Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
MANUFACTURING LTD.
Screw piles can be manufactured using almost any pipe size. Typical pipe sizes
range from 2-7/8” to 16” O.D., although pipe in excess of 30” has been used. Helix
sizes range from 6” to more than 42” in diameter. The helix size is dependent on
the size of pipe, the soil conditions and the applied loads. In most cases, the length
of a section of the screw pile is generally limited to the maximum drive head height
on the installation equipment, which is typically 20’ or less. In Almita’s case, 33’ is
possible. Installation depth is limited by or controlled by the available torque and
depth of targeted bearing soil. To increase the depth of a pile, additional shaft
length can be either welded or bolted on.
Design Criteria
Installation
For piles subjected to uplift and/or frost jacking the embedment depth of the
uppermost helix shall be at least five (5) helix diameters or deeper than the
maximum frost penetration depth that is in the area.
The leading edge on the helical plates are rounded back and sharpened to facilitate
installation and to minimize disturbance of the soil during installation.
Helixes are cut from plate steel and formed using matching metal dies. The dies are
set to provide the helix with the required pitch, typically 3.00” or 6.00”. The helical
shape is a “true flight”. The helical plate shall be normal to the central shaft (within
three degrees) over its entire length. The helix is shaped so that it threads into the
soil much like a wood screw going into a piece of wood.
Piles are installed into the ground via drive head motors using rotary hydraulics
attached to a variety of equipment. Boom mounted power utility trucks, skid steers,
mini and large excavators, nodwells and many other types of equipment, even
handheld units are used.
Torque is continuously monitored and recorded throughout the installation of each screw
piling. Continuous recording chart recorders are used to measure the hydraulic pressure
that is used to drive in the piling. For small shaft piles there is a direct relationship
between installation torque and screw pile capacity. Continuous monitoring of torque
during installation provides the installer with a profile of the underlying soil conditions.
Screw piles were originally used primarily for their resistance to tensile forces.
Utility companies frequently used screw piles as tie-down anchors for transmission
towers and utility poles. Recent years have seen screw piles being used in many
different applications. The piles’ strong resistance to both uplift and bearing
pressure allow them to be used in situations where resistance to combinations of
these forces are required.
Screw piles offer many advantages over traditional pilings, such as speed of
installation and immediate loading capability. These advantages have made screw
piles an ideal foundation for many mainstream construction projects.
Today, large truck mounted torque heads capable of delivering more than 60,000
ft. lbs or torque and excavator hoes capable of achieving torque greater than
140,000 ft. lbs. are available. These new advances in equipment have made it
possible to install piles of large diameter (both helix and pipe) and high capacity.
Retrofit Applications
Screw piles are used successfully for
underpinning existing foundations due to
the high flexibility of screwing piles
adjacent to existing foundations. Almita
has done retrofit projects for bridges,
power lines, and schools.
A commonly used method for restoring
failing foundations is underpinning.
Underpinning projects use hydraulic
jacks to support the structure until the
foundation is lifted and the screw piles
are installed. While Almita does not offer
an underpinning service at this time, we
do design and manufacture custom
screw piles for underpinning projects.
We also offer a wide range of equipment
for underpinning anchors that includes
mini-hoes, skid steer loaders and hand-
held drives.
Figure J. Residential Foundation, Red Deer, AB
Slope Stabilization
Almita manufactures anchors that can be used in a variety of situations,
including slope restoration or stabilization. Once the fault line has been
found, anchors can be screwed in almost horizontally into more stable soil.
Once installed, an appropriate retaining wall is attached to maintain the slope
integrity.
1. The entire 2. The outer shaft is 3. The inner shaft is 4. The wire lead to
assembly is screwed disconnected and hooked onto at the the electrode is left
into the ground to backed out, leaving surface, disconnected sticking out of the
desired depth. the inner shaft and at the base and ground ready to
(Charcoal added; anode in place. backed out, leaving connect to the
enough so as to the anode and wire. rectifier load.
surround the anode
in a bed of charcoal).
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
Depth
Dense Sand
Gravel
Bedrock
Upward
Force
Suction
Force
Soils derive their strength and ultimately their load capacity from several
characteristics. The internal friction angle,φ, the adhesion factor, α, the unit weight
of the soil, γ’, the undrained shear strength of soil, Cu, and the lateral earth
pressure coefficient, K are all factors that affect the holding capacity of soils.
Although many of these variables are related, they are dependent on the type,
moisture content, and location of soils.
The pressure placed on the pile also helps create a friction force between the shaft
and the soil. The shaft adhesion factor is a measure of this friction force and
generally varies with soil type, density, and the soils internal friction angle. This
friction helps to resist the applied force, and is used in determining the ultimate
capacity of the pile. The displaced soil pressure also helps to reconsolidate any soil
disrupted during the installation. Soil adhesion along the anchor’s shaft significantly
contributes to the anchor’s overall vertical capacity. Adams and Klym (1972) found
that adhesion provides a substantial resistance to anchors installed in soft clays
with shaft diameter greater than 76.2 mm. The adhesion between the pile shaft and
the soil is taken as a function of the soil undrained shear strength.
Each soil, based on its composition and water content, has a unique density and
weight. A common way to classify soils it to determine the weight of a unit volume,
known as the unit weight of the soil.
Where:
W = Weight of sample
V = Volume of sample
This variable is often used to describe the force or load the soil places on the pile.
During tension, the soil around the pile, especially the helix, acts like ballast and
helps to resist motion. This is particularly important in the case of tensile loading. A
soil with a higher unit weight will place more downward pressure on the pile,
thereby increasing the uplift capacity.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Standard Angle of
Penetration Internal Young’s Modulus
Soil Relative Resistance, N Friction, φ E
Description Density (blows/foot) (degrees) (MPa) (ksf)
Very Loose < 0.2 <4 < 30 < 10 (< 210)
When an axial compression or tension force is applied to a vertical pile, the load is
partly supported by the shaft friction, the shear resistance along a cylindrical
surface connecting the top and bottom helices and either bearing resistance below
the bottom helix (compression loading), as shown in Figure 2.1 or bearing capacity
above the top helix (uplift loading), as shown in Figure 2.2.
Qu Ultimate
Qc Ultimate
Uplift
Compression
Capacity
Capacity
Shaft
Friction
Shaft Depth to Top
Friction Helix, H
Shaft Dia.
Uplift
Bearing
Resistance
Cylindrical
Shearing Helix
Resistance Spacing, S
Cylindrical
Shearing
Resistance
Compressive
Bearing
Resistance
d
Shaft Dia.
D
Helix Dia.
Figure 2.1. Compression Loading Forces Figure 2.2. Tension Loading Forces
Acting on a Multi-helix Screw Pile Acting on a Multi-helix Screw Pile
Thus, in the case of compressive loading, the total failure resistance can be
summarized as follows:
For a cohesive soil the ultimate compression capacity of the helical screw pile using
a cylindrical shearing method as proposed by Mooney (1985) is:
Where:
D = diameter of helix, (m)
Lc = is the distance between top and bottom helical plates, (m)
Cu = undrained shear strength of soil, (kPa)
AH = area of the helix, (m2)
Nc = dimensionless bearing capacity factors (Tables 2.1 and 2.2)
d = diameter of the shaft, (m)
Heff = effective length of pile, Heff = H – D, (m)
α = Adhesion factor (see Figure 2.3)
Sf = Spacing Ratio Factor
Table 2.1. Bearing Capacity Factor Nc Related to the Pile Diameter (after CFEM, 1992)
Pile Toe Diameter (m) Nc
Smaller than 0.5 9
0.5 to 1.0 7
Larger than 1.0 6
Table 2.2. Bearing Capacity Factors, Nc for Cohesive Soils, and Modified for Helix Selection (after ALMITA )
Helix Diameter Nc
< 0.50 m (< 20 in) 9.0
0.51 m (20 in) 8.33
0.56 m (22 in) 7.67
0.61 (24 in) 7.33
0.76 (30 in) 7.0
0.91 (36 in) 6.67
0.97 (38 in) 6.33
> 1.0 m (40 in) 6.0
The prediction of the bearing resistance developed from the bottom helix is
independent of the embedment depth. The bearing capacity factor Nc, proposed by
Meyerhof (1976), provides reasonable predictions for screw piles loaded in
compression. Values of Nc are summarized in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2.
For estimation of the shaft adhesion, an effective shaft length Heff is used in the
calculation, which the effective shaft length is defined as the embedment length (H)
minus the top helix diameter (D). The adhesion developed along the steel shaft is
considered in cases where sufficient installation depth (deep pile) is provided. For
shallow condition (i.e. embedment ratio H/D < 3), the shaft adhesion is considered
as insignificant, and thus, Qshaft is not included in the equation. Figure 2.3 describes
the determination of the, α, adhesion factor.
1.0
NOT
APPLICABLE
0.7
α – Adhesion Factor
0.5
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Cu - Undrained Shear Strength, kPa
Figure 2.3. Reduction of Undrained Shear Strength for Anchorage Design (after CFEM, 1992)
For predicting the total uplift capacity, a cylindrical shear model is also adopted and
the ultimate tension capacity can be determined using the following equation
(Mooney 1985):
Where:
Qt = ultimate screw pile uplift capacity, (kN)
γ’ = Effective unit weight of soil above water table or buoyant weight if
below water table, (kN/m3)
Nu = dimensionless uplift bearing capacity factor for cohesive soils
H = embedment depth, (m)
Sf = Spacing Ratio Factor
AHN = net area of the helix (area of helix – shaft area), (m2)
For multi-helix screw piles loaded in tension, the ultimate capacity is dependent
upon the embedment depth. Generally there are two contributing factors to an
increase in the total uplift capacity with increasing depth. First, the shaft resistance
increases with embedment depth and secondly, the bearing resistance developed
above the top helix is dependent on the depth that the screw pile was installed to.
The uplift bearing capacity factor, Nu increases with the embedment ratio (H/D) to a
limiting value of approximately equal to 9.
Similar to the compression test, for short piles installed at a shallower depth, the
term for predicting the shaft adhesion can be neglected since the result is
insignificant to the total uplift capacity. The equation can be summarized to:
Q helices =1/2 π Da γ’ ( H32 - H12 ) Ks tanφ ( Or FHWA-IF-99-025 using β*δ’- see below) Eqn. 2.7
Q bearing = γ’ H AH Nq (Or FHWA-IF-99-025 Report using Nf- see below, If N60 is used) Eqn. 2.8
Q shaft =1/2 Ps Heff2 γ’ Ks tan δ (Or Use 0.75 β recommended below) Eqn. 2.9
Where:
Qc = ultimate compression capacity, (kN)
γ’ = Effective unit weight of soil, (kN/m3)
Ks = coefficient of lateral earth pressure in compression loading
φ = Soil angle of internal friction, degree
δ = ( 2/3 φ ) Soil angle of internal friction, (shaft component), degree
AH = area of the bottom helix, (m2)
Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factor, Table 2.3.
Da = average helix diameter, (m)
H = the embedment depth of pile, (m)
D1 = diameter of top helix, (m)
Heff = effective shaft length, (m)
H1 = depth to top helix, (m)
H3 = depth to bottom helix, (m)
Ps = the perimeter of the screw pile shaft, (m)
β = 1.5 * (1.5- 0.245[z]^0.5), where z = (H1+H3)/2
Nf = 0.59 * [(N60 * 101 / δ’)]^0.8 * δ’ – where N60 is corrected
Meyerhof (1963) suggested that the bearing capacity factor Nq, can be calculated using:
Table 2.4. Values of the Coefficient of Horizontal Soil Stress, Ks (after Kulhawy, 1984)
Relative Density Ko
Loose 0.5
Medium-Dense 0.45
Dense 0.35
For the shallow condition (i.e. H/D < 5), the ultimate compression capacity of a
multi-helix screw pile in sand can be predicted by summing the bearing capacity of
the bottom helix and the frictional resistance along the cylinder of soil between the
helices without the shaft resistance. Therefore, Equation 2.10 can be expressed as
follows:
For predicting the total uplift capacity, a cylindrical shear model proposed by Mitsch
and Clemence (1985) is suggested and the ultimate tension capacity can be
determined. Zhang (1999) suggests that there are two distinct failure mechanisms
for screw piles loaded in tension in the cohesionless soil, namely the shallow or the
deep condition. The shallow condition describes the mechanism where a truncated
pyramidal shaped failure surface propagates for the top helix to the ground surface.
For Multi-helix Screw Pile installed in Shallow Condition H/D < (H/D)cr
For Multi-helix Screw Pile installed in Deep Condition H/D > (H/D)cr
Embedment ratio (H/D) is defined as the depth to the top helix, H divided by the
top helix diameter, D.
Table 2.6. Critical Embedment Ratio, (H/D)cr for Circular Anchor (after Meyerhof and Adam, 1968)
Friction Angle, φ 20º 25º 30º 35º 40º 45º 48º
Depth (H/D)cr 2.5 3 4 5 7 9 11
Figure 2.4. Variation of Breakout Factor with Figure 2.5. Variation of Breakout Factor with
Embedment Depth for Shallow Anchor Embedment Depth for Deep Anchor
Condition based on Mitsch and Clemence’s Condition based on Mitsch and Clemence’s
Theory (after Das, 1990) Theory (after Das, 1990)
For a single helix screw pile, the cylindrical shearing resistance connecting the top
and bottom helix for multi-helix piles does not develop. Therefore, the total
resistance is derived from shaft and bearing resistance (see Figures 2.6 and 2.7).
Equations used to obtain axial capacity for the multi-helix screw piles should be
adjusted to not include the cylindrical component.
1. COHESIVE SOIL
Following FHWA-IF-99-025 Use Maximum Nc = 6.50 for soft clays with undrained
shear strength = 25 kPa and Nc = 8.0 for Firm Clays (50 kPa) and 9.0 for Stiff to V.
Stiff Clays.
Following FHWA-IF-99-025 Use Maximum Nc = 6.50 for soft clays with undrained
shear strength = 25 kPa and Nc = 8.0 for Firm Clays (50 kPa) and 9.0 for Stiff to V.
Stiff Clays.
For Single Helix Screw Piles Installed in Shallow Condition H/D < (H/D)cr
For Single Helix Screw Piles Installed in Deep Condition H/D > (H/D)cr
Qc Ultimate Qu Ultimate
Compression Uplift Capacity
Capacity
Shaft Shaft
Friction Friction
Compressive
Bearing Uplift
Resistance Bearing
Resistance
Figure 2.7. Compression Loading Forces Figure 2.8. Tension Loading Forces
Acting on Single Helix Screw Pile Acting on Single Helix Screw Pile
The theory behind soil mechanics is complicated and is beyond the scope of this
manual. The determination of the exact load capacity of each pile is impossible
without actual load tests. A load test should be performed at each site to verify the
above information. The above formulas provide guidelines that, when used with
accurate soil data and appropriate safety factors, can be confidently used to design
a suitable screw pile.
An empirical method has been derived and used in the screw anchor industry for
many years. Installation torque is used to calculate the ultimate capacity of the
screw anchor. The average torque achieved during the last three to five feet of
installation is directly proportional to the ultimate axial capacity of the pier.
A pull out test to failure is preformed with the capacity achieved recorded as the
ultimate capacity. Using the ultimate capacity at the given installation torque an
empirical torque factor can be calculated. (NOTE: A tension test is often performed
instead of a compression test because they are quicker to set up and perform. The
capacities are also generally less than the compression tests – inherent factor of
safety.)
From the pullout test, an empirical torque factor, Kt can be calculated using the
following:
Kt = Qt / T Eqn. 2.20
Typical values for Kt range from 20 /ft to 2 /ft, with the majority of soils giving a Kt
value of 7 /ft to 10 /ft. Unless load tests are preformed to provide a Kt value, a
conservative Kt value should be selected when designing piles. It is important to
note that the value for Kt is a combination of soil and anchor properties, primarily
relating to frictional resistance along the shaft, the frictional resistance along the
cylinder formed by the helixes, the soil, the top and bottom surfaces of the helixes
and the passive resistance along the leading edge(s) of the helixes. As an example,
Kt for dense dry sand would normally be less than for hard wet clay.
Kt factor of 3 /ft is recommended in the CFEM (2007) for pipe shaft greater than 8”
in diameter. The factor for 3-1/2” pipe anchors is recommended to be around 7 /ft
for most soils and the factor for 2-7/8” pipe anchors is usually in the 7 to 10 range
for most soils.
General
Pile foundations are frequently used in situations where large lateral forces and
movements must be resisted. Some examples include: tall free-standing structures
such as high-rise buildings or signage subjected to wind loads; pipeline thrust
blocks; bridge abutments; structures located in earthquake-prone areas;
telecommunication towers and power transmission line towers. The successful
design of a pile foundation subjected to lateral loads must satisfy several criteria
including: acceptable lateral movements at working loads; the maximum bending
moment along the pile shaft should not exceed its bending capacity; piles must
resist collapse during extreme loading events; and finally, for piles installed in
harsh environments such as aggressive soils, the pile material should be durable.
All criteria of failure should be considered in the design. The soil resistance in soft
soils may be improved by injecting grout (an Almita Patented product). Bending
moment in the pipe shaft can be improved by either increasing the section of the
pile shaft or filling the shaft with concrete but lateral deflection criterion is always
the governing factor.
Several approaches can be used for predicting pile performance subjected to lateral
loads including the subgrade reaction method and the elastic continuum approach.
The subgrade reaction method is usually used to calculate the lateral response of
piles (e.g. Matlock and Ripperger 1956; Reese et al. 1974; and Reese and Welch
1975). In this method the pile is considered as a beam on an elastic foundation and
the soil is replaced by a series of elastic and closely-spaced but independent
springs. Reese (1984) considered the soil nonlinearity using the p-y curve
approach. Prakash and Kumar (1996) modified the subgrade reaction method to
predict the nonlinear load displacement relationship for piles embedded in sand. L-
Pile Software, a software program developed based on the p-y curve approach, is
often used to predict the lateral deflection of piles subjected to lateral loads. The
lateral pile deflection is dependent on the soil types and properties in the upper 1.5
meters to 3 meters.
The response of laterally loaded piles can also be evaluated using the theory of
elasticity (e.g. Polous 1971; Pise 1984; Randolph 1981; Budhu and Davies 1988).
A simple approach suitable for hand calculations using Brom’s method is explained
in detail in the next section, for approximate estimate of the lateral deflection of
single pile under design lateral loads.
Brom’s Method
Brom’s method (1964) will be used to estimate pile capacity for each case. Brom
classified pile behavior into two categories:
1. Short pile failure where the lateral capacity of the soil adjacent to the pile is
fully mobilized (CFEM, 2007)
2. Long pile failure where the bending resistance of the pile is fully mobilized
(CFEM, 2007).
Pile diameter, d;
Embedded length, L;
The first step is to determine whether the pile will behave as a short rigid pile or as
an infinitely long flexible member. Calculating the stiffness factors R and T for the
particular combination of pile and soil does this. The stiffness factors are governed
by the stiffness (EI value) of the pile and the compressibility of the soil. The latter
is expressed in terms of a ‘soil modulus’, which is not constant for any soil type but
depends on the width of the pile and the depth of the particular loaded area of the
soil being considered. The soil modulus K has been related to Terzaghi’s concept of
a modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction. In the case of stiff over-consolidated
Elson has shown that k1 is related to the undrained shearing strength of the clay, as
shown in Table 3.1. Values of nh (After Terzaghi 1995) are shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.1. Relationship of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k1) to Undrained Shearing Strength of Stiff
Overconsolidated Clay (After Elson)
Consistency Stiff V. Stiff Hard
2
Undrained shear strength (Cu) kN/m 50-100 100-200 >200
3
Range of k1 MN/m 15-30 30-60 >60
2
Soil modulus (K) MN/m 3-6 6-12 >12
For most normally consolidated clays and for granular soils the soil modulus is
assumed to increase linearly with depth, for which
5 EI
Stiffness factor T = √ ( /nh) (in units of length) Eqn. 3.3
Where: K = nh x x/B Eqn. 3.4
Having calculated the stiffness factors R or T, the criteria for behavior as a short
rigid pile or as a long elastic pile are related to the embedded length L as follows in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3. Criteria for Short Pile vs. Long Elastic Pile
Soil Modulus
Pile Type Linearly Increasing Constant
Rigid (free head) L ≤ 2T L ≤ 2R
Elastic (free head) L ≥ 4T L ≥ 3.5R
ALMITA models the Pile in lateral loading using different analysis types as:
One special type of analysis performed with the Type 3 analysis is a “pushover”
analysis. The purpose of performing a pushover analysis is to determine the level of
loading and/or deflection that results in the development of a plastic hinge in the
pile. In a pushover analysis, the displacement and moment pile-head boundary
condition is specified and a number of increasing pile-head displacements are
specified until a plastic hinge is developed in the pile.
For uniform cohesionless soils, Broms (1964b) has established the graphical
relationships for H/KpB3γ and MU/ B4γ Kp shown in Figure 3.1 (For short piles) and
Figure 3.2 (For long piles), from which the ultimate lateral resistance Hu can be
determined.
For uniform cohesive soils, Broms (1964) has established the graphical
relationships for H/CuB2 and Mu/CuB3 Figure 3.3 (For short piles) and Figure 3.4 (For
long piles), from which the ultimate lateral resistance Hu can be determined.
Where Y0 is the pile head deflection for lateral load (H) in the dimensionless lateral
deflection in Figure 3.5.
Where Y0 is the pile head deflection for lateral load (H) in the dimensionless lateral
deflection in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6. Lateral Deflection of Pile Head in cohesionless soil (after Broms)
For the subgrade reaction models, it is assumed that the soil around a pile can be
simulated by a series of horizontal springs, with each spring representing the
behaviour of a layer of soil of unit height. When the pile is forced against the soil
under the action of the horizontal loads, the soil deforms and generates an elastic
reaction assumed to be identical to the force that would be generated by simulating
a spring subjected to the same deformation. With the further assumption that the
soil is homogenous, and that all of the springs are therefore identical, the soil’s
behaviour can be estimated if the equivalent spring constant is known. This spring
constant is called the coefficient of subgrade reactions ks (Dimension:
force/volume).
b) In cohesive soil
ks = 67 Cu / d Eqn 4.2
This section considers only the most common case of piles with a rigid cap at
ground surface. (CFEM 1992)
T=( EI
/ ks d )1/4 Eqn. 4.4
From the value of T, the moments, Mp, in the pile and the deflections, δp, of the pile cap
may be computed at any depth using the following formulae:
Mp = F m ( P T ) Eqn. 4.5
δp = F δ ( P T 3 / E I ) Eqn. 4.6
1
5 & 10
Lp
2 = 2
DEPTH FACTOR, z / T
T
P δp
z
3
Lp
3
δp = Fδ ( PT3 )
4 EI
4 10
Lp
P = 2
T
DEPTH FACTOR, z / T
MP z
LP
3 3
MP=Fm(PT) 4
4
5 & 10
This section describes various methods for determining the structural capacity of
the pipe shaft portion of the screw pile. There are different ways to determine the
ultimate piling shaft capacity subjected to axial loading. We have selected the
Poulos and Davis (1980) method to estimate the ultimate vertical capacity (Pr) the
pile can take before starts buckling.
During loading, a partly embedded vertical pile subjected to a vertical load. The
stiffness factors R and T as calculated from equations 3.1 and 3.3 and have been
used to obtain the equivalent length of a freestanding pile with a fixed base, from
which the factor of safety against failure due to buckling can be calculated using
conventional structural design methods.
For a partly embedded pile carrying a vertical load P, the equivalent height Le, of
the fixed-base pile is shown in Figure 5.1b.
π2 E I
Pcr = For free-headed conditions Eqn. 5.3
4R2 (SR + ZR)2
π2 E I
Pcr = For fixed- (and translating-) headed conditions Eqn. 5.4
R2 (SR + ZR)2
Where:
SR = LS / R Eqn. 5.5
JR = LU / R Eqn. 5.6
P P
LU LU
LS
Figure 5.1. Partially Embedded Piles (after Poulos and Davis 1980)
A screw anchor’s advantage is rooted in the way that it removes the performance
uncertainties and costs associated with a grouted anchor when used in loose sandy
soils or in low shear strength clay soils. When placed in the soil, the screw anchor
acts as a bearing device. This is a fundamental difference compared to a grouted
anchor formed in the soil and reliant on friction between soil and grout. Collapse of
a prepared hole can change a grouted anchor’s dimensions. There is little
opportunity to assess the problem’s magnitude and exact location because it is in
the hole, out of sight. Protecting grout from such an occurrence adds the extra
costs of installing casing. A screw anchor averts these drawbacks by requiring
neither an open hole nor a casing. Screw anchors can be designed to hold large
capacities.
Immediate proof testing and loading - no waiting time for grout to cure;
No spoil to remove.
Estimating the lateral loads (Figure 6.1.) acting against retaining walls as exerted
by the soil requires knowledge of:
Every wall tieback situation is unique but some aspects merit attention. The
placement of the anchor is influenced by the height of the soil backfill against the
Another factor to consider is the height of soil cover over the helical anchor. Figure
6.2 also indicates that the minimum height of the cover is six times the diameter of
the largest helical plate. Finally, the helical anchor must be installed a sufficient
distance from the wall that the helical plate(s) can develop an anchoring capacity
by passive pressure. This requires the length of installation to be related to the
height of soil backfill.
Based on the information above we determine the active pressure of the soil and
the water pressure against the wall. Upon preliminary design of anchor rows depth,
the load on each row/meter width of the wall is calculated. Almita’s extensive
experience with screw anchors ensures that we can select the horizontal spacing
between anchors and accordingly establish the load on each screw anchor.
Figure 6.1. Earth and water pressure distribution behind retaining wall
Depending on the spacing between helices (S) / Helix diameter (D) ratio, the design
method of the Screw anchors will be either:
Many factors determine the selection of the pipe shaft used in a screw piling. The
criteria that directly lead to the selection of the appropriate shaft size are: axial
load, tension load, lateral load, moment of overturn, torque considerations,
installation equipment, helix size, soil conditions and possibly others. (See Parts 3,
4 and 5 for shaft designing).
The critical factors that dictate the helix size are axial load, tension load, torque
consideration, installation equipment, soil conditions and pipe shaft size (see Table
7.2).
Table 7.2 shows the helix configurations that fit various pipe shaft sizes. The
minimum sizes represent the minimum physical sizes that will fit on the pipe and
the maximum sizes are the maximum sizes available. (See Part 2 for more on
designing helices).
5-1/2 X X X X X X X X X X
6-5/8 X X X X X X X X X X X X
7 X X X X X X X X X X X X
8-5/8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
10-3/4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
12-3/4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
20 X X X X X X X X X X X
24 X X X X X X X X X X
30 X X X X X X X
36 X X X X
Helix diameters currently range from 6” to 48”, pitches are set at 3, 4, 6, 12 and
24, thickness of plate range from ¼”, 3/8”, ½”, ¾”, and 1”.
1. Determine applied loads on pile. What is dead load, what is the live load?
What are the safety factors?
2. Determine site specific soils information. What is soil type, soil
description, soil classification? What is the depth of frost penetration? Where
is the water table level?
3. Compare soils information with pile load and location information.
Consider pile spacing. Is there a group effect among piles?
4. Design pile and pile geometry. Determine pile shaft, helix diameter and
thickness, number of helixes and spacing, embedment depth. Is an
extension required? Should it be bolted on or welded? (See parts 1 through 5
of manual)
5. Estimate installation torque.
6. Evaluate the design. Is it practical? Can designed pile be installed? Do soil
conditions allow for installing? What are the equipment or power
requirements?
Repeat Step 4 if necessary.
7. Calculate ultimate pile capacity and apply safety factors. (Minimum
S.F. = 2.0).
The steps are to be used as a general guide in the pile design process but other
factors such as seismic considerations or soil chemistry may come into play when
designing a screw pile. In some situations load tests may be carried out at the early
stages of design to optimize the design or may be required as part of quality
assurance.
The corrosion of galvanized (zinc) coatings in clay and silts is a very complex issue
with many factors affecting the expected life. The most important factors include:
chloride content of water/soil, hardness, pH of soil/water and soil resistivity. These
factors are briefly discussed below:
As indicated by Porter in “Corrosion Resistance of Zinc and Zinc Alloys” p275;
“Of all the anions, chloride is most corrosive to zinc in water (and soil),
especially if it is present in amounts exceeding 50 mg/L. The softer the
water, and the lower it is in carbonate the more pronounced is the effect of
chloride. Thus, a chloride content of 80mg/L in soft water causes quite
severe corrosion, while in hard water no corrosion occurs even with 700
mg/L.” The reason for this is hard water forms a scale of insoluble salts on
the galvanized coating. This scale combines with the zinc to from a protective
barrier of calcium carbonate and zinc carbonate. This protective layer
significantly increases the corrosion free life of the galvanized pile.
The soil resistivity is determined by the nature and concentration of the ions
dissolved in the soil moisture and ground water. In most cases, the impact
that resistivity will have on the corrosion of the galvanized coating is
therefore limited to the chloride content, and hardness.
Figure 8.1.
The results of these tests also showed that the galvanized coating will prevent
pitting of steel in soil, just as it does under atmospheric exposure, and that even in
instances where the zinc coating was completely consumed, the corrosion of the
underlying steel was much less than that of bare steel specimens exposed under
identical conditions.
Figure 8.2.
* The expected life for a galvanized screw pile is calculated using a conservative
coating thickness of 200 µm. The actual measured coating thickness of Almita screw
piles is usually in the 300 – 400 µm range. If this value is used then the life
expectancy would be double the values shown above.
As the above chart illustrates, the galvanized coating will provide 50 -100 years of
corrosion free service in all but the most corrosive soils. The study also showed that
even after all of the galvanized coating is consumed the residual zinc in the soil
would reduce the corrosion on the remaining steel pile.
Helical Plate:
ASTM A36 or CSA G40.21 44W Hot Rolled Structural Steel Plate
Welding:
Almita Manufacturing Ltd. is certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau (CWB) in
Division 2.1. The welding design and welding fabrication of structural steel will be in
accordance with the CSA Standard W47.1.
All welding performed in accordance with the requirements of CSA Standard W59.1,
Latest Edition.
Fasteners:
All bolts are supplied as per customers’ requirements.
Minimum requirements are ASTM A 325 bolts.
Bolts are bare metal (black), plated or hot-dipped galvanized.
Pile Load Tests are preformed in accordance with ASTM D1143, Standard Method of
Testing Piles Under Axial Compressive Loads; ASTM D3689, Standard Method of
Testing Individual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile Loads; and ASTM D3966,
Standard Method of Testing Piles Under Lateral Loads.
(1) Pier Shaft: API 5CT Grade J55 pipe (API- American Petroleum Institute)
Seamless Tubing
Mechanical Specifications:
Yield Strength Tensile Strength
min Psi (MPa) max Psi (MPa) Psi (MPa)
55000 (379) 80000 (552) 75000 (517)
Tolerances:
Outside Diameter Wall Thickness
API 5CT +/- 1% +20 / -0%
CSA W47.1 deals with the certification of companies for fusion welding of steel
structures. Certification requires that the company has the organization, personnel,
welding procedures, welding standards, and equipment as required of the Division
to which it is Certified, to produce satisfactory welds and weldments.
ASTM D 1143-81 (1981). “Standard Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial
Compressive Load”; (Reapproved 1984). Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
1997, Vol. 04.08, pp. 95-105.
ASTM D 3689-90 (1990). “Standard Test Method for Individual Piles Under Static
Axial Tensile Load”; (Reapproved 1995). Annual Book of ASTM Standard,
1997, Vol. 04.08, pp.366-375.
ASTM D 3966-90 (1990). “Standard Test Method for Individual Piles Under Lateral
Loads”; (Reapproved 1995). Annual Book of ASTM Standard, 1997, Vol.
04.08, pp.389-399.
Broms, B.B. (1964a). “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils”; Journal for Soil
Mech. and Found. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 90, SM2, pp. 27-64.
Broms, B.B. (1964b). “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils”; Journal for
Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 90, SM3, pp. 123-156.
Meyerhof, G.G., and Adams, J.I. (1968). “Ultimate Uplift Capacity of Foundations”;
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. V, no.4, pp.225-244.
Mitsch, M.P., and Clemence, S.P. (1985). “The Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors in
Sand. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil”; Proceedings of ASCE,
New York, N.Y. pp. 26-47.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. University
of Sydney, John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. pp 324-327.
Trofimenkov, J.G., and Mariupolskii, L.G. (1965). “Screw Piles Used for Mast and
Tower Foundations”; Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Vol. 11, pp.328-
332.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (1985) “Pile Construction”, Field Manual No. 5-134,
www.adtdl.army.mil/atdls.htm, Headquarters, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC,