Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Loana H. Sanchez
EESC-USP, São Carlos, SP, Brasil, loana@sc.usp.br
Cristina H. C. Tsuha
EESC-USP, São Carlos, SP, Brasil, chctsuha@sc.usp.br
ABSTRACT: Helical anchors have been frequently used in Brazil for the construction of
transmission line towers to resist uplift forces. However, in some sites, the appropriate soil layer to
install the anchor is considerably deep, or too hard that cannot be penetrated by the helices. In both
cases, the helical anchor is installed in a soil layer that provides lower uplift capacity than needed.
In order to find a solution to this problem, the present investigation presents an experimental
evaluation of two alternative procedures to improve the uplift capacity of helical anchors installed in
soils that provide insufficient anchor capacity. The first alternative is the injection of a water/cement
mixture in the soil mass around the helices. The second alternative consists of a helical anchor
installed with a grout column surrounding the shaft along the extensions in order to increase the
shaft resistance. To assess the water/cement injection and grouted shaft contributions to the uplift
capacity of helical anchors, five tension load tests were performed on identical three-helix anchors
installed in an unsaturated sandy silt soil, in Betim city (Brazil). The study shows that both solutions
evaluated significantly improved the helical anchor performance. Additionally, after the loading
tests the helical anchors were exhumed in order to examine the reinforced zones. This visual
inspection showed that the water cement injected filled the spiral path of the helices during
installation.
install these anchors at great depths (more than grouted single-helix piles in centrifuge, and
20 meters) to support the required design load. verified that the load capacity of the model piles
This problem occurs due to the greater areas with the injection was almost twice the values
and depths of tropical soils of high porosity provided by the models of conventional helical
typical in Brazil. In these cases, it is impossible piles (without injection).
to install shorter helical anchors. Therefore, the
use of this type of anchor is not economically
viable in some of these areas (usually soils with 3 TESTING PROGRAM
SPT values N<10).
Considering the problem described above, 3.1 Tested Anchors
that has frequently occurred in the practice of
helical anchors in Brazilian tropical soils, the Five identical three-helix anchors were
current work was proposed to evaluate two fabricated for the tests performed for the current
alternative solutions in order to make possible study: two conventional helical anchors
the use of shorter helical anchors installed in (anchors E1 and E2), one helical anchor with
low capacity soils. grouted shaft (anchor A1), and two helical
anchors with water/cement injection around the
helices (anchor C1 and C2). The difference
2 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS between the anchors C1 and C2 is the injection
INVESTIGATED procedure. For the anchor C1, the injection of
water/cement mixture was performed
The first alternative evaluated in the current immediately after the pile installation without
study, previously verified in the literature, is the pile rotation, and for the case of anchor C2, the
execution of a grouted shaft. This solution was pile was rotated during the injection.
introduced by Vickars and Clemence (2000). The helical piles were fabricated with
They demonstrated that the addition of grout circular shaft of 73 mm diameter and three
increases the frictional area along the shaft, helical plates of 203, 254 and 305 mm, as
contributing to the to the load capacity of a illustrated in Figure 1.
helical foundation subjected to axial
compressive and tensile loading. The grouted
shaft also contributes to prevent buckling
problems of helical piles installed in very soft
soils. The Grouted Helical Pile System has been
successfully used in other countries, in different
types of soil. According to the research done by
Vickars and Clemence (2000), Abdelghany and
El Naggar (2010), Lutenegger (2010), and El
Sharnourby and El Naggar (2012), this type of
grout column pile has provided a considerable
increase in the load capacities of helical piles.
The second alternative studied in this work
was the injection of a water/cement mixture in
the soil mass around the helices. Bian et al.
(2008) commented that an economical and
efficient way to improve the load capacity of
helical foundations is the injection of grout at
the pile tip. These authors tested models of
Figure 1. Helical anchors E1, E2 and A1.
XIX Congresso Brasileiro de Mecânica dos Solos e Engenharia Geotécnica
Geotecnia e Desenvolvimento Urbano
COBRAMSEG 2018 – 28 de Agosto a 01 de Setembro, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil
©ABMS, 2018
The helical anchor A1 was tested to evaluate Figure 7. Execution of the grouted shaft anchor A1.
the gain in uplift capacity provided by a grouted
shaft above the helices. For the execution of a Figure 8 shows the installation procedure of
grouted shaft with 2.0 m length below the soil the helical anchors with injection of cement
surface, two circular steel plates with diameter grout (C1 and C2). For these cases, the leading
of 200 mm were welded to the central tube. One section (with the helices) and the extension
plate was welded just above the top helix as were connected using threaded rods (Figure 8a).
shown in Figure 6. Figure 8c illustrates the holes drilled in the
This plate was welded to other two vertical central rod to allow the cement grout to
plates (forming a wing) to facilitate the anchor penetrate the surrounding soil.
installation. The second plate, welded to the top
part of the central tube, is illustrated. A hole
was perforated in this plate to allow the passage
of grout.
4 RESULTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS