1 INTRODUCTION

Helical piers create a lightweight foundation that canbe used either in compression or tension. Due to theirlight weight, ease of installation and minimal grounddisturbance they are becoming very popular in remotebuilding sites such as arctic villages in Alaska (Figs 1,2). Conditions in these places often include perma-nently frozen soils, which changes the dictating

design criteria from bearing capacity and consolida-tion settlement to creep settlement. Current designmethods are not suitable for helical piers in frozenground, which may limit their use. Therefore, theAlaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF)is funding research to develop guidelines for design of helical piers in frozen ground. The purpose of thispaper is to show how the Finite Element Analysis(FEA) is used to create design curves and aid indesign of helical piers in frozen silt.

2 HELICAL PIERS

The helical piers typically consist of a central shaftmade from square or round sections that can be eithersolid or hollow. To this shaft is connected between oneto four spiral plates (Fig. 3) that are designed to mobi-lize more soil resistance under normal loading condi-tions than a conventional smooth pile.

1307

Design of helical pier foundations in frozen ground

H.K. Zubeck & H. LiuUniversity of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, USA

ABSTRACT: Helical piers have been used as foundations for boardwalks, utilidors and fences in rural Alaskain cold and warm permafrost. The piers are becoming more and more popular due to their light weight, ease oftransportation and installation, and resistance against frost jacking. However, engineers have been hesitant tospecify them as foundations for buildings due to the lack of design guidelines for frozen ground. To increase theuse of helical piers as a cost effective foundation alternative, Alaska Science and Technology Foundation fundeda study to create these guidelines. This paper presents the current experience with helical piers in Alaska and givesa design example using the developed finite element analysis and creep results.

Permafrost, Phillips, Springman & Arenson (eds)© 2003 Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN 90 5809 582 7

Figure 1. Helical pier stockpile in St. Michael, Alaska.

Figure 2. Insignificant ground disturbance.Figure 3. Helical pier lead sections (A.B. Chance Co.1996).

3 APPLICATIONS

The helical piers are used for a variety of applications.In compression, they are used as building foundationsfor new structures, underpins for existing structures,and as support for boardwalks, utilidors, fence posts,light posts, etc. In tension, the helical piers, often calledhelical anchors, are used as soil anchors for retainingwalls, and to resist wind loads for tall structures.

In Figure 4, the utilidors in Selewik, Alaska, arefounded on helical piers, but the boardwalk is foundedby conventional methods. The helical piers are well-suited to resist the frost jacking that is a commonproblem with pile foundations in frozen ground.Figure 5 shows helical piers installed for a utilidor inSt. Michael, Alaska.

4 INSTALLATION

Helical piers are installed by applying a torque on thepier shaft. The pier then augers itself into the ground.

In frozen ground, additional vertical pressure is oftenrequired. First pier installations into very cold (�5°C)permafrost were conducted into 50 mm pilot holes toensure straight piers. Installers found, however, thatpiers can be installed correctly even into the cold per-mafrost without pilot holes.

5 DESIGN METHODS

The current design method for determining the capac-ity of helical piers in thawed soils is based on bearingcapacity theory. According to Ladanyi & Johnston(1974), it is not appropriate to analyze deep circularpile foundations in frozen soils on the basis ofPrandtl-type bearing capacity equations and a sepa-rate settlement analysis using Boussinesq’s stress-distribution theory and compressibility of soil. Infrozen soil, the temperature and undrained creepbecome predominant in the determination of allowablefoundation pressures. Therefore, Ladanyi & Johnson(1974) developed an alternative method for predictingthe time and temperature dependent creep settlementand the bearing capacity of frozen soil under deep circular loads. The asymptotic ultimate pullout resist-ances calculated with the model seem to agree withfield results, but it is not clear if the model can be usedfor long term creep under compressive loads. There-fore, further analysis using FEA is warranted.

The purpose of the project is to develop a finite ele-ment model that will be used to create design curveswith different soil temperatures and soil properties.The analysis developed includes four models that areLarge Model, Small Model, Installation FailureModel, and Creep Model (Liu et al. 1999a). The LargeModel analyzes the soil stresses and displacementsimmediately after the pier is subjected to its designload. These data are critical for the development ofmore detailed analysis using sub-modeling tech-niques. The Small Model is a sub model of the LargeModel. It analyzes the stresses developed within thespiral structure by using results from the Large Modelanalysis. The Installation Failure Model is a detailedmodel of the spiral structure subjected to a torsionalload during installation. This model provides insightinto the failure mechanism of helical piers during construction. The Creep Model analyses the long-term displacement and soil stress in frozen ground.

Figures 6 and 7 provide examples of the deforma-tions and stresses in the pier itself and the surroundingsoil obtained from the Large Model. The finite ele-ment analysis shows that the traditional bearing capac-ity equations are not adequate design tools for helicalpiers with multiple helixes (Liu et al. 1999a, 1999b,2000). The stress distribution in the soil does notagree with the traditional method (bearing capacity

1308

Figure 5. Utilidor under construction in St. Michael,Alaska.

Figure 4. Typical uses for helical piers: boardwalks andutilidors.

equation) that assumes the helixes are not connectedwith each other. Further, the traditional bearing capac-ity equations do not consider creep in frozen soil. Theanalysis and results given in the following sections arebased on the creep model that utilizes the LargeModel. The creep equation used by Morgenstern et al.(1980) was adopted in the analysis (Equation 1):

(1)

where e � strain rate; c � reference strain rate;n � experimental creep parameter, se � equivalentstress and cuu � temperature dependent total defor-mation modulus, corresponding to the reference strain.

A full-scale loading test was conducted in the U.S.Army Cold Regions Research and EngineeringLaboratory (CRREL) to calibrate the FEA. However,the FEA models could not be calibrated using theCRREL test results due to uneven temperatures in thetest cell.

5.1 Development of design guidelines

The design guidelines are developed on the basis of theCreep Model. For frozen ground, the dictating designcriterion is the settlement due to the creep of the ice inthe ground. The guidelines obtainable in the followingsections are results from the Large Model creep analy-sis. Input parameters for the analysis include materialproperties for the pier and the soil. The soil parametersinclude the strength parameters and creep parameters.These are functions of soil type, water content, unfrozenwater content, and soil temperature. They vary greatlydepending from location and season, and therefore,general guidelines cannot be provided for typical soiltypes, e.g. for sand, silt or clay. The following sectionsdescribe an example of design of helical piers for asilty soil at three different temperatures. To analyzeany other soil, the engineer needs to contact the authorsfor FEA runs to produce the creep curves.

5.2 Materials and model dimensions

The soil properties for the silty soil are given in Table 1.The pier has a pipe shaft with 90 mm outer diameterand 13 mm thick wall, and a 203 mm diameter, 13 mmthick plate for spirals. For the large-scale model, thespiral is modeled as a flat plate in order to limit thenumber of elements in the model. The element andmaterial properties for steel appear in Table 2. The soil

� � � e ce

cu

ns

s u

1309

Figure 7. Vertical stress distribution in soil volumex � 3302 mm, z � 3556 mm.

Figure 6. Vertical displacement distribution in soil volumex � 3302 mm, z � 3556 mm.

Table 1. Soil properties for silty soil.

Temperature

Unit –1°C –5°C –10°C

Unit weight kN/m3 19.07 19.07 19.07Cohesion kN/m2 2413 6206 9653Friction angle ° 25 25 25Creep 2.04 2.04 2.04parameter, n

Creep h (h MPan)–1 3.81E-7 5.49E-8 1.85E-8parameter, B

Young’s kPa 1800 7400 14400modulus

Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.2 0.2

B � �ccui

n1

s

surrounding the helical piers is modeled as a cylindri-cal volume. The dimensions used in the final analysismodels are given in Figures 8 and 9.

5.3 Analysis of the results

Creep settlement (displacement) deduced from theFEA as a function of temperature is plotted in Figures10–15. Negative values imply settlement rather thanheave. For the given soil, the creep displacementunder various design loads is less than 3 mm at tem-peratures from �1 to �10°C, which is less than a typical allowable settlement.

5.4 Design example

In order to design helical piers in the given frozen silt,the following information is needed: design tempera-ture and allowable displacement after 25 years or less.

1310

Table 2. Pier properties and FEA parameters.

E r

Material MPa n kN/m3 Element NDF

Steel shaft 200000 0.3 77.0 Beam 6Steel plate 200000 0.3 77.0 Shell 6

NDF � Nodal Degrees of Freedom.

3556

16511651

1270

2286

203

Soil Volume

Figure 8. Model dimensions for a pier with one helix (mm).

4166

610

1270

2286

16511651

203

Soil Volume

Figure 9. Model dimensions for a pier with two heli-xes (mm).

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m) 28 kN

56 kN

83 kN

111 kN

Figure 10. Creep displacement for a pier with one helix ata design temperature of �1°C for various axial loads.

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m)

28 kN56 kN83 kN111 kN

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m)

28 kN56 kN83 kN111 kN

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m)

28 kN56 kN83 kN111 kN

Figure 13. Creep displacement for a pier with two helixesat a design temperature of �1°C for various axial loads.

Figure 11. Creep displacement for a pier with one helix ata design temperature of -5°C for various axial loads.

Figure 12. Creep displacement for a pier with one helix ata design temperature of �10°C for various axial loads.

When this information is obtained, the following stepswill be performed:

1. Select the proper chart matching the designtemperature.

2. Select design life and maximum allowabledisplacement.

3. Select a design load that yields a predicted dis-placement that is smaller than the allowabledisplacement.

The following example illustrates the design method. Asingle helical pier foundation should be designed for a100 m long wall with a design load of 20 kN/m. A pierwith an allowable capacity of 111 kN should be used.The design temperature is �1°C and the allowable dis-placement after 20 years is a) 25 mm, b) 1.5 mm (thesmall displacement is selected for the illustration).

5.4.1 Solution: (a)Select the chart matching -1°C (Figures 10, 13). Notethat all loads yield smaller displacement than theallowable value of 25 mm. Then, for the most eco-nomical design, select a design load of 111 kN perpier. The required spacing between the piers becomes111 kN/(20 kN/m) � 5.55 m. If the structural consid-erations allow this, the total number of the piers is 100 m/(5.55 m/pier) � 1 pier � 19 piers.

5.4.2 Solution: (b)Select the chart matching �1°C for a single pier(Figure 10). If the piers were loaded to their capacity

of 111 kN, the allowable displacement of 1.5 mmwould be exceeded in 11 years. Consequently thepiers need to be loaded by a smaller load. After 20 years a load of 83 kN per pier would yield 1.3 mmdisplacement and this is smaller than the allowablemaximum displacement and is therefore acceptable.To obtain a load of 83 kN per pier, the spacing betweenthe piers becomes 83 kN/(20 kN/m) � 4.15 m and thetotal number of the piers is 100 m/(4.15 m/ pier) �1 pier � 25 piers. Again, check if the 4.15 m spacingmeets the structural requirements. See Figure 16 foran illustration of this design example.

Check if piers with a double helix would yield amore economical design. Select the chart matching�1°C for a double pier (Fig. 13). Again, all loadsyield smaller displacement than the allowable value of25 mm. Then, for the most economical design, selecta design load of 111 kN per pier. The required spacingbetween the piers becomes 111 kN/(20 kN/m) �5.55 m. If the structural considerations allow this, thetotal number of the piers is 100 m/(5.55 m/pier) �1 pier � 19 piers. Check if 19 double helix piers areless expensive than 25 single helix piers. See Figure 17for an illustration of this design example.

5.5 Conclusions and recommendations for design

Even if specific design guidelines for frozen groundhave not been in existence before, the piers are used

1311

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m)

28 kN56 kN83 kN111 kN

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m)

28 kN56 kN83 kN111 kN

Figure 14. Creep displacement for a pier with two helixesat a design temperature of �5°C for various axial loads.

Figure 15. Creep displacement for a pier with two helixesat a design temperature of �10°C for various axial loads.

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m) 28 kN

56 kN

83 kN

111 kN

Figure 16. Design example for a pier with one helix at �1°C.

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.00 10 20 30

Time (years)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m)

28 kN56 kN83 kN

111 kN

Figure 17. Design example for pier with two helixes at �1°C.

successfully as a foundation for boardwalks, utilidorsand other structures. However, engineers have beenhesitating to specify helical piers as building founda-tions, because of the lack of design guidelines. Thedesign method suggested here is very simple andhelpful in designing piers for the given frozen soil.The design curves do not apply to any other soil, and even if the given creep displacements are insig-nificant, other soil may produce larger settlements. Toproperly design any foundations in frozen ground, theengineer still needs the creep parameters for the foun-dation soil. These parameters are not readily availablefor the engineering community. Therefore, actual soiltesting needs to be conducted for various soils to cre-ate a library or database of soils encountered in coldregions. These tests would include strength parame-ters in thawed conditions, and creep and strengthparameters at several frozen temperatures under vari-ous loads. Currently, to analyze any other soil, theengineer needs to contact the authors for FEA runs toproduce the creep curves.

REFERENCES

A.B. Chance Co. 1996. Helical Pier Foundation SystemTechnical Manual, Bulletin 01–96.

Ladanyi, B. & Johnson, G.H. 1974. Behavior of CircularFootings and Plate Anchors Embedded in Permafrost.Canadian Geotechnical Journal 11: 531–553.

Liu, H., Zubeck, H., Schubert, D., Baginski, S. & Hsieh, Y.1999a. Behavior of Helical Piers in Frozen Ground.NAFEMS World Conference ’99. Proc. April 1999,Rhode Island, USA: 1271–1280. East Kilbride, UK:The International Association for the EngineeringAnalysis Community.

Liu, H., Zubeck, H. & Baginsky, S. 1999b. Evaluation ofHelical Piers in Frozen Ground. Proc. Tenth Inter-national Conference on Cold Regions Engineering,Lincoln, NH, 16-19 August 1999: 232–242. Reston,VA, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Liu, H., Schubert, D., Zubeck, H., & Baginski, S. 2000.Application and Analysis of Helical Piers in FrozenGround. The 5th Annual Alaska Water and WastewaterManagement Association International Research andDevelopment Conference on Rural Sanitation”, Proc.April 25–26, 2000, Fairbanks, Alaska: 139–151.Anchorage: AWWWMA.

Morgenstern, N., Roggensack, W. & Weaver, J. 1980. TheBehavior of Friction Piles in Ice and Ice-Rich Soils.Canadian Geotechnical Journal 17: 405–415.

1312