Screw Piles:

Use and Design

Kristen M. Tappenden
November 2006

Objectives

What are screw piles?

geometry
fabrication installation common

uses

Why use screw piles?

advantages

over conventional pile types

How do we design screw piles?

axial

failure models direct pile design approach: LCPC method empirical approach: correlates installation effort to axial capacity

What are Screw Piles?

Deep foundations: carry tensile, compressive, and lateral loads Constructed of helical plates welded to hollow steel pipe

Emergence of Screw Piles

No related engineering literature exists prior to 1950s/1960s First use of screw piles: Maplin Sands light house in the Thames estuary in 1838

Screw Pile Geometries

Terminology
Inter-Helix Spacing Ratio = S/D

18 cm diameter shaft 35 cm diameter helix 5 meter length

Shaft diameters: 11 cm to 32 cm (4 to 12 inches) Helix diameters: Commonly 2-3 times the shaft diameter 30 cm to 91 cm (12 to 36 inches)

Installation
Turning

moment applied to the head of screw pile shaft, and pile twisted into the ground rate of penetration is one helix pitch per

Desirable

revolution

Video

Clip: courtesy of ALMITA Manufacturing

Installation Equipment

Screw Pile Advantages

Rapid installation (typ. < 30 min per pile) Little installation noise or vibration No casing or dewatering required Lightweight installation equipment:

soft terrain areas of restricted access

Sustain load immediately after installation May be removed and re-used

temporary structures

Resistant to frost heave

Screw Pile Limitations

Not for use in very hard or rocky soils

may sustain damage to the helical plates piles may be removed and helices checked

Lack of acceptance/understanding in the engineering community

Typical Screw Pile Uses:

Tower foundations

Ft. McMurray, Alberta: 27 cm (10 in) shaft, one or two 76 cm (30 in) helices, 6 m length

Pipeline foundations Earth retention systems Guy wire anchors

 Building

Foundations:

Warehouses Multi-family Housing Commercial Buildings Modular Homes

Hythe, Alberta: 22 cm (8 5/8 in) shaft, single 40 cm (16 in) helix, 8 m length

 Oil

Field Foundations

Temporary Buildings Pump Jacks Compressors Tanks

Typically 18 cm (7 in) shaft, single 40 cm (16 in) helix, 7.5 m deep

Screw Pile Failure Models

Cylindrical Individual

Shear Model Plate-Bearing Model

Choice of the most representative model depends on the screw pile geometry, in particular the Inter-Helix

Spacing Ratio (S/D)

Cylindrical Shear Model

After Narasimha Rao et al. (1991)

Effect of Inter-Helix Spacing Ratio (S/D)

1 2 3

1:

S/D 1.5
Cylindrical surface fully forms

2:

S/D 2
Cylindrical surface begins to deteriorate

3:

S/D 4.5
Cylindrical surface nearly non-existent

After Narasimha Rao et al. (1991)

Individual Plate Bearing Model

Summary: Failure Models

Cylindrical

Shear Model:

Multi-helix screw piles, generally most representative for S/D <2

Individual

Plate Bearing Model:

Single-helix screw piles Multi-helix screw piles, applicable for S/D>2

Axial Capacity Prediction

Theoretical Design Methods

Application

of relevant soil strength parameters (su ,, ,, Nq, Nqu)

Direct Design Approach: LCPC Method

Directly

relates results of cone penetration test to ultimate axial screw pile capacity, with no intermediate determination of soil strength parameters

Empirical Approach
Directly

correlates measured installation torque to ultimate axial screw pile capacity

Direct Design: LCPC Method

Established design method for predicting the axial capacity of conventional piles, based on site-specific CPT LCPC method developed in France by the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausees, based on results of many full-scale pile load tests (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982) Use of the CPT is advantageous because the test is fast, repeatable, and provides continuous profile of soil information

Direct Design: LCPC Method

Basic

premise of LCPC method is to apply scaling (reduction) factors to CPT profile of tip resistance to calculate appropriate components of bearing resistance and friction/adhesion Qtotal = Qbearing + Qshaft + Qcylinder

Direct Design: LCPC Method

Soil Type Bearing Average CPT tip resistance over layer i capacity factor qc (kPa)
Soft clay and mud Moderately compact clay Silt and loose sand Compact to stiff clay and compact silt Soft chalk Moderately compact sand and gravel Weathered to fragmented chalk Compact to very compact sand and gravel <1,000 1,000 to 5,000 5,000 > 5,000 5,000 5,000 to 12,000 > 5,000 12,000 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.40 30 40 60 60 100 100 60 150

Skin friction Maximum unit factor skin friction qs (kPa)

15 35 35 35 35 80 120 120

kc

qc (kPa)
0 0 1000 2000 3000

LCPC Calculation
Two 36 cm helices Spacing = 3D 21 cm shaft

Depth (m)

qs = 35 kPa qb1 = 811 kPa qb2 = 990 kPa

Calculated Capacity in Compression: Cylindrical Shear: 188 kN Individual Plate Bearing: 209 kN Calculated Capacity in Tension: Cylindrical Shear: 160 kN Individual Plate Bearing: 180 kN

Measured Capacity: 210 kN in both tension and compression

after Zhang (1999)

LCPC MethodCompression
Axial Capacity (kN)
0 0.00 1.00 50 100 150 200 250

Depth (m)

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

QLP, Cylindrical Shear Model QLP, Individual Plate Bearing Model QL, Cylindrical Shear Model QL, Individual Plate Bearing Model

LCPC Method
26 axial load tests, 7 test sites: clay, sand, clay shale, glacial till
2.0 1.8 1.6

Qpredicted / Qmeasured

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 C4 C5 C6 T4 T5 T6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 T7 T8 T9 C16 C17

Test Pile Designation

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Cylindrical Shear

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Individual Plate Bearing

LCPC Method
2.0 1.8 1.6

Qpredicted/ Qmeasured

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 C4 C5 C6 T4 T5 T6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C16 C17

Test Pile Designation

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Cylindrical Shear

Predicted to Measured Capacity, Individual Plate Bearing

Empirical Torque Correlation

Direct empirical relationship between torque required to install a given screw pile and the piles ultimate axial capacity

Qultimate = Kt T

(after Hoyt and Clemence, 1989)

Analogous to relationship between pile driving effort and pile capacity used for driven steel piles Can only predict capacity once pile is installed best used for field-level verification of expected design capacities

Torque Correlation
3500

Ultimate Axial Pile Capacity (kN)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Installation Torque (kN-m)

Measured Data (11.4 cm shaft piles) Linear Regression, 11.4 cm shaft piles (Kt = 16.9 m-1) Measured Data (14.0 to 40.6 cm shaft piles) Linear Regression, 14.0 to 40.6 cm shaft piles (Kt = 9.19 m-1)

Torque Correlation
29 screw pile axial load tests, 10 test sites: sand, clay, glacial till, clay shale, sandstone
2.0 1.8 1.6

Qpredicted/ Qmeasured

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 C4 C5 C6 T4 T5 T6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 T7 T8 T9 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

Test Pile Designation

Summary
Screw

piles have many advantages, such as ease of installation, immediate load-bearing capacity, no casing/dewatering required method provides good axial capacity prediction in clay and sand, but not suitable for glacial till soils

LCPC

Torque

correlation factors provide good capacity prediction for screw piles in a variety of soil types

Thank You

Research Partners:
Dr. Dave Sego Gerry Cyre Peace Land Piling / Peace Land Power Ltd. ALMITA Manufacturing Ltd. ATCO Electric ConeTec Inc.

Funding Providers:
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Alberta Ingenuity Fund University of Alberta

References
Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L. 1982. Pile bearing capacity prediction by means of static penetrometer CPT. In Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Testing, ESOPT-II. Amsterdam. Balkema Publisher, Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 687-697. Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N, and Shetty, M.D. 1991. The behavior of model screw piles in cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations, 31(2):35-50. Zhang, D. 1999. Predicting capacity of helical screw piles in Alberta soils. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Questions?