Alan J. Lutenegger, P.E., PhD, F. ASCE

Similar documents
The Compression Bearing Capacity of Helical Piles in Black Cotton Soil

Blade Pile Technical Design Manual 27 June Forward... x

Page 7-1 Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2014 DRAWINGS & RATINGS

Helical Design. Theory, Applications & Seismic Testing 5/2/2017. Helical System. Helical System. Common Helical Piles/Anchors Components

Rankine Lecture 2014 Imperial College, 19 March 2014

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS UNIFORM EVALUATION SERVICE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR

Helical Pile/Anchor Deep Foundation MODEL SPECIFICATION

Analysis of Four Load Tests on Augered Cast-in-Place Piles in the Texas Gulf Coast Soils Raghu Dass, PE, Woodward Vogt, PE, and Frank Ong, PE

HELICAL PILE DRILLED FOUNDATIONS DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT Michael Perlow Jr., P.E. November 3, 2015 ABSTRACT

penetrometer test (CPT) soundings were done to supplement the SPT data. Construction recommendations were made for most of the new buildings.

Downloaded from Downloaded from /1

TERRATORQUE HELICAL ANCHORS AND HELICAL PILING PRODUCT CATALOG

Behaviour of Helical Pile Groups and Individual Piles under Compressive Loading in. a Cohesive Soil. Stephen A. Lanyi

geopier Lateral resistance

Jet Grouting to Increase Lateral Resistance of Pile Group in Soft Clay

Evaluation Report CCMC R ALMITA HELICAL SCREW PILE

DISCUSSION ON UNDERPINNING (28/3/12)

Evaluation Report CCMC R HELICAL PILE

1.364 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING HOMEWORK No. 5

SECTION 552 HELICAL ANCHORS AND HELICAL PILES

b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y o f g e o p i e r - s u p p o r t e d f o u n d a t i o n s y s t e m s

Pile Design to BS EN :2004 (EC7) and the National Annex

ADDENDUM No. 6. ITB No. 4424: W.R. Wheeler (Swift Run) Service Center PUD Non-motorized Improvements Phase 1

1. limit equilibrium bearing capacity failure modes

Skirted Spudcan Sheet Pile Wall Interaction during Jack- Up Rig Installation and Removal in a Harbour Area

The Uplift Bearing Capacity of Helical Piles in Black Cotton Soil

TR ANSMISSION AND SUBSTATION FOUNDATIONS

SCREW PILES INFORMATION SHEET

a euphemism for problematic geo-engineers?

Helical Pile Installation Torque and Capacity Correlations

Patented. Approved Installers of:

Originally Issued: 05/18/2018 Valid Through: 05/31/2019

Engineered Foundation solutions

Evaluation of negative skin friction on sheet pile walls at the Rio Grande dry dock, Brazil

Torque correlation for solid steel square shaft helical piles

Torque correlation for solid steel square shaft helical piles

An Introduction to Bearing Capacity Analysis

Foundation Engineering

Compaction and Jet Grouting

ICC-ES Evaluation Report Issued August 1, 2011 This report is subject to renewal in one year.

A Comparison of Static Axial Capacity Between Drilled and Driven Piles. Outline

DIVISION: EARTHWORK SECTION: BORED PILES REPORT HOLDER: MACLEAN POWER SYSTEMS CIVIL PROUCTS (MPS CIVIL) CORPORATION

Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) Testing Facility and Capabilities at Lehigh University

THE BEHAVIOUR OF LATERALLY LOADED HELICAL PILES. A. Sanzeni1 1 ABSTRACT

4. FIELD VANE SHEAR TEST (VST) One of the objectives of this research is to correlate the high quality CRS

Use and Measurement of Fully Softened Shear Strength in Engineering Practice

Monotonic and Cyclic Behavior of Helical Screw Piles Under Axial and Lateral Loading

PILE SETTLEMENT ZONES ABOVE AND AROUND TUNNELLING OPERATIONS

IGC. 50 th. 50 th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE STUDY OF ELECTRO KINETIC STRENGTHENING OF CLAY ADJACENT TO SCREW PILE TO IMPROVE ITS LOAD CAPACITY

NPTEL Course GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING MICROPILES

Evaluation Report CCMC R Pieux Vissés Vistech / Postech Screw Piles

Site Investigation MUHAMMAD AZRIL HEZMI

DIVISION: EARTHWORK SECTION: BORED PILES REPORT HOLDER: EMPIRE PIERS 2656 EAST HWY 47 WINFIELD, MO EVALUATION SUBJECT:

Area Ratio A % % = 16.88%

Design Example 2 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams

foundations Dr Trevor Orr Trinity College Dublin Convenor TC250/SC7/EG3 Eurocodes: Background & Applications June 2013, Dublin

PROPOSED GRADE COMPACTED SOIL EXCAVATION REQUIRED LOAD PER TYPE SERIES 90º AB CHANCE SS5 AB CHANCE SS T "/10" 11.5 T

UNDERPINNING A CRANE FOUNDATION

An Introduction To Bearing Capacity Analysis

Table of Contents 18.1 GENERAL Overview Responsibilities References

LARGE DIAMETER HELICAL PILES FOR REFINERY EXPANSION

Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods PILES AND PILE-DRIVING EQUIPMENT

Challenges of Offshore Geotechnical Engineering

1970 s and. Site Location Map. and shed transform the. Gateway Project.

ENGINEERED POWER SOLUTIONS

THEORETICAL AND ACTUAL BEARING CAPACITY OF DRIVEN PILES USING MODEL PILES IN SAND

Steven Dapp, Ph.D., P.E. Steven Dapp, Ph.D., P.E. Dan Brown and Associates

Robert L. Lytton, Ph.D., P.E.

Development of Soil Plug in Pipe Pile: A Review

Research Paper PERFORMANCE OF STRIP FOOTING ON SANDY SOIL DUE TO TUNNELING S.Hariswaran 1, K.Premalatha 2, K.Raja 3

DIVISION: EARTHWORK SECTION: BORED PILES REPORT HOLDER: HELICAL ANCHORS, INC BOONE AVENUE, NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55428

DIVISION: EARTHWORK SECTION: BORED PILES REPORT HOLDER: CANTSINK MANUFACTURING, INC. 71 FIRST AVENUE LILBURN, GEORGIA 30047

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR HELICAL PILE SYSTEMS AND DEVICES PREFACE

Precision Lead Screws

/CHA BuyLine 1386

STATIC ALTERNATING CYCLIC HORIZONTAL LOAD TESTS ON DRIVEN

Analysis of skin friction in prebored and precast piles

Design of Semi gravity Retaining Walls

USE OF DIPP PILES FOR A NEW SUP BRIDGE IN WEST MELBOURNE

MDM presentation. Version

EARTHQUAKE EFFECT ON SINGLE PILE BEHAVIOR WITH VARIOUS FACTOR OF SAFETY AND DEPTH TO DIAMETER RATIO IN LIQUEFIABLE SAND

This document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net vulcanhammer.info Chet Aero Marine

June 19, 2012 PARTIES INTERESTED IN SCREW FOUNDATION SYSTEMS

ICC-ES Evaluation Report Issued February 1, 2011 This report is subject to re-examination in one year.

Design of Micropiles for Slope Stabilization

Foundation Innovations Ensure Successful Bridge Replacement

Performance of Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls over compressible soils

Behavior of Reinforced Embankment on Soft Ground with and without Jet Grouted Soil-Cement Piles

DIVISION: EARTHWORK SECTION: BORED PILES REPORT HOLDER: GOLIATHTECH INCORPORATED 175B RUE PELADEAU MAGOG, QUEBEC J1X 5G9 CANADA

Modelling of a pile row in a 2D plane strain FE-analysis

Deflection of Helical Piles: A Load Test Database Review

Brace Badger Helical Anchor System. MB Badger Advantages Installation Requirements MB Super Braces Brace Attachment Criteria.

Interpretation of Danish Chalk Parameters Applicable to Foundation Design

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR HELICAL PILE SYSTEMS AND DEVICES PREFACE

Michael O'Neill,* Alaa Ata,** Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan*** and Stanley Yin****

DIVISION: EARTHWORK SECTION: BORED PILES REPORT HOLDER: GEOTECH ENTERPRISES, INC.

Issues on Design of Piled Raft Foundation

CHAPTER 11 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Behaviour of Raft Foundation with Vertical Skirt Using Plaxis 2d

Transcription:

Alan J. Lutenegger, P.E., PhD, F. ASCE Professor Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts 41st IOWA ASCE Geotechnical Conference March 9, 2017

What are Helical Piles and Anchors? Characterization of Soil Parameters Understanding Effects of Installation Disturbance Understanding Roles of Shaft & Helix Torque-to-Capacity Ratios

Section 1802.1 defines a Helical Pile as: Manufactured steel deep foundation element consisting of a central shaft and one or more helical bearing plates. A helical pile is installed by rotating it into the ground. Each helical bearing plate is formed into a screw thread with a uniform defined pitch.

This Technology is Not New It is Over 180 Years Old 1 st Recorded use of Screw-Piles was by Alexander Mitchell (1780-1868) in 1836 for Ship Moorings and was then applied by Mitchell as Foundations for Maplin Sands Lighthouse in England in 1838

Mitchell s Screw-Pile Specifications for Maplin Sands Material Cast Iron Shaft Diameter 5 in. Screw (Helix) Diameter 4 ft. Depth Below Mudline 12 ft. Orientation - Vertical

Pier & Bridge Construction

The Industry is Largely Driven by Manufacturers and Contractors

Applications in Iowa Soils?

2. Characterization of Soil Parameters Not Unique to Helical Piles and Anchors but Needed for all Geotechnical Projects We Need to Evaluate Models Used for Design and Determine Input Parameters

Traditional Design Model

Q h = A h (s u N u + γd b N q + 0.5γBN γ ) What s Important in This Equation? Sands: Ø & γ Clays: s u

Evaluation of Ultimate Capacity (Traditional Soil Mechanics Approach) Single-Helix Clay Undrained TSA Q H = s u N c A H Sand Drained ESA Q H = N q σ v A H

Multi-Helix Most Literature Says: Q T = Q HI In Uniform Soils with Same Size Helices Q T = N x Q HI??????????????

Now Include Shaft Resistance for Round Shafts Q T = Q HI + Q S Q S = f s A S TSA f s = s u α ESA f s = βσ v

Other than Compositional Characteristics, Most Soil Parameters are Not Unique Including s u and φ Clay Undrained Shear Strength: but which s u?? Sand - N q from φ : but which φ and which N q?

s u in Clay from Different Tests

N q Chart from Popular Book; but φ is Not Unique φ TC ; φ TE ; φ PS ; φ DS ; Curvature of Envelope, etc.

3. Understanding Effects of Installation Disturbance (Related to 2.) Somewhat Unique to Helical Piles and Anchors but Important for Many Deep Foundations We Need to Evaluate How Contractor Installation May Affect Soil Parameters

Structured Soils Cemented Soils Sensitive Soils Dense Sands All Soils?

Tension Loading of Single-Helix in Clay

Compression Loading of Single-Helix in Clay

Tension and Compression Loading of Multi-Helix in Clay

Round-Shaft Single- & Multi-Helix - Clay 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 Depth (ft.) 10 12 14 Depth (ft.) 10 12 14 16 16 18 20 22 RS2875-12 RS2875-12/12 RS2875-12/12/12 18 20 22 Ratio 1/1 Ratio 2/1 Ratio 3/1 24 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Torque (ft.-lbs.) 24 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Torque/Torquesingle

Efficiency in Soft Clay & Stiff Clay 100 100 Efficiency (%) 90 80 70 60 50 SS5-12 SS5-12 RS2875-10 RS2875-12 RS350-12 Trend Efficiency (%) 90 80 70 60 50 RS2875-10 RS2875-12 RS350-12 SS5-10 Trend 40 40 30 30 20 1 2 3 4 20 1 2 3 4 Number of Helices Number of Helices

0 2 Vane Shear Tests Over Round-Shaft and Square-Shaft Single-Helix Anchors in Clay Depth (ft) 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Undisturbed Peak Undisturbed Remolded RS2875-12 SS5-12 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Undrained Shear Strength (psf)

0 2 Vane Shear Tests Over Square-Shaft Single- Doubleand Triple-Helix Anchors in Clay Depth (ft.) 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Undisturbed Peak SS5 12 SS5 12/12 SS5 12/12/12 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Undrained Shear Strength (psf)

What About the QUALITY of the Installation?

High Quality vs. Poor Quality Installation in Clay

0 Good and Poor Quality Installation 1 Depth (ft.) 2 3 4 5 6 CP1 Good CP3 Good CP4 Bad CP5 Bad 7 8 9 10 3 6 9 12 15 Revolutions Per Ft.

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 RS2875 SCG RS2875 P Depth (ft.) 4 5 6 RS2875 SCG RS2875 P Depth (ft.) 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No. Revolutions per ft. 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Torque (ft.-lbs.)

Consequence of Poor Installation 25000 20000 Load (lbs.) 15000 10000 5000 RS2875 SCG RS2875 P 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Displacement (in.)

Installation Disturbance Factor IDF = (Rotations per Advance)/(Ideal Advance/Pitch) For Ideal or Perfect Installation of Screws with a 3 in. Pitch IDF = 4/4 = 1

0 1 2 Depth (ft.) 3 4 5 6 RS2875 SCG RS2875 P 7 8 9 10 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 Installation Disturbance Factor

For Clays We Might Want to Relate Available Strength to IDF Available Shear Strength Ratio (s u /s upeak ) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Disturbance Factor Low Sensitivity High Sensitivity

Installation of Helical Piles and Anchors Causes Disturbance to the Soil Behind the Helices The Degree of Disturbance Will Depend on a Number of Factors, Including: Soil Initial State, Sensitivity & Installation Quality Installation Requires Independent Monitoring

it was necessary to recognize that the clay beneath the upper screws had been remoulded by the passage of the first screw. However, the whole of the volume of the clay contributing to the bearing capacity of the upper screws would not be fully remoulded and, as a rough approximation, it could be assumed that the average shear strength of the volume of clay was equal to c p2 = c [½(c c r )]; where c p2 = operational undrained shear strength; c = peak undrained shear strength; c r = remolded undrained shear strength

4. Understanding Role of Shaft for Large Round Shaft Screw- Piles and Helical Anchors Somewhat Unique to Screw-Piles and Helical Anchors but Important for Many Deep Foundations We Need to Understand How Design Load is Carried

Transfer Load To Helix? Provide a Component of Load Capacity?

Influence of Shaft 30000 25000 Uplift Load (lbs) 20000 15000 10000 5000 2.875 in. Pipe with 12 in. Helix 4.5 in. Pipe with 12 in. Helix 6.625 in. Pipe with 12 in. Helix 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Displacement (in.)

Depends on: Pile Type & Use Installation Method Geometry (L/D) Soil Type Stratigraphy Load Level (Relative to Ultimate) End and Side Don t Develop Capacity at the Same Rate

Distribution of Load in Driven Piles @ Q ult % Load from Pile Tip at Q ult 100 80 60 40 20 Sand - Coyle & Castello (1986) Clay - Tomlinson (1957) Sand - Randolph et al. (1994) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 L/D

Load Tests to Failure on Helical Pile and Adjacent Plain Driven Pipe Pile

20000 16000 Upolift Load (lbs.) 12000 8000 4000 2.875 in. x 8 ft. Plain Pipe 2.875 in. Pipe x 8 ft. with 12 in. Hleix 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Displacement (in.) Q 20 = 16,400 lbs.; Q 10 = 13,200 lbs. Q 10 /Q 20 = 0.80 Δ @ Q 10 /2 = 0.18 in. @ Q 10 Q shaft = 2600 lbs.; Q helix =10,600 lbs.

20000 16000 Uplift Load (lbs.) 12000 8000 4000 4.5 in. x 8 ft. Plain Pile 4.5 in. Pipe x 8 ft. with 12 in. Helix 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Displacement (in.)

Silty Sand 4.5 in. Pipe Shaft 30000 25000 4.5 in. x 8 ft. Plain Pipe 4.5 in. x 8 ft. Pipe with 12 in. Helix Uplift Load (lbs.) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Displacement (in.)

Q ult = f (Soil Properties & Pile/Anchor Geometry) T = f (Soil Properties & Pile/Anchor Geometry) Q ult = TK t But K t Depends on a Number of Factors Because Torque Depends on a Number of Factors

Q ult = TK t An Empirical Equation, not a Theoretical Equation

Measuring Torque -Direct Methods

Installation Torque RPM Crowd Installation Advance (rev/ft.) (Full Depth of Installation)

1. Recommendations to Client of Feasibility Design-Build 2. Recommendations to Client as any other Traditional Foundation System with Sizes, Allowable Loads, etc. 3. Provisions for Installation Monitoring & Load Testing

1. The Behavior of Helical Piles and Anchors is More Complex than has Previously Been Considered but Follows Basic Soil Mechanics 2. Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Design Must Consider Installation Disturbance 3. 3 rd Party Installation Monitoring of Torque, Advance and RPM is Essential 4. On Site Load Tests of Production Piles/Anchors is Important to Validate Contractor Torque-to- Capacity Correlations

Fixed Mast Installation Rigs Automated Installation Monitoring Increased Use of Larger Diameter Round Shafts & Helices