimate pullout
capacity of a multi-blade anchor is a combination
of shear along the cylinder of soil between the
blades and bearing capacity of the top blade,
given by (modified from Mitsch and Clemence,
1985, and Clemence, 1985)
Installation Torque Method

Based on the empirical method, anchor
pullout capacity is given by
(3)
where K is the torque to capacity ratio and T is

final installation torque. This method should
(1)
only be applied when the depth to helix diameter
ratio is at least 5.
The value of K depends on the geometry
where R is average blade radius, RT is top blade
radius, L is total spacing between all blades, Fv of the helical anchor. For anchors with square
is the vertical soil pressure at the helices, c is soil shaft diameters less than 2 in, a value of 10 ft-1 is
recommended by Hoyt and Clemence (1989).
cohesion, N is angle of internal friction of the
soil, and Nc and Nq are bearing capacity factors Manufacturer recommended K values should be
used for other helical anchor geometries.
for general shear.
Magnum Piering, Inc. recommends a value of 8
ft-1 for their 3-inch O.D. round-shaft helical
-2-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-49
Rev. 12-09
Experimental results indicated that at a blade

spacing to diameter ratio of 1.5, the anchors
exhibited individual bearing failure rather then
cylindrical shear.
The foregoing experiments were
conducted on small laboratory model anchors.
The maximum blade diameter was approximately
6 inches. Since cylindrical shear increases with
R and plate bearing capacity with R2, it is
believed that the optimal blade spacing to blade
diameter ratio increases for larger diameter
helical anchors. Typically, helical anchors are
manufactured with a blade spacing to blade
diameter ratio of 3.
anchors.
A factor of safety of 3.0 is commonly
used in bearing capacity calculations. However,
when the foundation installation process includes
an indirect measurement of soil strength at the
foundation depth, a smaller factor of safety is
permissible. A traditional example of this is pile
driving where a much lower factor of safety is
often allowed. The American Society of Civil
Engineers (1996) explains that a factor of safety
of 1.5 is acceptable for pile foundations. Since
the instillation torque of helical anchors also
provides an indication of soil strength at the
depth of the helices, a lower factor of safety is
permissible for allowable pullout capacity
calculations. Typically a factor of safety of 2.0
is used in helical anchor design.
Stress and Strain Behavior

Ghaly and Hanna (1992), and Ghaly,
Hanna, and Hanna (1991) tested miniature
helical anchors with different geometries in a
sand filled testing tank equipped with stress
transducers. It was determined that blade
geometry had a significant effect on the
installation torque of the helical anchors, but had
little effect on the pullout capacity. This result
indicates that helical blade configuration and
geometry must be taken into consideration when
using the empirical method of determining
pullout capacity based on installation torque.
In the same study, it was determined that
the zone of soil stress-strain influence
surrounding the blades of a helical anchor
experiencing 90% of its designed pullout
capacity is limited by the ratio of depth to blade
diameter and by the density of the surrounding
sand. In particular, a transition between
significant and minimal strain occurred at depth
to blade diameter ratios of 7, 9, and 11 for loose,
medium, and dense sand, respectively. It can be
interpreted from these results that helical
anchors should be extended to distances
considerably beyond the anticipated active
wedge of retained earth, such that these ratios
are exceeded. In doing so, the zone of strain
Effect of Inclination Angle

Gahly and Clemence (1998) showed
theoretically and experimentally that the pullout
capacity of helical anchors installed in sand at an
angle is greater than that of vertical anchors.
This difference was explained by the
development of a larger zone of soil
mobilization. However, in the case of retaining
walls, it is anticipated that this effect is canceled
out by the infringement of the larger zone of
mobilized soil with the active soil wedge.
Additional study is required. At present, it is
recommended that the effect of inclination angle
and increased strength be ignored in order to be
conservative.
Anchors in Soft Clays
Laboratory experiments were conducted
on model earth anchors in a cylindrical clay filled
test cylinder by Rao and Prasad (1993), Rao,
Prasad, and Shetty (1991), and Rao, Prasad, and
Veeresh (1993). The blade spacing to diameter
ratio was varied between approximately 1 and 5
for the model anchors. Effects of blade spacing
on cylindrical shear pullout were analyzed.
-3-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-50
Rev. 12-09
influence due to anchor pullout should not

overlap the active wedge of retained earth.
In cohesive soils, it is believed that the
transition between significant and minimal strain
occurs at smaller depth to blade diameter ratios
as compared to that in sand. The transition
between individual bearing limit state and
cylindrical shear limit state at a depth to
diameter ratio of 1.5 as discussed previously is
an example of this phenomenon in clay. It is
possible that helical anchors need only be
extended a distance beyond the active zone of a
retaining wall equal to 1.5 to 3 times the helical
blade diameter. Until more testing is available,
a distance of 5 times the helical blade diameter is
suggested in clay soils.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Construct an earth pressure diagram

Determine helical anchor spacing
Compute helical anchor ultimate
capacity
Determine required minimum anchor
blade diameter(s)
Specify minimum length of helical
anchors
Check global stability
Design a retaining wall facing
Select a suitable foundation for the wall
facing
Specify surface and ground water
drainage systems
Most of these steps are similar to

procedures used in all types of earth retaining
wall design and can be found in a variety of texts
on the subject such as Abramson, et al. (1995).
In the following examples, certain methods
specific to helical anchors are discussed in more
detail.
A section view of an example earth
retaining wall design is shown in Fig. 2. In this
example, the size and configuration of helical
anchors is given. Their capacity needs to be
determined. Helical earth anchors are spaced
along the wall at the locations shown. The soil
has a unit weight of 120 pcf, friction angle of
30o, and no cohesion. This friction angle
corresponds to Nq equal to 23. The anchors
have two 12-inch diameter blades spaced 2 feet
apart and have a capacity:torque ratio of 8 ft -1.
The anchors are oriented 15 degrees from
horizontal and are approximately 6 feet below
the ground surface. The anchors are installed to
a distance of 9 feet beyond the theoretical active
zone and to a minimum torque of 2,500 ft-lbs.
Fig. 2 Example Retaining Wall

The ultimate pullout capacity of one
anchor by the cylindrical shear method is given
by
Design Example
The usual procedure for design of a
helical anchor retaining wall is as follows.
-4-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-51
Rev. 12-09
(4) and the variability of soil consistency observed in

exploratory borings and judge whether the
where the vertical stress was assumed constant
capacity determined by the installation torque
Furthermore, the
(5) method is reasonable.
installation torque method is only valid if a deep
over the entire length of the anchor for mode of failure governs helical anchor capacity.
simplicity. By the individual bearing method, the
In the foregoing example, the helical
pullout capacity of one anchor is
anchor blades are 9 diameters beyond the active
(6) zone. This distance is sufficient to insure a
deep mode of failure for a medium dense sand
(7) (see previous section on stress and strain
behavior). Furthermore, the capacity determined
through torque correlations is near enough to
that determined from cylindrical shear that it is
In most cases, the cylindrical shear and
reasonable. Thus, the allowable pullout capacity
individual bearing methods yield similar results.
for each anchor using a factor of safety of 2.0 is
In this example, the strength in cylindrical shear
was compromised by the shallow depth of the
(10)
anchors and the absence of soil cohesion. The
computed ultimate capacity of the helical anchor
The capacity of the anchor is in a
is always taken as the more conservative result
direction parallel with the anchor shaft. The
of the two methods.
Finally, if the helical anchors are installed angle of the anchor must be taken into account
to the recommended torque, the pullout capacity in the static force diagram. The allowable stress
in the horizontal direction is
by the installation torque method is
(8)
(9)
(11)
The downward component of this force must be
taken into account in the design of a suitable
foundation for the retaining wall facing. Helix
piers provide a convenient foundation for helical
anchor retaining walls.
A remaining step in helical anchor design
is to verify that the anchor itself is sufficient to
withstand the calculated pullout capacity.
Helical anchors are typically manufactured of
high strength carbon steel having an ultimate
tensile strength in the range of 35,000 to 70,000
psi. In this example, the helical anchor shaft
must have a cross-sectional area of at least 0.07
to 0.14 in2. Strength of the helical anchor
section connectors should also be checked.
Most helical anchor manufacturers provide
The capacity of helical anchors determined

through the installation torque method has been
shown to more consistently match field capacity
tests in comparison with other methods.
Reasons for this may include limited reliability of
soil strength information, variations in soil
strength within the ground, and non-isotropic
states of stress. However, the results obtained
using the installation torque method should not
be far afield from the other more traditional
foundation capacity methods. An engineer
should weigh the results obtained from the
cylindrical shear and individual bearing methods
against the reliability of geotechnical information
-5-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-52
Rev. 12-09
cohesion of 3,000 psf, and no friction (undrained

rapid failure mode).
Zero friction angle
corresponds to Nc equal to 6 and Ncq equal to 1.
The anchors are to be 6 and 12 feet below the
ground surface.
The minimum length of the anchors
beyond the active zone was discussed in the
previous section on stress and strain behavior.
The results of the research by Ghaly and Hanna
(1992) is summarized in Table 1. In the
example, the site is characterized by clay soils.
Therefore, the helical blades need to be a
minimum of 5 feet beyond the active zone.
information on the mechanical strength of their

products.
Friction along the shaft of a helical
anchor also contributes to the pullout capacity
(Gahly and Clemence, 1998). Deep, largediameter-shaft, helical anchors may develop a
considerable portion of their strength from the
shaft to soil interface. Since high strains result
from turning during installation, residual shear
strength parameters are appropriate. Wobbling
during installation must also be taken into
consideration, since it causes the soil to separate
from along the anchor shaft. For short helical
anchors, the adhesion and friction along the
anchor shaft is anticipated to add only minimal
additional strength. Therefore, these factors
were ignored in the foregoing example.
Table 1. Minimum Length Beyond Active Zone

Soil Condition
Embedment Length
Clay
5 ft
Loose Sand
7 ft
Medium Sand
9 ft
Dense Sand
11 ft
To determine the minimum helical blade

requirements, an assumption is made about the
blade areas, and the number of blades is
computed by solving Eq. (2) for N.
(12)
Fig. 3 Example Retaining Wall
For the example, the number of 12-inch diameter
blades required is
A section view of another example earth

retaining wall design is shown in Fig. 3. In this
example, the size and configuration of helical
anchors is unknown and need to be determined.
The minimum length of the anchors beyond the
active zone also needs to be determined. From
Pecks apparent pressure diagram, it has been
determined that each anchor is subject to 30 kips
force in the direction along the anchor shaft.
The soil is a clay with a unit weight of 120 pcf,
(13)
where the vertical stress for the shallowest
helical anchor was used to be conservative.
In helical anchor retaining wall design, it
is better practice to round-down the number of
blades and implement a minimum installation
-6-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-53
Rev. 12-09
torque requirement to verify capacity. This

practice causes the helical anchors to be installed
deeper with less blades rather than shallower
with more blades. For the example retaining
wall, a minimum of three (3) 12-inch diameter
helical blades are required.
The minimum installation torque criteria
is typically specified on the plans in a statement
such as,
anchor inclination on pullout capacity are

minimal. Helical anchors should be extended
beyond the theoretical zone of active soil failure
behind a retaining wall by certain distances that
depend on soil type. Minimum required torque
should be maintained for a distance of at least 5
feet.
Helical anchors shall be installed to a minimum torque

indicative of 30 kips allowable capacity. Manufacturer
recommended capacity:torque ratio shall be used with a
factor of safety of 2.0. The minimum required torque
shall be met and maintained or exceeded for a distance
of at least five feet.
Abramson, L.W., et al. (1995) Slope Stability and

Stabilization Methods, Wiley Interscience, New
York
References
A.B. Chance, Co. (1993). Tension Anchor System for

Tieback Applications. Manufacturer Technical
Support Document, Centralia, MO.
It is important in helical anchor design to specify

that the required minimum torque be obtained
and sustained for some distance. This ensures
that the soil above the helical blades is at least as
stiff/dense as the soils surrounding the helical
blades. This distance should be at least five feet.
The reinforced facing used in helical
anchor retaining walls can be multi-layer or
single layer reinforced shotcrete, precast panels,
or any other structurally suitable system.
A.B. Chance, Co. (1995). Sample Calculations for

Helical Pier Application. Manufacturer
Technical Support Document, Centralia, MO.
American Society of Civil Engineers (1996). Standard
Guidelines for Design and Installation of Pile
Foundations Publication No. 20-96, ASCE
Press, Reston, VA.
Bowles, J.E. (1988) Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th
Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York
Clemence, S.P. (1985). Uplift Behavior of Anchor
Foundations in Soil. Proceedings of a Session
Sponsored by the Geotechnical Eng. Div. of
ASCE, Detroit, MI.
Conclusions
The use of helical anchors in earth
retaining wall restraint is a viable alternative to
grouted earth anchors that offers many
advantages including ease of installation,
immediate post tensioning, penetration through
ground water and caving soils, removal, and
reuse. There are three methods for determining
anchor pullout capacity: cylindrical shear,
individual bearing, and installation torque.
When designing a helical anchor retaining wall,
pullout capacity should be approximated using
the most conservative result obtained from
cylindrical shear and individual bearing methods.
Installation torque should be used as a final field
verification of helical anchor capacity. Effects of
Ghaly, A. and Hanna, A. (1992). Stresses and Strains

Around Helical Screw Anchors in Sand. Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 27-42.
Ghaly, A.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1998). Pullout
Performance of Inclined Helical Screw Anchors
in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.
7, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 617-627.
Hansen, J.B. (1970). A Revised and Extended Formula
for Bearing Capacity. Danish Geotechnical
Institute, Bulletin No. 28, Copenhagen.
Hoyt, R.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1989). Uplift Capacity
-7-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-54
Rev. 12-09
of Helical Anchors in Soil. Proceedings of the

12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Mitsch, M.P., and Clemence, S.P. (1985). Uplift
Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
pp. 26-47.
Rao, S.N., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Shetty, M.D. (1991).
Behavior of Model Screw Piles in Cohesive
Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2,
pp. 35-50.
Rao, S.N., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Veeresh, C. (1993).
Behavior of Embedded Model Screw Anchors
in Soft Clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 4,
pp. 605-614.
Rao, N.S. and Prasad, Y.V.S.N. (1993). Estimation of
Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clays.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119,
No. 2, ASCE, pp. 352-357.
-8-

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-55
Rev. 12-09
Presented August 8, 2003 at the Foundations Technology Seminar - Helical Foundations and Tiebacks, Deep Foundation
Institute, Helical Pile Committee, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Lateral Capacity and Buckling Resistance of Helix Pier Foundations

Howard A. Perko, Ph.D., P.E.
Abstract
A computer analysis was performed to determine the lateral strength and buckling resistance
of helix foundations in various soil conditions. Several different helix pier configurations were
considered including solid square shaft, standard pipe, and high strength structural tube. Results of
lateral strength and buckling computations generally match those found previously by others using
different methods.
The axial load required to buckle common sizes of helix pier shafts was determined for very
soft clay, soft clay, very loose sand, and loose sand soil conditions. In contrast to conventional Euler
theory, buckling of underground helix pier shafts was independent of the total length of the shaft.
Buckling was found to occur over a 7 to 12 feet long section of shaft regardless of the remaining
length of shaft within the same weak soil stratum.
The lateral capacity of helix foundations depends on shaft strength and near surface soil
conditions. Computed lateral capacities of 3" O.D. high strength structural tube helix pier shafts
with rigid connections varied considerably but were generally in the range of 3 to 6 kips for " of
deflection in good soil conditions. These results are consistent with lateral load tests conducted by
Magnum Piering, Inc. of West Chester, OH. The lateral capacities of square shaft helix pier
foundations were not determined due to uncertainties associated with the free movement of forged
upset couplings.
Introduction
The use of helix piers in compression for foundations has increased considerably over the
last 20 years due to their ease of use and speed of installation. Other factors that contribute to the
popularity of helix pier foundations are field verification of capacity through torque and simplicity
of practical application in engineering designs. Despite their increased use, there remain unresolved
concerns about their buckling resistance in weak soils and their lateral capacity.
The lateral capacity of helix piers in clays was studied by Prasad and Rao (1996). Laboratory
tests were performed on small-scale helix piers embedded in clays. The ratio of length to helix blade
diameter in these tests varied from 12 to 18. It was found that the presence of helix blades resulted
in an increase in lateral capacity that was 1.2 to 1.5 times that of slender piles without helix blades.
Puri, Stephenson, and Dziedzic (1984) performed calculations based on elastic theory and
nonlinear p-y type analysis on helix pier shafts embedded in soil and compared the results with
previously published full-scale lateral load tests. It was found that the lateral capacity of helix pier
shafts is controlled almost exclusively by the mechanical properties of the shaft for depths of helix
pier embedment greater than three to five times the critical stiffness factor (6 to 10 feet for
commonly manufactured helix foundations in stiff clay). A main conclusion of their study is that
-1Copyright2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-56
Rev. 12-09
the helix pier foundations have some lateral capacity, and that capacity can be validly estimated
using nonlinear p-y type analysis. A parameter was introduced to account for disturbance of the
ground due to the installation process of helix piers. This parameter, Cu, was determined to be
approximately 3.0 through correlations with lateral load test data. The effect of incorporating this
parameter into p-y type analysis is to increase deflection under lateral loads directly through
multiplication by Cu.
The buckling of square shaft helix piers used for underpinning was studied by Hoyt, R.,
Seider, G., Reese, L.C., Hon, M., and Wang, S. (1995). LPILE software was used to simulate
underground buckling in different soil conditions. The results were found to be in agreement with
full-scale field tests. Their results, which have been summarized below, indicated that the buckling
capacity of helix pier shafts in soft clays decreased with shaft length. This is opposite of
conventional Euler theory wherein the buckling capacity of slender columns generally decreases with
increasing unsupported shaft length. A close examination of their results shows that the helix piers
being modeled were failing due to overturning moments caused by bracket eccentricities rather than
pure buckling. The main conclusion of their study was that buckling of deeply embedded square
shaft helix piers with underpinning brackets occurs at less than 40 kips only in soft to very soft clay.
40
Stiff Clay
Axial Load (kips)
Med Sand
30
Med Clay &

Loose Sand
20
Soft Clay
V. Loose Sand
10
V. Soft Clay
0
0
10
15
20
Shaft Length (ft)
Fig. 1 Buckling Capacity of 1-1/2" Square Shaft Helix Piers Used for Underpinning
(Modified from Hoyt, et al., 1995)
Since helix piers are being used with increased frequency for new foundations, it would be
beneficial to examine their buckling capacity without the stresses caused by bracket eccentricities.
Often in construction, deep foundations must be relied upon for lateral as well as axial support.
Hence, it is also of value to determine the lateral capacity of helix pier shafts. There are presently
5 to 6 helix pier manufacturing companies. Helix piers are available with different shaft
configurations from square to tubular. Examination of the lateral capacity and buckling resistance
of these different shaft sizes is also of interest.
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-57
Rev. 12-09
Buckling Theory
Software for underground pile buckling computation is not readily available to the practicing
engineer. One of the most widely used software packages for lateral pile analysis is LPILE by Reese
and others. This software package incorporates a nonlinear discrete element p-y method of analysis
to determine lateral pile deflections under various boundary conditions. It is difficult to apply LPILE
to determine buckling capacity for pinned end conditions. However, a method using alternative
boundary conditions is suggested as a valid approximation for buckling.
Recall that Eulers formula can be written as (Beer, F.P. and Johnston, E.R., 1981)
Pcr
2 EI
=
Le 2
where Pcr is critical load, E is Modulus of Elasticity, I is area moment of inertia, and Le is effective
length. The effective length for a column with pinned end conditions is simply equal to the column
length as shown on the left side of Fig. 2. Similarly, the effective length for a column with fixed
slope and free translation top boundary conditions is shown on the right side of Fig. 2. Although
buckling for the pinned end condition can not be determined readily using LPILE, the buckling
condition with fixed slope and free translation conditions can be easily modeled. Since the elastic
curve for the buckled portion of each of these conditions has the same effective length, it is
suggested that the two configurations should yield approximately the same critical buckling load.
Hence, buckling for different helix pier shafts was computed herein using the second model with
fixed slope and free translation boundary conditions. Yet, the results are indicative of both
conditions.
Fig. 2 Helix Pier Computational Buckling Model

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-58
Rev. 12-09
Buckling Capacity Analysis

Buckling capacity of helix pier foundations was determined using LPILE software and the
boundary conditions described above. Axial load was increased through successive iterations until
helix pier failure occurred. Lateral load on the helix pier shafts was set equal to that caused by a
departure from plumbness equal to 1.5% of the length. The soil conditions incorporated in the model
are shown in Table 1. The model was applied to a variety of commonly available helix pier shaft
configurations including 1.5"x1.5" and 1.75"x1.75" square shafts, 2.5" and 3.0" nominal diameter,
schedule 80 pipe shafts, and 3.0" O.D., 0.12" and 0.25" thick wall, high strength structural tube
shafts. The mechanical properties of these shafts are shown in Table 2.
Clay
Sand
Table 1 Input Soil Parameters
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
Horiz. Mod.
of
SPT Blow
Subgrade
Count
Unit Weight Reaction
(blows/ft)
(pcf)
(pci)
0-4
70
5
4-10
96
25
10-30
110
90
30-50
130
225
0-2
82
30
2-4
86
100
4-8
92
500
8-15
104
1000
Angle of
Friction
(deg)
25
29
33
39
-
Cohesion
(psf)
200
400
800
1500
Strain at
50% Peak
Strength
(in/in)
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.005
Table 2 Input Helix Pier Shaft Properties

1.5"x1.5"
SQR
BAR
Area Moment of Inertia
Cross-Section Area
(in )
2
(in )
0.42
2.25
1.75"x1.75" 3.0" O.D.

SQR
0.12 Wall
BAR
HSST
0.78
3.06
1.06
1.02
2.5" Nom.
Schd. 80
Pipe
1.92
2.25
3.0" O.D. 3" Nom.

0.25 Wall Schd. 80
HSST
Pipe
2.06
2.16
3.89
3.02
It was determined that buckling is a critical constraint on the design capacity of helix piers
only in very soft to soft clays and very loose to loose sands. Buckling capacity was in excess of
manufacturers recommended maximum allowable axial capacity of the helix piers in the other soil
conditions. The results of buckling calculations are shown in Table 3. Allowable buckling capacity
was determined from ultimate buckling capacity by application of a factor of safety of 1.5. The
results in the table represent the maximum recommended axial design capacity for these helix pier
shafts in the soil conditions shown. Buckling failure does not exclude the use of helix piers in weak
soils. Rather, it is required that the design axial capacity be lower than or equal to these allowable
limits in order to avoid buckling-type failure.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-59
Rev. 12-09
Clay Sand
Table 3. Allowable Buckling Capacity of Helix Pier Foundations (F.S. = 1.5)
Very Loose
Loose
Very Soft
Soft
1.5"x1.5"
Square
Bar
1.75"x1.75"
Square
Bar
3.0" O.D.
0.12 Wall
HSST
2.5" Nom.
Schd. 80
Pipe
3.0" O.D.
0.25 Wall
HSST
3" Nom.
Schd. 80
Pipe
23
28
15
28
28
41
21
38
38
55
28
50
51
75
34
63
64
81
38
68
79
115
50
89
The results determined in this study for 1.5"x1.5" square shaft helix piers in very soft to soft
clay soils correspond well with those published by Hoyt, et al. (1995). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the
ultimate buckling resistance of 1.5"x1.5" square shaft helix piers used for underpinning, as
determined by Hoyt, et al. (1995), is approximately 28 kips for very soft clays and 37 kips for soft
clay. Application of a factor of safety of 1.5 yields allowable buckling capacities of 19 and 25 kips,
respectively. These values for the same shaft in similar soil conditions shown in Table 3 are 15 and
28 kips, respectively. The results determined in this study for 1.5"x1.5" square shaft helix piers in
very loose to loose sand soils are less than those determined by Hoyt, et al. (1995). One reason for
this difference is that the angle of internal friction for very loose sand used here was 25 deg instead
of 28 deg as assumed by Hoyt. The difference in values for very loose to loose sands between the
two studies could not be determined because buckling limits that occurred over 40 kips was not
published by Hoyt.
Interestingly, the length of shaft affected by buckling in these soil conditions varied generally
from 7 to 12 feet. Provided that at least this length of helix pier shaft was surrounded by weak soils,
the buckling capacity was independent of any additional length bounded by weak soils. This
contradicts traditional Euler buckling theory. The conclusion is made that underground buckling of
helix pier shafts occurs at the capacities shown if there is at least 7 to 12 feet of weak soils. The
buckling capacity of helix piers is not changed by the presence of more than 7 to 12 feet of week
soils. The length of helix pier shafts used in this study was 30 feet. The length of shaft over which
buckling occurred was determined by the depth where pier shaft deflections were insignificant.
The results show that confirm the conclusion of Puri, et al. (1984) that the lateral resistance
of helix piers is significantly affected by the mechanical rigidity of the helix pier shaft. More rigid
round helix pier shafts are able to support higher loads before buckling. Nonetheless, the practitioner
should reference Table 3 in order to check the design capacity of all helix pier shafts when
installation in weak soils is anticipated.
Lateral Capacity Analysis
In order to resist wind shear and earthquake loads, often large commercial and industrial
structures supported by helix pier foundations must be braced laterally by either supplying
foundation elements subject to passive soil resistance or by installing additional helix piers at a batter
angle. However, helix pier foundations have some lateral capacity which may be incorporated to
resist shear loads applied to lightly loaded structures so as to avoid the necessity of other measures.
The lateral capacity of 3.0" O.D., 0.25" thick wall, high strength structural tube helix pier
foundations was determined using LPILE software. Fixed slope, free translation top end boundary
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-60
Rev. 12-09
conditions were incorporated in this analysis. These conditions are indicative of a pile that is rigidly
fixed to a structure so as to resist bending moments. However, the entire foundation could translate
laterally. The soil conditions used in the analysis were as shown in Table 1. Shaft mechanical
properties were as shown in Table 2. The results of the analysis are given in Figs. 3 and 4.
The results of the LPILE analysis of the lateral capacity of these helix piers indicates that
between 3,000 and 6,000 lbs of shear load can generally be applied in good soil conditions for "
of allowable lateral movement. These loads are not large, however even 3,000 lbs is sufficient to
support an example lateral wind pressure of 28 psf on an 8 ft x 8 ft section of wall or the lateral earth
pressure behind a 4 feet tall x 9 ft long crawl space wall (a factor of safety of 1.7 was incorporated
in the live loads used in these examples).
9,000
8,000
Stiff
Lateral Load (lbs)
7,000
6,000
Medium
5,000
4,000
Soft
3,000
2,000
Very Soft
1,000
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Displacement (in)
Fig. 3 Lateral Load Resistance of 3" O.D., 0.25" Wall HSST Helix Piers in Clays

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-61
Rev. 12-09
9,000
Dense
8,000
Lateral Load (lbs)
7,000
6,000
Medium
5,000
4,000
Loose
3,000
2,000
Very
Loose
1,000
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Displacement (in)
Fig. 4 Lateral Load Resistance of 3" O.D., 0.25" Wall HSST Helix Piers in Sands
Discussion
A parameter to account for disturbance of ground due to installation of helix blades per Puri,
et al. (1984) was not taken into account. However, the lateral loads given in Figs. 3 and 4 have been
confirmed in at least 5 separate load tests performed by Magnum Piering, Inc. in stiff clays. More
study is recommended for various pier shaft configurations and soil conditions to determine
positively if the soil disturbance parameter recommended by Puri is justified.
The free movement of forged upset couplings typically used with square shaft helix piers was
not taken into account in the buckling computations. As suggested by Hoyt, et al. (1995), additional
studies should be performed to determine the effect of these couplings on buckling capacity.
Conclusions
LPILE software was used to investigate the lateral strength and buckling resistance of helix
foundations in various soil conditions. It is suggested that the analysis performed using fixed
rotation, free translation end conditions is a valid estimation of the buckling resistance of helix pier
shafts with pinned end conditions. Buckling was found to impart limits on the allowable axial load
that can be applied to solid square shaft, standard pipe, and high strength structural tube helix pier
foundation shafts in very soft to soft clays and very loose to loose sands. Buckling was not found
to be important in more competent soil conditions. Buckling was found to occur over a 7 to 12 feet
long section of shaft regardless of the remaining length of shaft within the same weak soil stratum.
All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-62
Rev. 12-09
Results of buckling computations generally match those found previously by others using
underpinning bracket reactions.
The lateral capacity of 3" O.D. high strength structural tube helix pier shafts with rigid
connections was found to range from 3 to 6 kips for " of deflection in good soil conditions. These
results are consistent with lateral load tests conducted by Magnum Piering, Inc. of West Chester, OH.
Lateral capacity of 3 kips was shown to be of value in the design of residential and other lightly
loaded structures.
References
Beer, F.P. and Johnston, E.R., Jr. (1981) Mechanics of Materials, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Hoyt, R., Seider, G., Reese, L.C., Hon, M., and Wang, S. (1995) Buckling of Helical Anchors Used
for Underpinning Foundation Upgrading and Repair for Infrastructure Improvement, ASCE, pp.
89-108.
Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Rao, S.N. (1996) Lateral Capacity of Helical Piles in Clays Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 11, November, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Puri, V.K., Stephenson, R.W., and Dziedzic, E., and Goen, L. (1984) Helical Anchor Piles Under
Lateral Loading Laterally Loaded Deep Foundations: Analysis and Performance, ASTM STP 835,
Langer, Mosley, and Thompson, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 194-213.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-63
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-64
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-65
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-66
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-67
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-68
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-69
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-70
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-71
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-72
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-73
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-74
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-75
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-76
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-77
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-78
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-79
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-80
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-81
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-82
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-83
Rev. 12-09
Presented at Helical Foundations and Tiebacks (November 2004) Specialty Seminar, Helical Foundations and
Tiebacks Committee, Deep Foundation Institute, Tampa, FL.
Introduction to Corrosion and Galvanizing of Helix Foundations

by Howard A. Perko, Ph.D., P.E.
Manager, Technical Support Center, Magnum Piering, Inc. (www.magnumpiering.com)
Research Scientist, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Principal Engineer, Secure Foundations, LLC (www.secureengineer.com)
Revised November 3, 2004
Abstract
A basic review of helix foundation corrosion and galvanizing is presented. The review
includes an introduction to the electrochemical process of corrosion, various forms of corrosion,
soil and pore water effects on corrosion rates, and soil classification based on conductivity. The
phenomena of passivity and galvanic corrosion are briefly discussed. Different types of
galvanizing processes are summarized. Minimum and average helix foundation life-expectancy
are estimated for different soil types.
Introduction
In order that helix foundations provide
support for the design life of a structure, it is
important that they be protected from
corrosion. Galvanizing is the most often
incorporated method of corrosion protection
used by helix foundation manufacturing
companies.
A fundamental review of
corrosion and galvanizing is presented. The
review is intended to aid foundation engineers
in approximately judging the expected
lifespan of a helix foundation and in
understanding
the
importance
of
galvanization.
of other chemicals available during corrosion.

Metallic corrosion occurs most prevalently in
aqueous solutions, which conduct electric
charge through ions. The electrochemical
composition of the aqueous solution almost
always governs the rate of corrosion and the
composition of rust.
With regard to helix foundations and
other underground metallic structures,
corrosion rate is generally governed by the
flow of electricity in soil and is a function of
moisture content, presence of dissolved salts,
acidity, soil density, soil type, and
permeability. A measure of the rate of flow of
electrical current is conductivity. Ground
water by itself does not have very high
conductivity. However, all ground water
contains some soluble salts.
Higher salt
content increases conductivity.
The acidity of a ground water is a
measure of the concentration of hydrogen
ions.
Recall that the concentration of
hydrogen ions is typically represented by the
pH (negative of the logarithm base 10 of the
concentration of H+ ions). High acidity (low
pH) indicates more hydrogen ions. Hydrogen
ions remove electrons from iron making it
more chemically reactive. The rate of
Corrosion
Corrosion is the exothermic chemical
transformation of a metal or metal alloy to a
non-reactive covalent compound such as an
oxide or silicate that is often similar or even
identical to the mineral from which the metals
were extracted. Thus, corrosion has been
called extractive metallurgy in reverse
(Payer, et al., 1980).
Rust is a general term often used for
the covalent compounds formed during the
corrosion of iron and steel. The composition
of rust depends on the abundance and species
1

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-84
Rev. 12-09
corrosion is also a function of the quantity of

dissolved and free oxygen and the diffusion
rate of oxygen.
Of many possible reactions, one
example of the net chemical reaction for the
corrosion of iron and steel in the presence
acidic water with ample dissolved oxygen is
given below. Note that hydrated hematite is
the reddish-brown mineral most often
associated with the term rust.
United States (Romanoff, 1989). These data

are shown graphically in Fig. 1 and represent
the rate of corrosion as a function of soil
resistivity for over 300 buried iron and steel
samples from 54 locations across the United
States. It can be seen in the figure that low
resistivity (high electrical conductivity) is
generally associated with high rates of
corrosion. In general, soils with high moisture
content, ample supply of dissolved oxygen,
considerable salt content, and high acidity are
most corrosive.
Different types of iron, steel, and zinc
have been found to corrode at essentially the
same rate in most soil types (Uhlig and Revie,
1985). This finding caused some engineers,
including the author at one time, to incorrectly
believe that zinc coating of underground
metallic structures was unimportant. Better
understanding of the function of zinc coating
and corrosion related failure mechanisms
leads to the conclusion that the zinc coating of
helix foundations is not only important but
also necessary.
There are various forms of corrosion
including uniform, galvanic, crevice, pitting,
intergranular, cracking, erosion, dealloying,
and hydrogen damage (Jones, 1996). Uniform
corrosion accounts for the greatest amount of
metal transformation, however crevice and
pitting forms of corrosion are more insidious.
Zinc coating protects iron and steel from these
types of corrosion by two important aspects,
passivity and galvanization.
4Fe + 3O2 + 4H2O + 8H+ 6

2(Fe2O3H2O) + 2H2O+8H+
iron + oxygen + water + acid 6
hydrated hematite + water + acid
Although all hydrogen ions and some water
are conserved on both sides of the net reaction
given above, these chemicals are important
facilitators of the corrosion reaction for the
reasons stated above.
The opposite of electrical conductivity
is resistivity. Either term is often used to
describe the corrosivity of soil. A guide to
characterizing the corrosivity of soil based on
resistivity is provided in Table 1 (Modified
from Miller, Foss, and Wolf, 1981).
Table 1. Soil Corrosivity Classification
Corrosivity
Resistivity (S cm)
Very Low
>10,000
Low
5,000 to 10,000
Moderate
2,000 to 5,000
High
1,000 to 2,000
Very High
<1,000
Passivity
Passivity is the formation of a thin,
non-conductive, oxide surface film that
hinders the flow of electrical current and
reduces the rate of corrosion. Zinc forms such
a layer in the presence of carbon dioxide,
which is almost always found in soil pore air
and dissolved in ground water.
Long-term
soil-testing
programs
conducted by the National Bureau of
Standards between 1910 and 1955 comprise
much of the data on soil corrosivity in the
Galvanic Corrosion
The galvanizing
process
is
the

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-85
Rev. 12-09
5.0
Severe
High
Moderate
Low
4.5
Clays
Buried Steel Weight Loss (oz/sf/yr)
4.0
Peat
3.5
Sand and Gravel

Silt to Loam
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Soil Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
Fig. 1 Corrosion Rates

fortunate result of understanding the science
behind galvanic corrosion of metals. Galvanic
corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals
are placed in contact. The metal or metal
alloy with higher electric potential will
corrode before the metal with lower electric
potential. Zinc has a high electric potential
and will sacrifice itself to protect iron and
steel to which it is electrically coupled.
As helix foundations are installed into
the ground, pits and scratches may occur
through the zinc coating. The process of
galvanic corrosion protects bare iron and steel
exposed in pits and scratches. In fact, zinc
will prevent corrosion of exposed areas of iron
and steel up to 1/8 inch wide (Industrial
Galvanizers America, Inc., 1999).
A graph showing the corrosion rates
for pairs of bare and galvanized iron and steel
pipe samples from 20 locations across the
United States is shown in Fig. 2 (constructed
from the data in Uhlig and Revie, 1985). The

figure indicates that a zinc coating can reduce
uniform corrosion rates by a factor of 50 to
98%.
Galvanized Coatings
There are several methods of coating
metal with zinc including spraying,
electroplating, continuous, and the hot-dip
process. Hot-dip galvanized coatings are
typically 80 to 100 microns thick, moderately
flexible, and result in a zinc iron alloy that is
harder than steel. Other types of zinc coatings
are typically 12-25 microns thick, very
flexible, and softer than steel. (Industrial
Galvanizers America, Inc., 1999)
Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is preferred
in the construction of helix foundations for
several reasons. It protects iron and steel pipe
surfaces inside and out. The coating is harder
than any paint. The coating is chemically
3

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-86
Rev. 12-09
100%
3.0
90%
2.5
70%
2.0
Galvanized Pipe
Bare Pipe
60%
Reduction in Corrosion Rate

50%
1.5
40%
1.0
Reduction in Corrosion Rate
Pipe Weight Loss Rate (oz/sf/yr)
80%
30%
20%
0.5
10%
0.0
0%
Pairs of Burried Pipe Samples in Different Soils
Fig. 2 Effect of Galvanization

bonded and normally never flakes or peels,
and the coating is immune to ultraviolet
radiation damage. After a hot-dip galvanized
helix foundation is installed and then removed
from the ground, it appears shinny and smooth
and it gives the false impression that the zinc
has been rubbed off by the soil. However,
what is being observed is one of the zinc iron
alloys formed in the hot-dip process. These
alloys have significant passive corrosion
resistance properties. Other types of zinc
coating processes do not produce these alloys.
For these reasons, engineers should specify
hot-dip galvanization as opposed to other
types of zinc coatings.
calculation of helix foundation life as a

function of soil resistivity. Their results are
shown in Fig. 3. Expected helix foundation
life was defined as the point in time when the
entire zinc coating and 1/8-inch of steel helical
blade thickness is lost to corrosion. Their
calculations are subjective in that they only
allow for a 3 to 9.5 year benefit from the zinc
galvanization, and they only considered three
data points.
The data of Ramanoff (1989), shown
in Fig. 1, and that of Uhlig and Revie (1985),
shown in Fig. 2, were statistically analyzed to
obtain a more comprehensive estimate of helix
foundation life expectancy for different soil
types.
The calculations consisted of
determining the amount of time that would be
required to transform 1/3 of the helical blade
thickness and 1/2 the central shaft thickness of
a helix foundation into rust by uniform
corrosion. Galvanization was considered to
Life Expectancy
The helix foundation manufacturer
A.B. Chance Company (1992) used steel and
zinc loss in weight over time given by
Ramanoff (1989) to provide a sample
4

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-87
Rev. 12-09
350
300
Helix Pier Expected Life

(years)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Soil Resistivity
(Ohm cm)
Fig. 3 Sample Calculation for Expected Helix Life (A.B. Chance, Co., 1992)
reduce corrosion rates by 50%, which is the
most conservative and least effect shown in
Fig. 2.
A helix foundation with 3/8 inch thick
blade and Schedule 80 pipe shaft was used as
the model in the analysis. This configuration
is representative of round-shaft helix
foundations manufactured by Magnum
Piering, Inc. (standard and heavy duty series),
Atlas Foundations, Inc., Precision Pier USA,
Inc., and the A.B. Chance Company, among
others. The computations are considered valid
approximations for square shaft helix
foundations with nominal dimensions of at
least 1.5x1.5 inches, however the computed
life expectancies should be divided by 2 for
thinner wall pipe shaft helix foundations such
as the Magnum Piering, Inc. light duty series.
Results of the analysis are shown in
Table 2. Different soil types were categorized
according to electrical resistivity.
Some
examples of soil types comprising each

category are given in the table. Estimated life
expectancy is shown for bare metal and
galvanized helix foundations. The minimum
life expectancy, which represents the most
rapid rate of corrosion measured in each
category of soil corrosivity, is given by the top
number in each row.
The mean life
expectancy for each category is the lowest
number in each row. Life expectancy with
approximately 95% probability, the point
located two standard deviations from the
mean, is given by the bold-font middle
number in each row. The results indicate that
a galvanized helix foundation of the
configuration described above has an
approximately 95% probability of a lifespan
between 75 and 800 years depending on soil
type.
There are many different soil types
that are listed in more than one category in
5

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-88
Rev. 12-09
foundation failure may be the corrosion

induced fracture of the shaft near the ground
surface where there is increased oxidation.
This effect may be diminished by proper site
drainage and encapsulation of the helix
foundation shaft in concrete at the ground
surface.
Soil resistivity does not provide a
measure of the permeability, diffusivity, and
therefore the residence time of water on buried
surfaces. There is no single easily measured
soil parameter that can be used to determine
soil corrosivity. Rather, low soil resistivity
values indicate areas of potentially high
corrosivity that warrant further study. (Jones,
1996)
Electrically
coupling
the
helix
foundation to ungalvanized steel reinforcing
or structural steel in a building, bridge or other
types of construction may change the galvanic
corrosion rate of the zinc coatings on helix
foundations and may alter the electric
Table 2. In order to determine the corrosivity

of soil at a particular job site, it is necessary to
obtain soil resistivity measurements. One
frequently used method of field resistivity
testing consists of placing several copper rods
into the soil and directly measuring the flow
of electrical current between them. Municipal
water districts often maintain a data base of
soil resistivity measurements for their area.
These records are used as a guide for
determining the degree of corrosion protection
required for buried water pipes. These data
often can be obtained by contacting local
municipal water districts. Where there is a
risk of severely corrosive soils and where
accurate determination of the life expectancy
of a helix foundation or anchor supported
structure is required, site specific field
resistivity testing should be performed.
General Discussion
A more realistic
mode of helix
Table 2. Estimated Helix Foundation Lifespan
Soil Resistivity
(Ohm-cm)
0-2,000
2,000-10,000
10,000-30,000
> 30,000
Corrosivity
Category
SEVERE
HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
(Minimum)
95% Probability
(Average)
Example Soils
Helix Foundation Life Expectancy

Bare Metal
Galvanized
soil in marine environments; organic

soils and peat; soft, wet silts and
clays; wet shales
(15)
(40)
30
75
(80)
(200)
stiff, moist clays; medium dense silts

and loams; wet clayey to silty sand;
wet sandstone
(55)
(140)
70
170
(135)
(340)
(50)
(125)
55
140
(140)
(350)
(345)
(865)
325
810
(555)
(1385)
dry to slightly moist clays; dry silts

and loams; sand and gravel;
limestone
dry shales; dry sandstone; clean and

dry sand and gravel; slate and granite

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-89
Rev. 12-09
potential of the helix foundation with respect

to the soil pore-water aqueous solution.
Whenever possible, the helix foundation
should be electrically isolated from the rest of
the structure.
A corrosion engineer should be
consulted when very high corrosive soils are
encountered. It may be appropriate to provide
additional corrosion protection to extend the
life of the helix foundation system.
A
potential solution is cathodic protection.
Cathodic protection reduces the corrosion rate
by providing an excess supply of electrons to
a corroding metal surface.
The excess
electrons slow the rate of metallic ionization.
The level of cathodic protection must be
carefully controlled.
References
A.B. Chance, Co. (1992).
Anchor Corrosion
Reference & Examples. National Association
of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, TX.
Industrial Galvanizers America, Inc. (1999). Product
Galvanizing Brochure, International Business
Publishers, Atlanta, GA.
Jones, D.A. (1986). Principles and Prevention of
Corrosion, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
London.
Miller, F.E., Foss, J.E., and Wolf, D.C. (1981). ASTM
STP 741, American Society for Testing and
Materials, p. 19.
Prayer, J.H., et al. (1980). Material Performance, MayNov.
Romanoff, M. (1989). Underground Corrosion,
National Bureau of Standards No. 579, 1957,
Reprinted by NACE, Houston.
Uhlig, H.H. and Revie, R.W. (1985). Corrosion and
Corrosion Control, 3rd Ed., John Wiley and
Sons, New York.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-90
Rev. 12-09

Page 1 of 4
HELICAL PILE AND ANCHOR

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J.I. and Hayes, D.C. (1967) The Uplift Capacity of Shallow Foundations Ontario Hydro
Research Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Adams, J.I. and Klym, T.W. (1972) A Study of Anchors for Transmission Tower Foundations Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 89-104.
Bobbitt, D.W., and Clemence, S.P. (1987) Helical Anchors: Application and Design Criteria Proceedings
of the 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 6-105 - 6-120.
Carville, C.A. and Walton, R.W. (1994) Design Guidelines for Screw Anchors Proceedings of the
International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 2, pp. 646-655.
Carville, C.A. and Walton, R.W. (1995) Foundation Repair Using Helical Screw Anchors Foundation
Upgrading and Repair for Infrastructure Improvement, ASCE, pp. 56-75.
Clemence, S.P. and Pepe, F.D. Jr. (1984) Measurement of Lateral Stress Around Multihelix Anchors in
Sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 7, No. 3, Sept. 1984, pp. 145-152.
Clemence, S.P. (1985) Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil Proceedings of a Session
Sponsored by the Geotechnical Eng. Div. of ASCE, Detroit, MI.
Clemence, S.P., Crouch, L.K., and Stephenson, R.W. (1994) Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soils
Proceedings of the 2nd Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo, Vol. 1, pp. 332-343.
Clemence, S.P. and Smithling, A.P. (1984) Dynamic Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Sand
Proceedings of the 4th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Vol. 1, pp. 88-93.
Curle, R. (1995) Screw Anchors Economically Control Pipeline Bouyancy in Muskeg Oil and Gas
Journal, Vol. 93, No. 17, pp.
Davisson, M.T. and Gill, H.L. (1963) Laterally Loaded Piles in Layered Soil System Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM3.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M. (1991a) Uplift Behavior of Screw Anchors in Sand. I: Dry Sand.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, pp. 773-793.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M. (1991b) Installation Torque of Screw Anchors in Dry Sand Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, pp. 77-92.
Ghaly, A. and Hanna, A. (1992) Stresses and Strains Around Helical Screw Anchors in Sand Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 27-42.
Ghaly, A.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1998) Pullout Performance of Inclined Helical Screw Anchors in Sand
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 7, ASCE, Reston,
VA, pp. 617-627.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., Ranjan, G. and Hanna, M. (1991) Helical Anchors in Dry and Submerged Sand
Subjected to Surcharge Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 10, pp. 14631470.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-91
Rev. 12-09

Page 2 of 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ghaly, A.M., Hanna, A.M. and Hanna, M.S. (1991) Uplift Behavior of Screw Anchors in Sand -II:
Hydrostatic and Flow Conditions Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 5,
pp. 794-808.
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M. (1991) Experimental and Theoretical Studies on Installation Torque of
Screw Anchors Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 353-364.
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M. (1991) Stress Development in Sand Due To Installation and Uplifting of
Screw Anchors Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Vol. 1, pp. 565-570.
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M. (1994) Model Investigation of the Performance of Single Anchors and
Groups of Anchors Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 273-284.
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A. (1994) Ultimate Pullout Resistance of Single Vertical Anchors Canadian
Hanna, A. and Ghaly, A. (1992) Effects of Ko and Overconsolidation on Uplift Capacity Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 9, pp. 1449-1469.
Hanna, A. and Ghaly, A. (1994) Ultimate Pullout Resistance of Groups of Vertical Anchors Canadian
Hargrave, R.L., and Thorsten, R.E. (1992). Helical Piers in Expansive Soils of Dallas, Texas 7th
International Conference on Expansive Soils.
Hoyt, R.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1989). Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil. Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
Hoyt, R., Seider, G., Reese, L.C., and Wang, S.T. (1995) Buckling of Helical Anchors Used for
Underpinning Foundation Upgrading and Repair for Infrastructure Improvement, ASCE, pp. 89108.
Huang, F.C., Mohmood, I., Joolazadeh, M., and Axten, G.W. (1995) Design Considerations and Field
Load Tests of a Helical Anchoring System for Foundation Renovation Foundation Upgrading
and Repair for Infrastructure Improvement, ASCE, pp. 76-88.
Johnston, G.H. and Ladanyi, B. (1974) Field Tests of Deep Power-Installed Screw Anchors in Permafrost
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 348-359.
Lutenegger, A.J., Smith, B.L. and Kabir, M.G. (1988) Use of In Situ Tests to Predict Uplift Performance
of Multi-Helix Anchors Special Topics in Foundations, ASCE, pp. 93-110.
Mitsch, M.P. and Clemence, S.P. (1985) The Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors and Sand Uplift Behavior
of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, pp. 26-47.
Mitsch, M.P., and Clemence, S.P. (1985) Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 26-47.
Mooney, J.S., Adamczak, S.Jr., and Clemence, S.P., (1985) Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors in Clay and
Silt Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, pp. 48-72.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-92
Rev. 12-09

Page 3 of 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., Shetty, M.D. and Joshi, V.V. (1989) Uplift Capacity of Screw Pile
Anchors Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 139-159.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Prasad, C.V. (1990) Experimental Studies on Model Screw Pile
Anchors Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference, pp. 465-468.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Shetty, M.D. (1991). Behavior of Model Screw Piles in
Cohesive Soils. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 35-50.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Veeresh, C. (1993). Behavior of Embedded Model Screw
Anchors in Soft Clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 605-614.
Narasimha Rao, S. and Prasad, Y.V.S.N. (1993). Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in
Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2, ASCE, pp. 352-357.
Pack, J.S. (2000) Design of Helical Piles for Heavily Loaded Structures New Technological and Design
Developments in Deep Foundations, ASCE, pp. 353-367.
Perko, H.A. (2001) Introduction to Corrosion and Galvanizing of Helix Foundations Magnum Piering
Technical Reference Guide, Engineering Analysis, Section 3.
Perko, H.A. (2000) Energy Method for Predicting the Installation Torque of Helical Foundations and
Anchors New Technological and Design Developments in Deep Foundations, ASCE,, p. 342.
Perko, H.A. (1999) Summary of Earth Retaining Methods Utilizing Helical Anchors Magnum Piering
Technical Reference Guide, Engineering Analysis, Section 3.
Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Narasimha Rao, S., (1994) Pullout Behavior of Model Piles and Helical Pile
Anchors Subjected to Lateral Cyclic Loading Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1,
pp. 110-119.
Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Narasimha Rao, S. (1996) Lateral Capacity of Helical Piles in Clays Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 11, pp. 938-941.
Puri, V.K., Stephenson, R.E., Dziedzic, E. and Goen, L. (1984) Helical Anchor Piles Under Lateral
Loading, Laterally Loaded Deep Foundations: Analysis and Performance, ASTM Special
Technical Publication 835, Langer, J.A., Mosley, E.T., Thompson, C.D. Eds., pp. 194-213.
Radhakrishna, H.S. (1976) Helix Anchor Tests in Sand Ontario Hydro Research Division Research
Report 76-130-K, pp. 1-33.
Robinson, K.E. and Taylor, H. (1969) Selection and Performance of Anchors for Guyed Transmission
Towers Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 119-135.
Rodgers, T.E. Jr. (1987) High Capacity Multi-Helix Screw Anchors for Transmission Line Foundations
Foundation for Transmission Line Towers, ASCE, pp. 81-95.
Rupiper, S. (1994) Helical Plate Bearing Members, A Practical Solution to Deep Foundations
Proceedings of the International Conference on the Design and Construction of Deep
Foundations, Vol 2, pp. 980-991.
Rupiper, S.J. and Edwards, W.G. (1989) Helical Bearing Plate Foundations for Underpinning.
Proceedings of Foundation Engineering Congress/SCE/CO Div., Evanston, IL, June 25-29.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-93
Rev. 12-09

Page 4 of 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Seider, G. (1999) Eccentrically Loaded Helical Pier Systems A.B.Chance, Co., Bulletin 01-9303.
Seider, G. (1993) Eccentric Loading of Helical Piers for Underpinning Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 139-145.
Trofimenkov, J.G. and Maruipolshii, L.G. (1965) Screw Piles Used for Mast and Tower Foundations
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 2, pp. 328-332.
Udwari, J.J, Rodgers, T.D., and Singh, H. (1979) A Rational Approach to the Design of High Capacity
Multi-Helix Screw Anchors Proceedings of the 7th Annual IEEE/PES, Transmission and
Distribution Exposition, pp. 606-610.
Vickars, R.A. and Clemence, S.P. (2000) Performance of Helical Piles with Grouted Shafts New
Technological and Design Developments in Deep Foundations, ASCE, pp. 327-341.
Weikart, A.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1987) Helix Anchor Foundations - Two Case Histories Foundations
for Transmission Line Towers, ASCE, pp. 72-80.
Yokel, F.Y., Chung, R.M., and Yancey, C.W.C. (1981) NBS Studies of Mobil Home Foundations U.S.
National Bureau of Standards Report NBSIR 81-2238.

All Rights Reserved
Page 3000-94
Rev. 12-09
SECTION 4000
PRODUCT QUALITY

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-1
Rev. 12-09
ESREPORT:PROPOSEDDRAFTMAGNUMHELICALFOUNDATIONSYSTEM
June5,2009
DIVISION:02SITECONSTRUCTION
Section:02465BoredPiles
REPORTHOLDER:
MAGNUMPIERING,INC.
6082SCHUMACHERPARKDRIVE
WESTCHESTER,OH45069
8008227437
www.magnumpiering.com
hperko@magnumpiering.com
EVALUATIONSUBJECT:
MAGNUMHELICALFOUNDATIONSYSTEM
1.0 SCOPE
Compliancewiththefollowingcodes:
InternationalBuildingCode(IBC)
PropertiesEvaluated:
AllowableloadanddeformationcapacitiesofMagnumhelicalpilesandassociatedbracketstoresist
axialcompression,axialtension,andlateralloadsincluding:P1BracketCapacity,P2ShaftCapacity,P3
HelixCapacity,andP4SoilCapacity(IncludingCapacitytoTorqueRatio).
2.0 USES
TheMagnumhelicalfoundationsystemconsistofhelicalpilesandbracketsasdefinedinIBC1802.1that
cansupportaxialcompression,axialtension,andlateralloadsforalltypesofstructuresconstructedin
accordancewiththeIBC.Theuseofthisevaluationreportisapplicableforsupportofstructuresunder
thefollowingconditions:
1. StructuresinIBCSeismicDesignCategoriesA,B,orC,only.Helicalpilessupporting
structuresinotherIBCSeismicDesignCategoriesshallbedesignedbyaregistereddesign
professionalaccordingtoIBC2009Section1810.3.11through1810.3.13andevidenceof
supportcharacteristicsshallbesubmittedtobuildingofficial.
2. Exposureconditionstosoilthatarenotindicativeofapotentialpiledeteriorationor
corrosionsituationasdefinedby:(1)soilresistivitylessthan1,000ohmcm;(2)soilpHless
than5.5;(3)soilswithhighorganiccontent;(4)soilsulfateconcentrationsgreaterthan

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-2
Rev. 12-09
1,000ppm;(5)soilslocatedinlandfills,or(6)soilcontainingminewaste.Helicalpilesin
soilsindicativeofapotentialpiledeteriorationorcorrosionsituationshallbedesignedbya
registereddesignprofessionaltakingintoaccountcorrosionlossandevidenceofsupport
overtheIBCdesignlifeof50yearsshallbesubmittedtothebuildingofficial.
3.0DESCRIPTION
TheMagnumHelicalFoundationSystemconsistsofsegmental,tubular,roundshaftswithbolted
couplingsandoneormorehelicalbearingplates.TheMagnumsystemincludestwohelicalpiletypes,
theMH325BGandtheMH325BRG,thatdifferonlybythecouplingmechanismbetweenshaftsegments.
TheMagnumsystemalsoincludestwodifferentmanufacturedfoundationbracketsforattachmentto
structures.AllMagnumhelicalpilesandbracketsaremanufacturedwithzincgalvanizedsteel.
Magnumhelicalpilesarerotatedintotheground.Thesystemscansupportbothtensileand
compressiveloadsandareusedinresidential,commercial,andindustrialconstruction.Applications
include,butarenotlimitedto:a.)deepfoundationsforresidentialandcommercialbuildings,bridges,
boardwalks,anddecks,b.)anchorsforhydrostaticuplift,retainingwalls,membranestructures,
moorings,andguywires,andc.)batteredpilesforresistanceofwind,flood,seismic,andotherlateral
loads.
3.1MH325BGandMH325BRGHelicalPiles
BothMH325BGandMH325BRGhelicalpilesconsistofacentralshaftmadeof3.0O.D.by0.25
minimumgaugehighstrengthstructuralroundtubemeetingtherequirementsofASTMA513Grade
1026,65ksiminimumyieldstrengthsteelorbetter.ThedifferencebetweentheMH325BGand
MH325BRGversionshastodowiththecouplingmechanismbetweenshaftsections.TheMH325BG
versionhasanoutercollarwithsingle7/8diameterSAEGrade5bolt.TheMH325BRGversionhasan
outercollarandaninnersleevecouplingwithasingle1diameterSAEGrade8bolt.
Helicalbearingplatesare3/8"thick,madeofASTMA36steelorbetter,andcoldpressedintoanear
perfecthelixshapewith3"averagepitchusingastampingmachine.Thehelicalbearingplatesare
attachedtothecentralshaftviaa1/4"continuousfilletweldallaroundtheperimeteroftheshafton
bothsidesofthehelix.Thehelicalbearingplatesarespaced25.5"oncenterandalternatedirections
alongthecentralshaft.ThisalternatingarrangementofhelicalbearingplatesisoneofMagnumPiering,
Inc.spatentedtechnologies,anditspurposeistobalancethemomentexertedontheshaftduring
rotationalpenetrationintotheground.Despitethealternatingarrangement,thehelicalbearingplates
arespacedtofollowthesamecuttingpathintheground.Momentbalancingreduceswobbleand
binding,therebyimprovingpenetrationandplumbness.Thepiletiphasa45degpilotpoint.
Helicalbearingplatesvaryindiameterandnumberdependingongroundconditionsandrequiredaxial
capacity.Commonlyavailablehelicalbearingplatediametersare8,10,12and14".Helicalbearing
platescoveredinthisevaluationreporthavestandardcircularedgegeometries.Typically,thesmallest

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-3
Rev. 12-09
diameterhelicalbearingplateisplacednearestthebottomendoftheleadsectionandthelargest
diameterhelicalbearingplateisplacedneartheuppermostortrailingend.
3.2MHC1000GTypeBDirectLoadBracket
TheMHC1000Gdirectloadbracketconsistsofa1thickrectangularsteelplateweldedtotwo
horizontalreinforcingsteelbarsandacollarsleeve.TheMHC1000Ghasthesamecollarsleeveandbolt
holeastheMH325BGhelicalpile.Thebracketisintendedtobeembeddedincastinplaceconcretefor
supportofconcretefoundationelements.
3.3MP1001GTypeASideLoadPlateBracket
TheMP1001Gconsistsofa21inchby8inch,0.38inchthickplatewitheighteen0.56inchdiameter
holesforattachmenttoconcretestructure.Weldedtotheplateisacollartubewiththreethreaded
inchdiameterboltholesforattachmenttotheshaftfromeithertheMH325BGorMH325BRGhelical
piles.Thisbracketisintendedtoattachtothesideofanexistingstructureforfoundation
augmentation.
4.0 DESIGNANDINSTALLATION
4.1GeneralDesign
4.1.1TheallowablecapacityoftheMagnumhelicalfoundationsystemshallbetheleastallowable
capacityofthebracket(P1),shaft(P2),helicalbearingplates(P3),andsoilfoundationinteraction(P4),
asapplicable.Tablesoftheallowablecompression,tension,andlateralcapacitiesofMagnumhelical
pilesystemsaregiveninTables1through4.Section1808oftheIBCshallapplytotheseproducts.
4.1.2Bracketcapacities(P1)aregiveninTable1.ConcretecovershownfortheMHC1000Gbracketin
thetabletakesintoaccountbearingandtwowaypunchingshear.InstallationofMP1001Gbrackets
shallbelimitedtouncrackedconcrete.Ifconcreteiscracked,itshallberepairedbeforeapplicationofa
helicalpilebracket.AregistereddesignprofessionalshallcheckconcretebreakoutperACI318for
expansionboltgroupandtheparticulargeometryoftheconcretestructuretowhichtheMP1001G
bracketisattached.
4.1.3Shaftcapacities(P2)aregiveninTable2forfullybracedconditionsandvariousunbraced
conditions.Allowablecapacitiesfortheunbracedconditionsaretabulatedbasedoneffectiveunbraced
length(kL)inordertoallowthedesignengineertoselecttheapplicablesoilconditionsandpilebracket
fixity.BracedandunbracedconditionsaredefinedinChapter18oftheIBC.Fluidsoilsaredefinedas
standardpenetrationtest(SPT)blowcountofweightofhammerorweightofrod,andsoftsoilsare
definedashavingaSPTblowcountof5orless.Shaftcapacity(P2)influidsoilsshallbedeterminedbya
registereddesignprofessional.

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-4
Rev. 12-09
4.1.4Helixbearingplatecompressionandtensioncapacities(P3)aregiveninTable3foreachdiameter.
Allhelicalbearingplateshavethesamethickness,pitch,andmaterialstrength.Thestrengthofthe
helicalbearingplatesandtheirconnectiontothepileshaftisthesameforbothMH325BGand
MH325BRG.
4.1.5Soilcapacityincompressionandtension(P4)shallbeverifiedinthefieldbasedoncorrelations
withinstallationtorqueasgivenby
Q=KtT
Qa=0.5Q
whereQisultimatecapacityinsoil,Ktisthecapacitytotorqueratio,Tisfinalinstallation
torque,andQaisallowablecapacity.
Therecommendedultimatecapacitytotorqueratio,Kt,forbothMagnumMH325BGandMH325BRG
helicalpilesis8.0ft1intensionandcompression.Theminimumembedmentdepthofahelicalpilein
tensionshallbe12timesthelargesthelicalbearingplatediameterorasestablishedbythelicensed
designprofessionalforloadingconditionsandsoilpropertiesatthesite.
4.1.6Soilcapacityforlateralresistance(P4)ofMagnumhelicalpilesinstiffclaysoilsisshowninTable4.
Soilcapacity(P4)inthelateraldirectionneedstobedeterminedbyaregistereddesignprofessionalper
IBC1810.2.4unlessthesoilconditionsforthesiteinquestionaregenerallyconsistentwithsoiltypes
describedinTable4.Foranyhelicalpilesubjecttocombinedlateralandaxialloading,themaximum
allowablestrengthisgovernedbytheinteractionequationgiveninAISCManualofSteelConstruction.
4.1.7Baresteelandzinccoatedcomponentsshallnotbecombinedinthesamefoundationsystem.
TabulatedvaluesofallowablecapacityinthisreportarebasedonthecorrodedsectionperAC358.
Helicalfoundationsystemsshallbeisolatedfromdirectelectricalcontactwithstructuralsteel,
reinforcingsteel,andothermetalcomponentsofbuildings.
4.1.8Asitespecificfoundationandsoilinvestigationreportisrequiredforalldeepfoundationsper
IBC1810.1.1.Thefoundationandsoilinvestigationreportshalladdresstheseissues:corrosive
propertiesofthesoil,supportconditionsforthepileshaft,effectsofgroundwater,andother
questionablecharacteristicsofthesubsurface.Thefoundationandsoilinvestigationreportshall
addressaxialcompression,axialtension,andlateralloadsoilcapacitiesifvaluescannotbedetermined
fromtheevaluationreport.
4.1.9Thelicenseddesignprofessionalshallperformthenecessarystructuralanalysisforproper
applicationofthesystemincludingconsiderationofinternalshearsandmomentsduetostructure
eccentricity,ifany,andthemaximumspanbetweenhelicalpiles.Lateralbracingandpilestabilityis
providedinaccordancewithIBCSection1810.2.1and1810.2.2.

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-5
Rev. 12-09
4.1.10Theminimumhelicalpileshaftspacingshallbe4timestheaveragehelicalbearingplatediameter
toavoidgroupeffects.Thelicenseddesignprofessionalshallperformagroupanalysisonpilesatcloser
spacings.
4.2Installation
TheMagnumhelicalfoundationsystemisinstalledbyMagnumcertifiedinstallerstrainedbythereport
holderintheproperinstallationoftheproductscoveredinthisevaluationreport.
4.2.1MH325BGANDMH325BRGHelicalPiles
Installationbeginsbyattachingthehelicalpileleadsectiontothetorquemotorusingadrivetooland
drivepin.Next,crowdshouldbeappliedtoforcethepilotpointintothegroundattheproperlocation,
inclination,andorientation.Thenthepileshouldberotatedintothegroundinasmooth,continuous
mannerwhilemaintainingsufficientcrowdtopromotenormaladvancement.Installationcontinuesby
addingextensionsectionsasnecessary.Inclinationandalignmentshouldbecheckedandadjusted
periodicallyduringinstallation.Connectionboltsbetweensectionsofshaftshallbesnugtightenedas
definedintheAISCManualofSteelConstruction.Careshouldbetakennottoexceedthetorsional
strengthratingofthehelicalpilesduringinstallation.Helicalpilesshallbeadvanceduntilaxialcapacity
isverifiedbyachievingtherequiredfinalinstallationtorqueandtheminimumdepth,ifany.
4.2.2MHC1000GTypeBDirectLoadBracket
Afterhelicalpileinstallationiscomplete,thepileshaftiscutofftotheplannedelevation.Tolerances
forfinalpileheadelevationaretypically+1to1/2inchunlessotherwisespecified.Ifcompressionloads
onlyarerequired,thebracketisplacedoverthecutoffpileshaftanddoesnotrequireabolt.Iftension
loadsarerequired,newholesaredrilledthroughthehelicalpileshaftinthefieldtomatchthebracket
collartubeandtoensuredirectbearingoftheplateonthepileshaftforcompression.Theholesshall
matchthediameterandminimumedgedistancesofthebracketcollartube.Torchcutholesarenot
permitted.Afterholedrilling,MHC1000Gbracketsfortensionapplicationsareinstalledoverthehelical
pileshaftandboltedinplacewithasingle7/8diameterSAEGrade5(ASTMA325)thruboltandhex
nut.
4.2.3MP1001GTypeASideLoadPlateBracket
Afterhelicalpileinstallationiscomplete,thebracketisslidoverthehelicalpileshaftandattachedtothe
concretestructureusingeitherdiameterITWRedHeadTruboltCarbonSteelWedgeAnchors(ESR
2251)orSimpsonStrongBoltWedgeAnchors(ESR1771).AhydraulicramorMagnumremoveable
liftingassemblymaybeusedtopreloadthepileortoliftthestructure,ifrequired.Then,11/16inch
diameterholesaredrilledthroughthehelicalpileshaftatthethreadedholelocationsinthebracket
collartubeandfromonetothreeSAEGrade8(ASTMA490)boltsareimpactedthroughthebracket
intothepileshaftinsingleshear.Thelengthofshaftextendingthroughthetopofthebracketcanbe
cutoffabovethebracket.

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-6
Rev. 12-09
4.2.4SpecialInspection
SpecialinspectionisrequiredinaccordancewithSection1704.10oftheIBC.Theitemstobeobserved
bythespecialinspectorshallinclude:verificationofmanufacturerandproductidentification,helical
pileandbracketconfiguration,installationtorqueanddepth,andcomplianceoftheinstallationwith
approvedconstructiondocumentsandthisevaluationreport.Inlieuofcontinuousspecialinspection,
periodicspecialinspectioninaccordancewithIBCSection1701.6.2maybepermittedwhenthe
followinginformationisprovidedtothebuildingofficial:a.)structuralobservationsinaccordancewith
IBCSection1702,b.)aperiodicinspectionschedule(preparedbytheregistereddesignprofessional),
andc.)evidenceofinstallertrainingbythereportholder.
5.0 CONDITIONS
MagnumMH325BGandMH325BRGhelicalpilesandbracketsdescribedinthisreportcomplywiththe
2009InternationalBuildingCodeandspecificallyIBCSection1810.3subjecttothefollowingconditions:
5.1HelicalpilesandbracketsaremanufacturedattheMagnumPiering,Inc.facilitylocatedat6082
SchumacherParkDrive,WestChester,Ohio45069.
5.2Helicalpilesandbracketsaremanufactured,identified,andinstalledinaccordancewiththisreport.
5.3TheappliedworkingloadsmustnotexceedtheallowableloadsinSection4.0ofthisreport.
6.0 EVIDENCESUBMITTED
Evidencesubmittedforevaluationincludeproductdescription,drawingsandspecifications,installation
instructions,engineeringcalculations,IASaccreditedlaboratoryandfieldloadtests,andqualitycontrol
documentation.
7.0 IDENTIFICATION
HelicalpilesandbracketsareidentifiedbyalabelbearingthenameofMagnumPiering,Inc.,the
productseriesormodelnumber,theevaluationreportnumber(ICCESESRT.B.D.),AC358acceptance
criteria,andajobnumberthatprovidesameanstotracethefinishedproductbacktotheproduction
andqualitycontrolrecordsatthemanufacturingfacility.

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-7
Rev. 12-09
Table1.BracketCapacity(P1)
BRACKET
SHAFTTYPE
TYPE
MP1001G MH325BGor
MH325BRG
(P1)ALLOWABLECOMP.&TENS.(KIPS)
CONNECTIONTO
CONNECTIONTOSTRUCTURE
PILE
QTY.OF3/4"
QTY.OFEXPANSIONANCHORS2
BOLTS
10
12
14
16
18
1
2
3
29
35
41
47
52
Appliedtofoundationasaresultofbracketeccentricity.
LessorofSimpsonStrongBolt(ESR1771)orITWRedhead(ESR2251).
18
35
OVERTURNING
MOMENT1
(KIPIN)
53
designload2"
BRACKET
TYPE
CONC.
SHAFTTYPE
STRGTH.
(PSI)
MHC1000G
2,500
MH325BGor
MH325BRG
4,500
(P1)ALLOWABLECAPACITY
CONCRETE
COVER
CONCRETE
COVER
"c"3
(IN)
11
15
9
COMPRESSION
(KIPS)
33
50
33
12
50
RequiredconcretecoverperFigure1.Minimum3inchesofcoverrequiredperIBCChapter18.
Maximumallowablecapacityintensionlimitedbyboltedconnectiontoshaft.

All Rights Reserved
"t"3
(IN)
TENSION4
(KIPS)
11
33
33
Page 4000-8
Rev. 12-09
Table2.ShaftCapacity(P2)
SHAFT
TYPE
NUMBER
OF
UNBRACEDCONDITIONS
1
KL=0"
COUPLINGS8
0
MH325BG
1
2
0
MH325BRG
1
2
KL=40
KL=48"3
KL=80"4
KL=96"5
KL=126"6
KL=252"7
81
33
30
81
50
ALLOWABLEBUCKLINGCAPACITY9(P2)(KIPS)
70
65
43
33
19
33
33
33
28
18
29
28
22
19
14
70
65
43
33
19
50
50
38
30
18
5
5
5
5
5
50
50
47
34
27
17
Fullybracedcondition.Pileheadisbracedlaterallyandrotationally.Noportionofshaftisinair,water,orfluidsoils.
Fixedcondition.Pileheadisbracedlaterallyandrotationally.Shaftsupportedinfirmsoils(N5).
Pinnedcondition.Pileheadisbracedlaterallyonly.Shaftsupportedinfirmsoils(SPTN5).
Fixedcondition.Pileheadisbracedlaterallyandrotationally.Shaftsupportedinsoftsoils(SPT0<N<5).
Pinnedcondition.Pileheadisbracedlaterallyonly.Shaftsupportedinsoftsoils(SPT0<N<5).
Freecondition.Pileheadisunbraced.Shaftsupportedinfirmsoils(SPTN5).
Freecondition.Pileheadisunbraced.Shaftsupportedinsoftsoils(SPT0<N<5).
Numberofcouplingsinunbracedlength;takesintoaccountcouplingstrengthrigiditythroughsecondaryeffects.
ConsiderscorrosionperAC358,maximumcouplingstrength,andeccentricityinducedbycouplingrigidity.
SHAFT
TYPE
MH325BG
MH325BRG
OUTSIDE
CONDITION DIAM.
MIN.10
WALL
THICK.
MOMT.
GROSS
OF
AREA INERTIA
2
SECT.
MOD.
3
ALLOWABLECAPACITY(P2)
TENSION
FLEXURE
SHEAR
NEW
(IN)
3.01
2.99
3.01
(IN)
0.26
0.24
0.26
(IN )
2.22
2.11
2.22
(IN )
2.12
2.01
2.12
(IN )
1.41
1.34
1.41
(KIPS)
35
33
53
(INKIPS)
80
76
80
(KIPS)
27
26
27
CORRODED11
2.99
0.24
2.11
2.01
1.34
50
76
26
NEW
CORRODED11
10
Valuesgivenareminimumthickness.Nominal(average)thicknessaregenerally0.02"greater.
11
BasedoncorrosionofburriedgalvanizedsteelperAC358overIBCdesignlife.

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-9
Rev. 12-09

Table3.HelicalBearingPlateCapacity(P3)
HELIX
SHAFT
HELIX
DIAM.
(IN)
8
10
12
14
TYPE
MH325BG/MH325BRG
MH325BG/MH325BRG
MH325BG/MH325BRG
MH325BG/MH325BRG
GAUGE
(IN)
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
HELIX
PITCH
(IN)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
ALLOWABLE
CAPACITY1(P3)
(KIPS)
50
54
56
56
Forhelicalpileswithmorethanonehelix,theallowablecapacityofthehelicalbearingplatesmaybe
summedtodeterminethetotalallowablecapacity(P3)ofthesystem.
Table4.LateralSoilCapacity(P4)
SHAFT
SOIL
AVERAGE
TYPE
TYPE
MH325BG SANDYCLAY4
MH325BRG SANDYCLAY4
SPTN
(BLOWS/FT)
21
21
MIN
DEPTH
(FT)
11.5
11.5
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
2
LATERALCAPACITY
(LBS)
2,200
1,425
LATERALCAPACITY3
(LBS)
3,400
2,200
Allowablecapacityishalftheloadcausing3/4"ofdeflectionperAC358Section4.4.2.2.
Allowablecapacityishalftheloadcausing1"ofdeflectionperIBC2009Section18.10.3.3.2.
Allowablelateralcapacity(P4)forothersoiltypesshallbedeterminedbyregistereddesignprofessionalperIBC1810.2.4.

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-10
Rev. 12-09

Figure1MagnumHelicalPileMH325BG

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-11
Rev. 12-09

Figure2MagnumHelicalPileMH325BRG

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-12
Rev. 12-09
Figure3MagnumMHC1000GDirectLoadBracket

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-13
Rev. 12-09
Figure4MagnumMP1001GSideLoadPlateBracket

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-14
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-15
Rev. 12-09
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR QUALITY DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX B
QUALITY SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION CROSS-REFERENCE MATRIX
Identify in the matrix below where, in the quality system documentation, the information required in Section 2.0 of the
ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria for Quality Documentation (AC10) can be found.
Company Name:
Product/Material:
MH325BG and MH325BRG Helical Piles, MP1001G and MHC1000G Brackets
Evaluation Report or File No.:

Completed by:
Todd Paddock
AC10 SECTION
2.1.1
(Signature)
2.1.2
(Manufacturing location
and contact info)
2.1.3
(Manual revisions)
2.1.4
(Product identification)
2.1.5
(Traceability)
2.1.6
(Work flow)
2.1.7
(Product changes)
2.1.8
(Organizational
information)
2.1.9
(Packaging)
2.1.10
(Complaints procedure)
2.2.
(Incoming materials)
2.3
(In-process quality
control)
2.4
(Final inspection)
2.5
(Nonconforming
materials)
2.6.1
(Test equipment)
2.6.1
(Calibrations)
Date:
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
AND DATE OF DOCUMENT
Title page of Quality Control
Manual for Magnum Piering, Inc.
dated May 1, 2009 (hereafter QC
Manual)
Section 2.1.2 of QC Manual
May 1, 2009
COMMENTS (IF NEEDED)


Section 2.2 of QC Manual



All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-16
Rev. 12-09
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR QUALITY DOCUMENTATION
AC10 SECTION
2.7.1
(QC forms)
APPENDIX B
QUALITY SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION CROSS-REFERENCE MATRIX (Continued)
AC10 SECTION
2.7.2
(Document approval)
2.7.3
(Records retention)
Signature:
Name of signer (type or print):
Todd Paddock
Inspection agency name:
TBD
Date:
May 1, 2009

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-17
Rev. 12-09

All Rights Reserved
Page 4000-18
Rev. 12-09

Magnum Helix Manual 1.15.10 - Web Version

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Magnum Helix Manual 1.15.10 - Web Version

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Helical Pile

Technical Reference Manual

About Magnum Piering

About Magnum Geo

Why Specify Magnum Piles

SECTION 2000 - SPECIFING HELICAL PILES

Checklist for Foundation Drawings

CSI Prescriptive Specifications

State DOT Performance Specifications

SAMPLE CAD DRAWINGS

Sample Soils Report

Sample Installation Records

Sample Axial Load Test Log

Sample Lateral Load Test Log

SECTION 3000 - DESIGN TOOLS

Pros and Cons of Different Foundation Types

1 2 3s of Helical Pile Foundations

Magnum Piering Helical Pile Specification Chart

Helical Pile Sizing Charts for MH3 Series

Helical Pile Sizing Chart for MH4 Series

Helical Pile Sizing Chart for MH6 Series

Lateral Performance for MH3 Series

Lateral Performance for MH4 Series

Lateral Performance for MH6 Series

Energy Method for Predicting Installation Torque

Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil

Summary of Earth Retaining Methods

Lateral Capacity and Buckling

Helical Anchor Piles Under Lateral Loading

Introduction to Corrosion and Galvanizing

Helical Pile Bibliography

SECTION 4000 - PRODUCT QUALITY

MAGNUM HELICAL PILES

Howard A. Perko, Ph.D., P.E.

Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

About Magnum Geo-Solutions

Magnum Geo-Solutions provides:

We are ready to assist you. Call us at:

Why Specify Magnum

Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

PATENTED DUAL CUTTING EDGE HELIX

EXPERT TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

CHECKLIST FOR FOUNDATION DRAWINGS

Helical Pile and Helical Anchor Allowable Capacity

All Known Public and Private Utilities

Maximum Plausible Bearing Capacity (Optional)

Recommended Bearing Stratum

Number of Load Tests and Proof Load Tests Required (optional)

Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

Allowable Deflection for Load Testing (optional)

Requirements for Design Calculations (optional)

Number and Size of Helical Bearing Plates (optional)

Maximum Length (optional)

Planned Length (optional)

Final Installation Torque (optional)

Copyright 2000-10 Magnum Piering, Inc.

Section 31 23 33 Trenching, Backfilling and Compacting

Referenced Codes and Standards

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME):