Design Examples
Design Examples
Design Examples
CONTENTS
DESIGN EXAMPLE 1 DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 DESIGN EXAMPLE 3 DESIGN EXAMPLE 4 DESIGN EXAMPLE 5 DESIGN EXAMPLE 6 DESIGN EXAMPLE 7 DESIGN EXAMPLE 8 DESIGN EXAMPLE 9 DESIGN EXAMPLE 10 DESIGN EXAMPLE 11 DESIGN EXAMPLE 12 DESIGN EXAMPLE 13 DESIGN EXAMPLE 14 DESIGN EXAMPLE 15 DESIGN EXAMPLE 16 DESIGN EXAMPLE 17 DESIGN EXAMPLE 18 ATLAS RESISTANCE PIERS ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER WITH INTEGRATED TIEBACK HELICAL PILE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION LIGHT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS WITH LATERAL SUPPORT HELICAL TIEBACK ANCHORS IN CLAY HELICAL TIEBACK ANCHORS IN SAND SOIL SCREW RETENTION WALL SYSTEM HELICAL ANCHORS/PILES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS HELICAL ANCHORS FOR PIPELINE BUOYANCY CONTROL TYPE RS HELICAL PILES FOR LATERAL SUPPORT INSTANT FOUNDATIONS FOR STREET LIGHT SUPPORTS FOUNDATION EARTH PRESSURE RESISTANCE BUCKLING EXAMPLE USING THE DAVISSON METHOD BUCKLING EXAMPLE USING THE FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD BUCKLING EXAMPLE USING THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
8-1 8-5 8-9 8-11 8-17 8-23 8-27 8-29 8-33 8-37 8-49 8-57 8-65 8-67 8-71 8-73 8-75 8-77
All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
DISCLAIMER The information in this manual is provided as a guide to assist you with your design and in writing your own specifications. Installation conditions, including soil and structure conditions, vary widely from location to location and from point to point on a site. Independent engineering analysis and consulting state and local building codes and authorities should be conducted prior to any installation to ascertain and verify compliance to relevant rules, regulations and requirements. Hubbell, Inc., shall not be responsible for, or liable to you and/or your customers for the adoption, revision, implementation, use or misuse of this information. Hubbell, Inc., takes great pride and has every confidence in its network of dealers. Hubbell, Inc., does NOT warrant the work of its dealers/installing contractors in the installation of CHANCE Civil Construction foundation support products.
All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
SPT N P DL LL SL W SK Pw x FS FSh Rw ULT Rh ULT xmax FSp Rp Rh MAX Lp MAX Type of Structure
Standard Penetration Test Standard Penetration Test Blow Count Total Live Load Dead Load Live Load Snow Load Soil Load Snow Load Requirement Factor Working Pier Load Pier Spacing Factor of Safety Factor of Safety for Mechanical Strength of Hardware Ultimate Hardware Strength based on Structural Weight Ultimate Hardware Strength Maximum Pier Spacing Based on Hardware Capacity Proof Load Factor of Safety Installation Force to Achieve Proof Load Maximum Installation Force Based on Ultimate Capacity of Hardware Maximum Free Span Between Piers
8-1 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-2 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-3
The structure is a two-story, 20' x 40' frame residence with full brick veneer siding located in the Midwest. The house sits on 8" thick by 8' high cast concrete basement walls with steel reinforced concrete footings 1'-8 wide by 1'-0 thick. The roof is composition shingles over 1/2" plywood decking and felt underlayment. There is six feet of peaty clay soil overburden present. Preliminary Investigation Settlement is evident in portions of the structure of 2-1/2". Checking with local building officials reveals no special controlling codes for underpinning existing structures that must be observed. Preliminary geotechnical information indicates the footing is situated in peaty clay type soil with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) "N" values of six and higher. This soil extends to a depth of 15 feet where a dense glacial till exists. It is determined that the glacial till layer will serve as an adequate bearing stratum for the Atlas Resistance Piers.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Preliminary Estimate of Total Live Load on Footing P = Dead Load (DL) + Live Load (LL) + Snow Load (SL) + Soil Load (W) (Equation 8-1) P = (1,890 + 667 + 120 + 2,310) = 4,987 lb/ft where: DL LL SL SK SL W = = = = = = (See Tables 4-2, 4-4 and 4-5 in Section 4 for DL, LL and W).
1,890 lb/ft 667 lb/ft SK x [(l x w / 2)(l + w)] where l and w are the building dimensions Snow load requirement factor = 18 lb/ft2 (for this example) 18 lb/ft2 x (800 / 120) ft = 120 lb/ft W1 + W2 = (330 + 1,980) lb/ft = 2,310 lb/ft
Atlas Resistance Pier Selection While the Atlas Resistance Continuous Lift Pier could be used for this application, the small lift required makes it unnecessary. The Atlas Resistance Predrilled Pier is not a good choice here due to the absence of a hard, impenetrable layer above the intended bearing stratum. Therefore, the Atlas Resistance 2-Piece Standard Pier is selected for strength and economy. The more expensive Atlas Resistance Plate Pier could also be attached to the concrete basement wall and used for this application. As there are suitable soils with "N" counts above four, there is no need to sleeve the pier pipe for added stiffness. Pier Spacing Using the information obtained about the stem wall and footing to be supported, and applying sound engineering judgment, the nominal pier spacing based on the foundation system's ability to span between piers is estimated at about eight feet. This puts the nominal working pier load (PW) at: PW = (x) x (P) = 8 ft x 4,987 lb/ft = 39,896 lbs where: Factor of Safety CHANCE Civil Construction recommends a minimum Factor of Safety (FS) for the mechanical strength of the hardware of 2.0. FSh RW ULT = = = 2.0 (may be varied based on engineering judgment) (Equation 8-3) Minimum ultimate hardware strength requirement based on structural weight PW x FSh = (39,896 lb) x 2 = 79,792 lb x P = = Selected pier spacing = 8 ft Line load on footing = 4,987 lb/ft (Equation 8-2)
Select a pier system with an adequate minimum ultimate strength rating: Rh ULT xmax = = = = = 86,000 lb - Choose AP-2-UFVL3500.165M[*][14'-0] (Equation 8-4) Modified 2-Piece Pier System Maximum pier spacing based on hardware capacity (Rh ULT) / [(FSh) x (P)] (86,000 lb) / [(2) x (4,987)] 8.6 ft (Use 9.0 ft. Wall and footing are judged able to span this distance)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Proof Load CHANCE Civil Construction recommends a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5 at installation unless structural lift occurs first. FSp Rp Rh MAX = = = = = Proof Load Factor of Safety1 = 1.5 Installation force based on weight of structure to achieve Proof Load verification (FSp) x (PW) = (1.5 (8.6 x 4987) = 64,332 lb Maximum installation force based on hardware ultimate capacity2 (Rh ULT/2) (1.65) = (86,000/2) (1.65) = 70,950 lb RW MIN < Rh MAX = OK, where RW MIN = Rp (Equation 8-5)
Experience has shown that in most cases the footing and stem wall foundation system that will withstand a given long term working load will withstand a pier installation force of up to 1.5 times that long term working load. If footing damage occurs during installation, the free span (LP MAX) may be excessive. It is recommended that RhMAX not exceed (Rh ULT / 2) x (1.65) during installation without engineering approval.
Design Recommendations The result of the analysis provides the following design specifications: Underpinning product: Atlas Resistance Modified 2-Piece Pier AP-2-UF-3500.165M[*][14'-0] Pier spacing: 8.6' on center Installation Proof Load: 64,332 lbs (unless lift of the structure occurs first) Working load is anticipated to be 42,900 lbs (4,987 lb/ft x 8.6 ft) Anticipated pier depths: 15 ft
v1.0 Oct/2006
Kilopound Standard Penetration Test SPT Blow Count Blows per Foot Below Ground Surface Compression Loading Pier Spacing Minimum Working Pier Load Thousand per Lineal Foot Horizontal Design Load Diameter(s) Cohesion Friction Angle Bearing Capacity Factor Unit Weight of Soil Pounds per Cubic Foot Factor of Safety Ultimate Tension Capacity Ultimate Bearing Capacity Ultimate Capacity of Helical Tieback Area of Helix Empirical Torque Factor Proof Load Proof Load Factor of Safety Minimum Installing Force Maximum Installation Force Hardware Factor of Safety
8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-6 8-7 8-7 8-7 8-7 8-7 8-7 8-8 8-8 8-8 8-8 8-8
Nq
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 All Rights Reserved ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER WITH INTEGRATED TIEBACK 8-5
v1.0 Oct/2006
Project Information An existing three-story commercial building located within a hurricane prone region requires foundation retrofitting for potential scour activity and lateral load forces from hurricane force winds. The structure sits on a shallow foundation system consisting of a 4' high 10" thick stem wall and a 4' wide 12" thick spread footing with three #5 reinforcement bars (Grade 60). The structural Engineer of Record has requested a new foundation system capable of withstanding 2 kips per lineal foot design lateral forces and temporary scour depths to 1' below the existing spread footing. The estimated design compression loading is 5 kips per lineal ft for the existing structure. The structural engineer has determined that the existing foundation system can handle underpinning support spans of 8' or less. Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation was performed to determine the soil types and strengths at the project location. The soil borings advanced near the project location show medium dense silty sand with SPT "N" values ranging from 15 to 25 bpf to a depth of 20 ft bgs. This medium dense silty sand layer is underlain by dense sand and weathered limestone bedrock with SPT "N" values greater than 40 bpf. Groundwater was observed at 18' bgs during the investigation. Underpinning System Selection The availability of a dense stratum with "N" values greater than 40 bpf allows the use of the Atlas Resistance Pier. The additional lateral loading can be designed for using a helical tieback anchor and the integrated Atlas Resistance Pier bracket. Based on the design compression loading (P) of 5 kips per lineal ft and the allowable pier spacing (x) of 8' the required minimum design capacity of the Atlas Resistance Pier (Pw min) is (x) x (P) = 8.0 x 5.0 or 40 kips. The AP-2-UF-3500.165 system could be used since it has a maximum working (design) capacity of 42.5 kips. However, due to the possibility of scour and subsequent lack of soil support the modified pier with a working capacity of 45.5 kips is recommended (AP-2-UF-3500.165M) with at least three modified pier sections to increase the rotational stiffness of the bracket. Helical Tieback Design and Installation With a maximum spacing of 8' and an estimated design lateral line load of 2 klf, the horizontal design load (DLh) at the tieback anchor location is 16 kips. The tieback anchors are typically installed between 15o to 25o from horizontal. An installation angle of 20o was chosen after determining that there are no underground structures/conduits that may interfere with the tieback installation. The tieback must be designed with a minimum embedment depth of 5D (distance from the last helical plate to the ground surface) where D = diameter of the helical plate. The tieback will be designed to bear in the silty sand with "N" values of 20 bpf observed at 5 to 10 feet bgs. Based on the SPT "N" values and soil descriptions, the following parameters are used in the design: Cohesion (c) = 0 Friction angle () = 34o Bearing capacity factor (Nq) = 21 Unit weight of soil () = 115 pcf
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 All Rights Reserved ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER WITH INTEGRATED TIEBACK 8-6
v1.0 Oct/2006
Using a Factor of Safety (FS) = 2 on the design load and an installation angle of 20o, the required ultimate tension capacity of the tieback (UCr) is (FS x DLh) / cos 20o = (2 x 16) / cos 20o = 34 kip. The ultimate bearing capacity (Qt) of a helical tieback can be determined from: Qt = An (cNc + qNq) (Equation 8-6)
Try a Type SS5 series (12"-14" Lead) with a length of 15 ft: Check depth criteria based on: A starting depth of 4 ft below the ground surface A tieback length of 15 ft An installation angle of 20o
The length to the top of the lead helix is 15 ft - 3(12/12) - 4/12 = 11.7 ft. The depth of embedment would be 4 + 11.7sin (20) = 4 ft + 4 ft = 8 ft which is greater than 5D (6 ft), so the depth criteria is met. Check the ultimate capacity of the helical tieback (Tu) using: Nq = 21
d avg
(Equation 8-7)
= 115 pcf Ah = A12 + A14 = 0.77 ft2 + 1.05 ft2 = 1.82 ft2 Qt = 1.82 ft 2 (8.6 ft )(115 pcf )(21) = 37.8 kips Tu
(Equation 8-8)
Since the ultimate bearing capacity (37.8 kips) is greater than the required ultimate capacity of 34 kips, the Type SS5 (12"-14") tieback is acceptable. The average minimum installation torque would be UCr/Kt or 34,000/10 = 3400 ft-lbs. This minimum installation torque is less than the torque rating of the SS5 and SS125 bar; therefore, either shaft size would be acceptable. Kt = empirical torque factor (default value = 10 for the SS series). The distance from the assumed "active" failure plane to the 14" helix must be at least 5 times its diameter or 6'-0. Both the minimum length and estimated installation torque must be satisfied prior to the termination of tieback installation. Atlas Resistance Pier Underpinning Installation Given a design load of 40 kips and the potential for 1 ft of temporary exposed pier section due to scour, use the AP-2-UF-3500.165[M]: The AP-2-UF-3500.165M pier has a working (design) load capacity of 45.5 kips. The estimated line load (P) is 5 klf, therefore with a maximum pier c-to-c spacing (x) of 8 ft, the piers will experience a design load (Pw)of 40 kips. The spacing may need to be decreased based upon field conditions. Use a minimum 3 modified pier sections (10.5 ft) offset halfway from the inner sleeve sections The depth to a suitable stratum for Atlas Resistance Pier placement is approximately 20 ft bgs
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 All Rights Reserved ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER WITH INTEGRATED TIEBACK 8-7
v1.0 Oct/2006
Install each pier to a minimum installing force, (Proof Load) Rp = 1.50 x Pw (estimated Factor of Safety (FSp) of 1.5 on the design load) which makes the minimum installing force DS=60,000 lbs (based on an 8 ft spacing) or imminent lift, whichever occurs first. The maximum installation force (Rh max) shall not exceed Rh ULT/2 x Fsh or (91,000/2) x 1.65 = 75,000 lbs (estimated Factor of Safety (FSh) of 1.65 of the design load for hardware).
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 All Rights Reserved ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER WITH INTEGRATED TIEBACK 8-8
v1.0 Oct/2006
Length to Width Ratio Total Live Load Dead Load Live Load Snow Load Factor of Safety Working Pier Load Pile Spacing Ultimate Pile Capacity Area of Helix Plate Cohesion of Soil Bearing Capacity Torque Empirical Torque Factor
8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-10 8-10 8-10 8-10 8-10 8-10
Two story residence Slab on grade Masonry wall, wood frame Width = 30 ft, L/W = 1-1/2 (Equation 8-9) Total Live Load on perimeter footing = P P = Dead Load (DL) + Live Load (LL) + Snow Load (SL) P = 1540 + 346 + 162 = 2,048 lbs/ft (See Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Section 4 for DL and LL) Factor of Safety (FS) = 2.0 (minimum) (Equation 8-10) Estimated design capacity (Pw) = (x) x (P) Estimated pile spacing (x) = 6.0 ft Pw = 6.0 x 2,048 = 12,288 lbs
Structural Loads
Pile Spacing
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. DESIGN EXAMPLE 3 All Rights Reserved HELICAL PILE FOUNDATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 8-9
v1.0 Oct/2006
(Equation 8-11)
Qt = ( A8 + A10 + A12 ) c Nc A8, A10, A12 = Projected area of helical plates A8 = 0.34 ft2 A10 = 0.53 ft2 A12 = 0.77 ft2 c = 2,000 psf (based on N=16 Equation, 5-8) Nc = Bearing capacity = 9.0 Qt = (1.64) (2,000) (9.0) Qt = 29,520 lb (installation depth is over 20 ft) Conduct Field Load Test (if required per specifications) (Equation 8-12)
Check Qt Estimate Installation Torque T = (Pw x FS)/Kt = (12,288 x 2)/8 = 3,100 ft-lbs Kt = empirical torque factor (default value = 8 for the R2875 series) The rated installation torque of the RS2875.165 series is 4500 ftlbs, which is greater than the required estimated installation torque of 3100 ft-lbs. (OK) NOTE: NOTE If during installation T = 3,100 ft-lb. is not achieved, then two options are available: (1) reduce pile spacing (x), or (2) change helix configuration to a larger combination, i.e., (10"-12"-14") (Equation 8-13) Theoretical Ultimate Capacity: FS = (Qt /Pw) FS = 29,520/12,288 = 2.4 (OK) Torque Correlation: FS = (T x Kt)/Pw FS = (3,100 x 8) /12,288 = 2.02 (OK)
Helical Pile Foundation Figure 8-1
Factor of Safety
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. DESIGN EXAMPLE 3 All Rights Reserved HELICAL PILE FOUNDATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 8-10
v1.0 Oct/2006
Highly Plastic Clay Plasticity Index Cohesion of Soil Unit Weight of Soil Pounds per Cubic Foot Low Plasticity Clay Standard Penetration Test SPT Blow Count Kilopound Total Live Load Working Load Factor of Safety Required Ultimate Capacity Ultimate Bearing Capacity Area of Helix Bearing Capacity Bearing Capacity Factor Unit Weight of Soil Footing Width Angle of Internal Friction Kilo Square Feet Corrugated Metal Pipe Department of Transportation Torque Factor Torque
8-11 8-11 8-11 8-11 8-11 8-11 8-11 8-11 8-12 8-12 8-12 8-12 8-12 8-13 8-13 8-13 8-13 8-13 8-13 8-13 8-13 8-14 8-14 8-14 8-15
Problem Build a new (lightly loaded single story) commercial building on a typical clay soil profile as given on a single boring. The profile consists of the upper 10'-0 of highly plastic clay (CH), Plasticity Index (PI) = 35; cohesion (c) = 2000 psf; unit weight () of 105 pcf. The swell potential of this layer is estimated to be 2". The top 10'-0 layer is underlain by 20' of stiff to very stiff low plasticity clay (CL) that has an Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count "N" = 20. The boring was terminated at 30 feet without encountering the water table. No further soil parameters or lab data given.
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved DESIGN EXAMPLE 4 LIGHT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE 8-11 v1.0 Oct/2006
Possible Solution Support the structure on a grade beam and structural slab, which is in turn supported by helical piles. Isolate the foundation and slab from the expansive subgrade by forming a 2" void, using a cardboard void form. Assume the water table is at the soil boring termination depth. This is typically a conservative design assumption when the water table is not encountered. The stiff to very stiff clay soil in the 20-foot thick layer is probably at or near 100% saturation (volume of water is the same as the volume of the voids). Step 1: Feasibility Site Access The site is road accessible, with no overhead or underground obstructions, but the owner is concerned about potential damage to neighboring sites due to vibration and noise. Working Loads The structure is single story, so the working loads are probably considerably less than 100 kip per pile. Soils Boulders, large cobbles, or other major obstructions are not present in the bearing stratum. The clay soil does not appear to be too hard to penetrate with helical piles. See Table 3-1 (Helical Shaft Series Selection) or Figure 3-1 (Product Selection Guide) in Section 3 to determine if helical piles are feasible, and if so, which product series to use.
Qualified Installers Local CHANCE Civil Construction certified dealer/installing contractor is available and can get competitive bids from a second certified dealer 20 miles away.
Codes Local building codes allow both shallow and deep foundations.
Cost-bid must be competitive with other systems. Owner may pay a small premium to protect the investment in the structure. Step 2: Soil Mechanics See Problem above. Step 3: Loads Exterior Grade Beam The dead and live loads result in a total live load (P) of 3 kips per lineal foot on the perimeter grade beam (12" wide x 18" deep). The grade beam is designed to span between piles on 8'-0 centers. Therefore, the design or working load per pile (Pw) is 3 kip/ft x 8 ft = 24 kip. A Factor of Safety (FS) of 2.0 is recommended. Therefore, the required ultimate capacity (UCr) per exterior pile is 24 x 2 = 48 kip compression. Interior Columns The dead load results in 9 kips per column. The live load results in 20 kip per column. The total dead and live load per column is 9 + 20 = 29 kip/column design or working load. A Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended. Therefore, the required ultimate capacity per interior pile is 29 x 2 = 58 kip compression. The required ultimate loads for both the exterior grade beam and interior columns are well within the load ratings of the CHANCE Civil Construction product series. Lateral Loads The piles are not required to resist any lateral loads.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Step 4: Bearing Capacity Find the ultimate bearing capacity in the stiff to very stiff clay using hand calculations. Bearing Capacity: Qult = Ah(cNc + q'Nq + 0.5'BN) (Equation 8-14)
For saturated clay soils, the second term of Equation 8-1 becomes zero since the angle of internal friction () is assumed to be zero for saturated clays, thus Nq = 0. The third term (base term) may be dropped because B is relatively small. The simplified equation becomes: Qult = AhcNc = Ahc9 c (ksf) = N/8 (Equation 8-15) (Equation 8-16)
From Equation 5-13, c (ksf) = 20/8 = 2.5 ksf. At this point, an iterative process is required. Select a helix configuration that is believed can develop the required ultimate capacity. Try a 10"-12" twin helix with a minimum of 5'-0 embedded into the bearing stratum which is the stiff low plasticity clay starting 10 ft below grade. From Table 8-1, the helix area of a 10" helix is 76.4 in2 or 0.531 ft2; the helix area of a 12" helix is 111 in2 or 0.771 ft2. Substituting: Q10 = 0.531 ft2 x 2.5 ksf x 9 = 11.95 kips Q12 = 0.771 ft2 x 2.5 ksf x 9 = 17.35 kips Qt = Qh = 11.95 + 17.35 = 29.3 kips (Equation 8-17) Another trial is required because the total ultimate capacity (Qt = 29.3 kip) is less than required. Try a three-helix configuration (10"-12"-14") with a minimum of 5'-0 embedded in the bearing stratum. From Table 8-1, the helix area of a 14" helix is 151 in2 or 1.05 ft2. Q14 = 1.05 ft2 x 2.5 ksf x 9 = 23.63 kips Qt = Qh = 11.95 + 17.35 + 23.63 = 52.93 kips (Equation 8-18) Standard Helix Sizes Table 8-1
DIAMETER in (cm) 6 (15) 8 (20) 10 (25) 12 (30) 14 (35) AREA 2 2 ft (m ) 0.185 (0.0172) 0.336 (0.0312) 0.531 (0.0493) 0.771 (0.0716) 1.049 (0.0974)
To achieve the necessary Factor of Safety of 2, two helical piles with a 10"-12" helical configuration can be used under the interior columns (29.3 x 2 = 58.6 59 kips ultimate capacity) and a single helical pile with a 10"-12"-14" helical configuration can be used under the perimeter grade beam. The termination of the helical pile in a concrete cap or grade beam should be made with an appropriately designed pile cap or an available new construction bracket from CHANCE Civil Construction. This will allow the foundation to rise up, should the swell ever exceed the 2" void allowance, but to shrink back and rest on the pile tops.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Checking Bearing Capacity Using HeliCAP Engineering Software A sample tabular data printout is shown in Figure 8-2, where the twin helix (10"-12") Qult = 29.2 kip @ 29.3 kip, OK; and the triple helix (10"-12"-14") Qult = 52.8 kip @ 52.93 kip, OK Steps 5 and 6: Lateral Capacity and Buckling Lateral Capacity None is required in the statement of the problem. In reality, horizontal loads due to wind will be resisted by net earth pressure (passive-active) on the grade beam and/or caps. See Section 5 for an explanation of earth pressure resistance. Buckling Concerns The soil density and shear strength is sufficient to provide lateral confinement to the central steel shaft. This is supported by the fact that the SPT blow count is greater than four for the top clay layer. Should analysis be required, the Davisson method described in Section 5 may be used to determine the critical load.
Step 7: Corrosion No electrochemical properties were given for the clay soil. Generally, undisturbed, i.e., non-fill, material tends to be benign as little oxygen is present and the ions that are present in solution are not washed away due to flowing water or fluctuating water level. In the absence of soil data, a useful guide is to observe the use of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) by the local Department of Transportation (DOT). If the DOT uses CMP, the likelihood is that the local soils are not very aggressive. Step 8: Product Selection Ultimate capacity for a Practical Guidelines for Foundation Selection 10"-12" configuration Table 8-2 per Step 4 above was 1 2 29 kip, and the ultimate HELICAL PILE ULTIMATE LOAD DESIGN LOAD INSTALLATION PRODUCT capacity for a 10"-12"TORQUE SERIES kip kN kip kN 14" configuration was 53 kip. Table 8-2 shows 4,500 36 160 18 80 RS2875.165 that both Chance 5,500 55 244 27.5 110 SS5 Helical Type SS5 and 5,500 44 196 22 98 RS2875.203 Type RS2875.262 product series can be 7,000 70 312 35 156 SS150 used, since 53 kip is 7,500 60 267 30 133.5 RS2875.262 within their allowable 1 load range. Note that Based on a torque factor (Kt) = 10 for SS Series and Kt = 8 for RS2875 Series. 2 Table 8-2 assumes a Kt Based on a Factor of Safety of 2. of 10 ft-1 for the Type SS product series and Kt of 8 ft-1 for the Type RS2875 product series. In this case, use the Type SS5 product series because shaft buckling is not a practical concern and the required capacity can be achieved with less installation torque.
v1.0 Oct/2006
For the 10"-12" configuration, the minimum depth of 18'-0 can be achieved by using a lead section, which is the first pile segment installed and includes the helix plates, followed by two or three plain extensions. For the 10"-12"-14" configuration, the minimum depth of 21'-0 can be achieved by using a lead section followed by three or four plain extensions. The exact catalog items to use for a specific project are usually the domain of the contractor. Your CHANCE Civil Construction certified dealer/installing contractor is familiar with the standard catalog items and is best able to determine which ones to use based on availability and project constraints. For your reference, catalog numbers with product descriptions are provided in Section 7 of this design manual. The head of the helical pile is to be approximately 1'-0 below grade in the grade beam or cap excavation, which will put the twin-helix pile tip 18'-0 below the original ground level and the three-helix screw foundation tip 21'-0. These are minimum depths, required to locate the helix plates at least 5'-0 into the bearing stratum. On large projects, it is advisable to add 3% to 5% extra extensions in case the soil borings vary considerably, or if widely spaced borings fail to indicate differences in bearing depths. Step 9: Field Production Control
Use Kt = 10 ft-1 for Chance Helical Type SS material if verification testing is not done prior to production work. The minimum depth and minimum installing torque must both be achieved. If the minimum torque requirement is not achieved, the contractor should have the right to load test the helical pile to determine if Kt is greater than 10 ft-1. Verification testing is often done in tension since its simpler and less costly to do than compression testing, and the compressive capacity is generally higher than tension capacity, which results in a conservative site-specific Kt value.
Estimate installing torque for field production control and specifying the minimum allowable without testing. Qult = KtT, or T = Qult/Kt where Qult = UCr in this example (Equation 8-19)
Interior columns: T = Qult/Kt = (58,000 lbs/2 piles)/10 ft-1 = 2,900 ft-lb 3,000 ft-lb for the minimum average torque taken over the last three readings. Perimeter grade beam: T = Qult/Kt = 48,000 lb/10 ft-1 = 4,800 ft-lb for the minimum average torque taken over the last three readings. Note that the torque rating for the Chance Helical Type SS5 product series is 5,500 ft-lb OK. Step 10: Product Specifications See Section 7, Product Drawings and Ratings and Appendix C for CHANCE Civil Construction model specifications. Step 11: Load Test Since this is a small project with low loads in normal soils, use the torque correlation method as the driving criteria and omit the optional load test.
v1.0 Oct/2006
v1.0 Oct/2006
HPM
Helical Pulldown Micropile Compression Capacity Friction Capacity Total Capacity Diameter of Helix Elastic Compression Line Standard Penetration Test Blow Count Angle of Internal Friction Cohesion of Soil
Qh
Qf Qt Dh PL/AE N c Problem
Determine the capacity of the following Helical Pulldown Micropile (HPM) installed into the soil described in Figure 8-4. SS5 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" square shaft Helix configuration: 8"-10"-12" Total depth: 40 ft Grout column: 5" dia x 31 ft Calculations End bearing calculations from the HeliCAP Engineering Software. See Table 8-3 below for the ultimate end bearing capacity of the proposed 8"-10"-12" lead configuration. Summary: Compression Capacity (Qh) = 44.7 kip Summary: Friction Capacity (Qf) = 22.1 kip (see Table 8-4) Total Capacity (Qt) = Qh + Qf = 44.7 + 22.1 = 66.8 kip Review of Compression Test Figure 8-3 is a load deflection plot from the actual compression test on the HPM installed into the soil described in Figure 8-4. From the plotted data, the ultimate capacity (based on 0.08Dh + PL/AE) was 80 kip, compared to the calculated total capacity of 66.8 kip. This calculated value provides a conservative approach to determining the ultimate capacity of an HPM.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Friction Calculation (see Soil Boring Log in Figure 8-4) Table 8-4
DEPTH (ft) 0 -9 9 - 15 15 - 18 18 - 22 22 - 28 28 - 31 ESTIMATED SOIL "N" COHESION 2 (lb/ft ) 750 250 125 875 EFFECTIVE UNIT WEIGHT 3 (lb/ft ) 92 84 20 23 32 38 AVERAGE OVERBURDEN 2 (lb/ft ) 1438 1733 ADHESION/ FRICTION 2 (lb/ft ) 682 250 125 798 682 1001 TOTAL Notes: (1) SIDE FRICTION (lb) 8040 1965 491 3192 5364 3003 22055
29 30
6 2 1 5 7 8
= 0.28N + 27.4 (2) c = (N x 1000) / 8 (3) Area/ft of pile = x d = (5/12) = 1.31ft /ft
2
v1.0 Oct/2006
v1.0 Oct/2006
v1.0 Oct/2006
v1.0 Oct/2006
Standard Penetration Test SPT Blow Count Weight of Hammer Working Pier Load Factor of Safety Required Ultimate Capacity Ultimate Capacity of Helix Plate Projected Area of Helix Plate Vertical Depth to Helix Plate Effective Unit Weight of Soil Bearing Capacity Factor End Condition Parameter Critical Load Modulus of Elasticity Moment of Inertia Unsupported Length Empirical Torque Factor
8-23 8-23 8-23 8-23 8-23 8-23 8-24 8-24 8-24 8-24 8-24 8-25 8-25 8-25 8-25 8-25 8-25
A helical pile foundation is proposed to support a pedestrian walkway. The soil profile consists of 7-0 (2.1 m) of very soft clay with a reported Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count "N" equal to weight of hammer (WOH) and a unit weight of 65 lb/ft3 (10.2 kN/m3). Below the very soft clay is a thick layer of medium-dense sand with a SPT blow count value of 17. The correlated friction angle is 32 and the unit weight is 107 lb/ft3 (16.8 kN/m3). The water table is located at the surface. The proposed helical pile is connected to the walkway with a CHANCE Civil Construction Walkway Support Bracket. The helical piles must be checked for lateral stability in the very soft clay. Walkway The helical piles are spaced 5 ft (1.5 m) apart and are exposed 2 ft (0.61 m) above grade as shown in Figure 8-5. The walkway is 7 ft (2.1 m) wide; each pile group or bent is spaced 10-0 apart.
Structural Loads The dead and live vertical load is 100 lb/ft2 (4.8 kN/m2). Lateral loads are negligible. The required compression load per helical pile (Pw) is 100 lb/ft2 x 7-0 x 10-0 = 7000 lb/2 helical piles = 3500 lb (15.6 kN) per pile.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 6 HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS 8-23 v1.0 Oct/2006
Using a Factor of Safety (FS) of 2, the required ultimate capacity (UCr) per helical pile is 3500 lb x 2 = 7000 lb (31.1 kN). Chance Helical Pile Selection Try a twin-helix configuration with 10" (254 mm) and 12" (305 mm) diameters. Try either Type SS5 1-1/2" (38 mm) Square Shaft or Type RS2875.203 2-7/8" (73 mm) Round Shaft material.
Ultimate Pile Capacity The top-most helix should be at least three diameters into a suitable bearing soil; which in this example is the medium-dense sand starting 7 ft (2.1 m) below grade. The spacing between helix plates is also three diameters; which is 3 x 10 = 2.5 ft (0.8 m) for a 10-12 (254 mm 305 mm) configuration. Finally, the distance from the bottom-most helix to the pile tip is 0.5 ft (0.15 m). Therefore, the minimum overall length for a 10-12 helix configuration in this soil profile is 7 ft + (3 x 12 inch) + 2.5 ft + 0.5 ft = 13 ft (4 m). The effective unit weight is the submerged unit weight in this case, because the water table is at the ground surface. The general bearing capacity equation (simplified for cohesionless soils) is: (Equation 8-20)
Qh where: Qh A D Nq
= = = = = =
ADNq
Ultimate capacity of helix plate Projected area of helix plate Vertical depth to helix plate Effective unit weight of soil = 2.6 lb/ft3 (0.4 kN/m3) for the very soft clay and 44.6 lb/ft3 (7.1 kN/m3) for the medium-dense sand Bearing capacity factor for cohesionless soils = 17 for 32 sand
A10D10Nq + A12D12Nq (Equation 8-21) 2 3 3 0.531 ft [(7 ft x 2.6 lb/ft ) + (5.5 ft x 44.6 lb/ft )]17 + 0.771 ft2[(7 ft x 2.6 lb/ft3) + (3 ft x 44.6 lb/ft3)]17 4371 lb (19.4 kN)
v1.0 Oct/2006
4371 lb is less than the required ultimate capacity (7000 lb) needed for the vertical piles. Greater capacity can be obtained by extending the helix plates deeper into the medium-dense sand. Try extending the pile length 3 ft (0.9 m) deeper so that the tip is 16 ft (4.9 m). Qh Qh
= =
0.531 ft2[(7 ft x 2.6 lb/ft3) + (8.5 ft x 44.6 lb/ft3)]17 + 0.771 ft2[(7 ft x 2.6 lb/ft3) + (6 ft x 44.6 lb/ft3)]17 7332 lb (32.6 kN)
(Equation 8-22)
7332 lb is greater than the required ultimate capacity needed for the vertical piles, so 16 ft (4.9 m) pile length will work. Buckling Check for buckling on Type SS5 1-1/2" (38 mm) square shaft and Type RS2875.203 2-7/8" (73 mm) OD pipe shaft material with 2 ft (0.61 m) of exposed shaft above grade. Assume a free-fixed (K = 2) endcondition. Assume the very soft clay provides no lateral support, i.e., the pile shaft is unsupported above the sand, so the effective length of the column is 2 ft + 7 ft = 9 ft (2.7 m). Eulers Equation: Pcrit = 2EI/[KLu]2 For Type SS5 square shaft material: Pcrit Pcrit
= =
(Equation 8-23)
The critical load for the Type SS5 series is less than the required 7000 lb (31.1 kN) ultimate capacity, so a shaft with greater stiffness is required. For Type RS2875.203 pipe shaft material: Pcrit Pcrit
= =
(Equation 8-24)
The critical load for Type RS2875.203 pipe shaft is greater than the required 7000 lb (31.1 kN) ultimate capacity. Use the RS2875.203 series (2-7/8 inch (73 mm) OD pipe shaft material). Torque
Torque required where: Torque required Torque required = = = =
Required ultimate capacity/Kt Kt = 8 (26) for RS2875 round shaft 7000 lb / 8 875 ft-lb (1186 N-m)
(Equation 8-25)
The torque strength rating for RS2875.203 material is 5,500 ft-lb (7,500 N-m) - OK.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Standard Penetration Test SPT Blow Count Pounds per Square Foot Ground Water Table Factor of Safety Required Ultimate Capacity Total Capacity Area of Helix Cohesion of Soil Bearing Capacity Critical Load Empirical Torque Factor
8-27 8-27 8-27 8-27 8-27 8-27 8-28 8-28 8-28 8-28 8-28 8-28
A Chance Helical Type SS5 square shaft is proposed as the foundation for a pedestrian walkway. The pier is connected to the walkway with a Chance Helical Walkway bracket with lateral support. The soil is a soft to medium clay with a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) "N" value of 6, cohesion of 750 psf (36.0 kN/m2) and unit weight of 92 lb/ft3 (14 kN/m3) The ground water table (GWT) is 15 ft (4.5 m) below grade. Walkway: The piles are spaced 5 ft (1.5 m) apart and are exposed 2 ft (0.61 m) above grade. The walkway is 7 ft (2.1 m) wide and pier sets are 5 ft (1.5 m) apart. o The battered pile is at an angle of 22 .
Structural Loads: Using a Factor of Safety (FS) of 2, the required ultimate capacity (UCr) per vertical pile is 4550 lb (20 kN). Using a Factor of Safety of 2, the required ultimate capacity (UCr) per battered pile is 2646 lb (12 kN)
DESIGN EXAMPLE 7 HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS WITH LATERAL SUPPORT 8-27
v1.0 Oct/2006
Chance Helical Pile Selection: Try a Type SS5 square shaft with a 12" (305 mm) diameter helix.
Ultimate Pile Capacity: The pile depth needs to be at least 5 diameters into the soft to medium clay layer. Therefore the vertical pile length should be at least 5 ft (1.5 m) below grade. Qt
= = = where:
AcNc [.771 ft ][750 psf][9] 5,204 lb (23 kN) Projected area of helical plates Cohesion of soil Bearing capacity
2
(Equation 8-26)
A c Nc
= = =
5,204 lb is greater than UCr for the vertical pile. The battered pile depth needs to be at least 5 diameters below grade. Therefore the battered pile length should be 6 ft (1.8 m) below grade. Buckling: Check for buckling on the SS5 square shaft with 2 ft (0.61 m) of exposed shaft above grade. Assume a pin-pin (K = 1) connection. Eulers Equation : Pcrit Pcrit Pcrit
= = =
(Equation 8-27)
The critical load is greater than the ultimate vertical load so buckling is not a concern. Torque:
Torque required where: Torque required Torque required = = = =
Required load/Kt Kt = 10 (33) for square shaft 5,204 lb / 10 520 ft-lb (705 N-m)
(Equation 8-28)
This does not exceed the SS5 torque rating of 5,500 ft-lb (7,500 N-m).
DESIGN EXAMPLE 7 HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS WITH LATERAL SUPPORT 8-28
v1.0 Oct/2006
Height of Wall Height of Upper Anchor Height of Lower Anchor Ground Water Table Design Load for Upper Anchor Design Load for Lower Anchor Ultimate Tension Capacity for Upper Anchor Ultimate Tension Capacity for Lower Anchor Area of Helix Plate Bearing Capacity Factor Cohesion of Soil Ultimate Capacity of Anchors Factor of Safety Installation Torque for Upper Anchor Installation Torque for Lower Anchor Empirical Torque Factor
8-29 8-29 8-29 8-29 8-29 8-29 8-30 8-30 8-30 8-30 8-30 8-30 8-30 8-30 `8-30 8-30
Cast concrete retaining wall Height (H) = 18 ft, thickness = 2'-0 nH = 0.25H = 4.5 ft, mH = 0.63H = 11.3 ft Residual soils: stiff clay with N = 28. No ground water table (GWT) present. Tieback installation angle = 150
nH mH H
DLN
Structural Design Loads (See Figure 4-6 in Section 4) DLN/ft = (12 x H2) / cos 150 DLN/ft = (12 x 182)/ cos 150 DLN/ft = 4,025 lb/lin ft DLM/ft = (18 x H2) / cos 150 DLM/ft = (18 x 182)/ cos 150 DLM/ft = 6,040 lb/lin ft
Helical Tieback Anchor Figure 8-7
DLM
v1.0 Oct/2006
Chance Helical Product Selection Wall height > 15 ft; use two rows of tiebacks Try Type SS150 series, C150-0169 (8-10-12 Lead) for DLN. Try Type SS175 series, C110-0247 (8-10-12-14 Lead) for DLM.
Ultimate Tension Capacity (Using Bearing Capacity Approach) Qtn A8, A10, A12 Nc A8 A10 A12 Nc c Qtn Qtn Qtm A8, A10, A12, A14 A14 Qtm Qtm = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ( A8 + A10 + A12 ) x (c Nc) (Equation 8-29) Projected area of helical plates (8",10, and 12") Bearing capacity factor related to the residual soil, clay 0.336 ft2 0.531 ft2 0.771 ft2 9 N / 8 = 28 / 8 = 3.5 ksf or 3,500 psf (see Equation 5-13) (0.336 + 0.531 + 0.771) x 3,500 x 9 51,600 lbs (Equation 8-30) ( A8 + A10 + A12 + A14 ) x (cNc) Projected area of helical plates (8,10",12, and 14") 1.049 ft2 (0.336 + 0.531 + 0.771+ 1.049) x 3,500 x 9 84,640 lbs
Check Ultimate Anchor Capacity (Tu) Compare QtN and QtM to field load tension tests if required by specifications. Tieback Spacing SpacingN SpacingM where: FS = = = (QtN / FS) x DLN = (51,600 / 2) / (4,025) = 6.4 ft (QtM / FS) x DLM = (84,640 / 2) / (6,040) = 7.0 ft (use 6-6 center to center spacing for both rows of tiebacks) 2.0
Estimate Installation Torque T TN TM where: Kt = = = = (Equation 8-31) (DL x Spacing x FS) / Kt (DLN x SpacingN x FS) / Kt = (4,025 x 6.5 x 2) / 10 = 5,300 ft-lb (DLM x SpacingM x FS) / Kt = (6,040 x 6.5 x 2) / 10 = 7,850 ft-lb Empirical torque factor (default value = 10 for Type SS series)
Check Installation Torque Ratings The rated installation torque of the Type SS150 series is 7,000 ft-lbs, which is greater than the required installation torque (TN) of 5,300 ft-lbs. The rated installation torque of the Type SS175 series is 11,000 ft-lbs, which is greater than the required installation torque (TM) of 7,850 ft-lbs.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Minimum Tieback Length The distance from the assumed active failure plane to the 12 helix must be at least 5 x its diameter or 5-0. The distance from the assumed active failure plane to the 14 helix must be at least 5 x its diameter or 6-0. Both the minimum length and estimated installation torque must be satisfied prior to the termination of tieback installation.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Angle of Internal Friction Unit Weight of Soil Pounds per Cubic Foot Active Earth Pressure Coefficient Design Load Tieback Design Load Ultimate Tension Capacity Area of Helix Plate Bearing Capacity Factor Total Capacity Ultimate Anchor Capacity Factor of Safety Installation Torque Empirical Torque Factor
8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-33 8-34 8-34 8-34 8-34 8-34 8-34 8-34 8-34
Cast concrete retaining wall Granular backfill for wall = 350 = 120 pcf Height = 15 ft, thickness =1-1/2 ft Anchor Height = 1/3H = 5 ft Residual soils: silty coarse sand; medium to dense = 310 = 118 pcf. No ground water table present.
Tieback installation angle = 25
o
Structural Design Loads Use backfill = 350 Ka = (1 - sin ) / (1 + sin ) = 0.27 DL/ft = (1/2 H2 Ka) / cos 250 = [1/2 (120) (15)2 (0.27)] / cos 250 = 4,000 lb/lin ft Assume tieback carries 80%; therefore, DLt /ft = 0.80 x 4,000. = 3,200 lb/lin ft
Chance Helical Product Selection Wall height < 15 ft; use single row of tiebacks Try Type SS5 series, C150-0007 (8-10-12 Lead)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Ultimate Tension Capacity (Using Bearing Capacity Approach) Qt A8, A10, A12 Nq A8 A10 A12 Nq qh q8 q10 q12 Qt Qt = = = = = = = = = = = = = ( A8 + A10 + A12 ) x (qh Nq) (Equation 8-32) Projected area of helical plates (8", 10" and 12") Bearing capacity factor related to of residual soil (31o) 0.336 ft2 0.531 ft2 0.771 ft2 15 (from Equation 5-11) x Dh (depth of helix below ground line, ft) 118 pcf (5 + 25 sin 25o) = 1836 psf 118 pcf (5' + 23' sin 25o) = 1736 psf 118 pcf (5 + 20.5 sin 25o = 1612 psf [(0.336 x 1836) + (0.531 x 1736) + (0.771 x 1612)] x 15 41,725 lbs
Check Ultimate Anchor Capacity (Tu) Compare Qt to field load tension tests if required by specifications. Tieback Spacing Spacing where: FS = = (Qt / FS) / DLt = (41,725 / 2) / (3,200) = 6.5 ft (use 6'-6 center to center spacing) 2.0 (Equation 8-33)
Estimate Installation Torque T where: Kt = = (Equation 8-34) (DLt x spacing x FS) / Kt = (3,200 x 6.5 x 2.0) / 10 = 4,200 ft-lb Empirical torque factor (default value = 10 for Type SS series)
Check Installation Torque Ratings The rated installation torque of the Type SS5 series is 5,500 ft-lbs, which is greater than the required installation torque (T) of 4,200 ft-lbs. Minimum Tieback Length The distance from the assumed active failure plane to the 12 helix must be at least 5 times its diameter or 5-0. Both the minimum length and estimated installation torque must be satisfied prior to the termination of tieback installation.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Graphic Log
H = 15'
Topsoil
L=25' L = 20'
SM 30
D = 2'
Depth
Vertical Soil Screw Spacing Horizontal Soil Screw Spacing Length of Soil Screw Anchor Factor of Safety Unit Weight of Soil Internal Angle of Friction Pounds per Cubic Foot Pounds per Square Foot Ohms Parts per Million Ground Water Table Height of Wall Active Earth Pressure Coefficient Horizontal Force from Retained Soil Horizontal Force from Surcharge Load Horizontal Length of Soil Screw Anchor Eccentricity of Vertical Force Vertical Stress Allowable Bearing Capacity Kilopound Bearing Capacity Factor Ultimate Tension Capacity Area of Helix Difference in Depth of Soil Screw Anchor from End to End Angle of Soil Screw Anchor (from horizontal) Pounds per Square Inch Kilopounds per Square Inch Diameter of Welded Fabric Wire Diameter of Rebar Area of Steel Vertical Moment Resistance
8-38 8-38 8-38 8-38 8-38 8-38 8-38 8-38 8-38 8-38 8-39 8-39 8-39 8-39 8-39 8-40 8-40 8-40 8-40 8-41 8-42 8-42 8-42 8-42 8-42 8-43 8-43 8-43 8-43 8-43 8-43
v1.0 Oct/2006
Maximum Helical Anchor Head Load Facing Pressure Factor Punching Shear Strength of Facing Compressive Strength of Concrete Thickness of Facing Effective Cone Diameter at Center of Facing Internal Factor of Safety Global Factor of Safety Cantilever Moment Factor of Safety for Cantilever Moment Shear Force Factor of Safety for Shear Force
8-44 8-44 8-44 8-44 8-44 8-44 8-45 8-46 8-46 8-47 8-47 8-47
Determine the Soil Screw Anchor spacing (SV, SH), Soil Screw Anchor length (L) and facing requirements for an excavation support system for a 23 foot deep excavation in a silty sand. The required design Factor of Safety (FS) for internal stability is 1.5, and for global stability is 1.3. Step 1 - Define Design Parameters Given: The unit weight () and friction angle () of the silty sand is 120 pcf and 30 respectively. The allowable bearing capacity of the silty sand at the bottom of the excavation is 4000 psf. The electrochemical properties of the silty sand are listed below: Resistivity pH Chlorides Sulfates 4000 /cm 7 50 ppm 100 ppm
q =100 ps f
= 30
A design live surcharge load of 100 psf is considered to be applied uniformly across the ground surface at the top of the wall. The wall face is vertical. Groundwater is located 60 feet below the ground surface.
Chance Type SS5 Helical Soil Screw Anchors, for which lead sections and extensions are available in 5 and 7 lengths, are to be used for the Soil Screw Anchors. The design life of the structure is one year. Design Soil Screw Anchor lengths will be governed by the lead and extension pieces and thus will be 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, etc.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Step 2 - Check the Preliminary Feasibility of the Soil Screw Retention Wall System The medium dense, silty sands at this site are well suited for the Soil Screw Retention Wall System (i.e., good stand up time). The ground water table (GWT) is well below the bottom of the excavation. The conditions at the site are therefore favorable for the Soil Screw Retention Wall System.
= 30
Design charts are used to determine preliminary Soil Screw Anchor spacing and lengths for the given wall geometry, loading and soil conditions. For Preliminary Design Chart Figure 8-11 the soil conditions, = 30o, enter the Preliminary Design Chart (Figure 8-11) along the x-axis at a wall height (H) = 23 ft. A typical Soil Screw Anchor spacing for soils with good stand up time is 5 ft. x 5 ft. Therefore, use the SVSH = 25 curve to determine the preliminary Soil Screw Anchor length (L) = 16 ft. Step 3 - Determine External Earth Pressures Use Equation 8-35 to determine the active earth pressure (Ka) at the back of the reinforced soil mass. Ka Ka = = tan2 [ 45 - (/2)] tan2 [ 45 - (30/2)] = 0.33 (Equation 8-35)
Step 4 - Check Preliminary Soil Screw Anchor Length with Respect to Sliding Available Soil Screw Anchor lengths for Chance Helical Type SS5 anchors are 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, etc. The 16 foot preliminary length determined in Step 2 does not account for surcharge loading, which tends to increase Soil Screw Anchor lengths. Try 19 Soil Screw Anchors (length to height ratio of 0.83). For preliminary designs for walls with the given soil and loading conditions, a length to height ratio of 0.8 to 1.0 is a starting point for the analysis and appears to be conservative. The horizontal force from the retained soil (F1) is determined using Equation 8-36. F1 F1 = = Ka H2 (0.33) (120) 232 = 10474 lb/lf of wall (Equation 8-36)
The horizontal force from the surcharge load (F2) is determined using Equation 8-37. F2 = Ka qH = 0.33 (100) 23 = 759 lb/lf of wall
DESIGN EXAMPLE 10 SOIL SCREW RETENTION WALL SYSTEM 8-39
(Equation 8-37)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Using 19 Soil Screw Anchors installed at a 15 angle, the horizontal length (LX) of the Soil Screw Anchor is determined using Equation 8-38. Lx Lx = = L cos 15o 19 cos 15 = 18.4 ft
o
(Equation 8-38)
The Factor of Safety against sliding is determined using Equation 8-39. (Equation 8-39)
Step 5 - Check Required Bearing Capacity at the Base of the Wall Determine the eccentricity (e) of the resultant vertical force using Equation 8-40. (Equation 8-40)
The vertical stress (v) of the bottom of the wall is determined using Equation 8-41. (Equation 8-41)
Given the allowable bearing capacity (Qallow) is 4000 psf: Qallow = 4000 psf > v = 3532 psf (Equation 8-42)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Step 6 - Determine the Allowable Helical Anchor Strength Allowable Design Strength of Type SS5 Helical Anchor (Service Life = 75 Years) Table 8-5
Ta 75 yrs (kips) 50 V 75 yrs (kips) 37 ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRENGTH (TEMPORARY STRUCTURES) (kips) 45 ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRENGTH 75 yrs (kips) 37
The Soil Screw Anchor wall is a temporary structure with a design life of one year. From Table 8-5, the allowable design strength of the Chance Helical SS5 Anchor is 45 kips. This table is based on the following electrochemical properties of soil: Resistivity: pH: Chlorides: Sulfates: Organic content: >3000 /cm >5<10 100 ppm 200 ppm 1% max
v1.0 Oct/2006
Step 7 - Estimate the Tension Capacity of the Soil Screw Anchors Determine the bearing capacity factor (Nq) for helical anchors for a sand with an effective friction angle, = 30o. From Figure 8-12, Nq = 14. Assumed vertical spacing is 5 feet (see Figure 813). Nail pattern is as shown in Figure 8-13. There are eight helices per anchor, as shown in Figure 814. The ultimate tension capacity (P) of the Helical Soil Screw Anchor at Level 1 is determined using Equation 8-43.
Helical Anchor Levels (Equation Figure 8-13
8-43)
P = A i qi N q
i=1
Helical anchors have 8" diameter helixes. The helix area (A) can be calculated using Equation 8-44. A = = (0.33)2 0.336 ft2 (use 0.34 ft2) (Equation 8-44)
The ultimate tension capacities for the helical anchors at the various levels are determined using Equation 8-43. y = = = = = = L (sin ) 19 (sin 15o) 4.9 ft Length of Soil Screw Anchor Installation angle (from horizontal) 3 + (y/2) = 5.5 ft at Level 1 (Equation 8-45)
where:
= = = =
8 (0.34) 5.5 (120) 14 = 25 kips 8 (0.34) 10.5 (120) 14 = 48 kips 8 (0.34) 15.5 (120) 14 = 71 kips 8 (0.34) 20.5 (120) 14 = 94 kips
v1.0 Oct/2006
Step 8 - Define a Trial Facing System Try a 4" thick, 4000 psi shotcrete face with 6 x 6, W2.9 x W2.9 welded wire mesh reinforcing and two #4 vertical rebars at the helical anchor locations. Try a helical anchor spacing of 5 feet vertically and horizontally and an 8 square by 3/4 thick bearing plate with a steel yield stress of 36 ksi. Step 9 - Determine the Allowable Flexural Strength of the Facing For typical helical anchor wall construction practice, the facing is analyzed using vertical strips of width equal to the horizontal anchor spacing. For facing systems involving horizontal nail spacings that are larger than the vertical spacing or unit horizontal moment capacities that are less than the vertical unit moment capacities, horizontal strips of width equal to the vertical anchor spacing should be used.
The area of steel (As) for a vertical beam of width 5 feet (SH = 5 feet) with the anchor on the beams centerline is determined using Equation 8-46. Diameter (d) of the welded fabric wire is 0.192". Diameter (D) of the rebar is 0.500". For a 5 foot wide vertical beam centered between the anchors, the rebars are located at the beam edges and should be ignored. As is calculated using Equation 8-47. The corresponding average nominal unit moment resistances are determined using Equation 8-48. (Equation 8-46)
(Equation 8-47)
(Equation 8-48)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Step 10 - Determine the Maximum Helical Anchor Head Load Determine the maximum helical anchor head load that will produce the allowable moments determined in Step 9 using Equation 8-49. Using Table 8-6, determine the facing pressure factor (CF) for temporary shotcrete facing 4" thick. TFN, flexure TFN, flexure = = CF (mv,neg + mv,pos) 8 (SH/SV) 2.0 (1.30 + 0.57) 8 (5 ft/5 ft) = 29.8 kips Facing Pressure Factor Table 8-6
NOMINAL FACING THICKNESS (in) 4 6 8 TEMPORARY FACING CF 2.0 1.5 1.0 PERMANENT FACING CF 1.0 1.0 1.0
(Equation 8-49)
Step 11 - Determine the Allowable Punching Shear Strength of the Facing The punching shear strength (VN) is determined using Equation 8-50. VN VN where: f'c hc D'c = = = = = 0.125 f'c pD'c hc 0.125 4 (12) (4) = 38 kips 4,000 psi = 4 ksi 4 in 8 + 4 = 12 in (Equation 8-50)
Step 12 - Determine Critical Helical Anchor Head Load for Punching Determine the critical helical anchor head load (TFN) for punching using Equation 8-51. TFN, punching = VN = 38 kips (Equation 8-51)
Step 13 - Construct Soil Screw Anchor Strength Envelope Construct the strength envelope at each anchor level as shown in Figure 8-18. At the wall face, the anchor head flexural strength is less than the anchor head punching strength and therefore controls. There are eight helices per anchor. Each step in strength equals the single-helix bearing capacity for the anchor layer (Step 7). From the last helix (working from right to left) increase the pullout capacity in a stepwise fashion. If the pullout envelope working from the back of the nail does not intersect the flexural limit line, the strength envelope will look like that shown for Anchor 1. If the pullout envelope working from the back of the nail exceeds the flexural limit, then construct a pullout envelope working from the flexural limit at the head of the nail.
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved DESIGN EXAMPLE 10 SOIL SCREW RETENTION WALL SYSTEM 8-44 v1.0 Oct/2006
Step 14 - Evaluate Internal and Compound Stability GoldNail 3.11, A Stability Analysis Computer Program for Soil Nail Wall Design, developed by Golder and Associates, was used to perform the internal and compound stability analysis. Refer to Attachment EX1 in the CHANCE Civil Construction Soil Screw Retention Wall System Design Manual for printout result of this stability analysis. The following discussion is based on these results. The anchor strength envelope developed in Step 13 needs to be modified for GoldNail. The increase in pullout capacity along the length of the nail is estimated for GoldNail as straight lines, not step functions. An example of this modification for Anchor Level 2 is shown in Figure 8-17. Within GoldNail there are several analysis options. The option used for this example is Factor of Safety. Using this option, the Internal Factor of Safety (FSinternal) = 2.11 for the anchor pattern defined in Step 7. The GoldNail output printout lists Global Stability not Internal Stability. However, the location of the critical failure surface (Circle #13) indicates an internal mode of failure, as shown on the GoldNail geometry printout.
v1.0 Oct/2006
45 38 30
1.5
4.0
6.5
8.5
11.0
13.5
16.0
18.5
Step 15 - Check Global Stability Analysis was performed for the given slope geometry by the computer program PCSTABL6H, developed by Purdue University and modified by Harald Van Aller, and the pre-processor STED, developed by Harald Van Aller. The resulting Global Factor of Safety (FSglobal) = 1.93. Refer to Attachment EX2 in the CHANCE Civil Construction Soil Screw Retention Wall System Design Manual for printout results of this global stability analysis. Step 16 - Check Cantilever at Top of Wall In Step 7 the layout of anchors was assumed. The cantilever at the top of the wall from Step 7 is 3 feet. Check cantilever moment (Mc) using Equation 8-52. (Equation 8-52)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Maximum allowable moment at midspan (Step 9) is 566 lb-ft/ft., therefore: FSMC = (566 / 327) = 1.73 OK (Equation 8-53)
Check shear force at cantilever (Sc) using Equation 8-54. Sc = = = Ka [ (H12 / 2) + qH1 ] 0.33 [ 120 (32 / 2) + 100 (3) ] 277 lb/ft (Equation 8-54)
Determine allowable shear using Equation 8-55. VN = = FSshear = 0.125 f'c hc 0.125 4 (4) = 1000 lb/lf (1000 / 277) = 3.6 OK (Equation 8-56) (Equation 8-55)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Self-Supporting Tower Upper Guywire Anchor Tension Upper Guywire Installation Angle Lower Guywire Anchor Tension Lower Guywire Installation Angle Compression Horizontal Shear Factor of Safety Kilopound Recommended Ultimate Capacity Empirical Torque Factor Minimum Installation Torque Resultant Axial Load
This Design Example provides an aid in the selection of appropriate helical guywire anchors and piles for telecommunication towers. The guywire loads are to be resisted by a helical tension anchor. When the vertical and horizontal components are provided the resultant must be determined as well as the angle between the resultant load and the horizontal, (this is the angle the helical anchor should be installed at to properly resist the guywire load(s)). There may be one or more guywires that come to the ground to be restrained by one or more helical anchors depending on the magnitude of the load and/or the soil strength. Helical piles can be used to resist the loads from the structure mast. These loads will generally be composed of a vertical load and a lateral load at the base of the mast or pole.
v1.0 Oct/2006
If the structure is a self supporting tower (SST), the loads from each leg of the tower must be resisted. These generally consist of vertical uplift and compression loads and a horizontal shear load at the ground line. These three loads can be dealt with in a number of ways. Typically one or more helical piles are used for each leg of the tower and may be installed at a batter to better resist the horizontal shear loads. Steel grillages and reinforced concrete caps have been used to facilitate load transfer from the structure to the helical piles. This type design will not be covered in this design example since the intent is to focus on the guyed mast tower structure. Figure 8-18 shows the tower that will be used for these sample calculations. It will be noted that the four upper guywires come to the ground at a single guywire point and that the three lower guywires come to ground at a different guywire point. There must be at least a single helical anchor installed at each of these points to provide restraint for the guywires which in turn stabilize the tower by resisting lateral loads on the structure. For this tower, the vertical and horizontal components of the guywire loads are given and must be resolved into the tension load the helical guywire anchor is to resist. Upper Guywire Loads Vertical load component = 16.6 k Horizontal load component = 17.9 k 2 2 0.5 Tension in the upper guywire anchor = Tug = (16.6 + 17.9 ) = 24.4 k -1 Helical guywire anchor installation angle = IAug = tan (16.6/17.9) = 43
Lower Guywire Loads Vertical load component: 7.9 k Horizontal load component: 9.7 k Tension in the lower guywire anchor = Tlg = (7.92 + 9.72)0.5 = 12.5 k Helical guywire anchor installation angle = IAlg = tan-1 (7.9/9.7) = 39
Mast Foundation Loads Compression (C) = 68.0 k Horizontal shear (V) = 0.3 k
Selecting Helical Guywire Anchors/Piles CHANCE Civil Constructions HeliCAP Engineering Software will be utilized to determine the appropriate helical anchor/pile sizes for this tower. Soil conditions are shown in the Sample Boring Log in Figure 8-19. The soil data and guywire anchor data was input into the HeliCAP Engineering Software to get an appropriate output. The minimum acceptable Factor of Safety (FS) = 2.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Upper Guywire Helical Anchor The HeliCAP Summary Report for the upper guywire helical anchor is shown in Figure 8-20. This report provides the following information: Helical Anchor: SS5 (1.5" square shaft, 5500 ft-lbs torque rating, 70 kips ultimate tension rating) Lead Section: 4 helix (8-10-12-14) Installation Angle: 43 Datum Depth (depth below grade where installation starts): 0 ft Length: 45 (ft along the shaft at the 43 installation angle) Recommended Ultimate Capacity (Ruc): 50.2t (kips tension)
The Factor of Safety for this tension anchor is Ruc /Tlg = 50.2 / 24.4 = 2.05 > 2 (OK). Use this helical anchor at each of three upper guywire anchor locations per tower. The required average minimum installation torque (T) is: T = = = = (Tug x FS) / Kt (24,400 x 2.0) / 10 4,900 ft-lbs Empirical torque factor = 10 (default value for Type SS5 series) (Equation 8-57)
where:
Kt
T = 4,900 ft-lbs is less than the rated torque (5,500 ft-lbs) of the Type SS5 series. (OK). Lower Guywire Helical Anchor The HeliCAP Summary Report for the lower guywire helical anchor is shown in Figure 8-21. This report provides the following information: Helical Anchor: SS5 (1.5" square shaft, 5500 ft-lbs torque rating, 70 kips ultimate tension rating) Lead Section: 4 helix (8-10-12-14) Installation Angle: 39 Datum Depth (depth below grade where installation starts): 0 ft Length: 25 ft (along the shaft at the 43 installation angle) Recommended Ultimate Capacity (Ruc): 26.6t (kips tension)
The Factor of Safety for this tension anchor is Ruc / Tug = 26.6 / 12.5 = 2.12 > 2 (OK) Use this helical anchor at each of three lower guywire anchor locations per tower. T = = = = (Tlg x FS) / Kt (12,500 x 2.0) / 10 2,500 ft-lbs Empirical torque factor = 10 (default value for Type SS5 series) (Equation 8-58)
where:
Kt
T = 2,500 ft-lbs is less than the rated torque (5,500 ft-lbs) of the Type SS5 series. (OK).
v1.0 Oct/2006
Assume three helical piles installed at 120 intervals in plan view with each pile battered away from vertical at a 10 angle: 68/3 piles = 22.67k ultimate/pile element. Assume entire shear (0.3 k) is taken by one battered pile. Therefore, the resultant axial load (DL) to a battered pile is:
2 2 0.5 DL = (22.67 + 0.3 ) = 22.7k
The HeliCAP Summary Report for the helical piles is shown in Figure 8-22. This report provides the following information: Helical Pile: SS175 (1.75" square shaft, 11000 ft-lbs torque rating, 100 kips ultimate tension rating) Lead Section: 4 helix (8-10-12-14) Installation Angle: 80 below horizontal (10 away from vertical) Datum Depth: (depth below grade where installation starts): 0 ft Length: 34 ft (along the shaft at the 80 installation angle) Recommended Ultimate Capacity (Ruc): 50.7c (kips compression)
The Factor of Safety for this compression pile is Ruc / DL = 50.7 / 22.7 = 2.23 > 2 (OK) Use three SS175 helical piles per tower base. The three helical piles must be captured in a pile cap. This may be a reinforced concrete cap, the design of which is beyond the scope of this design example. The design of this concrete pile cap is left to the structural engineer. T = = = = (DL x FS) / Kt (22,700 x 2.0) / 10 4,500 ft-lbs Empirical torque factor = 10 (default value for Type SS175 series) (Equation 8-59)
where:
Kt
T = 4,500 ft-lbs is less than the rated torque (11,000 ft-lbs) of the Type SS175 series. (OK).
v1.0 Oct/2006
Sample Boring Log Figure 8-19 2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved DESIGN EXAMPLE 11 HELICAL ANCHORS/PILES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS 8-53 v1.0 Oct/2006
HeliCAP Summary Report for Upper Guywires Figure 8-20 2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved DESIGN EXAMPLE 11 HELICAL ANCHORS/PILES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS 8-54 v1.0 Oct/2006
v1.0 Oct/2006
HeliCAP Summary Report for Foundations Figure 8-22 2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved DESIGN EXAMPLE 11 HELICAL ANCHORS/PILES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS 8-56 v1.0 Oct/2006
OD Tw Fy Pd Pm Tm F E T Dc Tc Db FS Wp I S Wc Wg Wn Lb P Fh Fl Fb Mmax Ld Y Lp
Outside Diameter Pipe Wall Thickness Minimum Yield Strength of Pipe Pipe Design Pressure Pipe Maximum Operating Pressure Pipe Maximum Operating Temperature Construction Type Design Factor Longitudinal Joint Factor Temperature Factor Density of Coating Thickness of Coating Density of Backfill Factor of Safety Weight of Pipe per Linear Foot Moment of Inertia Section Modulus Weight of Coating per Linear Foot Gross Buoyancy Net Buoyancy Allowable Span Length Based on Bending Stress Maximum Design Pressure Hoop Stress Longitudinal Stress Allowable Longitudinal Bending Stress Maximum Moment at Mid-Span Between Pipeline Anchor Sets Mid-Span Vertical Displacement Based on Mid-Span Deflection Mid-Span Vertical Displacement Allowable Span Length Based on Mechanical Strength of Pipeline Bracket
8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-58 8-59 8-59 8-59 8-60 8-60 8-60 8-60 8-60 8-60 8-60 8-61 8-61 8-61 8-61 8-61
v1.0 Oct/2006
Ultimate Mechanical Strength of Pipeline Bracket Working Capacity of Pipeline Bracket Allowable Span Length Based on Uplift Capacity of Anchors in Boring Ultimate Uplift Capacity Working Uplift Capacity Total Working Uplift Capacity
This Design Example provides an aid in the selection of appropriate helical anchors for pipeline buoyancy control. ASSUMPTIONS Pipe contents: Natural gas Pipe outside diameter (OD): 42" Pipe wall thickness (TW): 0.938" Grade of pipe: API 5L, Grade X65 Minimum yield strength of pipe (Fy): 65,000 psi Pipe design pressure (Pd): 1,440 psi Maximum operating pressure (Pm): 1,440 psi Maximum operating temperature (Tm): 85o F Construction type design factor (F): 0.50 Longitudinal joint factor (E): 1.0 Temperature Factor (T): Tm < 250oF Coating: Fusion bonded epoxy Density of coating (Dc): 70.0 pcf Coating thickness (Tc): 16 mils Pipeline placement: Land based in trench with 4'-0 of cover above top of pipe Backfill material: Loose, poorly graded silty sand Specific gravity of backfill material: 1.44 Density of backfill material (Db) = 1.44 x 62.4 pcf = 89.9 pcf (use 90.0 pcf) Span between anchor sets: Simple span with pin-pin ends Maximum vertical displacement at mid-span between anchor sets = Lg/360 Minimum Factor of Safety (FS) for mechanical strength of hardware/anchors = 2.0 Minimum Factor of Safety (FS) for anchor soil capacity = 2.0 Soil data: As shown in Figure 8-23
v1.0 Oct/2006
SOLUTION Net Buoyancy (Wn) Properties of pipe: Weight per linear foot (Wp): Wp = = = [Ds x x (42.02 - 40.1242)] / (4 x 144) [490.0 x x (1764.0 - 1609.935)] / (576) 411.74 plf (Equation 8-60)
Moment of inertia (I) = 25515.8 in4 Section modulus (S) = 0.7032 ft3
v1.0 Oct/2006
Properties of coating: Weight per linear foot (Wc): Wc = = = Buoyancy: Gross buoyancy (Wg): Wg = = = Net buoyancy (Wn): Wn = = = Wg - W p - W c 865.8 - 411.74 - 1.03 453.03 plf (use 453.0 plf) (Equation 8-63) [Db x x (42.0322/122)] / 4 [90.0 x x (42.032 /12 / 4
2 2
(Equation 8-61)
1.03 plf
(Equation 8-62)
865.8 plf
Allowable Span Length (Lb) Based on Bending Stress Maximum design pressure (P): P = = = Hoop stress (Fh): Fh = = = (Pd x OD)/(2 x Tw) (1440.0 x 42.0)/(2 x 0.938) 32,238.8 psi (Equation 8-65) [(2 x fy x Tw)/OD] x F x E x T [(2 x 65,000 x 0.938)/42.0] x 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 1451.7 psi (use given Pd of 1440.0 psi) (Equation 8-64)
Longitudinal stress (Fl): Fl = = = (0.25 x Pd x OD)/Tw (0.25 x 1440.0 x 42.0)/0.938 16,119.4 psi (Equation 8-66)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Allowable longitudinal bending stress (Fb): Fb + Fl Fb = = = Fb Mmax Lb = = = = = = 0.75 x (F x E x T) x Fy [0.75 x (0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0) x 65,000] - 16,119.4 8,255.6 psi Mmax/S (Equation 8-68) Maximum moment at mid-span between pipeline anchor sets (Wn x Lb2)/8 [(8 x S x Fb)/Wn]1/2 [(8 x 0.7032 x 8255.6 x 144)/453.0]1/2 121.5 ft (Equation 8-67)
where:
Allowable Span Length (Ld) Based on Mid-Span Deflection Mid-span vertical displacement (Y) at center of span: Y Ld/360 Ld Ld Ld Y = = = = = = Ld/360 (5 x Wn x Ld ) / (384 x E x I) [(384 x E x I) / (360 x 5 x Wn)]1/3 [(384 x 29,000,000 x 25525.8/144) / (360 x 5 x 453.0)]1/3 134.2 ft (134.2/360) x 12 = 4.5 in
4
(Equation 8-69)
Allowable Span Length (Lp) Based on the Mechanical Strength of Pipeline Bracket Rated ultimate mechanical strength (UCp) of pipeline bracket = 80,000 lbs Rated mechanical working capacity (WCp) of pipeline bracket (using FSm of 2.0): WCp = = = WCp Lp = = = = UCp/FSm 80,000/2 40,000 lbs (Wn x Lp/2) x 2 WCp/Wn 40,000/453.0 88.3 ft (Equation 8-71) (Equation 8-70)
v1.0 Oct/2006
Allowable Span Length (La) Based on the Uplift Capacity of Anchors in Soil (Boring B-1) Ultimate uplift capacity (UCa) ranges from 45,900 to 41,700 lbs with overall anchor depths below ground line of 51'-0 to 60'-0. See Figure 8-25. Use UCa = 40,000 lbs. Working uplift capacity (WCa) (using FSs of 2.0): WCa = = = UCa/FSs 40,000/2 20,000 lbs (Equation 8-72)
There are two anchors located at each anchor support location along the pipeline, therefore, the total working uplift capacity (WCs) per anchor set = WCa x 2 anchors = 20,000 x 2 = 40,000 lbs. La = = = WCs/Wn 40,000/453.0 88.3 ft (Equation 8-73)
SUMMARY The uplift capacity plot data was obtained from the soil strength parameters shown in Figure 8-23 and capacities generated by HeliCAP Engineering Software. The maximum span length between anchor sets is limited to 88 ft based on the ultimate mechanical strength of the pipeline brackets and the ultimate uplift capacity of the anchors in the soil boring shown in Figure 8-25. Only one soil boring was provided along this proposed section of pipeline. If the soil conditions vary at the anchor set locations and the required average installation torque of 4,000 ft-lbs for a span length of 88 ft cannot be achieved at reasonable anchor depths, the span lengths should be reduced as shown in Table 8-8. CHANCE Civil Construction manufactures two band types for use with pipeline buoyancy control systems. See Figure 8-27. Each system has advantages depending on the application and local acceptance. Both systems will provide adequate buoyancy control with industry accepted Factors of Safety.
v1.0 Oct/2006
v1.0 Oct/2006
v1.0 Oct/2006
c P Cu D e L f M L PROBLEM
POS MAX
Cohesion Factor of Soil Applied Horizontal Shear Load Cohesion of Clay Diameter of Foundation Eccentricity Minimum Length of Foundation Bending Stress Maximum Bending Moment Required Depth into Soil
A Chance Helical Type SS175 1-3/4" square shaft helical anchor/pile is proposed for a pedestrian bridge abutment. The top section of the shaft is to be encased in a 6" nominal steel pipe and grout to provide lateral resistance. The top ten feet of the soil profile is medium-stiff clay with a cohesion factor (c) of 1000 psf. Determine what length of 6" diameter steel case is required to resist 4400 lbs of lateral load using the Broms' Method. Assumptions The 1-3/4" square shaft below the 6" cased section provides no lateral resistance. The solution method used is shown in Figure 8-27. Eccentricity is assumed to be 1 ft.
Solution P Cu D e L = = = = = Applied horizontal shear load: Use 4400 lbs. Include a Factor of Safety of 2 in the calculations, thus doubling the horizontal shear load; P = 2 x 4400 = 8800 lbs. Cohesion of clay: Use Cu = 1000 psf Diameter of foundation: Use D = 6.625" (6" nominal pipe size) Eccentricity; distance above grade to resolved load: Use e = 1 ft Minimum length of foundation based on above criteria. f = = = P/9 (Cu) D 8800 lbs/9 (1000 psf) (6.625 in/12) 1.771 ft (Equation 8-74)
v1.0 Oct/2006
MPOS MAX
= = =
P [e + 1.5(d) + 0.5(f)] 8800 lbs [1 ft + 1.5 (6.625 in/12) + 0.5 (1.771 ft)] 23,880 ft-lbs 2.25 (d) g2 (Cu) 2.25 (6.625 in/12) g (1000 psf) 19.22 ft2
2
(Equation 8-75)
= = = = =
(Equation 8-76)
19.22
4.38 ft 1.5D + f + g 1.5 (6.625 in/12) + 1.771 ft + 4.38 ft 6.98 ft (Equation 8-77)
= = =
Summary The 6" nominal steel case should be at least 7'-0 long to resist the 4400 lb lateral load.
v1.0 Oct/2006
Street Light Foundation Dead or Down Load Horizontal or Lateral Shear Load Moment Loads American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Required Length Cohesion of Soil Factor of Safety Applied Shear at Groundline including Factor of Safety Applied Moment at Groundline including Factor of Safety Diameter of Foundation Broms' Coefficient Maximum Moment Applied to Foundation Internal Angle of Friction Unit Weight of Soil Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient
8-67 8-67 8-67 8-67 8-67 8-69 8-69 8-69 8-69 8-69 8-69 8-69 8-69 8-70 8-70 8-70
This Design Example provides example solutions to aid in the selection of appropriate CHANCE Civil Construction Helical Instant Foundation products for different job parameters. SLF LOADS The resulting pole loads to be resisted by a street light foundation (SLF) are dead or vertical down loads (DL), horizontal, lateral or shear loads (V) due to wind on the pole and luminaire (light fixture), and overturning moment loads (M) resulting from the tendency to bend at or near the ground line as the wind causes the pole to displace and the foundation restrains the pole base at one location (see Figure 8-28). The DL for an SLF application is so small that a foundation sized to resist V and M will typically be much more than adequate to resist DL. Therefore, DL will not control the SLF design and will not be considered here. If DL is large enough to be of concern for an application where an SLF will be used, it may be evaluated based on bearing capacity equations applied to the soil around the helical bearing plate and friction along the shaft. These evaluations are beyond the scope of this design example, which will only deal with SLF applications. Since SLF products are used as lighting foundations along public highways, it is appropriate to mention the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication Standard
2006, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved DESIGN EXAMPLE 14 INSTANT FOUNDATIONS FOR STREET LIGHT SUPPORTS 8-67 v1.0 Oct/2006
Specifications for Structural Support for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. This document is often taken as the controlling specification for jobs using SLF's and will be referenced throughout this discussion. SLF SELECTION The SLF selection process is a trial and error procedure that may require more than one iteration. First, select an SLF diameter based on the applied bending moment (M) that must be resisted. That is, ensure that the applied moment is less that the allowable moment on the shaft. Determining the allowable moment requires a structural analysis of the pipe shaft section capacities (often based on a reduced cross section through cable ways, bolt slots, base plate size, welds, etc). This effort should be familiar to engineers engaged in design work, so a sample of this process will not be given here. The foundation shaft diameter will often be as large or larger than the base diameter of the pole to be supported. Allowable moment capacities for Civil Construction Helical Instant CHANCE Foundation products are provided in Table 10-2 in Section 10 of this Technical Design Manual. These capacities, when compared to the ground line reactions of the pole, can be used to choose a starting diameter to resist the applied loads. In this regard, shear is usually not the controlling factor for SLF shaft size but rather the moment load. (Note: The starting size may change as the given soil conditions for a job may dictate the final SLF size required.)
The design or selection of a foundation size to resist light pole loads in a given soil may be determined by various methods. Numerical methods using finite element and finite difference techniques may be used but have proven to be somewhat sophisticated for the rather simple SLF application. The Fourth Edition of the AASHTO specification lists a number of preliminary design methods that can be employed in the design process. Among those listed and discussed are the methods developed by Bengt B. Broms for embedment lengths in cohesive and cohesionless soils and a graphical method dealing with the embedment of lightly loaded poles and posts. The Broms method will be used for this design example as experience has shown these methods to both useable and appropriate. Calculations are provided for both cohesive soil (clay) and cohesionless soil (sand).
v1.0 Oct/2006
COHESIVE SOIL (see Figure 8-29) Assumed values: Applied shear load at the groundline (V) = 460 lbs. Applied moment at the groundline (M) = 8600 ft-lbs. Foundation diameter is 6" nominal Schedule 40. Use 6.625" as the actual pipe size in calculations. Cableway openings are 2.5" wide by 12" high. The allowable moment capacity of this foundation shaft size and cableway opening is 10,860 ft-lbs. The required length (L) will be determined using the Broms method. Cohesion (c) = 1000 psf. Factor of Safety = 2. VF = = = = = = V (FS) 460 (2) 920 lbs M (FS) 8600 (2) 17,200 ft-lbs (Equation 8-78)
VM
(Equation 8-79)
= =
0.5]
(Equation 8-80)
where:
D q c
= = = =
1.5 (6.625/12) + 0.185157 x [1 + { 2+ ( 4 x 18.69565 + 6 x (6.625/12)) / (0..185157)} 0.5] 4.82 ft Diameter of foundation VF/9cD Shear strength of cohesive soil
The length required to provide a Factor of Safety of 2 against soil failure is 4.82 ft. Since SLF lengths are provided in even foot lengths, use L = 5 ft. For the required embedment length, the maximum moment in the shaft is: MMAX = = = V ( H + 1.5D + 0.5q) (Equation 8-81) 460 (18.69565 + (1.5 x 6.625/12) + (0.5 x 0.185157) 9023.5 ft-lbs
Maximum moment can be compared with the allowable moment capacity of the foundation shaft to determine adequacy. For this example the allowable moment in the 6" pipe shaft is given as 10,860 ft-lbs, which is greater than the applied moment. Therefore, the 6" diameter by 5' long SLF is adequate for the applied loads in the clay soil.
v1.0 Oct/2006
COHESIONLESS SOIL (See Figure 8-30) Assumed values: Applied shear load at the groundline (V) = 460 lbs. Applied moment at the groundline (M) = 8600 ft-lbs. Foundation diameter is 6" nominal Schedule 40. Use 6.625" as the actual pipe size in calculations. Cableway openings are 2.5" wide by 12" high. The allowable moment capacity of this foundation shaft size and cableway opening is 10,860 ft-lbs. The required length (L) will be determined using the Broms method. = 30o = 100 lbs/ft3
For a trial and error solution, we will start by assuming the foundation diameter (D) is 6.625" and the length is 6 feet: 0 = = 0 KP = > = = (Equation 8-82) L3 - ( 2VFL / KPD ) 63 - [ 2 x 920 x 6) / (3 x 100 {6.625/12})] - [(2 x 17200) / (3 x 100 x {6.625/12})] - 58.35 - 58.35 tan2 (45 + /2 ) = 3.0 Effective unit weight of soil
where:
The 6 foot length is too short so we will try a 7 foot length and repeat the calculation: 0 0 = = < 73 - [2 x 920 x 7) / (3 x 100 {6.625/12})] - [(2 x 17200) / (3 x 100 x {6.625/12})] 57.53 57.53
A 7 foot long SLF will be adequate. The maximum moment in the foundation shaft can be determined with the following equation: MMAX = = = (Equation 8-83) V ( H + 0.54 x ( V / DKP ) 0.5 ) 460 (18.69565 + 0.54 x ( 460/100 x (6.625/12) x 3) 0.5) 9013.968 ft-lbs
This is less than the allowable moment capacity of 10,860 ft-lbs, therefore a 6" diameter by 7' long SLF is adequate for the applied load in the sandy soil.
v1.0 Oct/2006
pcf Ka Kp Pa Pp
Pounds per Cubic Foot Active Earth Pressure Coefficient Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient Active Load Passive Load
PROJECT A Chance Helical Type SS5 1-1/2" square shaft helical anchor is proposed as part of a pier and beam foundation for a residential structure (see Figure 8-31). The top of the helical anchor is fixed in a concrete grade beam that extends 4'-0 below grade. The surface soils are loose sands. Determine the lateral capacity of the grade beam using the Rankine earth pressure method. ASSUMPTIONS The lateral capacity of the 1-1/2" square shaft helical anchor is limited based on shaft size. It is generally not assigned any contribution to the lateral capacity of a foundation. The effective length of the grade beam for lateral resistance is 25'-0. Assume a unit weight of 95 pcf. The water table is well below the bottom of the grade beam. There are no surcharge loads. From Table 8-9, Ka = 0.2, Kp = 3.
v1.0 Oct/2006
SOLUTION Pa = = = = = = = = = 0.5KaH2 0.5 x 0.2 x 95 x 42 152 lb/ft 0.5KpH2 0.5 x 3 x 95 x 42 2280 lb/ft 2280 - 152 2128 lb/ft 2128 x 25'-0 = 53,200 lbs (Equation 8-84)
Pp
In this example, more than 1" of movement will probably be required to fully mobilize the total lateral resistance. Partial mobilization requires less deflection. Coefficients of Earth Pressure (Das, 1987) Table 8-9
SOIL K0', DRAINED 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 K0' TOTAL 1 0.8 0.53 0.35 Ka' TOTAL 1 1 0.2 0.3 Kp' TOTAL 1 1 3 4.6
Clay, soft
1 1
Clay, hard
v1.0 Oct/2006
Empirical Torque Factor for Helix Critical Capacity Resistance Maximum Moment of Inertia Critical Pressure Modulus of Elasticity Moment of Inertia Shaft Diameter Kilopound PROJECT
A three-helix Chance Helical Type SS150 1-1/2" square shaft helical pile is to be installed into the soil profile as shown in Figure 8-33. The top three feet is uncontrolled fill and is assumed to be soft clay. The majority of the shaft length (12 feet) is confined by soft clay with a kh = 15 pci. The helix plates will be located in stiff clay below 15 feet. The buckling model assumes a pinned-pinned end condition for the helical pile head and tip. Determine the critical buckling load using the Davisson method. ASSUMPTIONS kh is constant, i.e., it does not vary with depth. This is a conservative assumption because kh usually varies with depth, and in most cases increases with depth. Pinned-pinned end conditions are assumed. In reality, end conditions are more nearly fixed than pinned, thus the results are generally conservative. From Figure 8-32, Ucr 2
v1.0 Oct/2006
R Imax Pcr
= = = = = =
e(30 x 106 x 0.396) / (15 x 1.5) = 26.96 26.96 (15 x 12) / 26.96 6.7 (2 x 30 x 106 x 0.396) / 26.962 32.69 kips
(Equation 8-85)
Chance Helical Type SS150 Square Shaft Foundations Physical Properties Table 8-10
MODULUS of ELASTICITY (Ep) 30 x 10 psi
6
v1.0 Oct/2006
Weight of Hammer Weight of Rod Pounds per Square Foot Inside Diameter Helical Pulldown Micropile
A four-helix Chance Helical pile is to be installed into the soil profile as shown in Figure 8-34. The top five feet is compacted granular fill and is considered adequate to support lightly loaded slabs and shallow foundations. The majority of the shaft length (50 feet) is confined by very soft clay described by the borings as weight of hammer (WOH) or weight of rod (WOR) material. WOH or WOR material means the weight of the 130-lb drop hammer or the weight of the drill rod used to extend the sampler down the borehole during the standard penetration test is enough to push the sampler down 18+ inches. As a result, a low cohesion value (15 psf) is assumed. The helix plates will be located in dense sand below 55 feet. Determine the critical buckling load of a Type SS175 1-3/4" square shaft PLUS and Type RS3500.300 round shaft piles using LPILE 3.0 for Windows (ENSOFT, Austin, TX). When the computer model is completed, the solution becomes an iterative process of applying successively increasing loads until a physically logical solution converges. At or near the critical buckling load, very small increasing increments of axial load will result in significant changes in lateral deflection which is a good indication of elastic buckling. Figure 8-35 is an LPILEPLUS output plot of lateral shaft deflection vs depth. As can be seen by the plot, an axial load of 14,561 lb is the critical buckling load for a Type SS175 1-3/4" square shaft because of the dramatic increase in lateral deflection at that load compared to previous lesser loads. Figure 8-36 indicates a critical buckling load of 69,492 lb for Type RS3500.300 round shaft.
Note that over the same 50-foot length of very soft clay, the well-known Euler equation predicts a critical buckling load for Type SS175 of 614 lb with pinned-pinned end conditions and 2,454 lb with fixed-fixed end conditions. The Euler critical buckling load for Type RS3500.300 is 3,200 lb for pinned-pinned and 12,800 lb for fixed-fixed. This is a good indication that shaft confinement provided by the soil will
DESIGN EXAMPLE 17 BUCKLING EXAMPLE USING THE FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD 8-75
v1.0 Oct/2006
significantly increase the buckling load of helical piles. This also indicates that even the softest materials will provide significant resistance to buckling. All extendable helical piles have couplings or joints used to connect succeeding sections together in order to install the helix plates in bearing soil. One inherent disadvantage of using the finite difference method is its inability to model the effects of bolted couplings or joints that have zero joint stiffness until the coupling rotates enough to bring the shaft sides into contact with the coupling walls. This is analogous to saying the coupling or joint acts as a pin connection until it has rotated a specific amount, after which it acts as a rigid element with some flexural stiffness. All bolted couplings or joints, including square shaft and round shaft piles, have a certain amount of rotational tolerance. This means the joint initially has no stiffness until it has rotated enough to act as a rigid element. In these cases, it is probably better to conduct buckling analysis using other means, such as finite element analysis, or other methods based on empirical experience as mentioned earlier. If couplings are completely rigid, i.e., exhibit some flexural stiffness even at zero joint rotation, axial load is transferred without the effects of a pin connection, and the finite difference method can be used. An easy way to accomplish rigid couplings with round shaft piles is to pour concrete or grout down the ID of the pipe after installation. Another method is to install a grout column around the square or round shaft of the foundation using the Helical Pulldown Micropile (HPM) method. The HPM is a patented (U.S. Patent 5,707,180) installation method initially developed to install helical anchor foundations in very weak soils where buckling may be anticipated.
LPILE PLUS Buckling Analysis - Alexandria Rowing Facility - Alexandria, VA Type SS175 1-3/4" Square Shaft Deflection (in) LPILE PLUS Buckling Analysis - Alexandria Rowing Facility - Alexandria, VA Type RS3500.300 Round Shaft Deflection (in)
LPILE
PLUS
LPILE
PLUS
DESIGN EXAMPLE 17 BUCKLING EXAMPLE USING THE FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD 8-76
v1.0 Oct/2006
Standard Penetration Test SPT Blow Count Pounds per Square Foot Kilopound Helical Pulldown Micropile
A three-helix Chance Helical Type SS5 1-1/2" square shaft helical pile is to be used to underpin an existing townhouse structure that has experienced settlement (see Figure 8-37 for soil profile details ). The top 12 feet is loose sand fill, which probably contributed to the settlement problem. The majority of the shaft length (30 feet) is confined by very soft clay with an SPT blow count "N" of 2. As a result, a cohesion value (250 psf) is assumed. The helix plates will be located in medium-dense sand below 42 feet. Determine the critical buckling load using the ANSYS integrated file element model. Output indicates the Type SS5 1-1/2" square shaft buckled at around 28 kip. Figure 8-38 shows the displaced shape of the shaft (exaggerated for clarity). The K0 in Figure 838 are the locations of the shaft couplings. Note that the deflection response is controlled by the couplings, as would be expected. Also note that the shaft deflection occurs in the very soft clay above the medium-dense bearing stratum. Since the 28 kip buckling load is considerably less than the bearing capacity (55+ kip) it is recommended to install a grout column around the 1-1/2" square shaft using the Helical Pulldown Micropile (HPM) method.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 18 BUCKLING EXAMPLE USING THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 8-77
v1.0 Oct/2006
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: