Screw Piles:

Use and Design

Kristen M. Tappenden
November 2006

Objectives

What are screw piles?

geometry
fabrication
installation
common

uses

Why use screw piles?

advantages

over conventional pile types

How do we design screw piles?

axial

failure models
direct pile design approach: LCPC method
empirical approach: correlates installation effort to axial capacity

What are Screw Piles?

Deep foundations: carry

tensile, compressive, and
lateral loads

Constructed of helical
plates welded to hollow
steel pipe

Emergence of Screw Piles

No related engineering literature exists prior to 1950s/1960s

First use of screw piles: Maplin Sands light house in the Thames
estuary in 1838

Screw Pile Geometries

Terminology
Inter-Helix Spacing Ratio = S/D

18 cm diameter shaft
35 cm diameter helix
5 meter length

Shaft diameters: 11 cm to 32 cm (4 to 12 inches)

Helix diameters: Commonly 2-3 times the shaft diameter
30 cm to 91 cm (12 to 36 inches)

Installation
Turning

moment applied to the head of screw pile

shaft, and pile twisted into the ground

Desirable

rate of penetration is one helix pitch per

revolution

Video

Clip: courtesy of ALMITA Manufacturing

Installation Equipment

Screw Pile Advantages

Rapid installation (typ. < 30 min per pile)

Little installation noise or vibration
No casing or dewatering required
Lightweight installation equipment:
soft terrain
areas of restricted access

Sustain load immediately after installation

May be removed and re-used
temporary structures

Resistant to frost heave

Screw Pile Limitations

Not for use in very hard or rocky soils

may sustain damage to the helical plates
piles may be removed and helices checked

Lack of acceptance/understanding in the engineering

community

Typical Screw Pile Uses:

Tower foundations

Ft. McMurray, Alberta: 27 cm (10 in) shaft, one or two 76 cm (30 in) helices, 6 m length

Pipeline foundations
Earth retention systems
Guy wire anchors

 Building

Foundations:

Warehouses
Multi-family Housing
Commercial Buildings
Modular Homes

Hythe, Alberta: 22 cm (8 5/8 in) shaft, single 40 cm (16 in) helix, 8 m length

 Oil

Field Foundations

Temporary Buildings
Pump Jacks
Compressors
Tanks

Typically 18 cm (7 in) shaft, single 40 cm (16 in) helix, 7.5 m deep

Screw Pile Failure Models

Cylindrical

Shear Model

Individual

Plate-Bearing Model

Choice of the most representative model depends on

the screw pile geometry, in particular the Inter-Helix

Spacing Ratio (S/D)

Cylindrical Shear Model

After Narasimha Rao et al. (1991)

Effect of Inter-Helix Spacing Ratio

(S/D)
1

1:

S/D 1.5
Cylindrical surface fully forms

2:

S/D 2
Cylindrical surface begins to deteriorate

3:

S/D 4.5
Cylindrical surface nearly non-existent

After Narasimha Rao et al. (1991)

Individual Plate Bearing Model

Summary: Failure Models

Cylindrical

Shear Model:

Multi-helix screw piles, generally most representative for

S/D <2

Individual

Plate Bearing Model:

Single-helix screw piles

Multi-helix screw piles, applicable for S/D>2

Axial Capacity Prediction

Theoretical Design Methods

Application

of relevant soil strength parameters (su ,, ,, Nq, Nqu)

Direct Design Approach: LCPC Method

Directly

relates results of cone penetration test to ultimate axial

screw pile capacity, with no intermediate determination of soil
strength parameters

Empirical Approach
Directly

correlates measured installation torque to ultimate axial

screw pile capacity

Direct Design: LCPC Method

Established design method for predicting the axial capacity

of conventional piles, based on site-specific CPT

LCPC method developed in France by the Laboratoire

Central des Ponts et Chausees, based on results of many
full-scale pile load tests (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982)

Use of the CPT is advantageous because the test is fast,

repeatable, and provides continuous profile of soil
information

Direct Design: LCPC Method

Basic

premise of LCPC method is to apply

scaling (reduction) factors to CPT profile of
tip resistance to calculate appropriate
components of bearing resistance and
friction/adhesion
Qtotal = Qbearing + Qshaft + Qcylinder

Direct Design: LCPC Method

Soil Type

Bearing
Average CPT tip
resistance over layer i capacity factor
qc

kc

Skin friction Maximum unit

factor
skin friction

(kPa)
Soft clay and mud

qs
(kPa)

<1,000

0.50

30

15

1,000 to 5,000

0.45

40

35

Silt and loose sand

5,000

0.50

60

35

Compact to stiff clay and compact silt

> 5,000

0.55

60

35

Soft chalk

5,000

0.30

100

35

5,000 to 12,000

0.50

100

80

Weathered to fragmented chalk

> 5,000

0.40

60

120

Compact to very compact sand and gravel

12,000

0.40

150

120

Moderately compact clay

Moderately compact sand and gravel

qc (kPa)
0
0

1000

2000

3000

LCPC Calculation

Depth (m)

after Zhang (1999)

Two 36 cm helices
Spacing = 3D
21 cm shaft
qs = 35 kPa
qb1 = 811 kPa
qb2 = 990 kPa

Calculated Capacity in Compression:

Cylindrical Shear: 188 kN
Individual Plate Bearing: 209 kN
Calculated Capacity in Tension:
Cylindrical Shear: 160 kN
Individual Plate Bearing: 180 kN

Measured Capacity: 210 kN in both

tension and compression

LCPC MethodCompression
Axial Capacity (kN)
0

50

100

150

200

0.00

Depth (m)

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
QLP, Cylindrical Shear Model

QL, Cylindrical Shear Model

QLP, Individual Plate Bearing Model

QL, Individual Plate Bearing Model

250

LCPC Method
26 axial load tests, 7 test sites: clay, sand, clay shale, glacial till
2.0
1.8

Qpredicted / Qmeasured

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

C4

C5

C6

T4

T5

T6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11 C12

T7

T8

T9

C16

Test Pile Designation

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Cylindrical Shear

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Individual Plate Bearing

C17

LCPC Method
2.0
1.8

Qpredicted/ Qmeasured

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

C4

C5

C6

T4

T5

T6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C16

Test Pile Designation

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Cylindrical Shear

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Individual Plate Bearing

C17

Empirical Torque Correlation

Direct empirical relationship between torque required to install a given

screw pile and the piles ultimate axial capacity

Qultimate = Kt T

(after Hoyt and Clemence,

Clemence, 1989)

Analogous to relationship between pile driving effort and pile capacity

used for driven steel piles

Can only predict capacity once pile is installed best used for field-level
verification of expected design capacities

Torque Correlation
Ultimate Axial Pile Capacity (kN)

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Installation Torque (kN-m)

Measured Data (11.4 cm shaft piles)
Linear Regression, 11.4 cm shaft piles (Kt = 16.9 m-1)
Measured Data (14.0 to 40.6 cm shaft piles)
Linear Regression, 14.0 to 40.6 cm shaft piles (Kt = 9.19 m-1)

300

Torque Correlation
29 screw pile axial load tests, 10 test sites: sand, clay, glacial till, clay shale, sandstone
2.0
1.8

Qpredicted/ Qmeasured

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3

C4 C5 C6 T4 T5 T6

C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 T7 T8

Test Pile Designation

T9 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

Summary
Screw

piles have many advantages, such as ease

of installation, immediate load-bearing capacity,
no casing/dewatering required

LCPC

method provides good axial capacity

prediction in clay and sand, but not suitable for
glacial till soils

Torque

correlation factors provide good capacity

prediction for screw piles in a variety of soil types

Thank You

Research Partners:

Dr. Dave Sego

Gerry Cyre
Peace Land Piling / Peace Land Power Ltd.
ALMITA Manufacturing Ltd.
ATCO Electric
ConeTec Inc.

Funding Providers:

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

Alberta Ingenuity Fund
University of Alberta

References
Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. 1982. Pile bearing capacity prediction by means
of static penetrometer CPT. In Proceedings of the Second European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-II. Amsterdam. Balkema Publisher,
Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 687-697.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N, and Shetty, M.D. 1991. The behavior of
model screw piles in cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations, 31(2):35-50.
Zhang, D. 1999. Predicting capacity of helical screw piles in Alberta soils. M.Sc.
Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Questions?