From Fundamentals to Applications i Geotechnice ss D. Manzanal and A.0.Sfiso (ds) 105 Press, 2015 © 2015 The authors and 10S Press, All ights reserved oi 10 52330978-1-61499-603-5-373 Evaluating Installation Disturbance from Helical Piles and Anchors Using Compression and Tension Tests ALAN J. LUTENEGGER® and CRISTINA de H. C, TSUHA” * University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ma. 01003 USA ° University of Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos, SP, 1356-590, BRAZIL Abstract, Serew-Piles and Helical Anchors have been in we thoughout the world to support a vatity of "trutures forthe past 180 years and have ssen a dramatic increase in use during the past 20 years. Oe ofthe ‘important issues tha must be considered in design isthe degree of disturbance tothe sol daring installation This may be especially important for tension applications in saturated finegrained soils where the issuance fom installation may produce aredution ofthe undrained shea strength and in stuctred soils ‘where the installation produces & breakdown inthe nual soil stucture. In tension the sol engaged in developing load capacity bas unavoidably experienced she passing of the belcal plates whereas in ‘compression the sil beneath the lead pate sv disturbed. In order Io evaliate the level of dntrbance ‘Produced in diffrent sols during installation, singl-heix aod tal-helix anchors were iaaled at Several ‘ies in the US and Broil Laad tests were condcted in compresion ad tension to evaluate he diffrence in Toad Behavior. The results show that even with perfect installation practice the sol is disured to some degree as a result of rotation ofthe helices during installation. The distutance increases with addtional hclical plates which produces a reduction in individual plate lead capacity. Using the results from ‘compression and tension loading itt possible to deine a capacity aio which sn elt a disturbance Factor for different soils These resus should help design engineers by secognizing the degree of installation Alisurbance that can occur and how itinflusnoesespacty Keywords Holial pls, helical anchors, disturbance, instalation, load tests 1. Introduction Helical piles and anchors have become increasingly popular in recent years as an economical alternative to other conventional foundation and anchor systems. A serew- pile or helical anchor consists of a central steel shaft with one or more helical plates welded to the shaft at specified intervals. They are used to support buildings, bridges, towers and other structures much in the same way that other foundation or anchor systems are used. Typically, they consist of a lead section with helical plates and extension sections that are’ usually just additional lengths of shaft to allow the installation to extend to any desired depth. The length of lead sections and extension sections vary depending on the needs of the project and the availability of the individual components. Lead sections with lengths from 5 to 20 ft, ate typical. Like ‘other deep foundation systems, the behavior of the foundation can be dependent on the quality of the installation provided by the Contractor. Screw-Piles and helical anchors are a manufactured modular foundation/anchor system with predetermined dimensions produced at the factory. Assuming that the manufacturing process is of high quality and the structural integrity is not compromised during installation, the performance is dependent not only on the soil conditions at a particular site but also on the quality of the installation * corresponding Auborsn AJ. Latenegger ond C ALC. Teuha / Evaluating Inetallaon Disturbance Screw-piles and helical anchors are installed by rotation using a hydraulic torque head attached to conventional construction equipment, such as a skid steer, mini excavator of large excavator, as shown in Figure 1. However, like any foundation, anchor ot testing device inserted into the ground there will always be some degree of disturbance of the ground associated with the installation, simply to make room for the object. Screw-piles and helical anchors are no different in this regard. Even for a single-helix pile/anchor there must be some level of soil disturbance as the helical plate and central shaft displace soil during advance. Figure 1, Installation ofa Teple-Helix Round Shaft Helical Anchor Manufacturers of serew-piles and helical anchors typically use a fixed pitch helix for their individual products. The helix is to be formed as a continuous spiral or section of a truc Archimedean screw. When more than one helical plate is attached to the shaft, the spacing is set as some multiple of the piteh, so that under ideal installation conditions, each helical plate will follow in the same path as the preceding plate. This and is considered the best situation for installation. In this way, an ideal installation advances as a “corkscrew” rather than as an “auger”. However, there is no evidence, either direct or indirect, that has established that this actually oceurs in the field and at the present there is no evidence that engineers use or manufacturers suggest that a provision for soil disturbance be taken into account during design. The helical plate (s) of a screw-pile or helical anchor serves two primary purposes; 1) to facilitate the installation of the pile/anchor, ic. installation by rotation rather than by driving or vibration; and 2) provide a component of end bearing to add to the total capacity of the pile/anchor in both compression and tension, 2, Installation and Disturbance During installation, the helical blade cuts through the soil and displaces material to allow the blade to advance. This produces some disturbance to the soil, the degree ofAd. Lateneggerand CHC Tena / Boating inealation Distrbance sis which depends on the soil and the quality of the installation, Soil deposits most prone to substantial disturbance, even with high quality installation practice, include sensitive clays, highly structured soils and cemented soils, however it should be expected that nearly al soils will undergo some disturbance. For the Engineer the important issue is how the installation disturbance may affect behavior. Helical piles and anchors are used to support both compression and tension loads and are available in a wide range of geometries. Square shaft and round shaft elements with single helical plates and multiple helical plates are being used throughout the world, The degree of installation disturbance may be expected to be dependent on the specific geometric configuration and the influence of disturbance on behavior may be expected to be dependent on the direction of loading. 2.1 Single-Helix Behavior Figure 2 shows a gencralized schematic of a single-helix helical clement in both tension and compression in uniform soil. In compression, the soil immediately beneath the helical plate is largely undisturbed; in tension the load-displacement behavior and total capacity is controlled by the soil immediately above the helical plate. This soil represents material through which the helical plate passed during installation and therefore has suffered from disturbance. Assuming no contribution to load capacity from the central shaft, as in a square-sha, it should be expected that there will be a difference in the load-displacement behavior and load capacity between tension and compression. The ratio of tension to compression capacity will decrease as the degree of disturbance increases 2.2 Multi-Helix Behavior The influence of installation disturbance on the behavior of multi-helix piles and anchors may be more complicated. Figure 3 shows a generalized schematic of a multi-16 AJ Latenegger and C ALC. Tuba / Evaluating Inetallaion Disturbance helix pile and anchor in tension and compression. For widely spaced helical plates the behavior under loading is generally taken as the combined behavior of the individual helical plates, often referred to as the Individual Plate Method, Multiple helical plates follow in the path of the lead helical plate and therefore advance through initially disturbed soil, Logically, it might be expected then that each successive helical plate produces some degree of additional disturbance to the soil and that the cumulative effect produces a progressive reduction in load capacity provided by successive plates as compared to the lead helical plate as illustrated in Figure 3, In compression, the load capacity is derived from undisturbed soil beneath the lead helix and disturbed soil beneath successive plates, with each successive plate providing progressively reduced load capacity. In tension, the load behavior is derived from disturbed soil immediately above each helical plate, as shown. The net difference in total load capacity between tension and compression is the difference between the capacity of the lead helical plate in compression and the uppermost helical plate in tension, since intermediate plates contribute the same capacity in tension and compression (T/C). The ratio of relative tension vs. compression capacity may be defined as a Disturbance Factor which would be expected to be different for different soils and likely show a difference between single-helix and multi-helix configurations. For square-shaft helical piles, the effective bearing area below and above the helical plate is mearly the same so that a direct compartion between tension and compression capacity may be made. However, for round shaft helical piles, the beating area in compression is the full crass sectional area of the helical plate while in tension only the net area (plate area minus shaft area) contributes to capacity. Therefore, for round shaft helical piles it is more appropriate to consider the T/C ratio of the unit bearing capacity. For a particular soil, the Disturbance Factor should increase with theAJL Lateneggerand CHC Tena / Bvalating Inealaion Distrbance sr number of helices because as the number of helices increases, the relative contribution of the bottom helix to the total pile capacity decreases, and consequently the T/C ratio become closer to 1.0. 3. Previous Results ~ Tension vs. Compression Behavior 4.1 Single-Helix Piles/Anchors ‘One of the first studies conducted to evaluate the behavior of screw piles in tension and ‘compression was reported by Trofimenkov & Mariupolskii [1]. Although they did not report any specific field tests results that would allow a direct comparison, they indicated that the average ratio of tension to compression capacity was 0.77. They suggested that one explanation for this difference could be that “in pressing in tests the load acts on undisturbed soil.” Other comparisons between tension and compression behavior of single-helix piles and anchors have been presented by several researchers, eg., Radhakrishna (2, 3]; Tappenden & Sego [4]; Sakr [5]; Gavin et al. [6]. A summary of these previous results is given in Table 1. The tests summarized in Table 1 indicate that there is little difference in ultimate capacity between tension and compression loading in very stiff clays, provided that the soils are uniform above and below the helix. However, for sands the T/C ratio is seen to vary from 0.45 to 0.94, IT should be noted that the tests reported by Sakr [5] were conducted in sand which showed very large differences in characteristics above the helical plate which may account for some of the difference between tension and compression behavior. Other data from the literature, e.g., Livneh & ElNaggar [7], were not included since the compression piles included a grouted shat. Table 1. Summary of Reported Comparisons between Tension and Compression of Single-Holix AnchorsPiles. Sat Depth ‘imate Capacin ad TiC ration ‘it cepactyplate aren (bs & (lor eapocty and ost for capacyplte T c Taal [Ye Rownd hath 1525 HT SHC z 50,00 32,00 @ So. 35.000 a alin [5] is Rownd Sat 15.25 eta) Dense Sand z 3130 52500 To © 75.50 3.000 a3 Tappan 8 Sego [4] 0075 Rou Sha 50m HEIR) Tad 7 T5840 245,951 as ay Ti Sais (S1 i Rownad Sat 16m We BAS a 860 2,01 4000S aT Givi tal] 4.35 Road Shale 15.15 m HED Dense Sand [10] 36688 and 205 81810 end 1 | aS aa The oie eapaiy values ae equivalent tothe Daring plate asa a separate the shaft resistance. Spe was mente Toon AJ. Latenegger ond C ALC. Teuha / Evaluating Inetallaon Disturbance 3.2 Multi-Helix Piles/Anchors Test results for multi-helix screw anchors/piles have also been reported and are summarized in Table 2. These results indicate that the installation effect seems to be variable, possibly reflecting the individual installation practice and quality of installation, ‘Table 2. Summary of Reported Comparisons Between Tension and ‘Compression of Multi-Helix Anchors/Piles, Soil Teli Geometry TiC raion Ui eapactyfplate area | (for eapactty ‘dbs and thsi’) for capacity/pate T c area) akakssins [2] a_ OD, Round Sia) TiC Triple Hels Unifoam —[-— $7,000 — [$5,000 To TaplesHein Tapered —[ 6.00 —| 65,000 100 Rabakrshas [3] m_O.D- Rat Shah DewseSend | —TipleTieix Uniform — [105.000 [120,000 on Tiple-Heix Tapered —[ 6.700 —| 90,000 093 Tappenden & Sapo A](8 62 O10 Round Sa) SSI Chay [_Dabietieix Unio [47200] — 40.03 Tat Double Helix Uniform —[ 314072 [ 35,868 O87 Triplets Uniform 2 7.200 7.00 a T5658 O77 ‘Compact ity | ~TripleTleix Uniform Wane 095 Sind Tad Cay TH_| Double Una | 207 so0 | —S0n,100 3 Sskr[5] 7 i» Round Stay GiSand | DoakieWeixUaiom | 215817 ] 35508 Dsl ano ands6s | and979 Kanai WT US in Roun Shay Gavel Toute Tapeed 792252] S39 3a Tstand OSE Abostom bels) and229_| and 396 The ulimate capaci is equivalent fo WD plus clastic displacement Als, the Tesus of fasion and compression capacities ae the average value of piles of simular depth tested ina particular si 4, Field Tests of Tension and Compression Behavior In order to evaluate the influence of installation disturbance on the behavior of helical piles and anchors, a series of field load tests were conducted in @ wide range of soil conditions in the US and Brazil. Tests included both single-helix and raulti-helix piles and anchors. In the US, tests were conducted in stiff clay and soft clay; in Brazil tests were performed in three different sites of structured residual soil 4.1, Clay ~ Amherst, Massachusetts, USA Tests were conducted at a research sire consisting ofa deep deposit of lacustrine varved clay. The upper part of the clay is overconsolidated and stiff while the lower part is, near normally consolidated and soft. The Sensitivity of the clay, as measured by field vane tests, varies from about 4 to 8. Five comparisons were made using 1.5 in. x 1.5 in, square shaft helical piles and anchors with a single 12 in, helical plate. The results ofAJL Lateneggerand CHC Tena / Bvalating Inealaion Distrbance s18 the load tests are summarized in Table 3. These results indicate that in the upper stiff clay there was no difference in capacity, which is consistent with previous observations, In the lower soft clay the tension capacity was about 50% of the compression capacity, except for one test. Results obtained from two comparisons of mult-helix piles‘anchors in the lower soft clay are given in Table 4 and indicate a ratio of tension to compression capacity of approximately 0.9. ‘Table 3. Summary of Single-Helix Tension and Compression Tests Performed at Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. Soil] Depa cy timate Capaciiy T € ue Sac 7 Trae ro 13 Sof Clay 20 0 5000 oar 30 3600 "70 ae mn "300, “10 0s; 30 3200 $500 3 Table 4, Summary of Multi-Helix Tension and Compression Tests Performed at Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. Soll] Depth ‘Geometry Tiina Capacity thay Te a i c Son [20 | Deabiesteta Tapared_|_— 500 000, oH (Clay [30] Triple tix Tapered [9000 9650) 095 4.2 Stiff Clay — Centralia, Missouri, USA ‘Three sets of comparison tests were conducted in very stiff insensitive glacial clay till in Centralia, Missouri, USA using 1.75 in. x 1. 75 in. square-shaft triple-helix tapered helical piles and anchors, Results of these tests are given in Table 5. These results suggest an average ratio of tension to compression capacity of approximately 0.9. ‘Table 5. Summary of Triple-Helix Tension and Compression Tests Performed at Centralia, Missouri, USA. Sel Depth iy timate Capacity bs) TH Very Sir F, c hy Tr 00 B00 om ra 0,000 000 138 aR 00 7.000 Ta 4.3 Residual Soil Brazil Three sets of comparison tests were conducted in three different sites of tropical residual soils in Brazil (Table 6). The helices of the Site 1 were installed in a highly porous unsaturated structured residual soil, with Nei-indices ranging from about 6 to 11580 AJ. Latenegger ond C ALC. Teuha / Evaluating Inetallaon Disturbance Dlows/ ft, In this case, the difference between tension and compression is very very dramatic and important due to soil destructuring caused by the installation of the helices. In tension there is only about 20% of the capacity as compared to compression. The porous destructured soil above the helices provides very low bearing resistance, and under compression loading, the intact structured soil below helix presents a high stiffiess response due to the preserved intact bonding effect. In contrast, for the Sites 2 and 3, with the helices installed in residual soil with Naindices around 20 blows/ft., the TIC ratio ranges from 0.7 to 0.8, indicating that in this case of residual off greater density the installation effect is not as damaging to the natural fabric of the soil as ‘observed in the site of highly porous residual soil (Site 1) ‘Table 6. Summary of Single and Multi-Helix (Round shaft) Tension and Compression Tests Performed at Different Sites of Residual Soil in Brazil Sie] Sal) Depth] Cees ‘Titmate Capac and] TiC ration wo Urecapacinipate aren | orcapacty oe gibi) capacity m area) 5] iy | Tom — Siac 3260 Tv mdz porous satan =2a7in | and | and ae Tandy rise im = 8 sexes [Toa] Doatietce 3575 TS | OTT ‘ni sniéss | and2e4« bat dha 87 pie dim = 8 T [Sig Ra Pot Tne Tas O ROE sind shat ham an and 2h [sity Tom] "tem RoR | OTTO xd ib in assis Tis lcs were vad i very porous si wi void aloof TS 5. Conclusion Overall, the values of the ratio between tension and compression loading of the available tests previously reported and tests performed in the current work indicate: 1, For single and multi-helix piles in stiff clay soils the TVC ratios are close to 1.0, indicating that there is litle detrimental installation effect in contrast to values observed in other soil types. 2. The TIC ratio of piles installed in sandy soils and in soft clay varies from around 0.5 to 1.0, suggesting considerable installation effects in some cases. The TIC ratio observed in highly porous structured residual soils is around 0.2, indicating substantial installation effect and representing the significant breakdown of the natural soil bonding. In contrast, the T/C ratio is approximately 0.75 for multi-helix piles in residual silty sand soils with greater density The current data indicate that additional tests comparisons are needed in a wider range of soils in order to develop rational design guidelines, It may be of interest to note that in 1950 Skempton [9] suggested a provision for installation disturbance for design ofAJL Lateneggerand CHC Tena / Bvalating Inealaion Distrbance sai multichelix piles in sof clays. The results also suggest that installation quality is important and can influence the performance. Monitoring of the installation torque, the advance rate and the rotation speed are important quality control measures which may give clues as to the degree of disturbance produced. References (1) 46, Trotimenkov and 1.G. Marupol Used for Mast and Tower Foundations Proceedings ofthe 6th intomaional Conference on Soi! Mechantes and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. S352, 1965, [2] HS. Reshakrisho, Helie Anchor Test in Sil Fissured Clay, Ontario Hydro Research Report No, 75- 1234, 1975. (3] HS. Radharishna Helix Anchor Test in Sand ~ ESSA TS, Ontario Hydro Research Report No. 76 Mek, 1976, [4] K.M, Tappenden & D.C, Sego, Predicting the Axial Capacity of Sorew Piles Insalled in Canadian Soil, Proceeding ofthe 6" Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Vl. 3, pp 1608-18 [5] M. Sa, Performance of hia ples in ol san, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, {6} K. Gavin, K, P. Doteny and A. Toloiyan, Field investigation ofthe axial resistance of Bl “dense send, Canadian Geotchnical Journal, S1(2018), 1343-1354, (7)B. Livneh 4M. HEI Naggar, Axial esting and numerical modeling of square shaft helical piles under ‘compressive and tensile loading, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(2008), 1142-1155. [8] S. Kani, A Seismie reuoiting application by means of mali-helx micropiles. Proceedings of the 23nd ‘US-Japan Bridge Enginccring Workshop, Tsukuba, Japa, 2007. (9] AW. Skempron, discussion of The Bearing Capacity of Screw Piles and Serewerste Cylinders. Jownal of ‘the Instituion of Civil Engineers ~ Londen, 34 (1850), 7681,