PERFORMANCE STUDY OF ANCHOR PILES

IN LOAD TESTS

A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(With Specialization in Geotechnical Engineering)

By
ROHIT MALIK

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE - 247 667 (INDIA)
JUNE, 2007
 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE

CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the work which is being presented in this thesis entitled,

"Performance Study of Anchor Piles in Load Tests" in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Technology and submitted in

the Department of Civil Engineering, of the Indian Institute of Technology

Roorkee, Roorkee, India, is an authentic record of my own work carried out under

the supervision of Dr. Satyendra Mittal, Associate Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering, I.I.T. Roorkee.

Place: Roorkee

Date: 27106 )07 (ROHIT MALIK)

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best

of my knowledge and belief.

DR. SATYENDRA MITTAL

Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engg,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee -247667, (India)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. SATYENDRA MITTAL,

Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, for his esteem guidance and valuable suggestions
without which it would not have been possible for me to compile this dissertation report
in the present form.

I am grateful to Dr. Swami Saran, Emeritus Fellow, Department of Earthquake

Engineering, IIT Roorkee for his valuable suggestions and encouragement.

My sincere thanks are to my parents who have been the constant source of
inspiration. My special thanks are also due to Mr. Mohd. Yousuf Shah, for his
valuable suggestions and subject discussion. I am also grateful to all my friends who
have provided valuable help and suggestions at different stages of my work.

Dated: JUNE 2007 (ROH1T MALIK)

 ABSTRACT

Experimental and theoretical investigations on pullout capacity of vertical and

inclined helical screw anchors in sandy silt soil are presented. A brief literature review
gives a consolidated view of the work done by previous investigators. Three model
anchors having varying no. of helical blades (n=1, 2 & 3) of same geometrical
properties have been used. Tests were conducted by varying no. of helical blades,
installation depth (H/B= 4, 6 & 8) and inclination angles (0, 15 & 30° from vertical).
The anchors were pre installed in test tank and prepared soil at 65% relative density
was hand packed in the test tank in layers 50mm thick to achieve uniform density.
Few tests were also performed with pair of helical anchors to study the group effect.
In order to observe the difference in pullout capacity, if any, between pre installed and
post installed anchors, tests were also conducted with post installed helical anchors
and pre installed helical anchors.
The results indicate that ultimate pullout load capacity of anchor increases
with installation depth, no. of helical blades and decreases with angle of inclination. A
sudden failure is observed as pullout approaches its ultimate value. The average
pullout capacity of anchors when post installed is about 77% to that of pre installed
anchors. For vertical anchors, values of pullout load obtained by using theories of
Mooney, at al. (1985) are in very close proximity with experimental values for
anchors installed at H/B= 4, while at deeper depths, it underestimates. Values
obtained by method adopted in Wayne Roger's manual (2002) yields highly
conservative value for n=1, while it overestimates the capacity for n=3. But for n=2,
values obtained are reasonable. A best fitted equation has also been developed based
on the test results. This equation has also been verified by some tests conducted in
field.
 CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page No.

LIST OF FIGURES iii-v

LIST OF TABLES vi

1. INTRODUCTION 1-4

1.1. Introduction 1

1.2. Scope of Present Study 3

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5-24

2.1. Historical Background 5
2.2. Theoretical and Experimental Evolution 7

3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 25-44

3.1. General 25
3.2. Helical Screw Anchors 25
3.3. Experimental Setup 28
3.4. Soil Used in Study 28
3.5. Test Procedure 30
3.6. Experimental Results 32

4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 45-60

4.1. General 45
4.2. Mode of Failure 45
4.3. Effect of Depth Ratio (H/B) 46
4.4. Effect of Angle of Inclination (a) 47
4.5. Effect of Anchor Properties: No. of Helical Blades 48
4.6. Theoretical Considerations 48
4.7. Equation Developed 49
5. CONCLUSIONS 61-63
5.1. General 61
5.2. Scope of Future Study 63

REFERENCES 64-65

APPENDIX 'A': Comparison of Experimental Results with

Some of the Existing Theoretical Analyses 66-73

APPENDIX 'B': Uses and Advantages of Helical Screw Anchors 74-79

APPENDIX 'C': Calculation of Embedded Depth using

C++ Program 80-81

ii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Table No. Particulars Page No.

Fig.2.1. Typical use of screw Pile/helical anchor in marine structure 5

Fig.2.2. Failure pattern assumed by Vesic (1971) 8
Fig.2.3. Nature of rupture surfaces as assumed by Meyerhof (1972),
for strip, square or circular plate type of anchor. 9
Fig.2.4. Rupture surface assumed by Harvey and Burley (1973),
for shallow circular plate anchor 9
Fig.2.5. Formation of closed bulb assumed by Larnach and
McMullan (1974), for deep circular plate anchor 10
Fig.2.6. Type of screw anchor used by Radhakrishna (1976) 10
Fig.2.7. Rupture surface assumed by Kulhawy (1985) 11
Fig.2.8. Proposed failure mode for multi-helix anchor in clay and silt. 13
Fig.2.9. Uplift Capacity Factor, N,,, 15
Fig.2.10. Uplift Capacity Factor, Nq„ 16
Fig.2.11. Recommended Lateral Stress Value (Ku) for helical anchors
and foundations in uplift 17
Fig.2.12. Adhesion Factor for piles in clay 17
Fig.2.13. Failure surface assumed for horizontal plate anchor by
Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986) 18
Fig.2.14. Theoretical values of Breakout Factor (Nq) for horizontal
plate anchor in sand by Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986) 19
Fig.2.15. Photograph of 5 types of helical screw anchors used by
Ghaly and Hanna (1992) 20
Fig.2.16. Concept of Actual Rupture Surface of Inclined Anchor,
Conjugate Inclined Anchor and Auxiliary Rupture
Surface of Rotated Conjugate Vertical Anchor-Ghaly
and Clemence (1998) 22
Fig.2.17. Geometry of Rupture Surface and Anchor Inclination -
Ghaly and Clemence (1998) 22
Fig.2.18. Value of Nq -- Wayne Rogers' manual (2002) 23

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Table No. Particulars Page No.

Fig.2.19. Typical anchor used by Narasimha Rao et al. (2007) 24

Fig.3.1. Sketch showing Single Helical Screw Anchor (n=1),
Double Helical Screw Anchor (n=2), and Triple Helical
Screw Anchor (n=3) 26
Fig.3.2. Single Helical Screw Anchor (n=1), Double Helical Screw
Anchor (n=2), and Triple Helical Screw Anchor (n=3) 27
Fig.3.3. Arrangement of Pair of Anchors 27
Fig.3.4. Grain Size Distribution Curve 29
Fig.3.5. Pullout Test in Progress for Vertical Helical Screw Anchor 33
Fig.3.6. Close View of Pullout Test Setup 34
Fig.3.7. Pullout Test in Progress for Inclined Helical Screw Anchor 34
Fig.3.8. Pullout Test in Progress for Pair of Helical Screw Anchor 35
Fig.3.9. (a), (b) and (c) Load Displacement Curves for
Helical Screw Anchor 36-37
Fig.3.10. (a) to (i) Effect of Inclination of Helical Anchor
on Pullout Load 37-41
Fig.3.11. (a) and (b) Pullout Load Vs Axial displacement for
Pair of Helical anchors 42
Fig.3.12. (a), (b) and (c) Effect of Pre insertion and Post Insertion
of Helical Anchors on Pullout Load 43-44
Fig.4.1. (a), (b) and (c) Ultimate Axial Pullout Load Capacity (Q)
Vs Depth Ratio (H/B): No. of Helical Blades Constant 51-52
Fig.4.2. (a) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity Vs Depth Ratio (H/B):
Angle of Inclination (a) Constant 52-53
Fig.4.3. (a), (b) and (c) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity (Q) Vs
No. of Helical Blades (n): Angle of Inclination (a) Constant 54-55
Fig.4.4. (a), (b) and (c) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity (Q) Vs
Angle of Inclination (a): No. of Helical Blades (n) Constant 55-56

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Table No. Particulars Page No.

Fig.4.5. (a), (b) and (c) Comparison of Experimental Results with

Analytical Method proposed by Mooney, Adamczak and
Clemence (1985) for a 0°. 57-58
Fig.4.6. (a), (b) and (c) Comparison of Experimental Results with
Analytical Method proposed by Mooney, Adamczak and
Clemence (1985) for a = 0°. 58-59
Fig.4.7. Pullout Test in Progress for Vertical Helical Screw Anchor
in Field 60
Fig.4.8. Anchor with Handle used in the Field 60
Fig.B-1. Helical Screw Pile for Oil and Gas Industry. 75
Fig.B-2. Helical Screw Pile for Street Light Bases 76
Fig.B-3. Helical Screw pile for Slope Stabilizations 77
Fig.B-4. Screw Anchor Pile for cathodic protection 78
 LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Particulars Page No.

3.1 Engineering Properties of Experimental Soil 29

3.2 Ultimate Pullout Load, Q 32
4.1 Effect of Angle of Inclination, a (for n=1) on the
Ultimate Pullout Capacity, Q w.r.t. Relative Depth (H/B) 47
A-1 Data of Ultimate Pullout Capacity (Q) in Newton
obtained from Experiment, Mooney, Adamczak &
Clemence (1985) and Wayne Rogers (2002) 73
C-1 Values of Embedded Depth (H), for different values of
Q, n and B. 81

vi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Many types of structures founded on land and offshore are subjected to both
compressive and tensile forces. Some of the typical structures subjected to tensile forces
on land are high rise buildings, chimney towers and transmission towers. In case of
offshore structures, wave forces can produce enormous tensile forces in the foundation
system. Besides these, foundations located below the ground water table are subjected to
significant uplift forces due to subsoil water inducing tensile forces. In such situations,
ground anchors in one form or other have been used. Different types of anchors are
extensively used depending on magnitude, type of loading, type of structure and subsoil
conditions. Helical anchors have the advantages of rapid installation and immediate
loading capabilities that offer cost-saving alternatives to reinforced concrete, grouted
anchors and driven piles.
Due to enormous advantages being offered by helical screw anchor, these are used
in the construction of transmission tower, tall chimneys, and underground tanks jetty
structures, excavation bracings, mooring systems for ocean surface or submerged
platforms. By adopting method of underpinning, helical screw anchors can be usefully
employed in the repair works of foundation.
Anchors can be made of steel or concrete, whereas screw anchors are usually
made of steel. Screw anchors are made of prefabricated steel screw element and steel
shaft connected together by suitable means or machine made as one unit.
The screw pile/helical screw anchor characterizes itself with its ease and speed of
installation, cost effectiveness and other enormous advantages offered by them. The
helical screw anchor is installed into the soil by applying torque to their shafts, and with
little downloads thrusts. Installation generally requires no removal of soil nor requires
pre-drilled holes. Installation causes a displacement of soil for most of the part, which
causes further densification of the soil around the anchor thus improving the soil
properties in the near vicinity of the installation path. The installation process is for all
practical purposes, vibration free and safer, thus risk to men/ material is minimized to a
great extent.

1
 These features make the screw pile/ helical screw anchor attractive on sites that
environmentally sensitive such as walkways on marshy land. Though both vertical and
inclined anchors are used to resist pullout forces and overturning moments, the vertical
anchors are more adaptable for resisting overturning moments. It can be visualized that
with advancement in technology, helical screw anchors will find enormous use in speedy
construction of both permanent and temporary structures. Uses and advantages of helical
screw anchors have been discussed in Appendix 'W.
In the present work, an attempt has been made to design screw pile as anchors in
sandy silt soils. The investigations are conducted to study the behavior of screw pile
under application of axial pullout load by varying the number of blades, angle of
inclination, and installation depth. Tests were carried out on local soil which is sandy silt.
Soil has been taken from the banks of the river Solani in Roorkee.
To study the effect of number of helical blades, anchors used were provided with
1, 2 and 3 continuous helical blades. Tests were conducted with anchors inclined at 0, 15,
and 30° from vertical. Anchors were preinstalled at depth ratio (H/B) of 4, 6, and 8,
where H is the depth of middle of helices length from surface of the soil. However tests
on anchors with angle of inclination more then 30° could not be conducted due to size of
tank and due to the time limitations. Few tests were also performed with pair of helical
anchors and with post installed helical anchors installed by application of torque to see
the difference from the preinstalled helical anchors.
The graphs have been plotted using experimental results to highlight various
effects of different parameters. Some of the available theories were used to compute the
pullout capacities of vertical anchors and it was compared with the experimental values
obtained in this work. Based on this comparison, few suggestions have been made for
making these available theories more adaptable to practical field requirements. Multiple
variable regressions using Sigma Plot software were also made to get a best fitted curve
for generating an equation from the experimental values which can be adaptable in the
field.

2
1.2 Scope of Present Study

Soil Properties:- Soil used is local soil from the banks of Ganges canal in
Roorkee. Specific gravity of the soil was 2.55 with density of soil as 14.7 kN/m3 during
the experimental tests. Relative density during the test was 65%.
Helix Properties:- Ghaly and Hanna (1992) investigated the performance of
helical screw anchor having different geometrical properties, and concluded that pullout
capacity is not affected by screw configuration. Narasimha Rao (1993) reported that
spacing of helical blades in multi-helix anchor does influence the pullout capacity of the
anchor. This reveals that to study exclusive effect of number of helical blades, it requires
helical screw anchors having same helix properties and having continuous blade but
having varying number of helical blades. In the present investigation, helical screw
anchors having one, two, and three helical blades (n=1, 2, & 3), but having same helix
properties and having continuous blade without any spacing have been used.
Angle of Inclination:- With advancement in technology, extensive use of helical
screw anchors in slope stabilization and anchorage of earth retaining structures is
foreseen. Therefore, effect of angle of inclination with gradual increase from vertical (a --
0, 15, & 30°) has been investigated in this study.
Effect of Installation Method:- In actual field use, helical screw anchors are
installed by application of torque. This results in densification of soil along the path of
installation. This signals that results yielded will be of soil having higher density rather
than actually reported for. In this investigation, anchors were preinstalled before filling
the prepared soil by hand packing in experimental tank to eliminate densification and
consequent development during installation.
Effect of Depth Ratio:- Installation depth does influence the pullout capacity of
helical screw anchor. Therefore by varying the Depth. Ratio (H/B= 4, 6, & 8), where H is
the depth of middle of helices length from soil surface and B is the diameter of helices,
consequent variations in Pullout Capacity for different types of anchors for various
inclinations has been studied in this study.

3
 Comparison of the Results with the Theory:- Mooney, et al. (1985) have given
theoretical expressions (Eq. 2.2 & 2.3) for calculation of pullout capacity of helical screw
anchors in both clay and silty clay (c-4) soil). Their theoretical expression is based on
simple Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering principles adapted and suitably
modified to compute pullout capacity of helical screw anchor. They have used special
values of Ku (Lateral stress coefficient), Nqu and N. (Uplift capacity factors), which have
been obtained particularly for helical screw anchor from various field, laboratory and
theoretical analysis. Wayne Rogers (2002) of Energy Structures Inc. also has evolved Pile
Cap Manual: 5th edition, in which theoretical expressions (Eq. 2.5 & 2.6) for computation
of pullout capacity of helical screw anchor in any type of soil is available. Here results of
the experimental investigations will be compared with the analytical investigations to
check the suitability of the theory.

4
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Historical Background

The earliest known use of an anchor foundation was for the support of lighthouses
in tidal basins around England. A blind English brick maker, Alexander Mitchell, created
design of a "screw pile" for this purpose in 1833. The use of the "screw pile" was
apparently successful, but advancement of the helix-plate foundation did not progress.

Fig.2.1. Typical use of screw

Pile/helical anchor in marine structure

In the 1950s, the A.B. Chance Company introduced the (PISA®) Power-Installed
Screw Anchor for resisting tension loads. The anchor found favourable, widespread
acceptance. This anchor consists of a plate or plates, formed into the shape of a helix or
one pitch of a screw thread. The plate is attached to a central shaft. The helix plate has its
characteristic shape to facilitate installation. Installation is accomplished by applying
torque to the anchor and screwing it into the soil. The effort to install the anchor is
supplied by a torque motor.

5
 With the development of tension screw anchor, came the use of the same or
similar devices to resist compression loads. Thus, screw pile foundations came into
greater use. Various sizes and numbers of helices have been used with shafts of varying
sections to provide foundations for different applications.
In the past 40 years, projects that have utilized screw pile foundations include
electric utility transmission structures, Federal Aviation Administration flight guidance
structures, pipeline supports, building foundations, remedial underpinning, streetlights,
walkways in environmentally sensitive areas and many others.
Torque capacities of available installation equipment have increased over the past
years. Hydraulic torque motors in the 3,000 to 5,000 ft.-lb. (4.0 to 6.8 kNm) range have
increased to the 12,000to 15,000 ft.-lb. (16 to 20 kNm) range. Mechanical diggers now
extend the upper range to 50,000 ft.-lb. (68 kNm) or more. "Hand-held" installers have
expended the available equipment in the lower range of torque, with a capacity up to
2,500 ft-lb. (3.4 kNm). Though called "hand-held", these installers are hand-guided
while a torque bar or other device is used to resist the torque being applied to the screw
pile foundation.
As suggested earlier, the screw pile foundation may be utilized in various forms.
The lead section (i.e., the first part to enter the ground) may be used with one or more
helices (generally, four is the maximum) with varying diameters in the range from 6 to 14
inches (15 to 36 cm.). Extensions, either plain or with additional helices, may be used to
reach deep load-bearing strata. Generally, eight is the maximum number of helices used
on a single screw pile foundation. The shaft size may vary from 1.5 inches (3.8 cm)
square solid bar material to 10 inches (25 cm) diameter pipe material. The number and
size of helices and the diameter and length of shaft for a given application are generally
selected based on the in-situ soil conditions and the loads that are to be applied.

6
2.2 Theoretical and Experimental Evolution
The failure mechanism and the associated rupture surface for inclined anchors
subjected to pullout loading are of great importance for calculation of pullout capacity.
The calculated degree of shear mobilization differs significantly when assumed rupture
surface is considered instead of actual one because shear mobilization occurs along actual
rupture surface. The difficulty and complexity involved in the calculation of shearing
resistance on the actual rupture surface (if known) has led many investigators to adopt
assumed rupture surface for their theoretical analysis. A wide variety of assumed rupture
surface exists, and a number of theories are available for the calculation of pullout
capacity of inclined plates and slab anchors. Important of them are discussed in the
succeeding paragraphs.

Troimenkov and Mariupolskii (1965) conducted tests on around 200 piles, the
pile diameter being 0.25 to 1.0 m. Loads which were continuously increasing, pulsating,
alternate, and increasing by steps were applied on these piles. Pressing in and pulling out
tests were conducted. Both single pile and group of piles were tested. On the basis of
these tests, they developed the method of determining the allowable load of the screw
piles, based on the bearing capacity of the soil and on the allowable deformation of a pile.

Meyerhof and Adams (1968) observed rupture surface in the form of an inverted
cone with curved sidewalls, although they performed theoretical analysis on an assumed
plane surface of rupture.

Vesic (1971) developed an analysis for the vertical uplift capacity of shallow
circular and strip anchor in general c-c1) soil, which was based upon the theory of
expansion of cavity close to the surface of semi-infinite rigid plastic solid. The effect of
volume change of soil mass occurring in the plastic zone around the cavity was also
considered. This method assumes an isotropic stress state and isotropic soil state
behavior. These assumptions lead to an overestimate of the capacity in loose, normally
consolidated soils and underestimate in dense, heavily over consolidated soil. However
assumptions are reasonable for intermediate conditions which approximate isotropic
behavior.
 Fig.2.2 Failure pattern assumed by Vesic (1971)

Tran (1971) presented the following empirical formula for computation of

pullout capacity of inclined anchors (Qui), inclined at an angle of inclination a from
pullout capacity of vertical anchors (QUO installed at the same depth considering other
parameters remains the same,

Qui= Quv/ Cosa (2.1)

Meyerhof (1973) conducted experimental investigation to report that for identical

test conditions, the pullout capacity of axially loaded inclined plate anchors exceeded that
of vertical anchors. Furthermore for a given pullout load, the movement (displacement)
of inclined anchors was smaller.

For strip, square or circular plate type of anchors, installed at shallow depth, he
assumed rupture surface of roughly truncated pyramidal shape, while for anchor installed
at deep depth, he reported rupture surface of unspecified shape of local nature.

8
 Fig.2.3. Nature of rupture surfaces as assumed by Meyerhof (1972),
for strip, square or circular plate type of anchor.

Harvey and Burley (1973) conducted experimental tests on shallow inclined

anchorages in sand and observed that failure of inclined anchors was accompanied by the
radial and elliptical surface cracks. Shallow anchors caused a cone of sand to displace at
the free surface and rupture surface consist of circular arcs perpendicular to the circular
plate anchor and intersects at ground at 45°41/2.

Fig.2.4. Rupture surface assumed by Harvey and Burley (1973),

for shallow circular plate anchor

Larnach and McMullan (1974) reported on the behavior of inclined group of

plate anchors as well as individual anchors. For circular plate anchor at deep depth, they
assumed formation of local bulb above anchors.
9
 Fig.2.5. Formation of closed bulb assumed by Larnach and McMullan (1974),
for deep circular plate anchor

Das and Seeley (1975) conducted tests on horizontal anchor plates subjected to
inclined load and reported that, when connection between plate and tie-rod was made
such that anchor was free to rotate, the ultimate pullout load increased with load
inclination angle. They attributed this increase to unsymmetrical soil failure developed
around the anchor. They reported reduction in percentage load increase with the increase
in H/B.

Radhakrishna (1976) conducted field tests on single and multi helical screw
anchors in sand. The investigated anchors were originally developed by A.B.Chance.

Single helix screw Uniform multi helix Tapered multi helix

anchor screw anchor
screw anchor

(a) (b) (c)

Fig.2.6. Type of screw anchor used by Radhakrishna (1976)

10
 Company (1977), known as Power Installed Screw Anchors (PISA), reported that,
for single helix screw anchor, the soil layer that screw anchor was passing through
directly affected the measured installation torque. No significant changes in the
installation torque value were observed for the multi-helix screw. He attributed this
behavior to the fact that helix screws were spaced at a distance of 0.75 m along the
anchor shaft and they penetrate the different layers of deposit simultaneously. He noted
that for same helix plate diameter, the installation torque increases with the depth of
installation. He reported that configuration of the screw anchor has an appreciable
influence on the value of installation torque and hence the uplift capacity of screw
anchors.

Udwari et al. (1979) presented a rational approach to design a high capacity

multi-helix screw anchors. They reported that installation method is one of the major
factors affecting the uplift capacity of screw anchors. They showed that factors
influencing installation torque are: applied downward pressure, rate of advancement into
soil, applied torque level, angle of installation and depth of installation. They showed that
factors affecting the capacity of screw anchors in uplift are: geometrical properties of the
anchor, shaft diameter-top helix diameter ratio and the type of connections, i.e. threaded,
bolted or welded.
Kulhawy (1985) assumed rupture surface of inclined truncated cone for shallow
inclined plate anchor.

Fig.2.7. Rupture surface assumed by Kulhawy (1985)

11
 Mitsch and Clemence (1985) presented results of field and laboratory
investigations on the uplift capacity of helix anchors in sand. The field study included 13
uplift tests on full-scale anchors installed at a site near a sand quarry. The laboratory tests
included 16 uplift tests on one-third scale model anchors. The laboratory sand was
obtained from field test site. Anchors were installed to two relative depths of embedment.
Equipment and instrumentation were used to measure uplift load, anchor deflection and
sand surface deflections. Instrumentation was also used in laboratory tests to monitor
movement within the soil mass during uplift loading.
The experimental results indicated that a cylindrical soil failure surface developed
below the top helical shaped blade during pullout. Also above the top plate, the failure
surface was dependent on depth of anchor embedment. They found that anchor
installation and soil relative density also influence failure surface development. They
presented a method for estimating uplift capacity based on results of laboratory study and
generally accepted Soil Mechanics principles. They found that field test results of this
study and of other published helix anchor uplift tests in sand predicted reasonably well
using the suggested method.

Mooney, Adamczak and Clemence (1985) presented results of a study on the

uplift capacity of helical anchors in clay and silt. They conducted full scale field tests and
one quarter laboratory tests in each soil type. They performed both field and laboratory
tests with anchors installed at various embedment depths. During anchor pullout testing,
they measured anchor displacement, anchor resistance, and soil surface deflection. Test
results indicated that a similar failure surface developed for all tests. Based on laboratory
and field tests, they presented a method for estimating uplift capacity of helical anchors.
The uplift capacity included the following factors: the sectional force developed below
the bottom helix; the resistance along a cylinder circumscribed about the anchor helices
and the weight of the soil in this cylinder; and the height of the overburden above the top
helix. They found that soil shear strength typically governed the ultimate capacity in clay;
however both frictional and cohesive components of the soil's strength needed
consideration when predicting anchor behavior in silt. They compared the predicted
ultimate capacities with observed ultimate capacities for full scale field tests, and found
the agreement within 15 to 20%.

12
 Proposed uplift analysis

Helical anchors in clay and silt derive their ultimate capacity from similar factors.
The major difference being additional strength of silt due to its frictional component,
model that describes the general failure mechanism for uplift capacity of helical anchors
in clay and silts shown in Fig.2.8.

QomUlftrnoto Pullout COPoollY

fore

Ost% * Friction and octivstOrt

cn anchor* shot I

00 = Plate Bo Capacity

CLAYI Qv * 06,+ Qc Oth

SILT, Q.* 0 Qe Q

Frictional resistance of
soil on foiturs surface

• Cohesion or soil on
failure surface

Pr cl failure sur f

Fig.2.8 Proposed failure mode for multi-helix anchor in clay and silt.

13
The following forces contribute to the anchor's ultimate uplift capacity:-
(1) Cohesion along the anchor's failure cylinder
(2) Uplift resistance of the top helix, dependent on H/D
(3) Friction along the anchor's failure cylinder
(4) Friction and adhesion along the anchor's shaft
(5) Suction below the bottom helix, and
(6) Weight of the soil within the anchor's failure cylinder.

The last two factors were found to contribute only a small percentage of anchor's
overall capacity.
The uplift capacity equation for helical anchors in clay:

Q. =7cDac (H3-Hi) + AicNc. + PsHica (2.2)

The uplift capacity equation for helical anchors in silt:

Q. = irDac (H3-Hi) + nDa (H3-H1) Y {(H3+1-11)/2} ku tan(1)

+ Ai7HiNg. + AicNeu

+ PsHica + PsHi (71-11/2) ku tan (2.3)

where, Qu = Ultimate anchor uplift capacity

= Effective unit weight of soil

H1 = Depth to top helix

Nqu = uplift capacity factor for cohesionless soil (Fig.2.10). The values are
based on laboratory and field tests based on study by various investigators
including Mitcsh et al (1985)
c = cohesion at helix plate

Ncu = uplift capacity factor for cohesive soil (Fig.2.9)

Da = average helix diameter

113 = depth to bottom helix

ku = coefficient of lateral earth pressure in uplift for cohesionless soils.

(Fig.2.11)

14
 Ps = Perimeter of anchor shaft

ca = Adhesion on anchor shaft = me

m = Adhesion Factor (Fig.2.12)

A1= Area of top helix.

Due to their small contribution to ultimate capacity (0.5 to 1%), the suction
beneath the bottom helix and the weight of the soil within the failure surface are not
included in the uplift capacity equation.

X 12 VesiC shallow OnChor theory_

incompressible
_
z
0 ,0 • 4, •
5 to
N Nc theore. curve

fN 0
a
Oe •

t 6
•
Vesic shallow cnchor theory
— —
Compressible

a▪4
4
CL

I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12
RATIO OF DEPTH TO DIANCTER (H/D)
A/4mM OtAia. C
S■w6OL (A) CLAY Yyri.E (..,r) REF.
..-....1.01
8a ..ttg 4J: ,

— 0 56.u25. 2.26 PRICK (2)

a 34 OCHTOrdTf NI
• 3.0 3ILTY (6)
9 2X2 30LIARC SILTY (11)
V (.3X1.3 SQUARE SILTY (9)
0 • 0.341-7.97 $try OW
0 1.023 SOFT (2)
4 2.00. 2.53, 2.S3 SOFT (7)

Fig.2.9. Uplift Capacity Factor, Neu

15
 In Fig.2.9, there is definite band of Nu, values of which is a function of 1-1/D ratio.
At H/D values greater than 5, this band becomes constant with an average value of 9.4.
Therefore deep anchors approach a bearing capacity condition with Ncu approaching Nc,
dependent only on the soil's strength.
In the case of deep anchors or those with enlarged shafts, the effect of soil
adhesion along the anchor shaft contributes to anchor capacity.

150
100

0 41

/ A A.
/ z
t •
SYMBOL SOIL TYRE REFERENCE
U PU FT CA PACI

SAND, 437 MARTIN & NEORE (1967)

/ SAND. dr 35° RADHAKRISHNA (1975)
SAND, BAKER. et al (1965)
SA2ILESSI
24* MILOVIC (1963)
SALID, 45° SOUTHERLAND (1965)
SAND, 461° CLEMENCE (1982)
SAND, 32° KAMAN YAN (1966)
17 SAND. 35° CLEMENCE (1982)
e> V I 0 SAND, 42° ANOREADIS et al (1981)
V SAND MORS (1954)
SAND, 12° ESOU IVEL-01AZ (1967)

Nqu for Helical Anchors

Theoretical valoes INEYERHOF & ADAMS (1968)

4 6 (2 (4
RELATIVE DEPTH TO TOP HELIX,

Fig.2.10. Uplift Capacity Factor, Nqu

16
 Meytrhof Adorns K.
Helical Anchor Ku
woes .sora

•■■010 .0•10 AVM* Awl. Rawiln eo.re.

f
8 IED 12 14 t6 la 20 22
RATIO O WITH TO OtAMETER (WO)

Fig.2.11. Recommended Lateral Stress Value (Ku) for helical anchors and foundations
in uplift

Fig.2.12. Adhesion Factor for piles in clay

17
 Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986) A generalized theory with curved failure surface
through surrounding soil for predicting net uplift capacity of plate anchors in sand has
been given by Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986) as shown in Fig.2.13.

Quv = y H Ng A (2.4)

Where A is the area of the anchor, H is the installation depth of the anchor
plate and y is the effective unit weight of the soil. Ng is a function of Relative Depth
(H/B) and angle of internal friction 4. These values are given in Fig.2.14.

QY

Fig.2.13. Failure surface assumed for horizontal plate anchor

by Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986)

18
 REILATlyE :DEPTH

Fig.2.14. Theoretical values of Breakout Factor (Nq) for horizontal plate anchor in sand
by Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986)

Hoyt and Clemence (1989) analyzed numerous helical anchor tests to determine
ultimate uplift capacities. They noted that methods for predicting ultimate capacity of
anchors using geotechnical parameters are categorized into "cylindrical shear" and
"individual bearing" methods. They also noted that an empirical method for predicting
capacity based on installation torque has been widely used in practice. They calculated
capacities based on three methods for each anchor and compared to actual capacity. Then
they computed the ratios of actual to computed capacities and presented statistical
analyses of distributions of these ratios. They found that torque correlation method
yielded more consistent results than either of the other two methods, although all three
methods exhibited a wide range of values. They concluded that installation torque method
may be used as an independent check of the other two to establish bounds of expected
capacity.

19
 Ghaly and Hanna (1992) conducted experimental investigation on stress
development in sand due to installation and uplifting of helical screw anchors. Five
model anchors with different geometry were tested to examine the effect of screw shape
on stress development in sand. They placed the sand in layers and mechanically
compacted it by hand-held air hammer. They equipped the testing tank with stress
transducers located at predetermined position to allow measuring the stress in sand
around and near vicinity of installation path.

Fig.2.15. Photograph of 5 types of helical screw anchors

used by Ghaly and Hanna (1992)

Stress transducers were oriented such that vertical and lateral stresses could be
measured. They installed anchors into layers of dense, medium and loose sands. Stress
measured indicated that tested sands were slightly over consolidated due to utilized
placing technique. Furthermore, they used the measured stresses to determine the extent
of stress field inside the sand. They employed displacement transducers to measure
deflection of sand surface, during pullout load application. They established the extent of
failure mechanism for shallow, transit and deep anchors utilizing the stresses measured
within the sand together with recorded surface deflection.

20
 Ghaly and Hanna (1994) made an investigation into the performance of single
vertical screw anchors installed in sands. They developed models employing the limit
equilibrium method of analysis to predict uplift capacity of anchors installed into shallow,
transition and deep depths.
They used an experimentally observed log-spiral surface in the theoretical
analysis. They calculated the shear stresses on the surface of rupture using Kotter's
differential equations. To simplify the calculation of uplift capacity from theories
developed, they established weight and shear factors for shallow and deep anchors. These
functions were presented in simple graphs as function of angle of shearing resistance of
the sand and relative depth ratio of the anchor. They introduced the effect of sand over
consolidation from application of mechanical compaction by incorporating the over
consolidation ratio in the uplift capacity calculations. They found the comparisons
between theoretical values and experimental results of their investigations as well as field
results reported in the literature in good agreement.

Ghaly and Clemence (1998) presented experimental and theoretical studies on

performance of inclined helical screw anchors. They also made review and comparison of
previous contributions. They carried out experiments on anchors inclined at 15, 30, 45°
with respect to vertical and installed in dense, medium and loose sands. They carried out
special tests on anchors installed at 45 and 60° into colored layered sands define actual
failure mechanism and associated rupture surface. They produced photographs showing
failure pattern, deformation of layers and schematic rupture surface of these tests.
The results of these tests confirmed that rupture surface is unsymmetrical and of a
very complex nature; however they showed that segments of a logarithmic spiral curve
could represent it. These segments differ in shape and size along the anchor perimeter.
They developed and introduced the concept of a conjugate anchor and auxiliary rupture
surface to correlate the pullout capacities of inclined and vertical anchors installed to the
same depth in identical sand conditions.

21
 Fig.2.16. Concept of Actual Rupture Surface of Inclined Anchor, Conjugate
Inclined Anchor and Auxiliary Rupture Surface of Rotated Conjugate Vertical Anchor-
Ghaly and Clemence (1998)

Fig.2.17. Geometry of Rupture Surface and Anchor Inclination -

Ghaly and Clemence (1998)
22
 Wayne Rogers (2002) (Energy Structures Inc.) has brought out Manual of: Screw
Pile Foundations, 5th edition. The manual has introduced accepted engineering methods
of predicting axial and lateral (overturning capacities) of helical anchors and foundations.
A general description of helical (screw type) anchors and typical applications are also
included in it.
Axial Capacity: Individual Plate Capacity Method:

Qt= Qt + + Q. (2.5)

Qt = Sum of individual helix theoretical helix ultimate bearing capacities

n = No. of helices

Qn = Theoretical individual helix ultimate bearing capacity

Qn — An (Nal C + y Ng) (2.6)

An = Projected area of individual helix

Nen = Bearing capacity factor for cohesive soils.

C = Soil cohesion

= Average unit weight of the soil above the helix

y = Depth below surface

Nq = bearing capacity factor for cohesionless soil only (can be determined

from Fig.2.18)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Angle of Internal Friction

Fig.2.18. Value of Nq — Wayne Rogers' manual (2002)

23
 Narasimha Rao (2007) carried out experimental program to show behavior of
multiple helical anchors at different embedment ratios in soft marine clays. The number
of helical plates, their diameters and spacing were varied. Pullout tests were conducted by
anchors installed in a soft marine clayey bed prepared in test tanks and at embedment
ratio of 0-10. The results indicated that anchor capacity increases with embedment ratios.
They explained uplift capacity at any embedment ratio in terms of contribution of
cohesive resistance between top and bottom helical plates, the bearing resistance of the
top helical plate alone and the shaft adhesion above.

Fig.2.19. Typical anchor used by Narasimha Rao et al. (2007)

Based on embedment ratio and observations during testing, they classified the
anchors as shallow, transit and deep anchors. They suggested formulations for estimating
and calculating the capacities of helical anchors which they showed that agreed well with
the results of previous investigators.

24
 CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

3.1 General
Exhaustive experimental investigations have been conducted to study and find
information about the performance of helical screw anchor against axial pullout load,
with special attention to effect of number of helical blades having the same geometrical
properties. To not take into account the effect of spacing between the helix blades on the
performance against pullout loading on multi-helix screw anchor, helical blades were
kept in continuation with each other. One special steel tank was taken to facilitate study
on vertical as well as inclined anchors with angle of inclination (a) with the vertical. To
avoid stresses during installation and change in the properties of silt media, the anchors
were preinstalled in the silt. Few tests were also performed with pair of helical anchors
and with post installed helical anchors to see the difference from the preinstalled helical
anchors. The tests were carried out at different depth of installation to delve into
performance of helical screw anchor at different depth of embedment.

3.2 Helical Screw Anchors

Three types of helical screw anchors having same geometrical properties of
helical blade, but having varying number of pitches, i.e. no. of blades without any spacing
have been used in the present work. These anchors each having 1, 2, 3 helical blades are
termed as 'single helical screw anchor', 'double helical screw anchor', and 'triple helical
screw anchor' respectively. These are shown in Fig.3.1 and Fig.3.2.
These anchors were machine made of mild steel as one unit with no welded,
riveted or bolted joints, thus side effects of these joints on the anchor performance did not
come into play. The outer diameter of the helix was 50 mm, while shaft diameter was 16
mm which was comparatively smaller which resulted in minimizing the effects of shaft
on the anchor performance. The thickness of blade was very thin 2mm). All the anchor
were having conical end of an apex angle of 90°. Length of each anchor was 200 mm. On
the other end of anchor threads were available for facilitating attachment with tie rod.

25
 Tie rods, made of mild steel with 16 mm diameter were used to facilitate tests at
different angles and depths. The weight of whole anchor assembly was negligible as
compared to pullout load subjected, hence neglected.

Threads
20

Shaft Cont inuous

16rnmsha, helm( Dlcrle
2. Smrn thk
router d■c, 50 ,s,
Cantina aux
200 helfeal Mode
2. 5 =I thk. 20
( pitch)
outer dfo.SOmm

T
20(pi,th

Sharp (119,
SO

ELEVATION ELEYATI

Mtlkat blade
2,5 mm thk.,
outer dio.SOmm
seeded to shaft

PLAN PLAN PLAN

Striate hells ( n = 1 ) Double heti% ( n Tr Ipple hetic ( 3 )

Alt cliffitnskans pie, Cn rim

Scale No to 5COIC

Fig.3.1. Sketch showing Single Helical Screw Anchor (n=1), Double Helical Screw
Anchor (n.----2), and Triple Helical Screw Anchor (n=3)

26
Fig.3.2 Single Helical Screw Anchor (n=1), Double Helical Screw Anchor (n=2). and
Triple Helical Screw Anchor (n=3)

Fig.3.3 Arrangement of Pair of Anchors

27
3.3 Experimental Setup

Test tank
A cylindrical tank was used to conduct experimental investigation on vertical as
well as inclined screw anchors with angle of inclination (a) with the vertical. The tank
made up of steel was of height 86 cm with 56 cm diameter. Plan dimension was taken so
as to avoid boundary effect which was considered to be minimal of 3B, where B is the
diameter of helix blade, as suggested by many investigators. While conducting tests on a
pair of helical anchors, this boundary effect along with the effect of interference between
two anchors is also taken into consideration. Thus to prevent these effects the clear
spacing between the two rods was kept to be 3B.

Loading Frame
Loading frame consists of a vertical frame with broad base which is useful in
increasing the stability. On this frame a long channel was attached. Two pulleys were
attached on both ends of this channel. Steel wire was used to apply the load. One end of
the steel wire was attached to the anchor which passes through the two pulleys and
reached to the other side where weights were applied.

3.4 Soil Used in Study

Soil used was locally collected soil which had been procured from the banks of
Ganges canal in Roorkee. The soil was silt. Specific gravity of the soil was 2.55 with
density of soil 14.7 KN/m3 during the experimental tests. Relative density during the test
was 65%.

28
 Engineering properties of soil used are listed as below (Table 3.1):

Table 3.1 Engineering Properties of Experimental Soil

Sl. No. Characteristics Value
1 Soil type/ classification ML
2 Specific gravity of solids (Gs) at 27°C 2.55
3 Minimum void ratio (emir) 0.73
4 Maximum void ratio (emax) 1.14
5 Average density under test condition (yd) 14.71(1\11m3
6 Relative density under test condition (DR) 65%
7 Angle of shearing resistance by direct shear test 36°

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
sieve size (mm)

Fig.3.4 Grain Size Distribution Curve

29
3.5 Test Procedure
Computation of Weight of Soil:
Ultimate Pullout Capacity has been measured with anchor installed in the soil at
different depths. Pullout Tests has been conducted at three Depth Ratio (H/B) = 4, 6, 8,
where H is the depth of embedment of centre of helical screw part of the anchor from soil
surface and B is the diameter of the helix. 3B = 3 x 0.05 = 0.15 m, is provided to
eliminate boundary effect at the bottom of the anchor.
With maximum and minimum void ratios 1.14 and 0.73 respectively and with
65% relative density, a known weight of soil was placed in the tank of known volume to
maintain a uniform density 14.7 kN/m3.

Preparation and Placing of Experimental Soil:

Soil was air dried before placing in the tank. Special care had been given to the
soil so that the soil was dried uniformly.
The prepared soil sample was then placed in the test tank in layers of 50 mm
thick. Each layer was hand packed to ensure homogeneous packing and to get uniform
density. After the soil bed had been prepared to the required thickness to eliminate
bottom boundary effect (i.e. 3B = 3 x 0.05 = 0.15m, where B is the diameter of helix
plate), helical screw anchor with all the accessories attached was placed at the centre of
the test tank and kept vertical (or inclined at desired angle with vertical, if the test was
Inclined Pullout Test). Thereafter prepared soil was hand packed in the test tank for
remaining depth (say, H).

Conduct of Experiment:
Steel wire cable was connected to the anchor hook and was passed over two
pulleys. These pulley brackets were fixed at desired positions with the help of clamps and
nut-bolt system with the horizontal channel. The adjustment of first pulley was done in
such a way that pullout load was exactly along the anchor axis. The other end of the steel
wire passed through the other pulley with hanger suspending at its end. For measurement
of axial displacement, two dial gauges (with magnetic bases) on each side of the anchor
tie rod were used as shown in Fig.3.5.

30
 The loads were placed slowly on the hanger without any impact and readings
were taken only after dial gauges were stabilized. Loads were continuously increased in
smaller steps till failure when dial gauges showed continuous increase in displacement
without any further application of loads. Simultaneously load displacement curves were
also plotted. The load at which anchor came out with a large upward displacement was
considered as Ultimate Pullout Capacity, Q. Load displacement curve gives prior
indication about the failure and pullout. After completion of each test, all the
arrangements from the test setup were removed.
The dial gauges were mounted on the rod as shown in the photographs with each
of the two dial gauges at each side of the anchor tie-rod. For each of the helical screw
anchor (i.e. n=1, 2, 3), tests were carried out at depth ratio (H/B) of 4, 6, & 8 and
inclination angles (with the vertical) of 0, 15 and 30°. Thus 27 tests were conducted with
these above combinations. But on account of time constraints, the tests with inclination
angles more then 30° could not be carried out. Few tests were also performed with pair of
helical anchors, in which clear spacing between the anchors was maintained as 3B (3 x
0.05=0.15m, where B is the diameter of helix), to eliminate interference effect. Also
some tests were conducted with post installed helical anchors to see the difference from
the pre installed helical anchors. To maintain direction of pull precisely, pulleys were
tightly fixed on the channel.

31
 3.6 Experimental Results
Displacement readings were taken with every increment of load to get load
displacement curves. It was observed that with increase in pullout load, rate of increase in
displacement increases till it fails finally.
For the entire tests, axial pullout load and axial displacement graphs were plotted
and Ultimate Pullout Load (Q) was found when displacement became infinity at that
particular load. At this point, load-displacement curve became asymptotic to the
displacement axis. The load vs displacement curves for single, double and triple anchors
are displayed in Fig.3.9 to Fig 3.12. The Ultimate Pullout Loads for all the tests are
shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Ultimate Pullout Load, Q (N)

Angle of Double blade (n=2) Triple blade (n=3)

Single blade (n=1)
inclination H/B H/B H/B
a
4 6 8 4 6 8 4 6 8
(Degrees)
0 113.40 408.24 703.08 124.74 453.60 748.44 136.08 498.96 793.80

15 102.06 385.56 680.40 117.90 408.24 703.08 124.74 453.60 748.44

30 90.72 362.88 657.72 102.06 385.56 680.40 113.40 430.92 703.08

Based on the above results, the curves have been plotted to highlight the influence
of various factors on the Ultimate Pullout Capacity and Displacement. These have been
discussed in the next chapter.

32
Fig.3.5 Pullout Test in Progress for Vertical Helical Screw Anchor

33
 est Setup
ftg.3 .6 Close View' Vullunt

Vigl Vullout Test inVtogtess fov 106ue(3, 601 screw Anchor

34
Fig.3.8 Pullout Test in Progress for Pair of Helical Screw Anchor

35
 (b) H/B=6

600

500
z
1:4 400
0

0 300

o..
713 200

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Axial Displacement (mm)

Fig.3.9. (a) and (b) Load Displacement Curves for Helical Screw Anchor

36
 Fig.3.9. (c) Load Displacement Curves for Helical Screw Anchor

(a) n=1, H/B=4

120

100

80
Pullout Load

- a- 0°
60 - a- 15°
—*— a- 30°
Axial

40

20

3
Axial Displacement (mm)

Fig.3.10. (a) Effect of Inclination of Helical Anchor on Pullout Load

37
Fig.3.10. (b) and (c) Effect of Inclination of Helical Anchor on Pullout Load

38
Fig.3.10. (d) and (e) Effect of Inclination of Helical Anchor on Pullout Load

39
Fig.3.10. (f) and (g) Effect of Inclination of Helical Anchor on Pullout Load

40
 (i) n=3, H/B=8

800

700
z
600
co
0
500 —+— a- 0°

20- 400
a= 15°
—*— a= 30°
300

200

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Axial Displacement (mm)

Fig.3.10. (h) and (i) Effect of Inclination of Helical Anchor on Pullout Load

41
 (a) H/B=4 (Pair)

300

2. 250
-o n-3
co 200 n-2
—A— n=1
g 150
H
oT. 100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Axial Displacement (mm)

(b) H/B=6 (Pair)

800

700
n=3
E 600
V -41- n=2

0 500 --a - n=1

0 400

0. 300
To
4 200

100

0
1 2 3 4 6
Axial Displacement (mm)

Fig.3.11. (a) and (b) Pullout Load Vs Axial displacement for Pair of Helical anchors

42
 (b) n=2, H/B=6

500

450 •
400
Axial PulloutLoad (N

350
a Pre Insertion
300 -Au—Post Insertion
250

200

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Axial Displace me nt (mm)

Fig.3.12. (a) and (b) Effect of Pre insertion and Post Insertion of Helical Anchors on
Pullout Load
43
 (c) n=3, H/B=6

550
500
450
z 400
co 350 Pre Insertion

300 Post Insertion

250
o- 200
x 150
100
50
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Axial Displacement (mm)

Fig.3.12. (c) Effect of Pre insertion and Post Insertion of Helical Anchors on Pullout
Load

44
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General
Analyses of experimental results obtained have been done in this chapter. The
tests in ideal condition showed consistency in results. The effect of number of helical
blades (n), installation depth (H) and inclination angle (a) on the pullout capacity (Q) of
helical screw anchors has been studied and accordingly comparisons of test results with
theoretical values are also done. A best fitted equation has been developed based on the
test results. This equation is also verified by some tests conducted in field.

4.2 Mode of Failure

4.2.1 Figs.3.9 and 3.10 show the axial pullout load versus axial displacement curves for
single (n=1), double (n=2) and triple (n=3) helical anchors. From the plot, it is obvious
that with increase in pullout load, displacement increases and rate in increase in
displacement is higher at higher loads and at failure it attains infinity.
Example: Consider the plot for n=2, H/B=6 and a-0° (Fig.3.10 (e)), for the load
increment of 100N, from 50 N to 150 N, displacement increases from 0.14 mm to 0.75
mm, i.e., 0.61 mm, while from 250 N to 350 N, displacement increases from 1.33 mm to
2.96 mm, i.e., 1.63 mm.
4.2.2 When pullout load approaches to its ultimate value, i.e. Q, a sudden failure is
observed and displacement at this point becomes infinity.
Example: For the same plot as considered earlier, at about 450 N load,
displacement is 5.08 mm. At this stage with the load increment of 25 N, anchor fails by
displacement increasing rapidly to infinity.
4.2.3 At ultimate pullout load, values of axial displacements are smaller when angle of
inclination a is higher.
Example: For n=2, 1-1/B=6 (Fig.3.10 (e)), displacements at ultimate pullout load
(Q) obtained for angle of inclination 0, 15 and 30° are 5.96, 4.52 and 3.68 mm
respectively.

45
4.2.4 For constant a and n, the load required for inflicting same displacement is higher
for initial increase in H/B then for further increase in H/B.
Example: From Fig.3.10 (b, e & h), for n=2, a=0°, for displacement of 1 mm,
corresponding load for H/B = 4, 6, 8 are 122, 336, and 400 N respectively. For initial
increase in H/B, load increase is 214 N. For further increase in H/B, load increase is 64
N. This confirms the above stated phenomenon.
4.2.5 Fig.3.11 shows the axial pullout load versus displacement for pair of helical
anchors. From the plot, for less depth (i.e. H/B=4), the ultimate pullout load is
approximately double in case of pair of helical anchor then in single number of helical
anchor keeping number of blades constant. But for more depths (i.e. H/B=6), the ultimate
load in pair of helical anchor is about 1.5 times to that of single helical anchor.
4.2.6 Fig.3.12 shows the axial pullout load versus displacement for post installed
anchors, installed by application of torque, to see the difference in pullout load capacity
from that of pre installed helical anchors. The average difference comes out to be, 77 %
i.e., the ultimate pullout capacity of post installed anchors is about 77 % to that of pre
installed anchors.

4.3 Effect of Depth Ratio (H/B)

Fig.4.1 displays plot of ultimate pullout load (Q) versus depth ratio (H/B)
maintaining anchor properties constant. It is observed that, though ultimate pullout load
increases with increase in depth ratio, however rate of increase is higher for initial
increase in H/B than that of later increase in H/B. This indicates that with further increase
in installation depth, no significant gain in pullout capacity will be obtained; rather it is
felt that it may attain a constant value or have a very insubstantial increase after some
further increase in installation depth.
Example: In Fig.4.1 (a), i.e. n=1 and a=0°, for H/B ratio of 4, 6 and 8, the uplift
capacity values are 113.4, 408.24 and 703.08 N respectively. Hence for initial increase in
H/B, the Q increase is 260 %, while for further increase in H/B, the increase in Q is 72 %
only which is quite less than earlier increase.
It is also observed from Fig.4.1 that curves for all angles of inclinations (a) are
approximately parallel to each other.

46
 The confirmation about this also comes from Fig.4.4 wherein plot of Q versus a
for anchor properties being the same, parallel nature of curves is obtained for various I-1/13
ratios. This signals that effect of installation depth on pullout capacity (Q) is similar for
all angles of inclinations.

4.4 Effect of Angle of Inclination (a)

4.4.1 Fig.4.4 displays the plot of Q versus a with same anchor properties but different
depth ratios. It can be seen that with increase in a, the pullout capacity decreases..
However rate of decrease in pullout capacity is higher for increase in angle between 0 to
15° than for between 15 to 30°. Availability of experimental test results for angles 45°
and more would have further highlighted the effect.
Example: In Fig.4.4 (b), n=2 for H/B=6, the pullout capacities values for a = 0,
15, and 30° are 453.6, 408.24 and 385.56 N respectively. For increase in angle of
inclination from 0 to 15°, the decrease in pullout capacity is 10 %, while for further
increase from 15 to 30° this decrease is 5.5 %, which is about half the earlier decrease.
4.4.2 A glance at Fig.4.4 and considering curves for H/B ratios 4, 6, and 8
simultaneously clearly reflects that rate of decrease in Q is higher with increase in a in
case of lower H/B value than that of greater H/B value.
Example: In Fig.4.4 (a), by considering all installation depths, the results obtained
are shown in Table 4.1. From this table it is obvious, that as H/B increases, the %
decrease in pullout capacity for increment in a decreases. For anchors installed at H/B=4,
% decrease in Q for increase in a is higher than that for anchors installed at H/B=6 and
similarly for H/B=6 to H/B=8.
Table 4.1. Effect of Angle of Inclination, a (for n=1) on the Ultimate Pullout Capacity, Q
w.r.t. Relative Depth (H/B)
Ultimate Pullout Load, Q (N) for %Decrease in Q
H/B Angle of Inclination a for increase in a
0° 30° from 0 to 30°
4 113.40 90.72 20
6 408.24 362.88 11.1
8 703.08 657.72 6.5

47
4.5 Effect of Anchor Properties: No. of Helical Blades
4.5.1 Fig.4.3 displays the plot of Q versus n (no. of helical blades), maintaining a
constant while H/B ratio is varied. It is observed that with an increase in n, Q increases.
In general this increase in pullout capacity is more for initial increase in no. of helical
blades (n), than for subsequent increase in no. of helical blades (n) but with a less
amount. But in few of the cases, a reverse trend is also seen, however this can be
attributed towards an experimental error. In Fig.4.3, it can be observed that gap between
curves for H/B ratio of 4 and 6 is greater than gap between H/B ratio of 6 and 8,
especially when n=3.
Example: In Fig.4.3 (a) for a = 0°, H/B = 6 and n = 1, 2 & 3, the corresponding
pullout capacities are 408.24, 453.60 and 498.96 N respectively. This gives the %
increase in Q i.e. 11.11 % for n = 1 to 2, which is more than corresponding increase for 2
to 3 which is about 9.5 %.
4.5.2 Fig.4.2 shows the plot for Q versus H/B for angle of inclination a constant. A
glance at these curves for n value 1, 2 & 3 simultaneously that Q value increases with
increase in 'n' and H/B. This signals that multi-helix anchors will be more useful and
effective in deeper depths than at shallow depths.

4.6 Theoretical Considerations

Using theoretical expression given by Mooney, et al. (1985) and Wayne Rogers
(2002), Pullout Capacities of vertical anchors have been computed. The details of
calculations have been given in Appendix 'A'. Considering these graphs at a=0°, the
theoretical values are compared with experimental values.
From Fig.4.5 and 4.6, it can be observed that values obtained by using theories of
Mooney, et al. (1985) for helical screw anchor are in very close proximity with
experimental values for anchors installed at H/B=4. This value is just 3 % lesser then the
experimental value. While at deeper depths i.e. at H/B= 6 and 8, the theory
underestimates the pullout capacity.
Consider the data in Table A-1 in Appendix 'A', values obtained by Wayne
Rogers' method, yields highly conservative value for n=1, except for H/B=4, while it
overestimates the capacity for n=3. But for n=2, values obtained are reasonable, again
except for H/B=4.

48
 Wayne Rogers's method therefore from the above comparison can be applied only
to helical screw anchor with helical blades at spacing. Since each individual helical blade
is considered to act as independent plate offering independent pullout resistance which
has to be summed to get total pullout resistance. Wayne Rogers's method is unsuitable
for helical screw anchors with continuous helical blades.
In Appendix 'A', theoretical calculations of pullout capacities of helical anchors
(a=0°) using expression given by Mooney, et al. (1985) are given.

4.7 Equation Developed

An attempt has been made to develop an equation from the test results. Multiple
variable regressions were made to get a best fitted curve for generating an equation from
the experimental values which can be adaptable in the field. The feasibility of the
equation can be governed by value of Root mean square which is coming out to be 0.996
which is approaching to 1. A C++ program is written in Appendix 'C' to calculate the
embedded depth which can be used in field, for different combinations of pullout load
(Q), number of helical blade(n), and diameter of helix (B) from the equation given below
to get a brief idea in actual field purpose.

The equation developed is as follows:

(Q/7B3) = ml * (I-1/B) + m2 * (n) + pi - m3 * (a) (4.1)

where,
ml, m2, m3 and pi are constants calculated from regression process, as 81.53,
15.09, 0.9143 and (-) 279.3 respectively.
Q = pullout load in IN.
y = density of soil in IN/m3
B = diameter of helix in meter
H = depth of middle of helices length from soil surface
n = number of helical blades
a = angle of inclination from vertical in degree.

49
 Field tests were also conducted to verify the above equation. Anchor with 8 inch
(0.2032 m.) of helix diameter and with 3 numbers of helices was inserted vertically in the
field to check the pullout load taken by this anchor. The embedded depth was taken in
such a way that the H/B value comes out to be 6 (i.e. approximately 1.22 m. inside the
ground). The soil density calculated in the field which was 17 kN/m3.
Putting all the above values in equation 4.1 we get, Q equal to 36.40 kN. As the
test conducted in field was in pair, so the anchor should take twice the above load
calculated. The pullout load taken by the pair of anchor in the field was 110 kN which
was much on the safer side. Similarly, for H/B = 4 and 8 was also conducted in the field
and the pullout load coming on the field was higher then the calculated value from the
above equation. Fig.4.7 and 4.8 shows the test setup in the field.

50
•

(b) p=2

800

700
0
• 600

3- 500
a- 0°
o 400 a- 15°
0. —A— a= 30°
300
la'
.41 200

E 100
tr,
0
2 4 6 8 10
Depth Ratio (H/B)

Fig.4.1 (a) and (b) Ultimate Axial Pullout Load Capacity (Q) Vs Depth Ratio (H/B):
No. of Helical Blades Constant

51
 (c) n=3

900

• 800
a
47, 700
a
co
600
C.) -4— a- 0°
4-,
• 500
0 a - 15°
3 400
a- —a-- a- 30°
• 300

100
z
0
2 4 6 8 10
Depth Ratio (H/B)

Fig.4.1 (c) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity Vs Depth Ratio (H/B):

No. of Helical Blades Constant

(a) Angle = 0 deg.

900

• 800
a
700
a 600
45 500
0
'3 400
a.
Ia. 300

t 200

E 100
5
0

2 4 6 8 10
Depth Ratio (H/B)

Fig.4.2 (a) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity Vs Depth Ratio (H/B):

Angle of Inclination (a) Constant

52
Fig.4.2 (b) and (c) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity Vs Depth Ratio (H/B):
Angle of Inclination (a) Constant

53


(a) Angle= 0 deg.

900

800
a
. 700

600
0
H/B= 4
S' 500
—41--H/B= 6
400 H/B= 8
114 300
:r

f, 200
E
100
5
0
0 1 2 3 4
No. of Helix (n)

(b) Angle= 15 deg.

800

E 700
a
600
co
o.
co 500
H/B= 4
5 400 -411- H /B=6
a. H/B= 8
300
To'
200
m
fu
100
5
0
0 1 2 3 4
No. of Helix (n)

Fig.4.3 (a) and (b) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity (Q) Vs No. of Helical Blades (n):
Angle of Inclination (a) Constant
54


Fig.4.3 (c) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity (Q) Vs No. of Helical Blades (n):
Angle of Inclination (a) Constant

(a) n=1

800
Pullout Capacity, Q (N)

700 e

600

500
--*—H/B= 4
400
- H/B= 6
Ultimate Axial

300 --lc- H/B= 8

200

100

0
0 15 30
Angle of Inclination with the Vertical (degree)

Fig.4.4 (a) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity (Q) Vs Angle of Inclination (a):
No. of Helical Blades (n) Constant

55

•

(b) n=2

800
•
• 700
a
,Z7s 600
*a
.500 -
• ---.—H/B= 4
o 400 -MP-- H/B= 6

a. - H/B= 8
:a 300

200
•
100

0
15 30
0
Angle of Inclination with the Vertical (degree)

- H/B= 4
—a— H/B= 6
--•--H/B= 8

0
15 30
0
Angle of Inclination with the Vertical (degree)

Fig.4.4 (b) and (c) Ultimate Axial Pullout Capacity (Q) Vs Angle of Inclination (a):
No. of Helical Blades (n) Constant

56


(a)n=1

800

5 700
a
as 600
500
E
0. 400
a
300

200 - Experimental

100
0

2 4 6 8 10
Depth Ratio (H/B)

(b)n=2

800

'as700 -
a.
as 600 -

500-1
3— E 400 -
.ce
300 -
200 - Experimental
100 –a---Analytical

0

2 4 6 8 10
Depth Ratio (H/B)

Fig.4.5 (a) and (b) Comparison of Experimental Results with Analytical Method
proposed by Mooney, Adamczak and Clemence (1985) for a --- 0°.

57


(c) n=3

900
E3 800 -
R
os 700
0
' 600 -
o
2 500 -
• a 400 -
300 -
4••• 200 - Experimental
47. 100 - --o— Analytical
0
4 6 8 10
Depth Ratio (H/B)

Fig.4.5 (c) Comparison of Experimental Results with Analytical Method proposed by

Mooney, Adamczak and Clemence (1985) for a = 0°.

Fig.4.6 (a) Comparison of Experimental Results with Analytical Method proposed by

Mooney, Adamczak and Clemence (1985) for a = 0°.

58


(c) H/B=8

900
5 800
o_
700 -
3 600
B. 2 500 -
a.
0 400 -
•To
—
300 -
200 Experimental
03
100 - Analytical
0

0 1 2 3 4
No. of Helix, n

Fig.4.6 (b) and (c) Comparison of Experimental Results with Analytical Method
proposed by Mooney, Adamczak and Clemence (1985) for a = 0°.

59
Fig.4.7 Pullout Test in Progress for Vertical Helical Screw Anchor in Field

Fig.4.8 Anchor with Handle used in the Field

60
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

5.1 General
Discussions and critical analysis of results of tests carried out on helical screw
anchors by varying number of blades (n), Depth Ratio (H/B), and angle of inclination
with the vertical (a) have been done in the previous chapter by making use of numerous
graphs. The experimental results are compared with the theoretical results. Theories for
investigation of pullout capacity for vertical anchors been checked for their adaptability.
Conclusions drawn from these analysis and discussions are given as:

• From the plot of load-displacement curve, it is observed that with increase in

pullout load, displacement increases and rate of increase in displacement is higher
at higher loads and failure it attains infinity.
• For a given magnitude of axial displacement, pullout load is smaller when angle
of inclination with the vertical (a) is greater.
• Displacement at failure (i.e., at pullout) is greater at greater pullout load.
• As angle of inclination increases, pullout load decreases and displacement at
failure (i.e., at pullout) also decreases.
• It is also seen that for same angle of inclination and anchor properties, the load
required for inflicting same displacement is higher for initial increase in H/B than
for further increase in H/B.
• In plot of Ultimate Pullout Load (Q) versus Angle of Inclination (a), for anchor
properties (n) being the same, parallel nature of curves is observed for various
Depth Ratio (H/B). This indicates that influence of installation depth (H) will be
same for all angle of inclination.
• It is observed that, though with increase in H/B, Q increases, however rate of
increase is higher for initial increase in H/B than for further increase in H/B. This
reveals that with further increase in installation depth, no significant gain in
pullout capacity will be achieved.

61
• Maximum value of pullout load is achieved when n is maximum (i.e., n=3) at
maximum H/B value (Le., H/B = 8). This reveals that multi-helix anchors will be
more useful and effective at deeper depths than at shallow depths.
• It is observed that ultimate pullout load increases with the increase in number of
helical blades. Moreover in general it is found that, this increase in Q is more for
initial increase in 'n', than for further increase in 'n'. But in few results, a reverse
trend is also observed, however this can be attributed towards experimental error.
• It is observed that ultimate pullout capacity (Q) decreases with increase in angle
of inclination (a). However this rate of decrease in Q is higher for increase from
0° to 15° than from 15° to 30°.
• From the axial pullout load versus displacement curves for pair of helical anchors,
the ultimate pullout load (Q) is approximately double in case of pair of helical
anchor than in single number of helical anchor for less depth (i.e., H/B=4),
keeping number of blades constant. But for more depths (i.e., H/B=6 or more), Q
in pair of helical anchor is about 1.5 times to that of single helical anchor.
• Helical anchors can be used at sites where pullout loads are envisaged where
higher pullout load is expected; pair of helical anchors can be given.
• From axial pullout load versus displacement curves for post installed and pre
installed anchors, the ultimate pullout capacity of post installed anchors installed
by application of torque, is about 77% to that of pre installed anchors.
• It is observed that values obtained by using theories of Mooney, et al. (1985) for
helical screw anchor are in very close proximity with experimental values for
anchors installed at H/B=4. This value is just 3 % lesser then the experimental
value. While at deeper depths i.e. at H/B= 6 and 8, the theory underestimates the
pullout capacity.
• Values obtained by Wayne Rogers' method, yields highly conservative value for
n=1, except for H/B=4, while it overestimates the capacity for n=3. But for n=2,
values obtained are reasonable, again except for H/B=4. Wayne Rogers's method
hence from the above comparison can be applied only to helical screw anchor
with helical blades at spacing. Since each individual helical blade is considered to
act as independent plate offering independent pullout resistance which has to be
summed to get total pullout resistance.

62
 • A look at the pullout resistance offered by various portions of helical anchor
reveals that plate bearing resistance of the top helix offers maximum resistance to
pullout.

5.2 Scope of Future Study

With advancement in technology, backed by adequate research work, helical
screw anchors may find its application in many civil engineering projects. Its use in India
is practically very limited. To bring out utmost potential hidden in the applications of
helical screw anchor in the field, further study is required to be undertaken.
Tests should be done with different number of densities to get more clear view of
behavior of helical screw anchors. Tests can be done with variable surcharge. The
equation generated from the results will become more accurate with more number of tests
with variation in densities and surcharges.
Due to unavoidable circumstances, tests on helical screw anchors installed at 45°
and more could not be conducted. Tests with these angles of inclinations with the vertical
will further emphasize the change in the behavior of helical screw anchors.
Since spacing between helical blades does affect the behavior of helical screw
anchor, no comparative study has been undertaken to analyze the behavior of multi-
helical screw anchors having continuous blades and having blades at spacing. Hence tests
with above mentioned condition can be conducted.

63
 REFERENCES

1. Chattopadhyay, B.C. and Pise, P.J. (1986). "Breakout resistance of horizontal anchors
in sand", J. Soils and Foundation, JSSMFE, 26(4), 16-22.
2. Das, B.M. and Seeley, G.R. (1975). "Breakout resistance of shallow horizontal
anchors", J. Geotechnical Engg. Division, 101(9), 999-1003.
3. Ghaly, A.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1998). "Pullout performance of inclined helical
screw anchors in sand", J. Geotechnical Engg., ASCE, 124(7), 617-627.
4. Ghaly, A.M., Hanna, A.M. and Hanna, M. (1994). "Installation torque of screw
anchors in sand", J. Soils and Foundation, JSSMFE, 31(2), 72-84.
5. Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M. (1992). "Stresses and strains around helical screw
anchors in sand", J. Soil and Foundation, JSSMFE, 32(4), 27-42.
6. Harvey, R.C. and Burley, E. (1973). "Behavior of shallow inclined anchors in
cohessionless sand", Ground Engg., ASCE, 118(9), 282-312.
7. Hoyt, R.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1989). "Uplift capacity of helical anchors in soil",
12th ICSMFE, Vol. 2, pp. 1019-1022.
8. Kulhawy, F.H. (1985). "Uplift behavior of shallow inclined anchors - An overview",
Proc. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundation in Soil, ASCE, Michigan, USA, 1-25.
9. Larnach, W.J. and McMullan, D.J. (1974). "Behavior of inclined group of plate
anchors in dry sand", Proc. of 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics, 1511-
1512.
10.Meyerhof, G.G. (1973). "Uplift resistance of inclined anchors and piles", Proc. of 8th
ICSMFE, Vol. 2, 167-172.
11.Meyerhof, G.G. and Adams, J.I. (1968). "The ultimate uplift of foundations",
Canadian Geotechnical J., 5(4), 225-244.
12. Mitsch, M.P. and Clemence, S.P. (1985). "The uplift capacity of helix anchors in
sand", Proc. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundation in Soil, ASCE, Michigan, USA,
26-47.
13. Mooney, J., Adamczak, S. and Clemence, S.P. (1985). "Uplift capacity of helical
anchors in clay and silt", Proc. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundation in Soil, ASCE,
48-72.

64
14.Narasimha Rao, S. (2007). "Pullout behavior of screw and suction anchors in soft
marine clays", Indian Geotechnical J., 37(1), 1-37.
15. Radhakrishna, H.S. (1976). "Helix anchor tests in sand", Ontario Hydro Research
Division, Research Report, 76-130K, pp. 1-33.
16.Rogers, W. (2002). "Manual of: Screw Pile Foundations", Energy Structures Inc.
Houston, Texas, USA (Personal communication, helixusa@aol.com).
17.Tran, V.N. (1971). "Ultimate uplift capacity of anchor piles", Proc., 4th Budapest
Conf. on Soil Mech. And Found. Engg., Akademiai Kiodo, Budapest, Hungary, 589-
60.
18.Trofimenkov, J.G. and Mariupolskii, L.G. (1965). "Screw piles used for mast and
tower foundation", Proc., 6th ICSMFE, Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, 2,
328-332.
19.Udwari, J.J., Rodgers, T.E. and Singh, H. (1979). "A rational approach to the design
of high capacity multi helix screw anchors", Proc., 7th IEEE/PES, Transmission and
Distribution Conf. and Exposition, New York, USA, 600-610.
20. Vesic, A.S. (1971). "Breakout resistance of objects embedded in ocean bottom", J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Engg., ASCE, 97, SM9, 1183-1206.

65
 APPENDIX 'A'

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS WITH

SOME OF THE EXISTING THEORETICAL ANALYSES

(Refer Para 4.6)

A.1 Vertical Anchor (a = 0°)

A.1.1 Mooney, Adamczak and Clemence (1985)

Equation 2.3 is modified to compute pullout capacity for the helical screw anchor
for the present case:
(a) H/B = 4, n = 1
ku = 1.95 (From Fig.2.11)
No = 14.5 (From Fig.2.9)
= 0, c = 0 (Cohesion less soil)
(1) = 36°
Pitch of Helix = 16mm.
Area of Helix, A = 1.96 x 10-3 m2
Perimeter of Anchor Shaft, Ps = 0.05 m.
Pullout Load taken by bottom 15mm (as c = 0),
= Ps x 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 x kt, x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 1.95 x tan36
= 0.117 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
= x 0.05 x 0.016) (0.2 x 14.7) x 1.95 x tan36
= 10.464 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.192) No
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.192) 14.5
= 80.213 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.192) (7 x 0.192) x 0.5 x x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.192) (14.7 x 0.192) x 0.5 x 1.95 x tan36
= 19.194 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.117 + 10.464 + 80.213 + 19.194
= 109.99 N.

66
(b) H/B = 6, n = 1
ku = 2.45, Nqu = 22, c = 0

Pullout load taken by bottom 15 mm.

= Ps x 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 2.45 x tan36
= 0.147 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
= (ic x 0.05 x 0.016) (0.3 x 14.7) x 2.45 x tan36
= 19.72 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.292) Nqu
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.292) 22
= 185.09 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.292) (y x 0.292) x 0.5 x x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.292) (14.7 x 0.292) x 0.5 x 2.45 x tan36
= 55.78 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.147 + 19.72 + 185.09 + 55.78
= 260.74 N.

(c) H/B = 8, n = 1
ku = 2.75, Nqu = 32, c = 0

Pullout load taken by bottom 15 mm.

= Ps x 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 x kti x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 2.75 x tan36
= 0.165 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
= (7r x 0.05 x 0.016) (0.4 x 14.7) x 2.75 x tan36
= 29.51 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.392) Nqu
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.392) 32
= 361.42 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.392)(yx 0.392) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.392) (14.7 x 0.392) x 0.5 x 2.75 x tan36
= 112.83 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.165 + 29.51 + 361.42 + 112.83
= 503.925 N.

67
(d) H/B = 4, n = 2
ku = 1.95, Nqu = 14.5, c = 0

Pullout Load taken by bottom 15mm

= Ps x 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 1.95 x tan36
= 0.117 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
= (it x 0.05 x 0.032) (0.2 x 14.7) x 1.95 x tan36
= 20.926 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.192) Nqu
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.192) 14.5
= 80.213 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.184) (y x 0.184) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.184) (14.7 x 0.184) x 0.5 x 1.95 x tan36
= 17.63 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.117 + 20.926 + 80.213 + 17.63
= 118.886 N.

(e) H/B = 6, n = 2
kt, = 2.45, Nqu = 22, c = 0

Pullout load taken by bottom 15 mm.

= Po( 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 2.45 x tan36
= 0.147 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
= (it x 0.05 x 0.032) (0.3 x 14.7) x 2.45 x tan36
= 39.438 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.292) Nqu
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.292) 22
= 185.09 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.284)(yx 0.284) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.284) (14.7 x 0.284) x 0.5 x 2.45 x tan36
= 52.762 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.147 + 39.438 + 185.09 + 52.762
= 277.437 N.

68
(f) H/B = 8, n = 2
kt, = 2.75, Nu = 32, c = 0

Pullout load taken by bottom 15 mm.

= Ps x 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 x x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 2.75 x tan36
= 0.165 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
=(itx 0.05 x 0.032) (0.4 x 14.7) x 2.75 x tan36
= 59.02 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x0.392) No
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.392) 32
= 361.42 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (P, x 0.384) (y x 0.384) x 0.5 xku xtan36
= (0.05 x 0.392) (14.7 x 0.392) x 0.5 x 2.75 x tan36
= 108.27 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.165 + 59.02 + 361.42 + 108.27
= 528.875 N.

(g) H/B = 4, n = 3
= 1.95, Ng. = 14.5, c = 0

Pullout Load taken by bottom 15mm

= Ps x 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 1.95 x tan36
= 0.117 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
= x 0.05 x 0.048) (0.2 x 14.7) x 1.95 x tan36
= 31.39 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.192) Nqu
= 1.96x10-3 (143 x 0.192) 14.5
= 80.213 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.176) x 0.176) x 0.5 x x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.176) (14.7 x 0.176) x 0.5 x 1.95 x tan36
= 16.13 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.117 + 31.39 + 80.213 + 16.13
= 127.85 N.

69
(h) H/B = 6, n = 3
ku = 2.45, Nqu = 22, c = 0

Pullout load taken by bottom 15 mm.

= PO( 0.015 x (y x 0.015) x 0.5 xlcu x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 2.45 x tan36
= 0.147 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
=(itx 0.05 x 0.048) (0.3 x 14.7) x 2.45 x tan36
= 59.16 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.292) Nqu
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.292) 22
= 185.09 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.276) (y x 0.276) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.276) (14.7 x 0.276) x 0.5 x 2.45 x tan36
= 49.83 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.147 + 59.16 + 185.09 + 49.83
= 294.227 N.

(i) H/B = 8, n = 3
ku = 2.75, Nqu = 32, c = 0

Pullout load taken by bottom 15 mm.

= PO( 0.015 x (7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x x tan36
= 0.05 x 0.015 x (14.7 x 0.015) x 0.5 x 2.75 x tan36
= 0.165 N.
Pullout load taken by cylindrical soil formed in the helix
= x 0.05 x 0.048) (0.4 x 14.7) x 2.75 x tan36
= 88.534 N.
Pullout load taken by helix as plate bearing
= A(y x 0.392) Nqu
= 1.96x10-3 (14.7 x 0.392) 32
= 361.42 N.
Pullout load taken by anchor shaft
= (Ps x 0.376) (y x 0.376) x 0.5 x ku x tan36
= (0.05 x 0.376) (14.7 x 0.376) x 0.5 x 2.75 x tan36
= 103.81 N.
Total Pullout Load
= 0.165 + 88.534 + 361.42 + 103.81
= 553.93 N.

70
 A.1.2 Wayne Rogers (2002)
Equations 2.5 and 2.6 are to be used

An - Area of Helix = 1.96 x 10-31112

= 28
NCU 0 (For (1) = 36° from Fig.2.18)
(For cohesion less soil)
n= 1, H/B = 4
Qt = Qn An (Neu C + y y Ng)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.20 x 28)
= 161.35 N

11 = 1, H/B = 6
Qt = Qn = An(NcuC+y y
Nq)
- 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.30 x28)
= 242.02 N

n = 1, TUB = 8
Qt Qn An (Ncu C + y Ng)
- 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.40 x 28)
= 322.7 N

n=2,11/11=4
Q111 == An (Neu C + y y Ng)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.184 x 28)
= 148.44 N
Qn2 An (Ncu C + y y Ng)
= 1.96x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.20 x 28)
= 161.35 N
Qt = QtA + Qn2
= 148.44 + 161.35
= 309.79 N

n= 2, H/B = 6
Qnl 'AnNeuC -FyyNO
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.284 x 28)
= 229.11 N
Qn2 = An C + y y Ng)
- 1.96 x 10-3 (0 +14.7 x 0.30 x 28)
- 242.02 N
Qt = Qtt + Qn2
= 229.11 + 242.02
= 471.13 N

n = 2, H/B = 8
Qni = An (Neu C + y y
1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.384 x 28)
=309.80 N

71
 Qn2 = An (Ncu C + y Ng)
= 1.96x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.40 x 28)
= 322.70 N
Qt = Qni + Qn2
= 309.80 + 322.70
= 632.50 N

n= 3, H/B = 4
Qni = An (No, C + y Ng)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.184 x 28)
= 148.44 N
Qn2 = An (Ncu C + y y Nq)
= 1.96x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.20 x 28)
= 161.35 N
Qn3 = An (Ncu C y Nq)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.216 x 28)
= 174.25 N
Qt = Qni + Qn2 Qn3
= 148.44 + 161.35 + 174.25
= 484.04 N

n = 3, H/B = 6
Qnl = An (Ncu C y y Nq)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.284 x 28)
= 229.11 N
Qn2 = An (Ncu C + y y Nq)
= 1.96x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.30 x 28)
= 242.02 N
Qn3 = An (Nct, C + Y y
= 1.96x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.316 x 28)
= 254.93 N
Qt = Qnt + Qn2 + Qn3
= 229.11 + 242.02 + 254.93
= 726.06 N

n = 3, H/B = 8
Qn1 = An (Neu C + y y Ng)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.384 x 28)
= 309.80 N
Qn2 = An (Ncu C + y Ng)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.40 x 28)
= 322.70 N
Qn3 = An (Neu C y y Nq)
= 1.96 x 10-3 (0 + 14.7 x 0.416 x 28)
= 335.60 N
Qt = Qni + Qn2 + Qn3
= 309.80 + 322.70 + 335.60
= 968.10N

72
 Table A-1: Data of Ultimate Pullout Capacity (Q) in Newton obtained from Experiment,
Mooney, Adamczak & Clemence (1985) and Wayne Rogers (2002)

n=1 n=2 n=3

H/B=4 H/B=6 H/B=8 H/B=4 H/B=6 H/B=8 H/B=4 H/B=6 H/B=8

Mooney,
109.99 260.74 503.93 118.89 277.44 528.88 127.85 294.23 553.93
et al.

Experi-
mental
113.40 408.24 703.08 124.74 453.60 748.44 136.08 498.96 793.80
(present
study)

Wayne
161.35 242.02 322.70 309.79 471.13 632.50 484.04 726.06 968.10
Rogers

73
 APPENDIX 'B'

USES AND ADVANTAGES OF HELICAL SCREW

ANCHORS

(Refer Para 1.1)

B.1 General

Screw piles were first used as foundations for buildings and bridges built over
weak or wet soil. They had limited use for much of the 19th and early 20th century as the
installation was difficult without mechanical assistance. During the 1960's, hydraulic
torque motors became readily available and the installation process became much easier.
Screw piles were first used primarily for their resistance to tensile forces. Screw piles are
frequently used 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 allowed them to be used in situations where
resistance to combinations of these forces was required. Many advantages over traditional
pilings, such as speed of installation and immediate loading capability have made screw
piles the ideal foundation for many projects. With larger truck mounted torque heads now
available (in excess of 60,000 ft. lbs.); it is possible to install piles of much greater size
and higher capacity.

B.2 Uses of Helical Screw Anchors

Screw piles and helical piers have been used on a wide variety of projects in the
United States, Canada, and many other countries. Uses for screw piles include
foundations for commercial and residential buildings, temporary structures, light
standards, oil and gas industry structures, bank retention, and retaining wall tie-backs and
in the power utility industry. A screw pile can be used in almost any situation and where
driven or cast in place piles are currently used.

74
Oil and Gas Industry
Screw piles are ideal for many applications within the oil and gas industry. The
piles are rugged, low maintenance, and mobile, which makes them ideal for use in the
field. With a strong resistance to vibration and for cyclical loading, screw piles can be
placed under pump jacks and compressor stations. Other applications include: pipe-
racking, skid buildings, flare stacks, tanks, dehydrators, separators, etc.

Fig.B-1. Helical Screw Pile for Oil and Gas Industry.

Temporary Building
Screw piles are well suited for use under mobile or temporary buildings. They can
be installed in all weather and terrain conditions, limited only by the mobility of the
truck. Screw piles are reusable, making them as mobile as the building. With no curing
time, the building can be placed and welded immediately after installation. Varying shaft
lengths allows the building to be installed on uneven or sloping ground. Because screw
pilings are placed well below the frost line, winter heaving and surface erosion have little
effect on the pilings strength. Optional leveling pile caps ensure the buildings remains
level, regardless of the soil situation.

75
Street Light Bases
Cap thickness and size, slot or hole size, cable-way position and size, shaft size
and length, and helix diameter are all variables in the street light base design. The street
light bases are designed for resistance to bending moment, shearing forces, uplift loads
and bearing loads. They have many advantages over concrete pilings, including: quick
installation reducing traffic disruption, installation in any type of weather, little to no
ground disturbance making clean up easy, no spoils to remove, and one stop installation -
pole can be set on immediately after install. The pile can be easily removed and reused,
allowing quick and easy relocation of standards. To increase product life expectancy the
base is often hot-dipped galvanized for extra protection. The environmentally friendly
installation is vibration free and quiet, allowing placement in sensitive areas. Typical
applications for the street light base include light poles for: residential lighting, parking
lots, street and highway lighting, one or two mast arms, street signals, flag poles, building
signage, bumper posts and column supports.

Fig.B-2. Helical Screw Pile for Street Light Bases.

Underpinning
Using screw piles and our unique bracket system, one can help restore and
support failed foundations. After exposing the failed footings, small piles are installed
beneath the foundation. The foundation is then raised into place and secured to the pile.
The pile/bracket system is then secured to the building and the foundation covered. This
method is effective in preventing any relapse and normally more cost-effective than
concrete injection or other foundation restoration techniques.

76
Slope stabilization
Helical screw anchors can be used in a variety of situations, including slope
restorations, 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, which helps maintain the slope integrity.

Unstable S'otl Stable Soil

Retaining
atirall

Fig.B-3. Helical Screw pile for Slope Stabilizations

Cathodic Protection
Helical screw anchor offers a new, cost effective way to install cathodic
protection for underground structures. This patented procedure is a method of placing
cathodic anodes to depth without trenching or drilling. This system also allows anodes to
be battered under tanks and structures. By using the screw pile as a casing, the anode is
installed into the desired location and the screw pile backed out, leaving minimal
disturbance to the site. A cable is plowed in, to connect individual anodes to the rectifier.

77
 1. The entire 2. The outer shaft 3. The inner shaft 4. The wire lead
assembly is is disconnected is hooked onto at to the electrode is
screwed into the and backed out, the surface, left sticking out
ground to desired leaving the inner disconnected at of the ground
depth. (Charcoal shaft and anode in the base and ready to connect
added; enough so place. backed out, to the rectifier
as to surround the leaving the anode load.
anode in a bed of and wire.
charcoal).

Fig.B-4. Screw Anchor Pile for cathodic protection

General Foundations
Because of the ability of a screw pile to deal with various loadings, the screw pile
can be used in many load bearing situations. Included are the aforementioned and the
following:
• static loads (e.g. under buildings)
• alternating loads (e.g. under pumps jacks)
• vibratory loads (e.g. under compressors)
• loads with high moment of overturn (e.g. communication towers)
• grade beams (e.g. in conventional buildings)
• structural floor slabs.

78
B.3 Advantages of Helical Screw Anchors

The screw pile foundation system is known for its ease and speed of installation.
Installation generally requires no removal of soil, so there are no spoils to dispose of.
Installation causes a displacement of soils for the most part. However, in the case of a
foundation with a pipe shaft, some soil will enter the interior of the pipe until it becomes
plugged. Installation equipment can be mounted on vehicles when required. The
installation of a screw pile foundation is for practical purposes vibration free. These
features make the screw pile foundation attractive on sites that are environmentally
sensitive. Installations near existing foundations or footings generally cause no problems.
However, the screw pile foundation generally cannot be installed into competent rock or
concrete. Penetration will cease when materials of this nature are encountered.

How is Helical Screw Piles Different from Traditional Methods?

Screw Pile vs. Driven Pile
• easy to remove when site restoration
required
• cut-offs usually small
• other support vehicles not normally
required for installation
• no hammer noise pollution
• install time 15-20 min.
Screw Pile vs. Concrete Pile
• no pre-excavation
• no tailings
• no concrete curing time
• no rebar, anchor bolts, no liners
• no de-watering
• installed in all types of weather

What are the Advantages?

• Vibration free • Removable
• No curing time • Re-usable
• No overburden • Cost effective
• Proven engineering • Fast installation
• Site verified loading • Installation in any weather
• Environment friendly • Low noise

79
 APPENDIX 'C'

CALCULATION OF EMBEDDED DEPTH USING C++

PROGRAM

(Refer Para 4.7)

A program has been written in C++ for the equation (4.1) developed for a helical
screw anchor pile to find the embedded depth which can be applied in the field.

#include<iostream.h>
#include<conio.h>
#include<math.h>

void main()

float gamma,Q,B,n,ang,H;
char ans;
clrscr();
do{
cout<<"\nenter the value of pullout load, Q (kN)=";cin>>Q;
cout<<"\nenter the value of density, (kN/m3)=";cin>>gamma;
cout<<"\nenter the value of helix diameter, B (m)=";cin>>B;
cout<<"\nenter the value of number of helix, n=";cin>>n;
cout<<"\nenter the value of angle of inclination from vertical,(degree)
.;
cin>>ang;
H=((Q/gamma*pow(B,3))-(15.09*n)+(0.9143*ang)+279.3)*(B/81.53);
cout<<"\nDepth of helical screw anchor pile inside the ground ="<<H<<"
m"<<endl;
cout<<"\n Do you wish to continue (y/n):";
cin>>ans;
1while(ans!=in');
getch();
1

80
 The output of the above program for different combinations of Pullout Load (Q),
diameter of helix (B), and number of helix (n), is summarized in tabular form as given in
table C-1 below:
For y = 17 ICN/m3 and a = 0°.

Table C-1: Values of Embedded Depth (H), for different values of Q, n and B.

Pullout Load, Q Dia. of Helix, B Embedded Depth, H

No. of Helix, n
(1(N) (m) (m)
1 0.1524 2.05
1 0.2032 1.53
2 0.1524 2.02
50
2 0.2032 1.49
3 0.1524 1.99
3 0.2032 1.46
1 0.1524 3.60
1 0.2032 2.41
2 0.1524 3.57
100
2 0.2032 2.37
3 0.1524 3.54
3 0.2032 2.33
1 0.1524 5.15
1 0.2032 3.28
2 0.1524 5.12
150
2 0.2032 3.24
3 0.1524 5.10
3 0.2032 3.20
1 0.1524 6.71
1 0.2032 4.15
2 0.1524 6.68
200
2 0.2032 4.11
3 0.1524 6.65
3 0.2032 4.08

81