DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations

Institute

ISSN: 1937-5247 (Print) 1937-5255 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ydfi20

Effects of Helical Anchor Geometry on Long-Term

Performance of Small Wind Tower Foundations
Subject to Dynamic Loads

Amy B. Cerato & Rory Victor

To cite this article: Amy B. Cerato & Rory Victor (2008) Effects of Helical Anchor Geometry
on Long-Term Performance of Small Wind Tower Foundations Subject to Dynamic Loads, DFI
Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute, 2:1, 30-41, DOI: 10.1179/dfi.2008.004

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/dfi.2008.004

Published online: 23 Jan 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ydfi20

Download by: [Tulane University] Date: 02 May 2016, At: 08:18

 Effects of Helical Anchor Geometry on Long-Term
Performance of Small Wind Tower Foundations Subject to
Dynamic Loads
Amy B. Cerato, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK; +1 (405) 325-5625; acerato@ou.edu
Rory Victor, Exxon-Mobil Development Company (EMDC) Construction Engineer, Houston, TX;
roryv@ou.edu (M.S. Graduate, May 2008)

The application of this study is to use helical anchors as a foundation system for small wind
tower (1 – 10 kW) guyed cables. Helical anchors are currently used to anchor guyed cables of
telecommunication and electric towers. However, the increased dynamic vibrations a wind turbine
adds to the tower and foundation system under working loads, as well as extreme environmental
conditions (e.g., straight line winds, ice load or sudden furling shocks), require additional knowledge
about the behavior of helical anchors. These field conditions were simulated in this study by
instrumenting a working tower with load cells and 3-axis accelerometers to gather data on wind speed
and tower response. These tower responses were then transmitted to the helical anchors through an
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016

extensive, large-scale testing program that included monitoring the performance of the helical anchor
foundation under dynamic loads, subject to natural variations in both wind regimes, precipitation
(water level) and variations in helical anchor geometry. This paper specifically discusses the effects of
helical anchor geometry on helical anchor performance under long-term dynamic loads.

Introduction uplift stability immediately after installation

Foundation systems designed for pullout or
tensile loads are classified as anchors. These
foundation types are used to protect structures
against overturning or pullout forces, but
do have the capability to resist compressive,
lateral, and other loading combinations.
Electrical transmission towers, retaining walls,
offshore and hydraulic structures, and many
domestic structures are subjected to loads (e.g.
earthquake, wind, lateral earth pressure, waves,
and hydrostatic pressure) that generate strong
tensile forces that overturn or pullout such
structures. Anchors are created in a variety
of configurations ranging from plate anchors,
pile anchors, grouted anchors, pre-stressed
concrete anchors, and single and multi-helix
helical anchors. Helical anchors are fabricated
by welding single or multiple helical plates
(helix) to a steel rod at predetermined spacing.
Helical anchors are installed into the ground by
applying torque to the shaft, causing the anchor
to screw through the soil. An axial compression
force (crowd) is applied to ensure that the
anchor advances through the soil.
The main advantages of helical anchors
compared to conventional concrete-cast anchors
include: their relative ease for installation
depending on soil conditions, mobility, cost-
effectiveness, and providing overturning and
[30] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008
due to the elimination of the curing that is
required for concrete anchors. Many factors are
involved in predicting helical pullout capacities,
ranging from site conditions (i.e. water table
location, active zone location, frost level, etc.),
anchor geometry, subsurface stratigraphy, and
soil strength parameters (i.e. cohesion, friction
angle, unit weights, etc.).
The performance of a helical anchor for use as
a wind tower guyed cable foundation, however,
not only encompasses the uplift capacity, but
also the creep (magnitude and rate). Creep
is anchor movement under load, over time.
When environmental conditions change (e.g.,
rising water table) after anchor installation, the
effective stress above the helices decreases and
therefore the soil strength decreases, resulting
in less capacity per anchor, creating a tendency
for anchors to creep. When the water recedes,
and/or the tension is lessened from the cable
(wind direction shift), the anchor may return to
its original installed position due to soil elastic
deformation or soil disturbance caused during
installation and subsequent dynamic loading.
The slack in the cable would then have to be
removed to avoid a potential large movement
in the tower the next time the wind shifted,
which would put the turbine at risk. Apart from
environmental changes, creep can occur if the
 loads are large enough to overcome the soil
resistance. Excessive, continuous creep in wind
tower foundations is not desirable. This study
was launched in order to provide the small wind
power industry with field-scale tests subjected to
realistic loads showing that helical anchors are a
viable foundation alternative for wind power.
Methods to Determine Uplift
Capacity
The two most common methods used to predict
the uplift capacity of multi-helix anchors are
the cylindrical shear and the individual bearing
methods (analytical approaches). These two
methods require detailed prior knowledge of
soil properties; usually a combination of in
situ testing (i.e. CPT, DMT, BST or etc.) and
laboratory testing (i.e. Triaxial, Unconfined
Compression, Direct Shear or etc.) is needed to
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
predict the uplift capacity, which can be time
consuming and expensive. Even with some prior
knowledge of soil properties, site conditions
may be highly variable and one soil boring
within the tower construction site may not
capture all of the subsurface heterogeneity. For
uplift capacity in sand, the friction angle and
uplift coefficient of lateral earth pressure are
needed. For clay, the required parameters are
undrained shear strength and adhesion (Mitsch
and Clemence 1985; Mooney et al. 1985).
A less intensive empirical method that relates
the installation torque to a predicted load
capacity in both tension and compression could
supply a “quick and clean” method to predict
uplift capacity of helical anchors. Hoyt and
Clemence (1989) analyzed 91 uplift load tests at
24 different sites within various soil types (i.e.
sand, silt, and clay soils) in short term loading
conditions. Their findings demonstrated that the
consistency of the torque correlation modeling
fared better when compared to the load capacity
models of cylindrical shear and individual
bearing. This is probably due to the fact that
torque is taken at every anchor location, but
the analytical models rely on location specific
data (bore holes), of which there are fewer. The
proposed formula from Hoyt and Clemence
relates the ultimate uplift capacity of the helical
anchor to its installation torque:
Qult = Kt x T (1)
Where:
Qult = Ultimate uplift capacity [kN (lb)]
Kt = Empirical torque factor [m-1 (ft-1)]
T = Average installation torque [kN-m (lb-ft)]
Kt values vary according to shape of anchor
shaft, diameter of shafts, soil conditions, and
other properties; a default Kt value of 33 m-1
(10 ft-1) for Type SS (square shaft) conditions
is recommended. Installation resistance does
give insight into soil properties and uplift
capacity. The soil may yield with a particular
anchor geometry, but it does not incorporate
the effects that dynamic loads (i.e. operational
loads and wind loads) and fluctuating water
tables will have on capacity in the future.
The default value used in tension, Kt = 33 m-1
(10 ft-1), was significantly less (i.e., 16 to 33
percent less) than values that were actually
calculated after the compression test
capacities were observed. This difference can
be attributed to the fact that the lead helix
rests on a relatively undisturbed soil stratum
in compression applications, but in tension
the trailing helix bears on the soil affected by
the installation of both the lead and trailing
helices (Hargrave and Thorsten 1992). Torque
measurements taken during installation
indicate soil strength (Perko 2000). However,
the torque versus capacity relationship may not
be valid where the lead plate encounters hard
material, which is known as refusal condition.
Most manufacturers agree that torque/uplift
capacity correlations are not valid where the top
helix is less than 5 diameters below the surface
(Pack 2000). The torque correlation method
was developed empirically, and even though
it is widely used, it lacks explicit definition in
geotechnical concepts.
Hoyt and Clemence (1989) concluded that all
three methods, cylindrical shear, individual
bearing and torque correlation, exhibit over-
predictions and a factor of safety should be
used. The torque correlation method yielded
more consistent results for uplift capacity,
which may be due to the elimination of several
variables including soil test data, spatial
variation in the soil properties between anchor
and soil boring locations, or changes in soil
properties over a testing period that play a
major factor in the cylindrical and individual
bearing method. Hoyt and Clemence (1989)
suggest that the torque correlation be used as a
boundary check for the other two methods.
Tower Monitoring
A 30.5 m (100 ft) pole tower with a 10-kW
turbine located at Bergey Windpower Inc.,
Norman, OK, was instrumented to determine
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008 [31]
 loads from working and extreme conditions
(Fig. 1a). Wind speed at 30.5 m (100 ft) was also
measured using two anemometers on a 30.5 m
(100 ft) tower located approximately 15.2 m
(50 ft) from the turbine in order to correlate
wind speed with vibration data. The three
upper guy cables, 1.58 cm (5/8 in) diameter,
6 strand, 19 wires per strand, Improved Plow
Steel (IPS), Independent Wire Rope Core (IWRC)
galvanized steel, minimum breaking strength of
159.25 kN (35,800 lb)) were instrumented with
Vishay Micromeasurements CEA-06-250UN-120
strain gages to create full-bridge load cells on
each guyed cable turnbuckle (Fig. 1b). Each
upper guy cable and the south lower guy cable
(1.27 cm (1/2 in) diameter, 6 strand, 6 wires per
strand, IPS, IWRC galvanized steel, minimum
breaking strength of 102.3 kN (23,000 lb)) also
had a Summit Instruments Model 34103A, 5 g,
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
100 Hz triaxial accelerometer attached on a
harness (Fig. 1c). Each guy cable is pre-loaded
to 10% of the minimum breaking strength with
a come-along and re-tensioned as necessary
as the tower and foundation adjust to wind
loads and site-specific soil conditions. The data
collector was a SOMAT eDAQ system, which is
a robust system that collects a wide range of
signal types. The eDAQ system was housed in a
waterproof gang box on a 1.2 X 1.8 m (4 X 6 ft)
metal trailer and powered by two, deep cycle
marine 12-V batteries connected in parallel.
These batteries have diodes attached allowing
the power to only flow one way and keeping
each battery from “sloshing” power back and
forth. These batteries are continually recharged
by one 80-Watt Siemens solar panel. This data
acquisition system is completely “off-grid” and
works as a wireless network hub so that data
can be accessed and downloaded remotely over
the internet (Fig. 1d).
a) b)
[FIG. 1: a: 24.4 m 10 kW BWC Tilt-Up Pole Tower and Turbine, b. 4 Strain Gauges Configured as a Full-Bridge Load Cell, c. 3-Axis
Accelerometer on Upper Guy Cable, d. Solar Powered Data Acquisition Rig shown Collecting Data.
[32] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008
Results monitoring the tower for one full year
showed that wind vibrations occurred between
3 and 5 Hz, average working loads were 4.45
to 13.35 kN (1000-3000 lbs) and the maximum
load seen in the tower was on the south cable
during a 80.5 km/h (50 mi/h) wind gust at
35.60 kN (8,000 lbs). The towers are designed
to withstand 128.8 km/h (80 mi/h), Exposure
D winds (Gusts > 193.2 km/h (120 MPH)). This
tower had a much smaller guyed wire radius
(10 m (33 ft) instead of 15.2 m (50 ft), or half
the tower height) than would be recommended
for residential or commercial use because of
a small yard space at the BWC manufacturing
facility. Therefore, the smaller guyed cable
radius significantly increased the load felt on
each cable.
Testing Site
The anchor test site was located directly
east of the University of Oklahoma–Norman
Campus Fears Structural Engineering Lab,
on south campus. Anchors were installed
about 4.6 m (15 ft) on-center to eliminate
any possibility of soil interaction between
adjacent anchors. The typical default
minimum spacing between adjacent anchors
is 5D of the largest helix, but not less than
1.5 m (5 ft). The soil profile of the site was
determined using several hand auger borings,
existing soil maps, and previous explorations
of the site. Table 1 presents a summary of
the soil properties which are displayed as a
generalized cross section in Fig. 2. It should
be noted that the subsurface was more variable
than what is shown here based in the torque
readings at each anchor location, however it
was difficult to display the pockets of soil that
did not extend longitudinally and latitudinally
throughout the profile.
c) d)
 [Table 1]: Subsurface Properties

Friction Angle
Depth Layer Specific USCS / Undrained
(m) # PL LL PI Activity Gravity Symbol Shear Strengh Group Name
0 – .91 1 20.0 49.0 29.0 0.9 2.7 CL 57.9 kPa Lean Clay with Sand
0.91-2.1 2 17.0 33.3 16.3 0.7 2.7 CL 57.9 kPa Sandy Lean Clay
2.1-4.6 3 NP NP NP NP 2.7 SM 35° Poorly Graded Sand
4.6-6.7 4 20.0 26.0 6.0 0.4 2.7 CL-ML - Silty Clay with Sand
6.7-7.6 5 NP NP NP NP - - - Weathered Shale

Fig. 2 also shows the helical anchor locations
in relationship to each other and the soil
profile. The water table depth was taken from
a previously installed well near the testing
site. The average depth of the water table
from March 16, 2007 to March 24, 2008 was
approximately 2.1 m (6.9 ft). The lowest and
highest water table recorded at the site during
the same time period was 4.48 m (14.7 ft)
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
screwed into the earth with a high-torque
hydraulic torque motor which was mounted on
a, Bobcat®, skid steer loader equipped with an
in-line torque-monitoring device (Fig. 3).
The helical anchors installed were 4.44 cm
(1.75 in) square shaft anchors supplied by
Hubbell Power Systems/Chance. The torque
rating for this particular series of helical
anchors is 14.9 kN-m (11,000 ft-lb) and the

(March 16, 2007) and 0.61 m (2 ft) (July 16,
2007), respectively.
[Fig. 2] Foundation Soil Cross Section with Installed Anchors
Anchor Installation
The six anchors were installed on August 8,
2007 when the water table was at 2.0 m (6.7 ft)
below the ground surface. Each anchor was
b)
a)
[Fig. 3] (a) Installing anchor extension and recording torque
every foot with the in-line Hubbell Power Systems/Chance
Torque Indicator Device, (b) Installing lead-helix section with
the first helix already underground.
ultimate tension capacity limit (using the Q
= KtT with Kt = 33 m-1 or 10 ft-1) is 489.5 kN
(110 kip). However, the
ultimate mechanical tensile
strength is limited by
the coupling to 444.8 kN
(100 kip). Fig. 4 displays
the 4-helix anchor
plate spacing and plate
diameters installed. The
helical plate spacing and
diameters decrease from
top to bottom and the
pitch remains constant at
each plate. The 3-helix and
2-helix configurations are
identical to the 4-helix,
by just removing the top 1 and top 2 helices,
respectively.
Each anchor was installed to a depth that met
the two-part criteria: (1) the top helix had to
be at least 5D (D= diameter of top helix) below
the ground surface and (2) the average torque
in the final 1 m (3 ft) of installation must meet
or exceed the designated torque value for the
small wind tower application (4.33 kN-m or
3,200 ft-lb). Fig. 5 shows the installation torque
values with depth and Table 2 summarizes the
final depth of installation, average final torque,
depth to top helix and embedment (H/D or
depth of top plate/diameter of top plate) ratios.
The average final torque signifies the mean
value of the last three torque measurements.
Installing anchors to the same depth was
preferable for a more direct comparison,
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008 [33]
 however, as can shafts experienced shaft twist. Hubbell Power
be seen in Fig. 2, Systems/Chance representatives noted that
paired anchors their anchor shafts can rotate 1.0 to 1.5 times
were not installed in a 1.5 m (5 ft) section with no compromise in
to the same depth, the rated strength of the shaft material.
within the same The data shown, generally, indicate as
soil layer. The installation depth increases torque increases
reason for this is due to the fact that densification and stresses
that the subsurface (horizontal/vertical) increase at greater
was variable depths, and there are more friction surfaces
enough across the as the anchor advances through the soil. The
site that target torque installation results show a relatively
torque values were homogeneous layer across the site to a
not achieved at the depth of approximately 2.1 m (6.9 ft) and a
same depths, even variable subsurface to the termination of the
with anchors of the installation (~7-7.6 m or 23-25 ft). A major
same geometry. indication bedrock was approaching at depths
[Fig. 4] 4-Helix Helical Anchor Limitations were of 7-7.6m (23-25 ft), are the noticeable peaks
Geometry
met in the field in the torque measurements. Anchors V3, V4,
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016

with anchors V3, V4, V7, and V8. Due to a and V7 experienced significant peaks as they
weak pocket in the subsurface, anchors V7 approached bedrock or the residual soils.
and V8 could not meet the target torque of The significant increase in torque at the final
4.33 kN-m (3200 ft-lb). Even after advancing depth was probably caused by the 0.2 m (8-in)
the anchors to 7.6 m (25 ft) and 7.0 m (23 ft) helix penetrating into the weathered shale.
(where shaft extension material availability This helix penetration was minimal, however,
became an issue), the anchors
only reached average torques
of 3.39 kN-m (2,500 ft-lb)
and 4.07 kN-m (3,000 ft-lb),
respectively. Although this
would be inadequate for use
as a foundation element for
a small wind turbine, the
capacities were still sufficient
for this study on anchor
performance. Anchors
V3 and V4 (both 3-helix)
encountered a hard/dense
layer during installation,
which is known as the refusal
condition. A drawback for
helical anchors in deep [Fig. 5] Installation Torque Plot, a. 2-Helix, b. 3-Helix and c. 4-Helix
foundation applications could
be the inability to penetrate hard layers (i.e., at 0.1-0.15 m (4-6 in), and the recommended
cobbles, dense glacial till, and gravels) due to minimum depth of penetration into a bearing
steel strength limitations (Robinson and Taylor layer to use for design is 3D. Therefore, the
1969; Adams and Klym 1971). Newer, larger final torque values of Anchors V3, V4 and V7
rigs and torque motors, however, can install were discarded, and the previous three torques
anchors in soils with Standard Penetration were used to calculate the effective average
Test (SPT) blow counts (N) of up to 80. An installation torque.
anchor’s ability to penetrate hard layers is site The geometry of helical anchors is considered
specific. Strengths calculated from torque an important factor in the uplift capacity of
correlation methods can be exaggerated when helical anchors; the shaft being square or
dense layers are encountered (Pack 2000). In round, the number of helical plates, pitch size,
the process of installing V3 and V4, the anchor diameter of plates, and spacing of plates has
[34] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008
 [Table 2] Anchor Installation Information
Anchor Avg. Final Torque
Geometry
Symbol kN-m (ft-lb)
V3 3 Helix 4.02* (2,970)
V4 3 Helix 4.90 (3,633)
V5 4 Helix 6.22 (4,600)
V6 2 Helix 4.97 (3,666)
V7 2 Helix 2.40*(1,766)
V8 4 Helix 4.06* (3,000)
*Did not meet the design average final torque (4.33 kN-m or 3,200 ft-lb)
been considered by many researchers such
as Ghaly et al. (1991), Mooney et al. (1985),
and Rao and Prasad (1993) to predict uplift
capacity. Hubbell Power Systems/Chance
also has geometry stipulations that govern
torque correlation factor, Kt, decisions. For
this project, all geometry parameters were
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
identical, except for the number of helical
plates. In that way, the number of helices
could be isolated from the other parameters
that may affect performance. The 2-helix
anchors (V6 and V7) show that the foundation
soil was variable and installation torque
measurements differed significantly from
2.1 to 3.0 m (6.9 to 9.8 ft). At 4.1 m (13.5 ft),
the torques were relatively similar, but then
Anchor V7 was advanced to a greater depth
and encountered a weak soil pocket at depth
4.6 m (15 ft). Unfortunately, the torque
never recovered to the design specifications.
Only at 7.6 m (25 ft) did the torque jump
to approximately 5.42 kN-m (4,000 ft-lb),
indicating that the lead helix had entered
the weathered shale. However, this was not
enough to increase the final three torque
readings to meet the 4.33 kN-m (3,200 ft-lb)
requirement for the small wind tower. Anchor
V7 should have been stopped at 4.6 m (15 ft)
after the design torque had been met.
The 3-helix anchors experienced similar
installation torques at consecutive installation
depths, which shows that the soil profile
was relatively consistent laterally within the
4.6 meters (15.1 ft) of separation distance
between the two anchors. The 4-helix anchors
behaved similarly to about 3.0 m (9.8 ft) and
then diverged. A noticeable observation from
V8’s installation was the constant torque
measurements as the anchor advanced past
3.0 m (9.8 ft). This observation may signify that
this particular anchor hit a very large, soft soil
layer. It should also be noted that anchor V5
experienced decreasing recorded torques with
Final Depth Top Helix Depth
H/D
m (ft) m (ft)
7.01 (23) 5.49 (18) 18.0
6.55 (21.5) 5.03 (16.5) 16.5
4.88 (16) 2.44 (8) 6.9
4.27 (14) 3.51 (11.5) 13.8
7.62 (25) 6.86 (22.5) 27.0
7.01 (23) 4.57 (15) 12.9
depth for 2 consecutive readings below 4.3 m
(14 ft). It is standard practice that torques
should remain constant or increase with depth
over the last 1 m (3 ft) of installation. Anchor
V5 should either have been stopped at 4.3 m
(14 ft), or advanced to where there was 1 m
(3 ft) of increasing torque readings in order
to meet the installation standards of industry.
4-helix anchors, like 3-helix anchors, were less
sensitive to soil stratigraphy changes than the
2-helix anchors. A typical practice utilized
in the field before anchors are installed for a
particular application is to use a single, twin or
triple-helix anchor to probe the site to not only
determine stratigraphy based on the torque
profile, but to determine an adequate helical
anchor configuration for that particular site.
Anchor uplift capacity depends on the soil
strength above each helix. If the top most helix
is located in a weaker bearing capacity layer
than the other helices, its contribution to the
total uplift capacity could be significantly less
than the other helices. Referring to the torque
profiles, Fig. 5, it can be seen that anchors V4,
V5, V6, and V8 top helix was in the thick sand
layer, V3 top helix rested in a weak silt layer
(shown by torque measurements), and V7 top
helix was located directly above the weathered
shale (as shown in plot). Due to a variable cross
section and weathering, the residual or silty soil
layer above the top helix may or may not have
significantly contributed to the uplift capacity
of the anchor.
Dynamic Testing
Five anchors (V3, V4, V5, V6 and V8) were
dynamically loaded for 2 to 4 weeks, followed
by a post-dynamic static test. V7 was only
statically tested to have a comparison anchor to
V6 to show the effects of dynamic loading on
long-term uplift capacity, which is discussed in
a companion paper (Cerato and Victor 2009).
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008 [35]
 All tests used to determine the capacity of the
anchors under tension load were completed
with similar setups. The setup included a
variable layer of cribbing, depending on the
shaft height above the ground surface, which
changed on a test to test basis. The cribbing
consisted of layers of railroad ties stacked
perpendicular at each layer. Two 5.5 m (18 ft)
long W beams (reaction beams) were placed on
the ties, with the shaft bisecting the reaction
beams. A hydraulic jack/actuator was mounted
on top of the reaction beam to test the anchors
in tension. In dynamic testing, potentiometers/
wire pots were the instruments used to
measure the displacements. All instruments
were mounted on a reference beam installed
perpendicular to the reaction beams and not
in contact with the foundation ground within a
three foot radius from the anchor shaft. Fig. 6
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
displays the basic setup for the dynamic test.
[Fig. 6] Dynamic Loading Set-up
Seating loads were applied to the anchor
ranging between 10 and 20% of its predicted
ultimate static uplift capacity based on the
torque correlation method. Once the cribbing
and anchor displacement was sustained at
an equilibrium bearing pressure (minimal
settlement), testing loads were applied.
All dynamic loads were applied in a sustained-
repeated loading condition (Clemence and
Smithling 1985). Testing procedures followed
the sustained-repeated loading pattern,
where the anchor remained in tension (8.89 kN
or 2000 lbs) throughout the entire testing
period to simulate operating wind loads
as experienced from a guyed wire anchor
foundation. Previous investigations at Bergey
Windpower (Norman, OK) estimated that
guyed wires connected to wind towers were
under constant tension of about 4.45 kN
(1,000 lbs), with vibrations in the 3 to 5 hertz
range depending on the wind intensity. Regular
operating loads on the anchor during testing
oscillated between 4.45 to 35.6 kN (1000 and
8000 lbs). Extreme wind-shock loadings were
[36] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008
applied in 0.5 to 2 hr intervals that simulated
extreme operating and weather conditions (e.g.,
hurricanes, tornadoes, and high winds) with
oscillating load patterns ranging from 4.45 kN
to 88.97 kN (1000-20,000 lbs). This range
of loading encompassed the capacity of the
97.86 kN (22,000 lb) actuator, and depending
on individual anchor capacity, the upper load
limit (88.99 kN or 20,000 lb) created a factor
of safety (FS) condition ranging from 1.5 (V3)
to 2.3 (V5). All dynamic data was recorded by
data acquisition software at 50 hertz.
Dynamic Testing Results
Long term, 2 to 4 weeks, dynamic testing was
completed on 5 anchors before the anchors
were tested in static conditions. The dynamic
(cyclic) testing regime was used to simulate
operational conditions of a wind turbine tower
and extreme weather conditions (i.e. tornadoes,
wind gust, etc). Fig. 7 through Fig. 9 summarize
the dynamic test hourly over the testing period.
They also indicate the maximum design load
(FS = 2) of the guyed cables. The cyclic loading
was applied between 3 and 5 hertz in a
sustained-repeated loading (anchor was always
in tension of at least 4.45 kN or 1,000 lbs) and
data was acquired at a 50 hertz frequency.
Sustained-repeated loading was an important
principle in this research. Keeping the anchor
from going into compression was imperative for
maintaining safety on-site and preserving the
cribbing configuration. Also, helical anchors
used for guyed cable foundation would never
experience compression loading. Due to the
immense data sets, hourly summarization was
used to adequately analyze the data.
A general behavior experienced by all anchors
was the significant movement during the
seating load. The movement of most anchors
was about 1.3 to 2.5 cm (0.5 to 1 in), when a
seating loading was applied in a cyclic load
arrangement from 8.89 to 17.79 kN (2,000
to 4,000 lb) or less. This seating movement
may have been the result of excessive soil
disturbance during installation, shaft alignment
issues, et. al. Since all guy tower cables are
pre-loaded to 10% of the mean breaking
cable strength, this seating movement can be
overcome. Also, if the wind were to die down,
or switch directions, the anchor could return
to its original position (settling ~2.5 cm or
1 in) unless soil filled in the cavities below the
helices. It was seen in the displacement versus
load results of both static unload-reload cycles
 and long term dynamic testing, that depending
on the soil type, the soil would fall down
around the helices, filling in the cavities and
keep the anchor from returning to its original
position. Other researchers (Hanna and Mosawe
(1981)) have suggested that helical anchors
should actually be pre-stressed to reduce the
rate of displacement under loading.
Fig. 7a describes the behavior of Anchor V3,
which was tested from September 10, 2007 to
September 21, 2007.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
88.98 kN (15,000 and 20,000 lb) for long periods
of time at the start and ending of testing. These
high loads reduced the FS to 1.5, and Hubbell
Power Systems/Chance recommends a minimum
FS of 2 for permanent applications. This could
be why the movements exceeded 3 cm (1.2 in) at
the 88.98 kN (20,000 lb) load.
Fig. 7b shows the dynamic behavior of Anchor
V4 (3-helix) tested from September 27, 2007
to October 13, 2007, in which the water table
remains relatively constant only receding
about 25.4 cm (10 in). In
contrast to the first 3-helix
anchor (V3), there was a
large displacement for the
same seating load (2 cm or
0.8 in). However, for the
remainder of the test, when
subjected to loads between

8.90 and 57.83 kN (2,000 and

13,000 lb), the anchor moved
only an additional 0.6 cm
(0.2 in). This anchor was
subjected to much lower loads
than V3, but it is predicted
[Fig. 7] 3-Helix Long Term Dynamic Test a. Anchor V3, b. Anchor V4 that V4 would have performed
similarly to V3 under a
Anchor V3 was a 3-helix anchor with a predicted similar loading regime because of their similar
uplift capacity of 132 kN or 29,700 lb (torque torque installations and similar environmental
correlation) and the anchor performed well in conditions at testing time. Pointed out by Pack
minimizing long term creep. Even at extreme (2000), anchors installed to carry load with a
loads towards the beginning of the test, the factor of safety of 2 will not experience long
anchor still performed well in minimizing term creep. Anchor V4 had a torque correlation
creep. As the results show, the 3-helix anchor method predicted uplift capacity of 161.60 kN
performed satisfactorily in guyed cable (36,330 lb) and a factor of safety of 3.3 for a
applications (< 79.8 kN or 17,900 lb) where the design load of 48.93 kN (11,000 lb). Therefore,
anchor remained relatively constant for that according to this theory, the anchor behaved as
loading application. The anchor was also able to expected. It is thought, however, that the anchor
withstand substantial loads between 66.65 and having 3 helices had more to do with the small
magnitude of creep than the
adequate FS, since Anchor V6
(2-Helix had a FS = 2.7 and
showed excessive creep). More
tests should be performed to
confirm this.
Fig. 8a shows the dynamic test
for Anchor V5, performed from
October 18 through November
13, 2007.
The results indicate that this
4–helix anchor resisted upward
displacement (creep) very well
and after a 0.75 cm (0.3 in)
initial displacement with a low
[Fig. 8] 4-Helix Long Term Dynamic Test a. Anchor V5, b. Anchor V8

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008 [37]

 seating load, showed minimal creep throughout
the remainder of the test. The anchor
experienced a spike in displacement only after
the guyed cable design threshold was surpassed
at the end of the test, however, performed
remarkably well under such an intense shock
load.
Fig. 8b describes the behavior of Anchor V8,
which was tested from February 27, 2008 to
March 21, 2008. Anchor V8 was predicted
(torque correlation) to resist an ultimate
uplift force of 133.45 kN (30,000 lb), which
was well above the applied loads resulting
in a factor of safety of 2, recommended by
Pack (2000) to minimize creep. Pack’s (2000)
study presented results showing creep of an
anchor under sustained static loading, not
continually increasing
incremental dynamic
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
seating load displacement), under a similar
loading program (magnitude and duration).
This is important because it shows that even if
there is disturbance during installation and the
anchor is not completely locked into the soil,
once the anchor is cycled several times to a
seating load, there is minimal additional creep
under working loads over the lifetime of the
application. An additional seven anchors have
been installed at the same site to continue this
study, and the first anchor tested showed less
than 0.02 mm (0.01 in) of movement under
a 15.57 kN (3500 lb) seating load. This is
indicative of a good installation and is more
typical of helical anchor seating movements.
In Fig. 9 the dynamic uplift behavior of Anchor
V6 is shown, which was tested November

loading. However, as the

results show, the anchor
experienced considerable
displacement during
low seating loads. This
seating load displacement
was over half of the total
displacement experienced
throughout the test. What
can also be seen is the
nearly 100% recovery
of displacement when
the load was removed.
This shows that when
the anchor was pulled
with only a small seating
load, the anchors moved
a significant amount
[Fig. 9] Anchor V6 (2-Helix) Long Term Dynamic Test
to find firm bearing
material, and soil had not yet
flowed around the helices filling in the void. 30, 2007 to December 19, 2007 (water table
It should be noted that significant movement variation of about 12.7 cm or 5 in – receding).
during the seating load after installation of The displacement rate and magnitude are very
helical anchors is not often seen, however, the high in this 2-helix test (displacement scale on
movement seen in this particular study could right side of Fig. doubles from 3.5 cm to 7 cm).
be because of a poor installation. There were As can be seen, when the dynamic loading was
large voids around each anchor shaft and maintained between 19.62 and 39.24 kN (4400
some of the deeper anchors could have been and 8800 lb), the anchor crept continually for
slightly inclined, which caused the anchor to about 100 hours, and then continued to pull-
right itself vertically during the seating load out as the load was increased. This shows that
and show larger movements than normal. in a 80.5 to 96 km/h (50 to 60 mi/h) regime, in
However, after the displacement at the seating this particular soil type, using a 2-helix anchor
load, the anchor performed fairly well under would result in excessive creep. The installation
normal cyclic loads, and only displaced an torque profile is not indicative of this behavior,
additional ~1 cm (0.4 in), which compared well as anchor V6 had a similar average final
with anchor V5 (0.75cm (0.3 in) creep past the installation torque as the 4- and 3-helix anchors,
[38] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008
 and the torque doubled in anchor V6 over the
last 0.66 m (2 ft). An explanation for the high
displacement rate and magnitude in this anchor
may be the presence of stratified material; the
top plate may have been located just below a
weak layer, and the dynamic loading caused
the anchor to punch through the upper layer.
The reason that this behavior was seen in a
two-helix anchor rather than a 3- or 4- helix
anchor may be because the two helices spanned
a smaller bearing stratum than their 3- and 4-helices
anchor counterparts, and was unable to hold
the capacity indicated by the high torque
profile. This can be seen around the 200
hour mark in Fig. 9, where the displacement
suddenly began a constant creep pattern under
the same sustained loading after remaining
constant for about 75 hours. This is almost as
if the anchor broke through a softer layer at
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
this point and then could not maintain the high
loads, so started displacing. It is possible that a
3- or 4- helix anchor at the same position in the
subsurface would not have broken through due
to spanning a wider bearing stratum, although
this cannot be stated with certainty.
Another explanation may be that 2-helix
anchors do not have enough surface area
to dissipate the dynamic loads and are
more susceptible to creep then 3- or 4-helix
anchors. More tests, however, would have
to be performed to confirm this, as only one,
2-helix dynamic test was performed in this
testing program. It also may be possible that
dynamic loading applications require the use
of larger size helices, rather than additional
helical plates, to minimize creep. For example,
instead of using a 31 to 39 mm
(8 to 10-in) double helix, a 47 to 55 mm
(12 to 14-in) helix may be needed to
minimize creep, which would be in
effect a “dynamic factor” added to the
existing design criterion for helical
anchors. However, installers prefer
to use an anchor where the lead helix
is small to help pull the anchor into
the ground, and a 0.3 m (1 ft) lead
helix is not a preferred lead helix size.
Therefore, it may be advisable to add
a third helix to the 31 to 39 mm (8
to 10-in) configuration to act as the
“dynamic factor,” instead of making
the double helix diameter larger. This
research program only worked with
anchors having various numbers
of helical plates, all at the same [Fig. 10]
diameter, therefore, more tests would have to
be performed to determine optimum anchor
geometry for dynamic applications.
Creep Performance during
Dynamic Loads
Fig. 10 shows the performance of different
helical anchor geometries under dynamic
loading. The summary plot compares the
performance by using the relationship of
the average cyclic loading to the measured
post-dynamic static uplift capacity vs. the
average upward displacement (from the
dynamic loading test) after the seating load.
This relationship shows that a 2-helix anchor,
installed to the design torque, crept continuously
and excessively, while the 3- and 4-helix anchors,
installed to the design torque, showed very
little creep. The 4-helix anchor (V8) that
was installed to a depth of 7.0 m (23 ft), but
that had a consistent torque profile around
4.07 kN-m (3,000 ft-lb) for the last 3 m (10 ft) of
installation, performed slightly worse than its
4-helix counterpart, V5 (6.51 kN-m or 4,800 ft-lb
installation torque) in terms of magnitude of
displacement under similar loads. Again, V5
torque readings decreased over the final 0.66 m
(2 ft), which does not conform to conventional
installation standards. The majority of the
anchor was located in the poorly graded sand
layer, with low soil strength above the top
helix. The leading helix did not encounter the
weathered shale, but sat above in an extremely
weak soil layer. If this type of geology was
encountered in an actual installation, the
anchor would have had to be removed and a
Summary of Upward Creep Performance under Dynamic Loading
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008 [39]
 larger diameter helix anchor would have been
advanced to reach a more competent layer
below. If refusal was encountered before the
design torque was met, then an alternative deep
foundation type would have to be used.
Both of the 3-helix anchors showed similar
performance that correlates well with the
installation torque profile as well as the depth
of installation. These two anchors had the
most similar installation characteristics, in
terms of depth and torque magnitude, and
therefore, should have performed similarly.
Unfortunately, in a natural, variable site
subsurface, it is very difficult to reach the
design torque at the same depths with the
same anchor geometry. It was fortunate
that the 3-helix installations were so similar.
The results of this study show that if long
term dynamic loads are a factor in a design,
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016
then a 2-helix anchor may not be adequate
in preventing long term creep, even if it
is installed to the design torque with a
FS = 2. 3- or 4- helix anchors installed to
the design torque, below a fluctuating water
table would help to minimize creep.
Conclusions
An extensive field testing program was devised
to investigate the effects of helical anchor
geometry on anchor performance subjected to
long-term dynamic loading for 1 – 10 kW wind
tower guyed cable foundations. A pre-existing
well was used to monitor water table levels
over the course of the testing program and 3
different geometries (e.g., 2-helix, 3-helix, and
4-helix) were tested to observe the effects on
the uplift performance. From the results of this
field case study, the optimum anchor geometry
to be used for dynamically loaded guyed cable
foundations is the 3-helix geometry. The 4-helix
anchors did perform well, showing minimal
creep under working and extreme loading
events. During installation, however, the
addition of an extra helix did not proportionally
increase strength with increasing torque (site
specific observation), which was probably due to
the differences in soil bearing strengths at the
specific anchor locations. One would think that
if the soil strengths had been consistent at each
anchor location, a torque increase would be
expected when using a 4-helix anchor versus a
3- helix anchor. Therefore, the 3-helix geometry
is the economical choice, since less material
needs to be used for manufacturing and a
similar performance can be expected.
[40] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008
In this study, 2-helix anchors performed
poorly and showed continuous creep even
when the loading regime stayed within a
design FS of 2. An explanation for the high
displacement rate and magnitude in this
anchor may be the presence of stratified
material; the top plate may have been located
just below a weak layer, and the dynamic
loading caused the anchor to punch through
the upper layer. The reason that this behavior
was seen in a two-helix anchor rather than a
3- or 4- helix anchor may be because the two
helices spanned a smaller bearing stratum than
their 3- and 4-helices anchor counterparts, and
was unable to hold the capacity indicated by
the high torque profile. Again, more tests
should be performed to determine if it is the
number of helices or the size of the helices
that help to prevent creep when the anchor
is subjected to sustained dynamic loads. All
anchors showed movement during seating
loads which may necessitate a pre-loading cycle
to seat the anchors and maximize anchor life
and minimize long-term creep before guyed
cables are attached, however, movement of
this magnitude is not typical, and may indicate
either a poor installation or slightly inclined
anchor. Additional anchors installed on the
same site and recently tested showed very little
movement under a seating load.
Acknowledgements
This research project was funded by the
Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of
Science and Technology (OCAST), Proj. #
AR062.007, and is a joint venture with Bergey
Windpower Company, Inc. The authors are
grateful for the time, support and material
donations from Hubbell Power Systems/Chance
Civil Construction. We would also like to thank
our installers from Atlas Systems of Oklahoma,
Sam Lowry and Mike Schweighardt, and Michael
Schmitz, Fears Structural Lab Supervisor and
Russell Buhler, Geotechnical Engineering
Undergraduate Researcher, for their technical
assistance with this project.
References
1. Adams, J.I. and Klym, T.W. (1972). “A
Study of Anchors for Transmission Tower
Foundations,” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 89-104.
2. Cerato, A.B. and Victor, R. (2009).
“Effects of Long-Term Dynamic Loading
and Fluctuating Water Table on Helical
 Anchor Performance for Small Wind 13. Rao, S. and Prasad, Y.V.S.N. (1993).
Tower Foundations”. paper accepted for “Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Helical
publication, ASCE Journal of Performance Anchors in Clays,” J. Geotechnical
for Constructed Facilities. Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 2, 352-357.
3. Clemence, S.P. and Smithling, A.P. (1984).
“Dynamic Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors
in Sand,” Proc., 4th Australia-New Zealand
Conference, Geomechanics, Vol. 1, 88-93.
4. Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M. (1991).
“Installation Torque of Screw Anchors in
Dry Sand,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 31,
No. 2, 77-92.
5. Hanna, T.H. and Moswae, M.J. (1981).
“Performance of Prestressed Anchors under
Slow Repeated Loadings,” Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, 127–
133.
6. Hargrave, R.L. and Thorsten, R.E. (1992).
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 08:18 02 May 2016

“Helical Piers in Expansive Soils of Dallas,

Texas,” Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Expansive Soils, 125–130.
7. Hoyt, R.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1989).
“Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil”,
Proc. 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 2, 1019-1022.
8. Mitsch, M.P. and Clemence, S.P. (1985). “The
Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors and Sand.
Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in
Soil, ASCE, 26-47.
9. Mooney, J.S., Adamczak, S. Jr., and
Clemence, S.P. (1985). “Uplift Capacity
of Helix Anchors in Clay and Silt”, Uplift
Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil,
ASCE, 48-72.
10. Pack, J.S. (2000). “Design of Helical Piles
for Heavily Loaded Structures,” New
Technological and Design Developments in
Deep Foundations, ASCE, 353-367.
11. Perko, H.A. (2000). “Energy Method for
Predicting the Installation Torque of
Helical Foundations and Anchors,” New
Technological and Design Developments in
Deep Foundations, ASCE, 342-352.
12. Robinson, K.E. and Taylor, H. (1969).
“Selection and Performance of Anchors for
Guyed Transmission Towers,” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 6, 119-135.

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 2 No. 1 November 2008 [41]