Coo fmoricas $9 2010 ‘3® PAL-AMERIGAN CONFERENOE ON GEOSYNTHE 10-13 APRIL 2016 - MIAMI BEACH « USA * BEARING CAPACITY OF HELICAL ANCHORS EMBEDED IN GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED SAND C.P. Chaves, Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil F.AN.Franga, Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil Y.D.J. Costa, Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil ABSTRACT Helical anchors are usually designed to resist both tension and compression efforts. Despite their positive aspects, they may present limitations, mainly regarding their application either in soils with boulders or in low bearing capacity soils (e.g. soft clays). In order to meet all design requirements, this paper presents the geosynthetic soil reinforcement as an altemative to such situations by means of evaluating the increase in bearing capacity of helical anchors systems due to geosyntheties reinforced layers on top soil. A metalic box (1.4 x 1.4 x 0.8 m) was used to simulate a layer of sand. Different configurations of reinforcements were tests and their results were compared to the case with no reinforcement. The influence of the geosynthetc layer position was evaluated. The results of this research willilustrate the gain in bearing capacity associated to each prototype configuration, 1. INTRODUCTION Helical anchors are mainly used in foundation systems submitted to tensile loads, Their installation in electrical transmission lines is very common due to their simple and quick installation process, and the high bearing capacity reached with this system, In some cases, helical anchors cannot reach the proper depth in order to resultin design bearing capacity (e.g. soils with boulders and very sott soils) In this regard, geosynthetic-reinforced techniques may become very useful to achieve such values. Despite foundation reinforced by geosynthetics was extensively studied (Hoyt and Clemence, 1989; Das, 1900; Ghaly et al, 1991; llamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah, 1999; llamparuthi and Dickin, 200ta; llamparuthi and Dickin, 2001b; llamperuthi, 2008; Perko, 2009; 1 Sawwaf and Nazir, 2012; Marto, 2013), both in compressive and tensile loads, researches related to helical anchors reinforced with geosynthetics are stil necessary. This would contribute to the development of new design approaches of helical anchors as foundation systems ‘Tne objective of this paper is to present an ongoing investigation related to the helical anchors bearing capacity, in terms of tensile loads, installed in unreinforced and geosynthetc-reinforced sand, by means of laboratory tests. The tests will be performed in order to evaluate the influence of the reinforcement itself and the position of the geosynthetic layer. GeoAmericas 2016, 3"! Pan-American nnference on Geosyntheties Page 1042Coo moricas $9 2010 ‘SPA\-AMEFIGAN CONFERENCE ON GEOSYNTHETICS. 10-13 APRIL 2016 » MIAMIBEACH « USA. 7 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laboratory pullout tests will be performed with helical anchors in this study. Both unreinforced and geosynthetic- reinforced conditions willbe tests. The following items descrive the material and procedures used in this research 2.1, Test box Phisical models of helical anchors will be builtin a rigid metalic box (1400 x 1400 x 800 mm). The test box i filed with sand in controlled conditions and provides the soil layer in which the anchor is placed. A pullout device is also provided, which includes @ reaction beam, hydraulic jack, pump, load cell and displacement gages. Figure 1 shows @ schematic view of the test box. Figure 1. Schematic view ofthe test box (dimensions in milimeters) 22, Sand ‘The sand used to fil the test box is found in the main campus of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (URN), in Natal, Bazi, It is classified as SP (poorly graded sand), according to the Unified Soil Classification System, Figure 2and Table 1 summarizes its geotechnical characteristics. GeoAmericas 2016, 3:4 Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics Page 1043,Coo moricas $9 2010 ‘SPA\-AMEFIGAN CONFERENCE ON GEOSYNTHETICS. 10-13 APRIL 2016 » MIAMIBEACH « USA. Particle sire . Fa_TinaeaT ae] Orel] ©) Figure 2: Sand characteristics (a) Site location; (b) Grain size distribution curve (after Fontoura, 205). Table 1: Sand geotechnical properties. Property Value Specific gravity 2,58 glem* Minimum void ratio 0,60 Maximum void ratio. 0.81 Friction angle (Or = 80%) 38° 23 Helical anchor physical model The helical anchor physical model is presented in Figure 3, It comprises a metallic rod to which three helices were welded, with the pace equal to 20 mm. Different diameters were used (106.1, 84.7 and 67.7 mm) resulting in mean diameter equal to 84.7 mm. Itcorresponds to the distance between helices. Figure 3: Helical anchor physical model (dimensions in milimeters) GeoAmericas 2016, 3:4 Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics Page 1044Coo moricas $9 2010 A\-AMEFIGAN CONFERENCE ON GEOSYNTHETICS. 10-13 APRIL 2016 » MIAMIBEACH « USA. e Since the main aspect investigated in this research is the influence of the geosynthetic reinforcement, the dimensions of the test box were properly considered in order to provide enough soll-geosynthetic interaction length. Thus, in order to maximize the test box use, the definition of the anchors geometry was based on the theoretical failure surface that would be developed during pullout in the case of shallow anchors (Meyerhof and Adams, 1968; Perko, 2009; A.B. Chance Co., 2014). With the proposed geometry, cylindrical failure surface is formed between the helices (Das, 1990; Perko, 2008). In ad the failure surface was determined as recommended by Perko (2009), resulting in more conservative results (45° to vertical). Figure 4 presents the expected failure surface in unreinforced pullout tests, Figure 4: Expected failure surface during pullout tests (dimensions in millimeters) 2.4, Compaction control In order to assure the repeatabilty of tests, sand will be compacted in the same conditions by means of a vibratory plate developed during this research. This apparatus was necessary due to test box size (commercial vibratory plates \were too big to properly compact the sand in the test box). Then, a standard compaction methodology was created and it will be repeatedly apply in test. It consists on passing the vibratory plate once in each way (north to south and east to west) for each 100 mm high sand layer, with great care to avoid hitting the text box walls. Figure 6 illustrates this procedure. Figure 5: Sand compaction inside the test box. GeoAmericas 2016, 3:4 Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics Page 1045Coo moricas $9 2010 A\-AMEFIGAN CONFERENCE ON GEOSYNTHETICS. 10-13 APRIL 2016 » MIAMIBEACH « USA. e 25, ulautests Four plot xs wl be pried, Ft, he reference tet canes the hcl anchor place inthe a ayer wiht any gest enforcement. Afterwards, tre tes wil be conducted with ol gear iayer laced in diferent depts 200,500 on 40 nm) a8 peered in Figur 6, The plot ad gain wil be vated fal bee Figura 6: Position of geogrid reinforcement in geosynthetic-reinforced pullout tests, 8, FINAL CONSIDERATIONS. This paper has presented an ongoing research, which aims the investigation of geosynthetioreinforced helical anchors system. The influence of geosynthetc layer position will be addressed by means of laboratory tests performed with a physical model of the system. Further studies will be conducted to evaluate the effect of geosynthetic type, numberof reinforcement layers, type of sol, among others aspects The results obtained from tests performed in this research will contribute to develop new design methods and installation procedures concerning foundation system with helical anchors. REFERENCES Meyethof, G.G. and Adams, J, 1968. The ultimate upift capacity of foundations. Can, Geotech...., 5(4):225-244 Mitsch, M.P.; Clemence, S.P. The Uplitt Capacity of Helix Anchors In Sand. In: Uplit Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soll, 1985, Detroit. Detroit ‘AB. Chance Co. (2014). Technical design Manual. ATLAS, Hubbel, 4p. DAS, 8, M. (1980). Earth Anchors. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering: 50. NewYork: Elsevier. 242. El Sawwat, M., e Nazir, A. K. (2012), Cyclic settlement behavior of stip footings resting on reinforced layered sand slope. Journal of Advanced Research, vol.3, n. 4 p. 315-824 GeoAmericas 2016, 3:4 Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics Page 1046Coo moricas $9 2010 A\-AMEFIGAN CONFERENCE ON GEOSYNTHETICS. 10-13 APRIL 2016 » MIAMIBEACH « USA. e Ghaly, A, Hanne, Ae Hanna, M. (1991). Uplit behavior of screw anchors in sand. i: dry sand, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 117, p. 773-788. Hoyt. A.B. ¢ Clemence, S. P. (1988). Uplift capacity of helical anchors in soil. Proc. 12thintemational Conference on ‘Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rio de Janeiro. llamparuthi, K. € Dickin E. A. (2001). The influence of soil reinforcement on the uplift behaviour of belled piles ‘embedded in sand, Geotexties and Geomembranes, vol. 19, p 1-22 llamparuthi, K. @ Dickin E. A (2001b). Predictions of the uplift response of model belled piles in geogrid-cell- reinforced sand, Geotextles and Geomembranes, vol. 19, p 89-108, llamperuthi, K. et al. (2008). Study on Uplit Behaviour of Plate Anchor in Geogrid Reinforced Sand Bed Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV: Geotechnical Special Publication. Sacramento, 18- 22 mato 2008. llamparuthi, K. @ Muthukrishnaiah, K. (1999). Anchors in sand bed: delineation of rupture surface, Ovean Engineering, vol. 26, p. 1249-1273 Marto, A. et al (2018). The effect of geogrid reinforcement on bearing capacity properties of soil under static oad; @ review. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol 18, p. 1881- 1898, Perko, H.A (2009), Helical Piles: A practical Guide to Design and installation, Dan Brow. John Wiley & Sons GeoAmericas 2016, 3:4 Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics Page 1047