Helical Foundations and Anchors

HELICAL FOUNDATIONS AND TIE BACKS
State of the Art
Richard W. Stephenson
Professor of Civil Engineering
University of Missouri-Rolla
Rolla, Missouri 65409
March 2, 2010
D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 3
HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Modern Usage ..................................................................................................................... 4
HELICAL PILE DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 7
Prototype ............................................................................................................................. 7
Theoretical .......................................................................................................................... 8
Semi -empirical ................................................................................................................... 8
Empirical ............................................................................................................................. 8
UPLIFT CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES ................................................................................... 9
General ................................................................................................................................ 9
Semi-Empirical Helical Pile Capacity ................................................................................ 9
Individual Plate Capacity Method ........................................................................... 9
Kulhawy Method................................................................................................... 10
Clemence Method ................................................................................................. 15
Uplift capacity of shallow anchors in sand ............................................... 16
Uplift capacity of deep anchors in sand .................................................... 24
Uplift capacity of helical anchors in clay .................................................. 27
Uplift capacity of shallow helical anchors in clay ........................................................ 27
Uplift capacity of deep helical anchors in clay ............................................................. 30
Empirical Method. ............................................................................................................ 32
BEARING CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES............................................................................. 33
Bearing Capacity Design of Helical Piles ......................................................................... 33
LATERAL CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES ............................................................................ 37
Analysis Based on Limiting Equilibrium or Plasticity Theory ............................. 37
Analysis Based on Elastic Theory......................................................................... 38
Analysis Based on Nonlinear Theory.................................................................... 38
Simplified Method for Nonlinear Analysis of Helical Piles in Clay .................... 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 46
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS .............................................................................................................. 48
Uplift Capacity .................................................................................................................. 48
Shallow Anchor in Sand ....................................................................................... 48
Deep Anchor in Sand ............................................................................................ 49
Shallow anchor in Clay ......................................................................................... 51
Deep anchor in Clay.............................................................................................. 52
Anchor in Sand ..................................................................................................... 53
Anchor in Clay ...................................................................................................... 54
Lateral Capacity of a Laterally Loaded Helical Pile in Soft Clay ......................... 56
Lateral Capacity of a Laterally Loaded Helical Pile in Overconsolidated Clay.... 58
D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 2 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

HELICAL FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHORS
STATE OF THE ART
March 2, 2010
R.W. Stephenson, P.E., Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
Helical piles (helical anchors) are finding increasingly widespread use in the geotechnical
market. These foundations have the advantages of rapid installation and immediate loading
capabilities that offer cost-saving alternatives to reinforced concrete, grouted anchors and driven
piles. The last 12 years have seen the rapid development of rational geotechnical engineering-based
design and analysis procedures that can be used to provide helical pile design solutions
HISTORY
Helical foundations have evolved from early foundations known as Ascrew piles or screw
mandrills.@ The earliest reported screw pile was a timber fitted with an iron screw propeller that
was twisted into the ground(1). The early screw mandrills were twisted into the ground by hand
similar to a wood screw. They were then immediately withdrawn and the hole formed was filled
with a crude form of concrete and served as foundations for small structures. Conventional screw
piles have been in use since the 18th century for support of waterfront and in soft soil conditions for
bridge structures as early as the 19th century.
Power installed foundations were developed in England in the early 1800's by Alexander
Mitchell. In 1833, Mitchell began constructing a series of lighthouses in the English tidal basin
founded on his new Ascrew (1)piles.@

The first commercially feasible helical anchor was developed in the early 1900's to respond
to a need for rapidly installed guy wire anchors. The anchors were installed and used primarily by
the electrical power industry. The development of reliable truck mounted hydraulic torque drive
devices revolutionized the anchor industry. These advances allowed the installation of helical
anchors to greater depths and in a wider variety of soil conditions than ever before(1).
Modern Usage
Modern helical anchors are earth anchors constructed of helical shaped circular steel plates
welded to a steel shaft (Figure 1). The plates are constructed as a helix with a carefully controlled
pitch. The anchors can have more than one helix located at appropriate spacing on the shaft. The
central shaft is used to transmit torque during installation and to transfer axial loads to the helical
plates. The central shaft also provides a major component of the resistance to lateral loading.
A typical helical anchor installation is depicted in Figure 2. These anchors are turned into the
ground using truck mounted augering equipment. The anchor is rotated into the ground with
sufficient applied downward pressure (crowd) to advance the anchor one pitch distance per
revolution. The anchor is advanced until the appropriate bearing stratum is reached or until the
applied torque value attains a specified value. Extensions are added to the central shaft as needed.
The applied loads may be tensile (uplift), compressive (bearing), shear (lateral), or some
combination.
Helical anchors are rapidly installed in a wide variety of soil formations using a variety of
readily available equipment. They are immediately ready for loading after installation. Large

multi-helix anchors develop capacities of up to 100,000 lbs. (450 kN).
In the past 20 years, the use of helical anchors has expanded beyond their traditional use in
the electrical power industry. The advantages of rapid installation, immediate loading capability and
resistance to both uplift and bearing loads have resulted in their being used more widely in traditional
geotechnical engineering applications. Reported uses include tiebacks for soil retaining walls,
foundations for lightly loaded structures such as transmission line towers, light poles, tiedowns for
manufactured housing, temporary structures, etc., and for underpinning lightly loaded structures such
as single family dwellings. Because of these uses, there has been an increase in research into the
behavior of helical anchors. Since about 1975, a number of researchers have studied the

geotechnical principals governing the behavior of helical piles. They have published reports of their
studies of helical anchors under loading and proposed design procedures by which helical pile
performance can be predicted. By far, the majority of this work has been in the anchoring (uplift)
capacity of helical piles(1). However, studies in the lateral and bearing (compression) load
performance are reported as well.
HELICAL PILE DESIGN
The methods available to design helical pile systems and to predict their performance under
load can be divided into four broad categories: prototype (load test), theoretical, semi-empirical and
empirical.
Prototype
In the prototype design method, helical pile capacities are determined by testing a helical pile
identical to the production pile in identical subsurface conditions (5). The results of the prototype
test (load test) are then extrapolated to the rest of the helical piles used at the site. Advantages of this
approach lie in the fact that actual piles are evaluated in their field use conditions. However, this
method requires the a priori selection of helix size and configurations as well as installation depth.
The testing of several helical pile configurations to determine optimum size and spacing is usually
too costly. Consequently, prototype testing is used primarily for proof testing semi-empirical and
empirical designs.

Theoretical
Theoretical methods utilize soil mechanics theories of the interaction behavior of foundations
and earth materials. The theories use the basic properties of the foundation (strength and
deformability) as well as the basic properties of the soil (strength and compressibility) to create
design procedures that can be applied to different soil structures and different helical pile
configurations. Ideally, the procedures are independent of particular installation equipment and can
be applied to all realistic combinations of helical piles and soil stratigraphies.
Semi -empirical
Unfortunately, because of the complexity of soil stratigraphy and the inability of current soil
mechanics theories to fully describe the actual field performance of a soil, most geotechnical design
procedures are theoretical procedures modified by experience (semi-empirical).
Empirical
Empirical methods are most often developed and used by helical pile manufacturers who
have access to vast quantities of pile behavior data. Empirical methods are based on statistical
correlations of anchor uplift capacity with other, easily measured, parameters such as standard
penetration test (N) values, installation torque, or other indices. The methodology for development
of these correlations and the data on which they are based is usually considered proprietary by the
manufacturers. Results obtained from these methods are highly variable (1)(1)(1)(1).
By far the majority of the research has been directed toward the uplift behavior of helical
piles (helical anchors). This is due primarily to their traditional use as guy line anchors and as tie
downs for transmission towers and tiebacks for retaining structures. Considerably less work has
been carried out on the performance of helical piles under lateral loading. However, significant

work is available on laterally loaded piles that could possibly be applied to helical piles. Even less
data is reported on the performance of helical piles under bearing (compressive) loading. This is
becoming more important since helical piles are gaining wide use for underpinning and supporting
lightly loaded structures. The following sections will address each of the three design loading
conditions.
UPLIFT CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES
General
The behavior of any deep foundation is highly complex. Consequently, it is important to
understand the the behavior of helical piles is influenced by the same factors that influence the
behavior of drilled piers and driven piles: i.e., strength and deformation properties of soils, soil non-
homogeneities, groundwater levels, soil plasticity and volume change potential as well as installation
procedures and equipment.
Semi-Empirical Helical Pile Capacity
Individual Plate Capacity Method. One method of computing uplift capacities of helical
piles is the individual plate capacity method. In this method, the uplift capacities are computing
using:
n
Qu = QU i , where n is the number of helices
i=1

Qui = qui xA
Qui is the ultimate uplift capacity of the individual helix. Qui can be computed from bearing capacity
theory as:
where:
The first term of equation three is the contribution of soil cohesion to the uplift capacity. The
1
qui = cN *c + Di N * + H i N *q
2
A = area of helix
Di = diameter of helix
H i = Depth from ground surface to helix
= effectiveunit weight of soil above helix
second term is the contribution of soil friction to the capacity and the third term is the contribution of
soil overburden to the capacity. Nc *, Nγ* and Nq* are bearing capacity factors on cohesion, friction
and surcharge respectively.
For cohesive (clay) soils, Nc* is normally taken as 9.0 for H1/D1 > 3. For H1/D1 3, Nc* is
normally taken as 5.7. Nγ* and Nq* are taken as 0 and 1 respectively.
For helical foundations embedded in cohesionless (sand) soils, c is zero and Nγ* and Nq*
vary as a function of the coefficient of friction (Φ) of the sand. Meyerhof=s values of Nγ* and Nq*
are often used and are presented as Table 1, below.
Kulhawy Method. Kulhawy (1) described a method of analysis of the uplift capacity of
helical anchors by describing their behavior as intermediate between the grouted and spread anchors.
In his model, the upper helix develops a cylindrical shear surface that controls its behavior. The soil
between the helices becomes an effective cylinder if the helices are sufficiently close together. The
shearing resistance along the interface is said to be controlled by the friction angle and state of stress

Qu = Q p + Q f + W f
in the disturbed cylinder of soil above the anchor. This disturbance effect can be approximated by
relating the disturbed properties to the in-situ properties in the following equations:
Qu = Ultimate uplift capacity
Qp = Top plate (cone breakout) capacity
Qf = Cylinder friction capacity
Wf = Weight of helical pile (often neglected)
For cohesionless (sand) soils, Kulhawy recommended the following equations:
Table 1 Meyerhof@s
Bearing Capacity Factors
Φ Nc* Nq* Nγ*
(deg)
0 5.1 1.0 0.0
5 6.5 1.6 0.1
10 8.4 2.5 0.4
15 11.0 3.9 1.1
20 14.8 6.4 2.9

25 20.7 10.7 6.8
26 22.3 11.8 8.0
28 25.8 14.7 11.2
30 30.1 18.4 15.7
32 35.5 23.2 22.0
34 42.2 29.4 31.1
36 50.6 37.7 44.4
38 61.4 48.9 64.0
40 75.3 64.1 93.6
45 133.9 134.7 262.3
50 266.9 318.5 871.7
Q p ( max ) = A f ( q q N q qr qs qd ) + W f + Qtu
where:
Qp(max) = Top plate capacity limit
Af = Area of top helix
qq = effective surcharge = H 1
Wf = Effective weight of helical pile alone

Qtu = Tip capacity in uplift (usually neglected)
The Nq term is a bearing capacity factor given by:
tan 2 _
Nq= e tan 45 +
2
log 10 2 I r
qr = exp - 3.8 tan + (3.07 sin ) 1.0
1+ sin
The ζ terms are modification factors for soil rigidity (ζqr), anchor shape (ζqs), and anchor depth (ζqd)
as given below.
with the tan-1 term in radians.
G = soil shear modulus
G E 1
Ir = =
qi tan 2(1+ ) qi tan
qs = 1 + tan
qs = 1 + tan
2 H
qd = 1+ 2 tan (1 - sin ) tan -1
D1
E = soil elastic modulus
The cylinder friction capacity, Qf , is computed from the following equation:
Qf = P(z) v k u (z)( tan )(z)dz

H1
H
k
= P(z) v k o (z) tan (z)
k o H1
where:
P = helix perimeter
v = effective vertical stress
k = coefficient of horizontal earth pressure

= effective interface friction angle
ko = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
= Effective stress soil friction angle
_/__ = 0.9
k/ko = 5/6
The friction capacity of the helical pile system is reduced due to disturbance caused by pile
installation. Kulhawy accounted for this by using a reduced uplift capacity according to the
following equation:
r
Q f(reduced)= Q f
0
2+ o
r =
3
o = k o tan
Clemence Method. A significant series of studies on helical anchor uplift capacity was
done by Clemence (1), and later summarized in Mitsch and Clemence (1) and Mooney, Adamczak,
and Clemence (1). They extended the work of previous researchers with extensive full scale field
tests, scale model laboratory tests, and theoretical analysis. These researchers suggested that helical
pile uplift capacity could be divided into two broad categories: shallow anchors and deep anchors.
They stated that the uplift capacity is provided by:

Qu = Q p + Q f
Uplift capacity of shallow anchors

3
2 H 1 tan
2 D1 H 1 + 2 +W in sand:
Qu = k u tan cos s
2 2 3
The weight of the soil, Ws can be expressed as:
2
2
Ws= H 1 ( D ) + D1 + 2 H 1 tan
1 + ( D1 ) D1 + 2 H 1 tan
3 2 2
Das non-dimensionalized these equations into:

Qp
F q1 =
AH1
2 2
Ws
F q2 = = 4 + 5.33 H 1 2
tan + 8
H1 tan
AH1 D1 2 D1 2
2
Qp 2 H1 0.5
F q1 = = 4 k u ( tan ) cos + 0.33 tan
AH1 2 D1 H1 2
D1
Similarly:
Let
Qp H 1 = R2 0.5
Fq = = 4 R 2 k u ( tan ) cos + 0.33 tan
AH1 D1 2 R 2
+ 4 + 5.33 R 2 tan 2 + 8R tan

2 2
Combining:
Fq is called the breakout factor by Das. To determine Fq the value of ku must be determined. Mitsch
and Clemence(11) showed that this value varies with the soil friction angle, Φ. Their values can be
expressed as:

H1
k u = 0.6 + m
D1
The variation of m is given below.
Table 2 Variation of m
Soil friction angle, Φ m
(degrees)
25 0.033
30 0.075
35 0.180
40 0.250
45 0.289
The magnitude of ku increases with H1/D1 up to a maximum value and remains constant after
that. This maximum value is attained at (H1/D1)cr = Rcr . The variation of ku with H1/D1 and Φ are
plotted in Figure 4. Substituting the appropriate value of ku and R into the previous equation, the
2
Qp = Fq AH1= F q D1 H 1
4
variation of the breakout factor is shown in Figure 5 and Table 3. Now,
The frictional resistance that occurs at the interface of the cylinder is given as:

Da = average helix diameter.
Qf = Da ( H 2n - H 12 ) k u tan
2
Therefore the ultimate uplift capacity for a shallow anchor in sand
2 D1 + D n ( )( 2 - 2 ) tan
Qu = F q D1 H 1 + H n H 1 ku
4 2 2
is:
Figure 5: Variation of ku with H1/D1

Table 3: Variation of Breakout Factor Fq for Shallow
Anchor Condition
Fq
R =H1/D1 Φ= Φ=30 Φ=35 Φ=40 Φ=45
25
0.5 5.27 5.54 5.87 6.23 6.61
1.0 6.74 7.38 8.25 9.18 10.17
1.5 8.41 9.54 11.16 12.91 14.77
2.0 10.27 12.01 14.64 17.49 20.53
2.5 12.33 14.82 18.72 22.99 27.54
3.0 14.6 17.97 23.44 29.46 35.94
3.5 21.48 28.84 36.99 45.74
4.0 25.35 34.95 45.64 57.13
4.5 41.81 55.44 70.18
5.0 49.46 66.56 85
5.5 78.97 101.68
6.0 92.76 120.34

6.5 108.01 141.06
7.0 124.78 163.98
7.5 189.14
8.0 216.69
8.5 246.73
9.0 279.34

Qu = Q p + Q f + Q s
Q p = bearing capacity of the top helix
Q f = frictional resistance of the cone between the helices
Q s = shaft friction resistance = 0
Uplift capacity of deep anchors in sand:
The magnitude of the Fq = Fq* is determined by setting R = Rcr and ku = ku(max) in equation 25.
Fq* has been plotted in Figure 8.
The frictional
resistance Qf is
* 2
Qp= F q D1 H 1
4
*
computed using:
where F = deep anchor breakout factor
q
2
The two equations can
Qu = D a ( H n 2 - H 1 ) k u max tan
2
be combined to yield the net
+
where D a = D1 D n
2 ultimate uplift capacity for
deep anchors in sand:
D1 + D n If the helices are

* 2
Qu = F q D1 H 1 + ( H 2n - H 12 ) k u max tan
4 2 2
placed too close to each
other, the average net ultimate uplift capacity of each anchor may decrease due to the overlapping
and interference of the individual failure zones.

It is recommended that the optimum spacing of the helices be about 3D1 apart. A factor of safety of
2.5 or more should be applied to the ultimate uplift capacity to determine the allowable or working
uplift capacity.
Deep Anchor Breakout Factor, Fq*
100
10
20 30 40 50
Soil Friction Angle (deg)

Uplift capacity of helical anchors in clay. Failure of helical piles in clay soils is
s u = cu
normally analyzed using the Φ= 0 condition. The soil shear strength is then characterized as:
Uplift capacity of shallow helical anchors in clay. For shallow anchors (H1/D1 7), the
failure surface at ultimate load extends from the top helix to the ground surface (Figure 9 ). If the
H1/D1 ratio is relatively large then the failure zone will not extend to the ground surface and the deep
anchor situation controls.
Qu = Q p + Q f
For shallow anchors:
where: Qp = bearing capacity of the top helix
Q p = A1 c F c + W s = A1 ( cu F c + )
Qf = bearing due to friction along enclosed cylinder between helices.
Where A1 = area of the top helix
Fc = breakout factor
γ = unit weight of soil above top helix
H1 = distance between the ground surface and the top helix
Fc is related to the bearing capacity factor Nc in that it increases with depth of embedment up to a
maximum of 9 at the critical Rcr = (H1/D1)cr value that depends on the undrained cohesion, cu
(kN/m2) as in:

9
5
Fc
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(H1/D1)/(H1/D1)cr
H1
Rcr = = 0.107 cu + 2.5 7
D1 cr
The variation of the breakout factor Fc is plotted as a function of (H1/D1)/(H1/D1)cr in Figure 10.
The frictional resistance of the cylinder of soil between the helices can be computed from:
D1 + D n
Qf = cu ( H n H 1 )
2
Combining:

Uplift
2 D1 + D n (
Qu = D1 ( c u F c + H 1 ) + H n - H 1 ) cu
4 2 capacity of deep
helical anchors in
clay. For the deep
anchor condition (H1/D1)> (H1/D1)cr deep anchor criteria holds (Figure 11). The capacity for this
Qu = Q p + Q f + Q s
case is given below.
Where Qs = resistance due to adhesion at the interface of the clay and the anchor shaft located
above the top helix.
Qp = ( D12 )(9 cu + H 1 )
4
D1 + D n
Qf = cu ( H n H 1 )
2
Where ca is the adhesion and varies from about 0.3cu for stiff clays to about cu for soft clays and Ds is
the shaft diameter. Combining:
Qs = Ds H 1 ca

( D12 )(9 cu + H 1 ) + D1 + D n (
Qu = H n - H 1 ) cu + D s H 1 c a
4 2

All ultimate uplift capacities should be divided by an appropriate factor of safety to set the
Qu
Qallow=
FS
allowable(working) factor of safety, i.e.,
Empirical Method.
Empirical methods are most often developed and used by anchor manufacturers who have
access to vast quantities of anchor behavior data. These methods are based on statistical correlations
of anchor uplift capacity with other, easily measured, parameters such as standard penetration test
(N) values, installation torque, or other indices. The methodology for development of these
correlations and the data on which they are based are usually considered proprietary by the
manufacturers. Results obtained from these methods are highly variable.
The most widely used correlation is with installation torque. In this method, the total anchor
Qu = K t xT
capacity is computed from the installation torque as:
where: Kt is the empirical factor relating installation torque and uplift capacity and T is the average
installation torque. Currently, Kt values are reported between 3 feet-1 for large (8 inch) extension
shafts to around 10 feet-1 for all small (3 inch) shafts. 10 feet-1 is most widely used in the industry.

BEARING CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES
Although helical piles have been used as tower foundations for many years, the design
loading for these foundations is not bearing (compression) but uplift. It is only relatively recently
that helical piles have been used in primarily bearing conditions. In particular, these foundations are
being used in the retrofit or underpinning of distressed lightly loaded structures.
There are several advantages of helical piles for foundation underpinning(1). Of particular
importance is the general relationship between installation torque and helical pile capacity. It is
possible to develop site-specific Kt values from preliminary field load testing and use the results as
quality control values for the production piles. Other advantages include the ease of extending pile
length by adding on extension shafts, the lack of influence of water table or caving soils, ability to
install in low-overhead, low noise or other restricted areas. Helical anchor shafts are relatively small
in diameter and by that develop low lateral stresses and low drag along their lengths. This makes
them particularly applicable in expansive soil conditions.
Bearing Capacity Design of Helical Piles
The bearing capacity of helical piles in compression is based upon the general bearing
qult = cN c + q( N q - 1)
capacity equation:
where: c = soil cohesion
q = overburden pressure = γHi
γ = effective unit weight
Hi = depth to helix

Nc= and Nq= are bearing capacity factors for circular plates at varying H/D values.
Although there are some minor differences in these values depending upon the particular theory
adopted, in general Nc= and Nq= are taken from Figure 11(1).
The bearing capacity of a multi-helix system is the sum of the individual capacities of the
individual helices if they are spaced appropriately far apart, i.e., three times the plate diameter or
greater.
Ai = individual plate area
ci = cohesion of soil at and beneath helix I
qi = γiHi = overburden pressure at helix i
Nci= = Bearing capacity factor on cohesion for helix i(Figure 11)
n
Qult = Ai [ ci N c i + qi ( N q i - 1)]
i

1000
Nc* and Nq*
100
H/D
7 4
Nc 1
7 4 1
10
Nq
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Soil Friction Angle (deg)

Nqi= = Bearing capacity factor on overburden for helix i(Figure 11)

LATERAL CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES
Lateral loads and moments may be transferred to helical pile foundations by the supported
structures due to a variety of reasons. The load can come from wind loading, line breakage for tower
structures, axial load eccentricities in underpinning foundations and from other sources. Since the
extension shafts used with these piles have diameters less than about 2.0 inches and may be as long
as 50 feet or more, the slenderness ratios roughly 100 to 200 are typical. These values of slenderness
ratios make buckling of the shaft a matter of concern. On the other hand, the applied loads are
generally a small fraction of the shaft=s compressive yield load and the connection hardware
between the shaft and the supported foundation provides significant restraint against rotation. The
available approaches for the analysis of laterally loaded vertical piles can be broadly grouped under
the following categories:
A. Analysis based on limiting equilibrium or plasticity theory.
B. Analysis based on elastic theory.
C. Analysis based on nonlinear theory.
Analysis Based on Limiting Equilibrium or Plasticity Theory. The theories of Brinch
Hansen(1) and Meyerhof and Ranjan(1) were developed for rigid piles assuming that the limiting or
maximum soil resistance is acting against the pile (Figure 12) when it is subjected to the ultimate
lateral load. The pile is assumed to deflect sufficiently to develop full soil resistance along the length
considered. This is not true for small deflections. Because of the diameter of the extension shafts
used in helical pile foundations, these anchors behave as flexible piles rather than rigid piles so that
this technique is not appropriate.

Analysis Based on Elastic Theory. Methods based on elastic theory commonly assume that
the soil behaves as a series of closely spaced independent elastic springs (Winkler=s assumption).
Using the beam-on-elastic-foundation approach, basic equations have been developed by various
investigators (Reese and Matlock(1), Davisson and Gill(1) for different variations of modulus of
4
d y
EI 4 = -ky
dx
subgrade reaction (k). The governing equation is:
Non-dimensional coefficients have been given for the solution of the pile problem to obtain
deflection, moment and shear, etc., along the pile lengths (Stephenson and Puri(1).
Analysis Based on Nonlinear Theory. In general, because of the inherent complexities of
determining soil-structure interaction using nonlinear theories, most of the solutions are computer
based. The most widely used computer program is a finite difference model LPILEPLUS developed by
Lyman Reese and his colleagues at the University of Texas(1). The computer model uses the
4 2
d y d y
EI 4
+Q 2 + Es y = 0
dx dx
following equation:
where: y = lateral displacement
x = distance along the axis
EI = the bending stiffness of the pile, and
Es = the secant modulus of the soil response curve.
If a distributed lateral load w acts along some portion of the shaft length, the final equation becomes:

4 2
d y d y
EI 4
+ Q 2 + E s y + w(x)= 0
dx dx
The advantages of the computer solutions are:
The bending stiffness EI of the pile can be varied along its length.
The soil secant modulus can vary from point to point along the pile=s length and as a
function of deflection (nonlinearly).
The effect of the axial load on deflection and bending moment can be considered.
The effect of bending on compression loaded helical anchors was studied by Hoyt, et. Al.
(20). They used LPILEPLUS to model three full-scale loading tests. The modeling showed that
buckling is a practical concern only in the softest soils, and this agrees with past analyses and
experience on other types of piles (Sowers and Sowers(1). They presented a figure (Figure 13) that
can be used to decide whether a particular application is clearly stable (well to the right and below
the applicable boundary line), clearly unstable (well to the left of or above the boundary), or
questionable (close to the boundary). Their criteria for soil classification is given in Table 4. They
suggested that load tests could be used to resolve questionable applications.
Simplified Method for Nonlinear Analysis of Helical Piles in Clay. Hsiung and Chen(1)
have presented a simplified method for the analysis and design of long piles under lateral loads
(moment) in uniform clays. The method is based on the concept of the coefficient of subgrade
reaction with consideration of the soil properties in the elastoplastic range. To use their method four
parameters are needed, two for the soil behavior and two for the pile. For the soil, the coefficient of
subgrade reaction (kh) and the yield displacement of the soil (u*) are required. For the pile, the two

required parameters are the ratio of length to diameter and the elastic modulus of the pile shaft. If
k h = nh z
the coefficient of subgrade reaction varies with depth, then:
The range of the analytical parameters are determined as follows:
1. The coefficient of subgrade reaction, kh has been compiled by Poulos and Davis(1) and are
shown in Table 5. kh is taken in the range of 4,000-26,000 kN/m3 for an overconsolidated
clay. A value of nh in the range of 200-1300 kN/m4 is used.
2. Yielding displacement of soil, u* is taken in the range of 12-25 mm according to Bowles(1).
3. Ratio of length to diameter (L/d).
4. Elastic modulus of the pile shaft, Ep.
The results of this study showed that both the load-maximum deflection and load-maximum
moment relationships may be expressed by normalized curves based on regression analysis. The
equations used for normalizing the Load and Moment Factors are given in Table 6. Table 7 gives the
regression equations for maximum deflection and moment.

Table 4: Soil Parameters for Figure 13
Description N Cu Φ
(blows) (kPa) (deg)
Clays
Very Soft 1 10 0
Soft 3 19 0
Medium 6 38 0
Stiff 12 72 0
Very Stiff 24 143 0
Hard 32+ 287 0
Sands
Very Loose 2 0 28
Loose 7 0 29
Medium 20 0 33
Dense 40 0 39
Very Dense 50+ 0 43

200
178 kN BRACKET
Y STRENGTH LIMIT
LA
C ND
I FF SA
ST I UM
DI
ME
D Y&
150
AN LA
ES C
O S IU M
LO ED
M
Axial Load (kN)
100 A
Y
CL
FT
SO
D
AN
ES
Y
A
OS
CL
FT
LO
50 SO
RY
Y
ER
VE
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Shaft Length (m)

Table 5: Range of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
Soil Type kh (kN/m3) nh (kN/m4) Reference
Over-consolidated stiff 15700-31400 Terzaghi (1955)
clay
Over-consolidated 31400-62800 Terzaghi (1955
very-stiff clay
Over-consolidated >62800 Terzaghi (1955
hard clay
Normally consolidated 160-3260 Reese and Matlock(1965)
soft clay
270-540 Davisson and Prakash (1962)
Normally consolidated 108-270 Peck and Davisson (1962)
organic clay
108-810 Davisson (1970)
Peat 54 Davisson (1970)
27-108 Wilson and Hilts (1967)

Table 6: Formulas for Normalizing Load and Moment Factors
Formula Soil Condi- Pile-head Loading Normalizing Load Normalizing moment
Number tion Condition Condition factor factor
(1) (3) (4) (6)
(2) (5)
1 Constant kh Free-head Lateral Force Pc = 2EIλ3u* Mcmax =0.3224Pc/λ

Po
2 Constant kh Free-head Moment Mo Mc = 2EIλ2u* Mcmax = Mc
3 Constant kh Fixed-head Lateral Force Pcf = 4EIλ3u* Mcmax =0.5Pf c/λ

Po
4 Linear kh Free-head Lateral Force Pc = (1/249)EIλ3u* Mcmax =0.7714 Pf

Po c
/λ
5 Linear kh Free-head Moment Mo Mc =(1/1.619)EIλ2u* Mcmax = Mc
6 Linear kh Fixed-head Lateral Force Pcf =(1/.9279)4EIλ3u* Mcmax =0.9271Pf

Po c
/λ
Note: For constant kh:

= 4 k h d/4 E p I p For linear k : = 5 nh d/ E p I p
h

Table 7: Regression Equations for Maximum Deflection and Moment
Equation Soil Pile-head Loading Regression equation of Regression equation of
Number Condition Condition Condition load-max. deflection load-max. Moment
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1 Constant kh Free-head Lateral u/ u * 0.52

Po = Po = 1.10 M max
c *
Force Po P 0.32u/ u + 0.66 P
c c
M max
2 Constant kh Free-head Moment Mo u/ u * 1.0

Mo = M o = 1.00 M max
M
c
0.15u/ u* + 0.87 c c
M M max
3 Constant kh Fixed- Lateral u/ u * 0.54

c *
head Force Po P f 0.37u/ u + 0.67 P
c c
M max
4 Linear kh Free-head Lateral u/ u * 0.70

Po = Po = 1.111 M max
c *
Force Po P f 0.15u/ u + 0.82 P
c c
M max
5 Linear kh Free-head Moment Mo u/ u * 1.0

Mo = M o = 1.00 M max
M
c
0.075u/ u* + 0.91 c c
M M max
6 Linear kh Fixed- Lateral u/ u* 0.72

c *
head Force Po P f 0.19u/ u + 0.83 P
c c
M max

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Uplift Capacity
Shallow Anchor in Sand
2 D1 + D n ( )( 2 - 2 ) tan
Qu = F q D1 H 1 + H n H 1 ku
4 2 2
Given the situation shown in Figure EX-1. Using equation 31:
36
R = H1 = = 3.6
D1 10
Interpolating from Table 3, Fq = 30.06.
ku = 1.3 (Figure 5).
2
10 10 +7.5
Qu = 30.06x105 3+ (105)( 8 2 - 32 )1.3x tan 35
4 12 2 2x12
Qu = 5164+6021 = 11,185 lbs
FS = 2.5
Qallow = 11,185 = 4474 lbs = 4.5kips
If the water surface were at the ground surface, then:

= = sat - water = 117.8 - 62.4 = 55.4 pcf
2
10 10 +7.5
Qu = 30.06x55.4 3+ (55.4)( 8 2 - 32 )1.3x tan 35
4 12 2 2x12
Qu = 5902 lbs
FS = 2.5
Qallow = 5902/2.5 = 2361 lbs = 2.4 kips
Deep Anchor in Sand
Given the situation shown in Figure EX-2. Using equation 31:
72
R = H 1 = = 7.2
D1 10
H1
k umax = 1.5 (Figure 5) = 0.6 + m
D1 cr
For Φ = 35 , m = 0.18 (Table 2)

1.5 = 0.6 + H 1
D1 cr
H1 0.9
= = 5< R
D1 cr
0.18
Fq* = 50 (Figure 8)
2 D1 + D n ( )( 2 - 2 ) tan
Qu = F q D1 H 1 + H n H 1 ku (equation 39)
4 2 2
2
10 10 +7.5
Qu = 50x105 6+ (105)( 112 - 6 2 )1.5x tan 35
4 12 2 2x12
Qu = 17181+10737 = 27918 lbs
FS = 2.5
Qallow = 27918/2.5 = 11,167 lbs = 11.1 kips
If the water surface were at
2 the ground surface, then:

10 10 +7.5
Qu = 50x55.4 6+ (55.4)( 112 - 6 2 )1.5x tan 35
4 12 2 2x12
Qu = 14730 lbs
FS = 2.5
Qallow = 14730/2.5 = 5892 lbs = 5.9 kips

Shallow anchor in Clay
Given the situation shown in Figure EX-3. Using
equation 38
Q p = A1 c F c + W s = A1 ( cu F c + )
H 1 1 0.107 + 2.5 7
Rcr =Rcr = H =
R cu
= 0.107(49)+ 2.5 = 7.7
D1 D
cr 1
cr
Fc = 9
D1 = 12 in = 30.5 cm
2 Qu = 33.6 + 66.3 = 99.9 kN

30.5
Qp= (49x9 + 19.5) = 33.6 kN
4 100
D1 + D n
Qf = cu ( H n H 1 )
2
(12 + 10)2.54
Qf = 49.5 [(8x0.305) (3x0.305)] = 66.3 kN
2x100

Qu = ( D12 )(9 cu + H 1 )
4
+ D1 + D n (
H n - H 1 ) cu
2
+ Ds H 1 ca
Deep anchor in Clay
Assume ca = 0.9c = 0.9(48.0) = 43.2 kN/m2.
Qu = [(1x.305 )2 )[9x48.0+ 19.5x(6x.305)]

4
(12 + 10).305
+ (11 - 6)(.305)48.0
12x2x100
2x.305
+ 6x.305x43.2
12
Qu = 34.17 + 0.64 + 12.63 = 47.4 kN
FS = 3.0
Qall = Qu/FS = 235.3/3 = 78 kN

Bearing Capacity of a Helical Pile in Com-pression
Anchor in Sand (Figure EX-5)
qult = cN c + q( N q - 1) (equation 49)
c=0
γ = 105 pcf
n
Qult = Ai [ ci N c i + qi ( N q i - 1)]
i
Φ = 35 deg
2
D1 = (10/12 )2
A1 = = 0.545 sf
4 4
2 2
D 2 = (10/12 ) = 0.545 sf
A2 =
4 4
2 2
D3 = (12/12 ) = 0.545 sf
A3 =
4 4 10 H 1 = 3.6
2 2 D 1= H 1= 3 N q 1 = 77
D4 = (10/12 ) = 0.307 sf 12 D1
A4 =
4 4 10 H 2 = 5.6
D2 = H 2 = 4.67 N q 2 = 90
12 D2
10 H 3 = 7.6( max = 7)
D3 = H 3 = 6.34 N q 3 = 110
12 D3
7.5 H 4 = 12.8( max = 7)
D4 = H 4 = 8.0 N q 4 = 110
12 D4
q1 = H 1 = (105)(3) = 315 psf

1
q 2 = 2 H 2 = (105)(3 + 5/3) = 490 psf

q3 = H 3 = (105)(3 + 10/3) = 665 psf
3
D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC q4 = 4 H 4 = (105)(3 + 5) = 840 psf March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

53
n 4
Qult = A [c N
i i c i + qi N q i ] = Ai qi N qi
i 1
= [(0.545)(315)(77)+ (0.545)(490)(90)+ (0.545)(665)(110)+ (0.307)(840)](110)

= 13,219 + 24,035 + 39,867 + 28,367 = 105,487 lbs = 105 kips
Qult 105
Q allow= = = 35.2 kips
FS 3
qult = cN*c + q( N*q - 1) (equation 49)
Ai [ ci N ci + qi ( N qi - 1)]
* *
Qult =
i
Anchor in Clay (Figure EX-6)
c = 1000 psf
γ = 124 pcf
Φ = 0 deg
Nq= = 1 (Figure 11)

12 H 1 = 3.0
D1 = H1= 3 N c 1 = 10
12 D1
12 D12 (12/12H 2)=2
D2 = =
A112 H 2 =
= 4.67 =4.67
0.785 c 2 = 14
N sf
4 4D 2
12 D 22 (12/12H 3 )=
2
=2 = H 3 =
D3 A 6.34 =6.34 N csf3 = 15
12 4 = 4D3
0.785
10 2 H(12/12 2
) max = 7) N c 4 = 16
D4 = A3 =H 4 =D8.0
4
3
= = 9.6( = 0.785 sf
12 4 D4 4
2
D4 = (10/12 )2
A4 = = 0.545 sf
4 4
Qult = 0.785(1000)(10)
+ 0.785(1000)(14) + 0.785(1000)(15)
+ 0.545(1000)(16)
= 7850 + 10,990 + 11,775 + 8720 = 39,335 lbs
= 39.3 kips
Qult 39.3
Q allow = = = 13.1 kips
FS 3

Lateral Capacity of a laterally Loaded Helical Pile in Medium Clay
Assume the situation is as shown in Figure EX-7. Also assume:
Load = 40 kN
c = 1000 psf = 48 kPa
Shaft Properties:
L = 8 ft = 2.4 m
2 inch square outside dimension
wall thickness = 05 inch
Check to see if buckling will be a concern.
From Table 4, soil is a medium clay.
Using Figure 13, situation plots significantly below is medium clay line, therefore, buckling is not a
concern.
Lateral Capacity of a Laterally Loaded Helical
Pile in Soft Clay
Assume the situation is as shown in Figure EX-7.
Also assume:
Load = 40 kN
c = 400 psf = 19 kPa
Shaft Properties:
L = 8 ft = 2.4 m
wall thickness = 0.5 inch

From Table 4, soil is a soft clay.
Using Figure 13, situation plots near the soft clay line, therefore, buckling is a concern.
Helical shaft properties:
Ep = 30 106 psi = 20.7 107 kPa
I = π(do4 -di4)/64 = 4.8 10-7 m4
From Table 5 assume nh = 500 kN/m4
= 5 nh * d o / E p I p = 5 500* 0.032/(20.7x 107 )(4.8x 10-7 ) = 0.519 (Table 6)
Assume u* = 15 mm = yield deflection
1 3 *
Pcf = Ep I p u = 0.331 kN
0.9279
Using equation 6 from Table 6
Po = u/ u*
c *
P f 0.19u/ u + 0.83
u = -0.069 m = 69 mm
Determine the maximum moment.
Using Equation 6 from Table 6

c
c Pf
M max = 0.9271 = 0.519 kN - m
0.72
Po = 1.09 M max
c c
Pf Mf
M max = 359 kN - m
Lateral Capacity of a Laterally Loaded Helical Pile in Overconsolidated Clay
Assume the situation is as shown in Figure EX-7. Also assume:
Load = 40 kN
c = 2000 psf = 96 kPa
Shaft Properties:
L = 8 ft = 2.4 m
wall thickness = 0.5 inch
From Table 4, soil is a stiff clay.
Using Figure 14, situation plots to the right of the
stiff clay line, therefore, buckling is not a concern.
Helical shaft properties:
Ep = 30 106 psi = 20.7 107 kPa
I = π(do4 -di4)/64 = 4.8 10-7 m4
From Table 5 assume kh = 20000 kN/m3

= 4 k h * d o /4 E p I p = 4 20000* 0.057/4(20.7x 107 )(4.8x 10-7 ) = 1.304 m-1 (Table 6)
Assume u* = 15 mm = yield deflection
2 *
Mc = 2 Ep I p u = 5.1 kN - m
Mo = u/ u*
M
c
0.15u/ u* + 0.87
u = 3.064 mm
Determine the maximum moment.
c c
M max = M = 5.1 kN - m
Since Mcmax <Mo, part of soil is yielding.
1.0
M o = 1.00 M max
c c
M M max
M max = 1.146 kN - m
1. Wilson, Guthlac, AThe Bearing Capacity of Screw Piles and Screwcrete Cylinders,@ J. Inst
of Civil Engineers, London, Vol 34, pp 4-93, 1950.

1. Stephenson, R.W., ADesign and Applications of Helical Earth Anchors,@ (1988),
unpublished notes of a seminar for geotechnical engineering graduate students, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Oct. 20, 1988.
1. Clemence, S.P., Thorsten, R.E., and Edwards, B., AHelical Anchors: Overview of
Application and Design@ (1990), Foundation Drilling, Dec./Jan. 1990, P.P. 8-12.
1. Das, Braja M. Earth Anchors, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, Series No. 50,
Elsevier, NY 1990.
1. Udwari, J.J., Rodgers, T.E., and Singh, H., "A Rational Approach to the Design of High
Capacity ;Multi-helix Screw Anchors," Proceedings, Seventh IEEE/PES Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exposition, April 1-6, 1979, pp. 606-609.
1. Lutenegger, A.J., Smith, B.L., and Kabir, M.G., "Use of In Situ Tests to Predict Uplift
Performance of Multihelix Anchors," Special Topics in Foundations, ASCE, pp. 93-108.
1. A.B. Chance Co. Encyclopedia of Anchoring, The A.B. chance Co., 1977.
1. Hoyt, R.M., and S.P. Clemence (1989), "Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Sand,"
Proceedings of the XII International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rio De Janeiro, Aug, 1989, pp 1019-1022.
1. Kulhawy, F.H., "Uplift Behavior of Shallow Soil Anchors - An Overview", Uplift Behavior
of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, New York, pp. 1-25, 1985.
1. Clemence, Samuel P., "The Uplift and Bearing Capacity of Helix Anchors in Soil," Contract
Report TT112-1, 3 Volumes, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Syracuse, New York
(1984).
1. Mitsch, M.P., and Clemence, S.P., AThe Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Sand,@
Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, New York, pp. 26-47 (1985).
1. Mooney, J.S., Adamczak, S., and Clemence, S.P., "Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in
Clay and Silt," Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, pp. 48-72 (1985).
1. Carville, Chester, A., P.E., and Walton, Robert W. , AFoundation Repair Using Helical
Screw Anchors,@ Foundation Upgrading and Repair for Infrastructure Improvement,@
Geotechnical Special Publication, N. 50, American Society of Civil Engineering, New York,
1995.

1. Meyerhof, G.G., ABearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile foundations,@ Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No. GT3, pp. 197-228, 1976.
1. Hansen, Brinch, J., AThe Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Foundation Piles Against Transveral
Forces,@ Bulletin-12, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, 1951.
1. Meyerhof, G.G. and Ranjan, Gopal, AThe Bearing Capacity of Rigid Piles Under Inclined
Load in Sand, Part I: Vertical Piles,@ Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, 1972,.
1. Reese, L.C., and Matlock, H., ANon-dimensional Solution for Laterally Loaded Piles with
Soil Modulus Assumed Proportional to Depth,@ Proceedings of the Eighth Texas
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Austin TX, 1965.
1. Davisson, M.T. and Gill, H.L., Laterally Loaded Piles in layered Soil System,@, Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, Vol. 89, No. SM3, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1963.
1. Stephenson, Richard W., and Puri, Vijay, AUltimate Capacity of A.B. Chance Helical
Anchors,@ Unpublished report, prepared for the A.B. Chance Co., Centralia MO, 1981.
1. Hoyt, Robert, Seider, Gary, Reese, Lymon C., and Wang, Shin-Tower, ABuckling of Helical
Anchors Used for Underpinning,@ Foundation Upgrading and Repair for Infrastructure
Improvement,@ Geotechnical Special Publication, N. 50, American Society of Civil
Engineering, New York, 1995.
1. Sowers, G.B. and Sowers, G.F., Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Third Edition,
Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1970.
1. Hsiuing, Yun-mei and Chen, Ya-ling, ASimplified Method for Analyzing laterally Loaded
single Piles in Clay,@ Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
123, No. 11, November, 1997.
1. Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.HH., Pile Foundaton Analysis and Design, John Wiley & sons,
Inc., New York, 1971.
1. Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.

Helical Foundations and Anchors

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

Helical Foundations and Anchors

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

HELICAL FOUNDATIONS AND TIE BACKS

State of the Art

Professor of Civil Engineering

Rolla, Missouri 65409

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 2 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

STATE OF THE ART

R.W. Stephenson, P.E., Ph.D.

bridge structures as early as the 19th century.

founded on his new Ascrew (1)piles.@

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 3 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 4 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 6 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

performance are reported as well.

HELICAL PILE DESIGN

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 7 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

be applied to all realistic combinations of helical piles and soil stratigraphies.

procedures are theoretical procedures modified by experience (semi-empirical).

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 8 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

UPLIFT CAPACITY OF HELICAL PILES

The behavior of any deep foundation is highly complex. Consequently, it is important to

procedures and equipment.

Semi-Empirical Helical Pile Capacity

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 9 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

and surcharge respectively.

are often used and are presented as Table 1, below.

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 10 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

Qu = Ultimate uplift capacity

Qp = Top plate (cone breakout) capacity

Qf = Cylinder friction capacity

Wf = Weight of helical pile (often neglected)

For cohesionless (sand) soils, Kulhawy recommended the following equations:

Bearing Capacity Factors

Φ Nc* Nq* Nγ*

0 5.1 1.0 0.0

5 6.5 1.6 0.1

10 8.4 2.5 0.4

15 11.0 3.9 1.1

20 14.8 6.4 2.9

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 11 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

26 22.3 11.8 8.0

28 25.8 14.7 11.2

30 30.1 18.4 15.7

32 35.5 23.2 22.0

34 42.2 29.4 31.1

36 50.6 37.7 44.4

38 61.4 48.9 64.0

40 75.3 64.1 93.6

45 133.9 134.7 262.3

50 266.9 318.5 871.7

Qp(max) = Top plate capacity limit

Af = Area of top helix

Wf = Effective weight of helical pile alone

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 12 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

The Nq term is a bearing capacity factor given by:

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 13 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)

with the tan-1 term in radians.

G = soil shear modulus

The cylinder friction capacity, Qf , is computed from the following equation:

Qf = P(z) v k u (z)( tan )(z)dz

v = effective vertical stress

k = coefficient of horizontal earth pressure

D:\HELICAL ANCHORS.DOC 14 March 2, 2010 (7:49PM)