Untitled

CHANCE TECHNICAL
DESIGN MANUAL
Edition 5
Chance® Civil Construction | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.

Centralia, Missouri 65240 | U.S.A.
♲
Printed copies of this Manual are printed in the USA on recycled paper.
© Copyright 2023 Hubbell Incorporated. Chance® is a registered trademark of Hubbell, Inc.

All product names and brands are property of their respective owners.
CENT-CV-TECHNICAL-DESIGN-MANUAL-TECHP-EN-V5-00350
Bulletin 01-0605 | Revision 01-2023

Because Hubbell has a policy of continuous product improvement,
we reserve the right to change design and specifications without notice.
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 should be conducted and state and local building codes and authorities
should be consulted prior to any installation to ascertain and verify compliance to relevant rules, regulations,
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., shall not be responsible for or liable to you and/or your customers for the adop-
tion, revision, implementation, use, or misuse of this information. Hubbell takes great pride and has every
confidence in its network of installing contractors and dealers.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., does NOT warrant the work of its dealers/installing contractors in the installation
of Chance® Civil Construction foundation support products.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | i

ONLINE RESOURCES
Chance® Website. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.chancefoundationsolutions.com
HeliCAP® Helical Capacity Design Software. . . . www.hpsapps.com/helicap
Select-A-Base App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.hpsapps.com/base
Find a distributor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.chanceexpert.com/distributor
Blog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . blog.chancefoundationsolutions.com
Warranty Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.chanceexpert.com/warranty
Video Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . videos.hubbellpowersystems.com (Helical Piles category in side menu)
PDFs of Catalogs and Manuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.hpslibrary.com (Chance Foundation Solutions category in side menu)
SYMBOLS & ACRONYMS

γ Effective Unit Weight of Soil DL Design Load (Appendix B only)
γ ’ Submerged Unit Weight (Submerged Density) DMT Dilatometer Test
(Section 2 only)
DS Design Load
γ ’ Effective Unit Weight of the Soil (Section 5 only)
e Void Ratio
γd Dry Unit Weight (Dry Density)
E Modulus of Elasticity
γs Saturated Unit Weight (Saturated Density)
EI Flexural Rigidity of the Foundation Shaft
γt Wet (Total) Unit Weight (Wet Density)
Ep Modulus of Elasticity of Foundation Shaft
∆Lf Incremental Pile Length
EPA Effective Projected Area
θ Failure Plane Angle
Es Secant Modulus of the Soil Response Curve
σ Total Stress
Esγ Soil Reaction per Unit Length
σ ’ Effective Stress
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
σ o Mean Normal Stress
FS Factor of Safety
τf Shear Strength
fs Sum of Friction and Adhesion Between Soil and Pile
φ Angle of Internal Friction
FSh Factor of Safety for Mechanical Strength of
A Effective Cylinder Area Hardware
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and FSp Proof Load Factor of Safety
Transportation Officials
FVT Field Vane Test
ACI American Concrete Institute
G Amount of Galvanized Coating
Ah Projected Helix Area
GWT Ground Water Table
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
H Height of Wall or Resisting Element
AL Alignment Load
Hd/Sd Helix to Shaft Diameter Ratio
ASL Allowable Steel Loss
HS High Strength
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
HSA Hollow Stem Auger
AWS American Welding Society
I Moment of Inertia (Section 5 only)
B Helix Diameter & Footing Width (Base)
I Electrical Current (Appendix A only)
BOCA Building Officials and Code Administrators
ICBO International Conference of Building Officials
International
ICC International Code Council
c Cohesion of Soil
ICC-ES ICC Evaluation Service, Inc.
Ca Adhesion Factor
Ip Moment of Inertia of Foundation Shaft
CFA Continuous Flight Auger
K0 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest
CID Cubic Inch Displacement
K2 Weight Loss by Corrosion
CL Corrosion Weight Loss
Ka Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure
CPT Cone Penetration Test
kh Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
CPTU Piezocone Penetration Test
kip Kilopound
D Diameter
Kl/r Slenderness Ratio
DF Driving Force
Kp Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure
DL Dead Load
ii | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023

SYMBOLS & ACRONYMS
ksi Kips (kilo-pounds) per square inch QULT Ultimate Capacity of the Soil
Kt Empirical Torque Factor R Resistance or Resistivity
L Pin spacing RF Resisting Force
L Foundation Shaft Length Rh MAX Maximum Installation Force Based on Ultimate
L.I. Liquidity Index Capacity of Hardware
LI Liquidity Index RhULT Ultimate Hardware Installation Force
LL Live Load Rmeter Resistivity Indication from Nillson Resistivity Meter
LL Liquid Limit (Section 2 only) Rp Installation Force to Achieve Proof Load
Lp MAX Maximum Free Span Between Piers RQD Rock Quality Desigination
Lu Unsupported Length RR Round Rod
M Mass RS Round Shaft
n Porosity Rw ULT Ultimate Hardware Strength based on Structural
Weight
N Field Blowcount Value from Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) S Degree of Saturation (Section 2 only)
(N1)6o Normalized SPT N-value S Average Friction Resistance on Pile Surface Area
(Section 5 only)
NBS National Bureau of Standards
SBCCI Southern Building Code Congress International
Nc Bearing Capacity Factor for Cohesive Component of
Soil SK Snow Load Factor
Nq Bearing Capacity Factor SL Snow Load
Nγ Bearing Capacity Factor for Soil Weight and SL Shrinkage Limit (Section 2 only)
Foundation Width SL Service Life (Appendix A only)
ø Effective Friction Angle Between Soil & Pile Material SLF Street Light Foundation
OCR Overconsolidation Ratio SPT Standard Penetration Test
P Line Load on Footing SS Square Shaft
Pa Active Earth Pressure SS Split Spoon (Section 2 only)
Pcr Critical Buckling Load SSCF Soil Screw® Anchor Component Force
Pcrit Critical Compression Load St Soil Sensitivity
Pdes Design Load per Pier ST Shelby Tube
pH Acidity or Alkalinity of a Solution su Undrained Shear Strength
PI Plasticity Index T Tension Load (Section 4 only)
PIF Power Installed Foundation T Average Installation Torque (Section 6 only)
PISA Power Installed Screw Anchor T Indicated Force (Section 9 only)
PL Plastic Limit (Section 2 only) T/C Tension/Compression
PL Proof Load (Section 6 only) TFN Critical Helical Anchor Head Load
Po Average Overburden Pressure u Pore Water Pressure
Pp Passive Earth Pressure UC Unconfined Compression Test
ppm Parts per Million Ucr Dimensionless Ratio
psf Pounds per Square Foot USCS Unified Soil Classification System
PT Test Pressure V Volume (Section 2 only)
Pw Pier Working Load V Voltage (Appendix A only)
q Effective Vertical Stress on Element VN Punching Shear Strength
Q Axial Compressive Load VST Vane Shear Test
q’ Effective Overburden Pressure W Soil Load
Qact Actual Capacity wn Moisture Content
Qact/Qcalc Capacity Ratio Ws Weight of Steel Pile
Qcalc Calculated Capacity WSF Wenner Spacing Factor
Qh Individual Helix Capacity WWF Welded Wire Fabric
Qs Capacity Upper Limit x Pier Spacing
Qt Total Ultimate Multi-Helix Anchor/Pile Capacity xMAX Maximum Pier Spacing
qu Unconfined Compressive Strength y Lateral Deflection of Shaft at Point x
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Atlas Resistance® Piers.....................................................................................................................................1-2
Helical Piles/Anchors....................................................................................................................................... 1-6
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................... 1-13
SECTION 2: SOIL MECHANICS

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................2-2
Soil Mechanics....................................................................................................................................................2-2
Site Investigations.............................................................................................................................................2-7
SECTION 3: PRODUCT FEASIBILITY

Feasibility Of Using Chance® Helical or Atlas Resistance® Pier Products....................................3-2
Shaft Size Selection Based on Soil Parameters .................................................................................. 3-4
Preliminary Chance Helical Pile/Anchor and Atlas Resistance® Pier Design Guide................ 3-4
SECTION 4: LOAD DETERMINATION

Structural Loads .............................................................................................................................................. 4-2
Preliminary Tieback Design Guide............................................................................................................ 4-3
Tables For Estimating Dead Line (DL) & Live Line (LL) Loads...................................................... 4-6
Tables For Estimating Free Spans Between Supports...................................................................... 4-8
Preliminary Design Guidelines For Reinforced Concrete Grade Beams.................................... 4-12
Preliminary Design Guidelines For Reinforced Concrete Pile Caps............................................4-19
SECTION 5: DESIGN METHODOLOGY

5.1 Atlas Resistance Pier Capacity ..........................................................................................................5-2
5.2 Chance Helical Pile/Anchor Ultimate Bearing Capacity............................................................5-3
5.3 Evaluating Soil Properties For Design .......................................................................................... 5-14
5.4 Factor Of Safety ...................................................................................................................................5-20
5.5 HeliCAP Helical Capacity Design Software ............................................................................... 5-22
5.6 Application Guidelines For Chance Helical Piles/Anchors.................................................... 5-25
5.7 Lateral Capacity Of Helical Piles .................................................................................................... 5-25
5.8 Buckling/Bracing/Slenderness Considerations.........................................................................5-30
5.9 Helical Pile Deflection At Working Load......................................................................................5-34
SECTION 6: INSTALLATION METHODOLOGY

Atlas Resistance® Piers................................................................................................................................... 6-2
Chance® Helical Piles/Anchors.................................................................................................................... 6-4
Installation Torque/Capacity Relationship............................................................................................. 6-4
Torque Indicator Calibration....................................................................................................................... 6-12
Installation Termination Criteria................................................................................................................ 6-12
SECTION 7: PRODUCT DRAWINGS AND RATINGS

Atlas Resistance Piers.....................................................................................................................................7-2
Chance Helical Piles/Anchors....................................................................................................................... 7-7
Square Shaft Helical Piles and Anchors.................................................................................................. 7-11
iv | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Round Shaft Helical Piles and Anchors................................................................................................. 7-29
Chance Rock-It Helical Lead.......................................................................................................................7-75
Type SS/RS Combination Helical Piles.................................................................................................. 7-76
Chance Helical Pulldown Micropiles........................................................................................................7-77
Remedial Repair Brackets For Chance Helical Piles.......................................................................... 7-81
New Construction Pile Caps......................................................................................................................7-90
SECTION 8: DESIGN EXAMPLES

Design Example 1: Atlas Resistance Piers................................................................................................8-2
Design Example 2: Atlas Resistance Piers with Integrated Tieback..............................................8-3
Design Example 3: Helical Pile Foundation for New Construction............................................... 8-5
Design Example 4: Light Commercial Structure.................................................................................. 8-6
Design Example 5: Helical Pulldown Micropiles for New Construction.....................................8-10
Design Example 6: Helical Piles for Boardwalks.................................................................................8-14
Design Example 7: Helical Piles for Boardwalks with Lateral Support....................................... 8-15
Design Example 8: Helical Tieback Anchors In Clay......................................................................... 8-16
Design Example 9: Helical Tieback Anchors In Sand........................................................................ 8-17
Design Example 10: Soil Screw Retention Wall System................................................................... 8-19
Design Example 11: Helical Piles/Anchors for Telecommunication Towers..............................8-24
Design Example 12: Helical Anchors for Pipeline Buoyancy Control.......................................... 8-31
Design Example 13: Type RS Helical Piles for Lateral Support..................................................... 8-35
Design Example 14: Instant Foundations for Street Light Supports..........................................8-36
Design Example 15: Foundation Earth Pressure Resistance..........................................................8-39
Design Example 16: Buckling Example Using the Davisson Method......................................... 8-40
Design Example 17: Buckling Example Using the Finite-Difference Method...........................8-41
Design Example 18: Buckling Example Using the Finite-Element Method..............................8-43
Design Example 19: Monopole Foundation with Steel Grillage & RS5500 Helical Piles.....8-44
SECTION 9: SOIL SCREW® RETENTION WALL SYSTEM

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 9-2
Soil Screw® Retention Wall System........................................................................................................... 9-2
Preliminary Design Considerations........................................................................................................... 9-4
Geotechnical And Structural Engineering.............................................................................................. 9-5
Limiting Load Capacities...............................................................................................................................9-7
General Construction Considerations of Underpinning/Shoring Systems.................................9-7
Concepts And Applications Of Underpinning/Shoring Systems.................................................. 9-8
Case Study 1 - High Foundation Line Load With Shallow Cut........................................................ 9-9
Case Study 2 - Low Foundation Line With Deep Cut....................................................................... 9-12
SECTION 10: INSTANT FOUNDATION® SYSTEM

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................10-2
Design..................................................................................................................................................................10-2
Laterally Loaded Foundations...................................................................................................................10-6
Instant Foundations® System Specifications........................................................................................10-7
Product Specifications..................................................................................................................................10-7
Pole Load Determination Data Sheet.....................................................................................................10-9
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: CORROSION - AN OVERVIEW
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ A-2
Corrosion Theory............................................................................................................................................. A-2
Soil Environments............................................................................................................................................ A-3
Predicting Corrosion Loss............................................................................................................................ A-5
Corrosion Loss Rates......................................................................................................................................A-6
Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity...................................................................................................... A-7
Corrosion Control Techniques.....................................................................................................................A-8
Design Examples.............................................................................................................................................A-13
APPENDIX B: LOAD TESTS

Static Load Tests (Tiebacks)........................................................................................................................ B-2
Static Axial Load Tests (Compression/Tension)..................................................................................B-4
Static Load Tests (Lateral)........................................................................................................................... B-6
Acceptance Criteria........................................................................................................................................ B-8
APPENDIX C: HELICAL PILES & ANCHORS - A BASIC GUIDELINE FOR DESIGNERS

I. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... C-2
II. Helical Pile Capacity................................................................................................................................... C-2
III. Design Process............................................................................................................................................ C-2
A. Data Gathering................................................................................................................................... C-3
B. Feasibility.............................................................................................................................................. C-3
C. P1, P2, P3 & P4.................................................................................................................................... C-3
IV. P4 - Geotechnical Capacity................................................................................................................... C-3
V. P1, P2 And P3 - Structural Strength.....................................................................................................C-6
VI. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................C-11
VII. Reliability.....................................................................................................................................................C-11
VIII. Other Topics Related To Design........................................................................................................C-11
IX. How To Specify Helical Piles.................................................................................................................C-13
X. Construction Documents........................................................................................................................C-13
APPENDIX D: FORMS
Preliminary Design Request Form.............................................................................................................D-2
Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor Axial Test Form.......................................................................................D-3
Atlas Resistance® Piers Installation Log..................................................................................................D-4
Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor Installation Log........................................................................................D-5
Chance Helical Pulldown® Micropile Installation Log.........................................................................D-6
Atlas Resistance® Piers - Project Summary Log................................................................................... D-7
Pole Load Determination Data Sheet......................................................................................................D-8
Site Inspection Form.......................................................................................................................................D-9
vi | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023

GLOSSARY
Alignment Load (AL) - A low magnitude load applied to a pile/ Elastic Movement - The recoverable movement measured dur-
anchor at the start of the load test to keep the testing equip- ing a pile/pier load test resulting from the elastic shortening or
ment correctly positioned and to remove any slack in the reac- lengthening of the pile/pier shaft material.
tion system.
End Bearing - The transfer of axial loads to the soil at the tip of
Allowable Capacity - The geotechnical capacity of a pile/an- a helical pile via helix plates or at the tip of a pier.
chor or pier as determined by a reduction of the ultimate ca-
Evaluation Services Report (ESR) - The evaluation of a manu-
pacity with an appropriate factor of safety or resistance factor.
factured product or building component by the evaluation
Anchor or Anchorage - A combination of anchor and the soil services of the various model code agencies (ICC). The report
or deeply weathered rock into which it is installed that togeth- outlines the requirements that must be met to satisfy the intent
er resist tension loads applied to the anchor. of the Building Code.
Atlas Resistance® Pier - An assembly of structural steel com- Extension Pier Section - With reference to an Atlas Resistance
ponents that includes a foundation bracket assembly attached Pier, the pipe sections following the starter pier section that
to the concrete foundation, which is then mounted to a steel extend the starter section to the load bearing stratum. The ex-
pier that is installed to bedrock or dense bearing stratum via tension pier sections are equipped with a pier sleeve that al-
hydraulic jacking of the pipe shaft segments. lows for coupling the extensions to the starter section or other
extensions.
Axial Load (P) - An axially oriented compression or uplift (ten-
sion) load supported by an pile/anchor or pier resulting from Failure Criteria - A method used to determine the ultimate ca-
dead, live and seismic loads. pacity of a pile/anchor based on a load test. A typical failure
criteria for helical piles is the load where the pile head displace-
Bearing Load - A load generally regarded as an axial compres-
ment is equal to 10% of the average helix diameter plus the
sive load on a pile or pier.
elastic movement.
Bearing Stratum - Soil layers of sufficient strength to be ca-
Foundation Soil Load - The load from soil overburden on the
pable of resisting the applied axial load transferred by a pile
outstanding toe of a footing. This soil load is in addition to the
or pier.
existing structure weight supported by the footing. It increas-
Contractor - The person or firm responsible for performing the es the dead load used as a reaction to install a push pier and
required construction, i.e., installation of Chance® Helical Piles/ therefore aids the installation. However, it may work to defeat
Anchors or Atlas Resistance Piers. attempts to lift a structure and may require reduction or re-
Coupling - A central steel shaft connection for Chance Type SS moval if a lift is required.
and RS helical piles. Couplings may be either separable sleeve Friction Reduction Collar - The enlarged section at the bottom
couplings or integral forged sockets. of the pipe starter section of an Atlas Resistance Pier. The col-
Coupling Bolts - High strength structural steel fasteners used lar diameter is larger than the following pipe shaft, thus forcing
to connect helical anchor/pile segments together. For Chance the displaced soil away from the pipe shaft.
Type SS segments the coupling bolt transfers axial loads. For Gunite - A dry concrete mixture that is carried to a nozzle in
Chance Type RS segments the coupling bolt transfers both moving air where it is mixed with water. The operator controls
axial and torsional loads. the water-cement ratio.
Coupling, Pier Sleeve - A steel tubing of suitable outside diam- Helical Extension - A helical pile/anchor component installed
eter to fit into a pier starter and extension section to provide immediately following the lead section (if required) to increase
a means for attaching the various pier sections together for the bearing area of the foundation. This component consists of
Atlas Resistance Piers. It allows for extending the pier to the one or more helical plates welded to a central steel shaft.
required depth.
Helical Pile - A bearing type foundation consisting of a lead
Creep - The movement that occurs during the Creep Test of a section, helical extension (if required by site conditions), plain
pile/ anchor or pier under a constant load. extension section(s) and a pile cap. Also known as a screw pile
Dead Load (DL) - Generally, vertical loads comprised of the or helical screw foundation.
weight of the structure plus various fixed assets, such as equip- Helical Pulldown® Micropile - A small diameter, soil displace-
ment, machinery, walls and other permanent items. ment, cast-in-place helical pile in which the applied load is re-
Design Load (Pd) - The maximum anticipated service load ap- sisted by both end bearing and friction. The design was origi-
plied to a pile or pier, comprised of calculated dead and live nally covered under United States Patent 5,707,180, Method
loads. Also known as Working Load. and Apparatus for Forming Piles In-Situ.
Effective Stress - The total force on a cross section of a soil

mass that is transmitted from grain to grain of the soil, divided
by the area of the cross section. Also known as Intergranular
Stress.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | vii
Helix Plate - A round steel plate formed into a ramped spiral. Pier Head Assembly - An Atlas Resistance® Pier bracket or
The helical shape provides the downward force used to install other termination device that allows attachment to an existing
a helical pile/anchor, plus the plate transfers the load to the soil footing or floor slab.
in end bearing. Helical plates are available in various diameters
Pile Cap - A means of connection through which structural
and thicknesses.
loads are transferred to a pile or pier. The type of connection
Impact Driven - A pile driven with a pile hammer. varies depending on the requirements of the project and the
type of pile/pier material used. Note: Care must be used in the
In-Situ - In the natural or original position. Used in soil mechan-
design of pile caps to ensure adequate structural load transfer.
ics to describe the original state of soil condition prior to dis-
Design constraints such as expansive soils, compressible soils
turbance from field testing or sampling methods.
and seismic loads must be accounted for in pile cap design.
Installation Torque - The resistance generated by a helical pile/
Pipe Shaft - A central shaft element made from hollow, steel,
anchor when installed into soil. The installation resistance is a
round pipe, ranging in diameter from 2” to 10”. Also known as
function of the soil plus the size and shape of the various com-
Hollow Shaft, Round Shaft (Type RS), Type T/C and Type PIF
ponents of the helical pile/anchor. The installation energy must
for Chance® Helical Piles.
equal the resistance to penetrate the soil (penetration energy)
plus the energy loss due to friction (friction energy). PISA® System - The acronym for Power Installed Screw Anchor.
The PISA System was originally developed for the power utility
Kip - one thousand pounds of force, or a “kilopound.”
industry in the late 1950’s.
Lagging - Horizontal members, usually of timber or concrete,
Plain Extension - A central steel shaft segment without heli-
spanning between soldier piles to retain the soil between pile
cal plates. It is installed following the installation of the lead
locations. They transfer the load directly from the soil to the
section or helical extension (if used). The units are connected
soldier piles.
with separable sleeve couplings or integral forged couplings
Lateral Load (V) - A load applied perpendicular to the longitu- and bolts. Plain extensions are used to extend the helical plates
dinal axis of a pile or pier resulting from live and seismic loads. beyond the specified minimum depth into competent load
Also called a shear load. bearing stratum.
Lead Section - The first helical pile/anchor component in- Pore Pressure - unit stress carried by the water in the soil pores
stalled into the soil, consisting of single or multiple helix plates in a cross section.
welded to a central steel shaft. The helical plates transfer the
Post Tensioning - The stressing of a structure after all struc-
axial load to bearing stratum.
tural elements are in place (e.g., loading a tieback anchor to
Live Load (LL) - A load comprised of roof, wind, floor, and in post tension a retaining wall).
some cases, seismic loads. Floor loads include people, tem-
Preloading - A load applied to a pile prior to connection to
porary or non-fixed equipment, furniture and machinery. Roof
a structure to minimize structural movement in service. Also
loads include ice and snow.
known as Prestressing.
Load Bearing Stratum - See Bearing Stratum.
Prescriptive Specification - An arrangement in which the own-
Net Settlement - The non-elastic (non-recoverable) movement er has the sole responsibility for the scope and design of the
or displacement of a pile/pier measured during load testing. pile or pier installation and specifies the procedures that must
Open Specification - An arrangement in which the contractor be followed. Prescriptive specifications mandate the owner to
is given the responsibility for the scope and design of the pile be responsible for the proper performance of the production
or pier installation. The construction, capacity and performance piles/piers. The contractor is responsible for fulfilling the obli-
of the pile or pier are the sole responsibility of the contractor. gations/details as specified in the construction documents.
This specification is most common for securing bids on tem- Pretensioning - The prestressing of an anchor or foundation
porary projects, and is not recommended for permanent ap- prior to the service load being applied.
plications. See also Performance Specification and Prescriptive
Proof Test - The incremental loading of a pile or pier, where
Specification.
the load is held for a period of time and the total movement is
Overburden - Natural or placed material that overlies the load recorded at each load increment. The maximum applied load is
bearing stratum. generally 1.0 to 1.25 times the design load.
Performance Specification - An arrangement in which the Rebound - Waste created by sprayed concrete falling to the
contractor is given the responsibility for certain design and/or floor or ground below the intended target location. Rebound is
construction procedures, but must demonstrate to the owner usually half for shotcrete compared to gunite.
through testing and/or mutually agreed upon acceptance cri-
Reinforced Earth - A soil mass whose overall shear strength
teria that the production piles/piers meet or exceed the speci-
has been increased via some reinforcing technique (e.g., Soil
fied performance parameters. The contractor and owner share
Screw® Anchor, soil nail, geofabric, etc.).
responsibility for the work. See also open Specification and
Prescriptive Specification.
viii | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023
Round Shaft - Hollow steel, round pipe, central shaft elements Torque Rating - The maximum torque energy that can be ap-
ranging in diameter from 2” to 10”. Also known as Hollow Shaft, plied to a helical anchor/pile during installation in soil. Also
Round Shaft (Type RS), Type T/C and Type PIF for Chance® known as allowable torque or safe torque.
Helical Piles.
Ultimate Capacity (Qu) - The limit state based on the struc-
Safety Factor (SF) - The ratio of the ultimate capacity to the tural and/or geotechnical capacity of a pile or pier, defined as
working or design load used for the design of any structural the point at which no additional capacity can be justified.
element. Also referred to as a factor of safety.
Ultimate Load (Pu) - The load determined by applying a safety
Seismic Load - A load induced on a structure caused by ground factor to the working load. The ultimate load applied to a struc-
motions resulting from a seismic event (earthquake). usually in- tural element must be less than the ultimate capacity of that
cluded as part of the live load. same element or a failure limit state may occur.
Shaft - A steel or composite steel/grout shaft or rod used to Underpinning Bracket - A bracket used to connect an existing
transfer load from the surface to the bearing plates. strip or spread foundation or footing to a Chance Helical Pile
or Atlas Resistance Pier.
Shotcrete - A wet concrete mixture that is pumped to a nozzle
where air is added to carry the concrete mix to the application. Uplift Load - Generally, an axial tensile load on an anchor.
often used to quickly provide a facing on soil nail or Soil Screw®
Verification Test - Similar to the Proof Test except a cyclic
Anchor reinforced retaining walls.
loading method is used to analyze total, elastic and net move-
Soil Nail - A steel rod driven or drilled and grouted into the ment of the pile. used for pre-contract or pre-production pile
ground to reinforce, stabilize, or strengthen soil such as the soil load tests.
mass behind a retaining wall.
Vertical Stabilizer - A steel plate element, welded to the side of
Soil Screw Anchor - A Chance® Helical Anchor with helices the top pier platform, which prevents lateral movement within
welded along the entire length of the shaft. A Soil Screw® the pier bracket. Vertical stabilizers will allow the pier bracket
Anchor is used to engage the soil and serves the same function to move vertically up from the top pier platform but prevent
as a soil nail, i.e., soil reinforcement. the bracket from moving below a previously set elevation.
Soldier Pile - An H or WF section normally driven (or placed Waler - A horizontal structural member placed along soldier
in a drilled hole and backfilled with weak grout or concrete) piles to accept the load from the piles and transmit it to struts,
vertically at intervals of several feet to resist the load on the shoring or tieback anchors.
lagging of a retaining wall. It is the main structural element of a
Working Load - Another term for Design Load.
retaining wall. Also known as an h-pile.
Square Shaft (SS) - A solid steel, round-cornered-Square cen-
tral Shaft element ranging in size from 1-1/4” to 2-1/4”. Also
known as Type SS for Chance® Helical Anchors.
Starter Pier Section - With reference to an Atlas Resistance®
Pier, the first pipe section to be placed in the ground. It is usu-
ally equipped with a friction reduction collar.
Starter Section - With reference to a Chance® Helical Pile, a lead
section, but usually used in reference to a Soil Screw® Anchor.
Test Load - The maximum load applied to a pile or pier during
testing.
Thread Bar Adapter - A section of central steel shaft that can
be used to connect a tiedown or ground anchor to a new or ex-
isting concrete foundation/pile cap via a high tensile strength
pre-stressing thread bar.
Tieback - A tension anchor used to resist the loads on a retain-
ing wall due to the earth pressure and other loads at or near
the top of a wall.
Tiedown - A device used to transfer tensile loads to soil.
Tiedowns are used for seismic retrofit. They consist of a central
steel shaft, helix bearing plates, coatings, corrosion protection,
a means of connection, etc. Also known as a ground anchor.
Top Pier Platform - The top section of an Atlas Resistance Pier
equipped with vertical stabilizers that facilitate attachment to
the pier bracket.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | ix

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS
Atlas Resistance Piers......................................................................................................................................1-2
• Definition of Atlas Resistance® Piers
• History Of Pushed Steel Pile Systems
• Applied Research and Development
• Testing and Code Compliance
• Applications
• Advantages of Atlas Resistance Piers
Helical Piles/Anchors....................................................................................................................................... 1-6
• Definition Of Helical Piles/Anchors
• History And Science Of Chance® Helical Piles/Anchors
• Applied Research and Development
• Applications
• Advantages of Helical Piles/Anchors
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................... 1-13
DISCLAIMER
specifications.
Installation conditions, including soil and structure conditions, vary widely from location to location and from
point to point on a site.
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | Page 1-1
ATLAS RESISTANCE PIERS
INTRODUCTION
The Atlas Resistance pier is a manufactured, two-stage product

designed specifically to produce structural support strength.
First, the pier pipe is driven to a firm bearing stratum, then the
lift equipment is typically combined with a manifold system to
lift the structure (if required). This procedure provides mea-
sured support strength. Piers are spaced at adequate centers
where each pier is driven to a suitable stratum and then loaded
to a force greater than that required to lift the structure. This
procedure effectively load tests each pier prior to lift and pro-
vides a measured Factor of Safety (FS) on each pier at lift.
Work space is not normally a problem when using Atlas
Resistance piers. They can be installed using portable equip-
ment in an area that measures approximately three feet square.
The pier may be installed from the interior or on the exterior
of the footing.
HISTORY OF PUSHED
STEEL PILE SYSTEMS
The history of piling systems extends back to the ancient
Greek, Roman, and Chinese societies. Although numerous
methods and materials have been utilized throughout the
centuries, modern construction methods and practices have
mandated the repair and remediation techniques of today’s
structures. The use of excavated foundations, footings, walls,
and beams, although providing adequate support in some soil
conditions, have proven to be less desirable in a multitude of
soil and site profiles. Fill areas, compressible soils, organics,
and expansive soils offer a greater challenge in the long-term
stability of foundations and are an underlying cause of billions
of dollars of structural remedial repairs worldwide. The need
for deep foundation underpinning systems increased dramati-
cally in the 20th century with the building booms and growth
in metropolitan areas.
In 1896, Jules Breuchaud, a contractor and civil engineer re-
siding in New York, patented an “improved method of under-
DEFINITION OF ATLAS pinning the walls of existing buildings” by a system of driving
hollow, tubular column sections to bedrock or other firm strata
RESISTANCE® PIERS using hydraulic jacks and a transverse beam system. Two sets
The Atlas Resistance pier utilizes the weight of the struc- of columns driven at opposite sides of the wall and beneath
ture as its reaction system to drive or push the pier pipe sec- a transverse beam or beams utilized “the superincumbent
tions into the soil. Hubbell/Chance has developed a lasting weight of the building to resist the pressure of the hydraulic
solution for many distressed foundation problems through its jacks, whereby the latter exerts a very powerful force in driving
patented and tested Atlas Resistance pier system. The pier is the column sections to bearing strata”. This method allowed
an assembly of structural steel components that include a pier for permanent or temporary support and raising or lowering of
head assembly attached to the foundation or slab, which is structures by patent definition.
then mounted on a steel pier that is installed to bedrock or a
In 1897, Richard S. Gillespie, another New York entrepreneur,
firm bearing stratum. The unique friction-reduction collar on
patented a similar method of underpinning existing buildings
the lead section of the pier reduces skin friction on the pier
by means of a reaction, or “pressure-resisting” column that
pipe during installation. The pier capacity is primarily from end
provided the reaction force to drive “cylindrical columns” using
bearing on a hard/dense soil stratum. The Atlas Resistance pier
a system of cantilevered beams, tie-rods and hydraulic rams
has been successfully driven to depths of 200 feet to ensure
restrained to the reaction column to allow for sinking pipe sec-
proper and verified support.
tions to bearing strata for support. This cantilevered approach
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., offers a broad range of applica- allowed for placement of pipe supports beneath the middle
tions for Atlas Resistance piers, including foundation underpin- of the building wall in lieu of the twin-column method devel-
ning and slab underpinning applications. oped by Breuchaud. It also provided a method for driving deep
Page 1-2 | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023
Guy Henry Revesz and Jack C. Steinsberger of Illinois. This pat-
ent, which was recognized in 1961, cited references to the early
work of Breuchaud and Gillespie. The method of 150% pre-
INTRODUCTION
loading which was prevalent in the White patent of 1917 is also
a standard criterion in this 1961 patent methodology. Numerous
similar patents for pushed or jacked piers surfaced in the ‘60s
and ‘70s, further extending the work of these early pioneers.
APPLIED RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT
The development of the Atlas Resistance pier system early
in the 1980s created new opportunities for building owners
to reclaim the hard-earned equity of their structure’s previ-
ously devalued state as a result of settlement. Since the Atlas
Resistance pier is designed to actually restore the structural
integrity and original elevation, building values and salability
are usually recovered. Their two-stage installation method pro-
vides validation of load capacity along with a verifiable Factor
of Safety for each pier installed.
Essentially, every single pier is load tested during the installa-
tion process. The friction reduction collar on the lead pier sec-
tion reduces skin friction during installation, thus reducing the
driving force required to reach the bearing stratum. From the
early three-piece Atlas Resistance pier system patent, numer-
ous products and specialty equipment have been developed
to serve the industry. The Atlas Resistance 2-Piece, Plate Pier,
Continuous Lift, and Pre-Drilled systems represent the flexibil-
ity in design and application of the Atlas Resistance product
line. New applications and modifications of these systems are
continually in a state of expansion and growth to meet the
needs of the deep foundation industry and to maintain the
“state of the art” status and reputation of the Atlas Resistance
product line.
Atlas Resistance piers have earned the support of the engi-
neering community through years of focus on engineering,
preliminary design, continuing education through formal train-
ing, and the overall team effort philosophy of Hubbell Power
Systems, Inc., its application engineers, and its installing con-
tractor force. The broad Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., product
foundation piles for new construction. line is a direct result of the effort and interaction of innovative
engineers, installing contractors, and owners to provide sound,
Another substantial advancement was developed and patented
economical solutions to structure settlement in a multitude of
by Lazarus White, again of New York, in 1917. White addressed
environments throughout the country.
long-term stability issues encountered in previous similar
methods by introducing the practice of pre-loading (or as he
termed it, “the first or temporary load” encountered from the TESTING AND CODE COMPLIANCE
reaction during pushing the pipe against the structure load) to
Atlas Resistance pier products have been subjected to full-
a pre-determined capacity equal to 150% of the required load,
scale load tests under actual field conditions to determine their
which is consistent with the installation methodology Atlas
ultimate capacity. These tests were designed, conducted, and
Resistance® piers use today. Additionally, White documented
certified under the direction by Dr. David C. Kraft, Ph.D., PE. The
theories of the soil “pressure bulb” created at the pile tip which
field load tests were carried out in close conformance to ASTM
assumes compression of the soil beyond the periphery of the
D1143-81, Piles under Static Axial Compressive Load. These
pile for contributing to “a load in excess of that attributable to
field load tests were conducted in Independence, Missouri be-
the resistance of the area of the end of the pile.”
tween June 3 and July 6, 1989.
One early, documented adaptation incorporating the use of a
Atlas Resistance models AP-2-3500.165 and AP-2-3500.165(M)
steel, eccentrically loaded bracket with pushed piles as a load
comply with the structural provisions of the most recent
transfer method was revealed in a 1959 patent application by
editions of the Building Officials and Code Administrators
International (BOCA) National Code, International Conference the structure, soil characteristics, and foundation conditions
of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Code, Southern Building must be evaluated and incorporated into the final design.
Code Congress International (SBCCI) Standard Code, and
INTRODUCTION
the 2000 International Building and Residential Codes of

the International Code Council (ICC) with the new 2002
ADVANTAGES OF ATLAS
Accumulative Supplement. RESISTANCE PIERS
The advantages of Atlas Resistance piers are simi-
lar in nature to those cited later in this section for
Chance® helical piles/anchors. They are used when a deep foun-
dation solution is required. They are installed with lightweight,
portable equipment that allows for installations in limited-
access areas and in low-overhead conditions. Their installation
is not weather dependent. They are ideal in contaminated soil
areas since no soil has to be removed for installation. Table 1-1
summarizes some of the advantages of Atlas Resistance piers.
APPLICATIONS
Atlas Resistance® piers are used primarily for underpinning
and repair of residential and commercial buildings, retaining
structures, and slabs. They can be installed in either interior or
exterior locations. They have been used to repair equipment
and machinery foundations, warehouse buildings, tower foun-
dations, etc. Special remedial repair brackets can be connected
to either the bottom or side of an existing foundation structure.
They can also be connected to the sides of circular or flat build-
ing columns. Atlas Resistance piers not only stop settlement,
but can also be used to raise the structure, thus closing cracks
and correcting other structural flaws resulting from settlement
and/or ground movement. The design process should involve
professional engineering input. Specific information involving
ATLAS RESISTANCE® PIER ADVANTAGES, TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER ADVANTAGES
INTRODUCTION
• No need for concrete to cure • All-weather installation
• Fast turnkey installation • Solution for:
• Immediate loading • Restricted-access sites
• Equipment portability • High water table
• Pre-engineered system • Weak surface soils
• Easily field modified • Environmentally friendly
• On-site load test on each pier • No vibration
• Two-stage installation for load capacity checks • No spoils to remove
HELICAL PILES/ANCHORS
DEFINITION OF HELICAL 3. A termination
INTRODUCTION
PILES/ANCHORS The termination connects the structure to the top of the helical
pile/anchor, transferring the load down the shaft to the helical
The helical pile/anchor is a deep foundation system used to sup-
plate(s) to the bearing soil. To evenly distribute the structure load
port or resist any load or application. Installed by mobile equip-
to the helical piles/anchors, the termination may be a manufac-
ment ranging in size from lightweight units to heavier units de-
tured bracket or an attachment produced on site as designed by
pending on the load requirements, it can be loaded immediately.
the structural engineer. The termination’s configuration is dictat-
The helical pile/anchor’s elegant simplicity is its greatest asset. Its
ed as a function of its application and may range from a simple
mechanical design and manufacture balance the capacities of its
threaded bar to a complex weldment, as is appropriate to inter-
three basic parts and maximize the efficient use of their material.
face with the structure.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:
HISTORY AND SCIENCE OF CHANCE®
1. At least one bearing plate (helix)
Dies form each steel bearing plate into a true helix. The plates are
In 1833, the helical pile was originally patented as a “screw pile”
formed in a true helical shape to minimize soil disturbance during
by English inventor Alexander Mitchell. Soon after, he installed
installation (as opposed to the inclined plane of an auger which
screw piles to support lighthouses in tidal basins of England. The
mixes soil as it excavates). Properly formed helical plates do not
concept also was used for lighthouses off the coasts of Maryland,
measurably disturb the soil. The helical bearing plates transfer the
Delaware, and Florida.
load to the soil bearing stratum deep below the ground surface.
Hubbell Power Sytems, Inc., defines “deep” as five helix diameters Innovations of the helical pile/anchor have been advanced by
vertically below the surface, where the helical plate can develop both its academic and commercial advocates. Considerable re-
the full capacity of the plate-to-soil interaction. search has been performed by public and private organizations
to further advance the design and analysis of helical piles and
2. A central shaft
anchors. A partial list of publications related to helical pile re-
During installation, the central steel shaft transmits torque to the search is included at the end of this chapter. Much of the research
helical plate(s). The shaft transfers the axial load to the helical was partially funded or assisted by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
plate(s) and on to the soil bearing stratum. Theoretically, the shaft Contributions of financial, material, and engineering support for
needs to be larger than the size that results in the shaft material’s research ventures related to helical piles is continued today by
allowable stress when the working load is applied. Realistically, Hubbell.
the shaft also needs to be strong enough to resist the torque re-
Today, readily available hydraulic equipment, either small or large,
quired for installation and large enough in section for the shaft to
can install helical piles/anchors almost anywhere. Backhoes,
resist buckling if used in a compression application.
skid-steer loaders, and mini-excavators are easily fitted with hy- family since has expanded to include higher-strength 1-3/4”, 2”,
draulically driven torque motors to install helical piles/anchors in and 2-1/4” square shafts. With the acquisition of Atlas Systems,
construction sites inaccessible by the larger equipment required Inc., in 2005, the Type SS product line was expanded to include
INTRODUCTION
for other deep foundation types. According to site conditions, 1-1/4” square shafts. Extension shafts with upset sockets for the
installation equipment may be self-propelled, carrier-mounted, 1-1/4”, 1-1/2”, 1-3/4”, 2”, and 2-1/4” square shafts also lengthen
tracked, wheeled, or floating and may have a guided or articu- these anchors to penetrate most soils at significant depths for
lated torque head. many civil construction applications including guying, founda-
tions, tiebacks, and more recently, soil nails (the Chance Soil
The following is a summarized list of Hubbell Power Systems,
Screw® Retention Wall System, 1997).
Inc., contributions to the helical pile/anchor industry. In 1940, the
A.B. Chance Company sold the first commercially offered heli-
cal anchor for tension applications. It was installed by hand using HIGH STRENGTH (HS) ANCHORS/PILES [NOW CALLED
a small tubular wrench. Other early developments include mea- ROUND SHAFT (RS) PILES]
surement devices for classifying soil. Later in the 1960s, Type HS anchors were first developed for high-
torque guying requirements. They later were applied as founda-
PISA® (POWER INSTALLED SCREW ANCHORS) tion helical piles for utility substations and transmission towers.
The HS anchor/pile family had 3-1/2” pipe shafts which could be
In the late 1950s, the A.B. Chance Company introduced the pat-
lengthened by extensions with swaged couplings. HS anchors/
ented PISA system. This coincided with the invention of truck-
piles now are used for a wide array of foundation applications.
mounted hole-digging equipment following World War II. The
The Type HS anchors/piles are now referred to as Type RS
PISA system has become the worldwide method of choice for
piles. Hubbell now offers 2-7/8” (RS2875.203, RS2875.276,
guying of electric and telephone utility poles.
RS2875.276 HCP), 4-1/2” (RS4500.237, RS4500.337), 5-1/2”
The PISA system’s all-steel components include one or two he- (RS5500.361), 6-5/8” (RS6625.280), 7” (RS7000.362), 8-5/8”
lix plates welded to a square hub, a rod threaded on both ends, (RS8625.250), and 9-5/8” (RS9625.395) pipe shafts in addition
a forged eye nut for guy attachment, and a special installing to the 3-1/2” (RS3500.300).
wrench. The square-tube anchor wrench attaches to the Kelly bar
LARGE DIAMETER PIPE PILES (LDPP)
of a digger truck, fits over the rod, and engages over the helical
anchor hub. A PISA anchor can typically be installed in 8 to 10 To meet an industry need for helical piles with higher tension/
minutes. Rod and wrench extensions may be added to reach soil compression capacities and greater bending resistance, the
layers which develop enough resistance to achieve the required large diameter pipe pile research project was initiated in 2007.
capacity. PISA rods are offered in 5/8”, 3/4”, and 1” diameters. The research culminated in product offerings including extend-
able large diameter piles with a box coupling system capable
Through A.B. Chance Company testing and close contact with
of installation torques as high as 90,000 ft∙lb and compression
utilities, the PISA anchor family soon expanded to include higher
capacities of 360 kip.
strengths capable of penetrating harder soils including glacial
till. This quickly gave rise to the development of Chance® helical
piles/anchors with higher capacities and larger dimensions. POWER INSTALLED FOUNDATION (PIF) PILES
More recent developments include the Square One® (1980) and Also launched in the 1960’s were non-extendable piles termed
the Tough One® (1989) patented guy anchor families with 10,000 Power Installed Foundations. PIF sizes and load capacities sat-
and 15,000 ft∙lb installing torque capacities. Unlike previous PISA isfy requirements for foundations that support a broad range of
designs, these anchor designs are driven by a wrench that engag- equipment, platforms, and field enclosures. Most versatile are the
es inside, rather than over, their hollow socket hubs. Both use the 5 ft to 10 ft long PIFs with pipe shafts of 3-1/2”, 4”, 6-5/8”, 8-5/8”,
standard PISA rods and extension rods with threaded couplings. and 10-3/4” diameters, each with a single helix of 10”, 12”, 14”, or
16” diameter. Integral base plates permit direct bolt-up connec-
tions on either fixed or variable bolt-circle patterns.
ROUND ROD (RR) ANCHORS
Bumper post anchors are similar to the 3-1/2” shaft PIF, but with
In 1961, the A.B. Chance Company developed extendable Type
fence-type caps instead of base plates to serve as traffic barriers
RR multi-helix anchors, originally for use as tiedowns for under-
around booths, cabinets, doorways, etc.
ground pipelines in poor soil conditions on the Gulf of Mexico
coast. These anchors are not driven by a wrench; instead, install-
ing torque is applied directly to their 1-1/4” diameter shafts. Type STREET LIGHT FOUNDATION (SLF) PILES
RR anchors worked well in weak surficial soils, but their shaft (al- In 1972, Chance Instant Foundations were introduced. Commonly
though extendable by plain shafts with bolted upset couplings) refered to as Light Pole Bases or Street Light Foundations, piles
did not provide enough torque strength to penetrate adequately with pipe shaft diameters of 6-5/8”, 8-5/8”, and 10-3/4” in fixed
into firm bearing soils. lengths of 5, 8, and 10 feet are available as standard designs.
Complete with an internal cableway, these foundations with bolt-
SQUARE SHAFT (SS) ANCHORS up base plates deliver the quick solution their name implies and
now are used to support similar loads for a variety of applications.
Development of a high-torque, shaft-driven, multi-helix anchor
began in 1963, culminating in the introduction of Chance Type SS
1-1/2” square shaft multi-helix anchors in 1964-65. The SS anchor
HELICAL PIER FOUNDATION SYSTEMS/PILES anchors have been made by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. Among
the various subjects which have expanded the body of knowl-
In 1985, Chance® patented products for repairing foundations
edge are:
of all residential and commercial buildings were introduced.
INTRODUCTION
Originally used with Type SS helical piles, the special foundation

repair brackets transfer structural loads to stable soil strata below CHANCE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION SOIL CLASSIFICATION
weak surface conditions. Since then, the product also has been In 1945, A.B. Chance Company listed the first earth anchoring
used to deepen foundations for new construction by the instal- manual, which classified soils according to holding capacities
lation of helical piles at intervals between footing forms prior to as related to proper anchor selection. At sites where soil data
pouring reinforced concrete. was available, either by sample excavation or some rudimentary
means of probing subsurface strata, this chart imparted a valu-
CHANCE HELICAL PULLDOWN® MICROPILES able basis for recommending the proper helical anchor for a given
load.
Developed in 1997 for sites with especially weak surface soils,
this patented, innovative application of the helical pile inte-
grates Portland-cement-based grout to stiffen the shaft. By TORQUE-TO-CAPACITY RELATIONSHIPS
“pulling down” a special flowable grout as the foundation is The relationship of installation torque to load capacity is an em-
screwed into the soil, the resulting pile has both a friction- pirical method the A.B. Chance Company originally developed
bearing central shaft and end-bearing helical plates in compe- in the 1960s. The idea was that the installation energy (torque)
tent substrata. Where needed for poor surface conditions, this required to install a helical pile/anchor can be correlated to its
performance combination converts sites previously deemed ultimate load capacity in soil. An analogy can be made to screw-
as “non-buildable” to usable sites suited for not only building a wood screw into a piece of wood. It takes more torsional
ing construction but also telecom tower foundations in areas energy to screw into dense wood, such as oak, than it does to
inaccessible by equipment utilized for other deep foundation screw into a soft wood, such as pine. Likewise, a wood screw in
methods. It employs SS, RS, and combinations of these two oak will require more effort to pull out than the same wood screw
types of helical piles. in pine. The same is true for helical piles/anchors in soil. Dense soil
requires more torque (more energy) to install compared to soft
APPLIED RESEARCH AND soil, and dense soil will generate higher load capacity compared
to soft soil.
DEVELOPMENT
For the torque correlation method to work, torque must be
In addition to products developed for specific applications, sig-
measured. Hubbell engineers have developed both mechani-
nificant contributions to the applied science of helical piles and
cal and electronic indicators over the years, some of which are
commercially available for torque measurement in the field. The
most recent addition to the product line is the C3031836 Torque
Indicator, which features a continuous-reading digital display of
installation torque up to 30,000 ft∙lb. The Torque Indicator is used
in conjunction with a wireless device app that displays real-time
torque data and can log torque and other installation data for a
permanent record.
SOIL MECHANICS PRINCIPLES HELICAP® HELICAL CAPACITY DESIGN SOFTWARE
In the 1970s and early 1980s, changes in design philosophy led Hubbell engineers developed HeliCAP Helical Capacity Design
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., engineers to recognize that a deep Software that assists the designer in selecting the optimal heli-
INTRODUCTION
buried plate (i.e., pile/anchor helix) transferred load to the soil via cal lead configuration and overall pile/anchor length. It also esti-
end bearing. Theoretical capacity could then be calculated based mates the installation torque. A proprietary engineering software
on Terzaghi’s general bearing capacity equation. The individual for confident helical engineering, HeliCAP performs powerful
bearing method, discussed in detail in Section 5, calculates the calculations on site soil parameters to aid engineers designing
unit bearing capacity of the soil and multiplies it by the projected foundations, tiebacks, soil nails, and anchors for heavy guy loads.
area of the helix plate. The capacity of individual helix plate(s) is The software gives prompts to maintain control over essential cri-
then summed to obtain the total ultimate capacity of a helical teria and guides the user through the same process Hubbell ap-
pile/anchor. Today, the individual bearing method is commonly plication engineers employ daily to analyze problems and specify
used in theoretical capacity calculations and is recognized as one solutions.
method to determine helical pile capacity in the International
Unlike previous versions of HeliCAP, version 3 is cloud based and
Building Code (IBC).
can be instantly accessed from any web-connected device by vis-
iting www.hpsapps.com/helicap.
100+ YEARS OF FIELD TEST DATA
Hubbell has a long-standing practice of proving theory with load
tests in the field. Hubbell engineers continue to build on the work
of their predecessors, who conducted thousands of field tests
throughout the decades. It has been said that soil occurs in in-
finite variety and engineering properties can vary widely from
place to place. This variability makes in-situ testing a vital part of
sound geotechnical engineering judgment. Test results are avail-
able from Hubbell for typical capacities of helical piles/anchors
in soil.
CHANCE® CIVIL CONSTRUCTION SOIL CLASSIFICATION, TABLE 1-2
PROBE VALUES* (ft∙lb TYPICAL BLOW COUNT

CLASS COMMON SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION GEOLOGICAL SOIL CLASSIFICATION
[in∙lb] {N∙m}) (N) PER ASTM D1586
0 Sound hard rock (unweathered) Granite; basalt; massive limestone N/A N/A
Very dense and/or cemented sands; Caliche (nitrate-bearing gravel/rock) 63-134
1 60-100+
coarse gravel and cobbles [750-1600] {85-181}
Dense fine sands; very hard silts Basal till; boulder clay; caliche; 50-63
2 45-60
and clays (may be preloaded) weathered, laminated rock [600-750] {68-85}
Dense sands and gravel; Glacial till; weathered shale, 42-50
3 35-50
hard silts and clays schist, gneiss, and siltstone [500-600] {57-68}
Medium-dense sand and gravel; Glacial till; hardpan; marls 33-42
4 24-40
very stiff to hard silts and clays [400-500] {45-57}
Medium-dense coarse sands and sandy Saprolite; residual soil 25-33
5 14-25
gravels; stiff to very stiff silts and clays [300-400] {34-45}
Loose to medium-dense fine to coarse Dense hydraulic fill; 17-25
6 7-14
sands; medium-stiff to stiff clays and silts compacted fill; residual soil [200-300] {23-34}
Loose fine sands; alluvium; loess; Flood plain soil; lake clay; 8-17
7** 4-8
soft to medium-stiff clays; fill adobe; gumbo; fill [100-200] {11-23}
Peat; organic and inundated silts; fly ash; Miscellaneous fill; 0-8
8** 0-5
very loose sands; very soft to soft clays swamp marsh [0-100] {0-11}
Notes:
Class 1 soils are difficult to probe consistently, and the ASTM blow count may be of questionable value.
* Probe values are based on using the Chance Soil Test Probe.
** It is advisable to install anchors deep enough, by the use of extensions, to penetrate a Class 5 or 6 soil underlying the Class 7 or 8 soil.
SELECT-A BASE™ LIGHTING BASE PROGRAM frequently revised since then. Hubbell was the first manufacturer
of helical piles and anchors to obtain evaluation reports from all
The SELECT-A BASE lighting base program is an online program
three model building code agencies: ICBO, BOCA, and SBCCI.
developed in 2009 by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., to assist engi-
INTRODUCTION
ESR-2794 is an ICC-ES evaluation report that demonstrates code

neers and designers in selecting appropriate Instant Foundations
compliance with the IBC and the International Residential Code
for their lighting and signage needs. The program incorporates
(IRC). ESR-2794 now includes seismic design categories D, E, and
a database of Chance® lighting bases designed using more than
F. Copies of ICC-ES ESR-2794 Evaluation Reports are available on
100 years of research, development, and testing of earth anchor
www.chancefoundationsolutions.com.
systems. The program inputs include loading conditions (wind,
moment, and/or lateral), pole/pole arm details, and soil data. The
software is free and easy to use online at www.hpsapps.com/ INSTRUCTOR’S CURRICULUM FOR
base. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING COURSES
In 2012, Hubbell contracted with Dr. Alan Lutenegger to develop
INTERHELIX SPACING an instructor’s curriculum on helical piles and anchors to be used
for foundation engineering courses for undergraduates. The cur-
Load transfer either above or below the helix plate results in a
riculum includes all the information needed for two lectures, de-
stress zone within a defined soil volume. For individual bearing to
sign examples, and homework. Also included is a Student Guide,
work properly, the helix plates must be spaced far enough apart
which serves as the “textbook” for students. The Student Guide
to avoid overlapping their stress zones. The key is to space the
was updated in 2022.
helix plates just far enough apart to maximize the bearing capac-
ity of a given soil. This works to reduce the overall length of the
helical pile/anchor and increases the likelihood for all helix plates APPLICATIONS
to be located in the same soil layer, which in turn leads to more In its simplest form, the helical pile/anchor is a deep founda-
predictable torque-to-capacity relationships and better load/de- tion element, i.e., it transfers a structure’s dead and live loads
flection characteristics. Through years of research, the Hubbell to competent soil strata deep below grade. This is the same
engineers determined that the optimal space between any two for any deep foundation element such as driven piles, drilled
helical plates on a helical pile/anchor is three times the diameter shafts, grouted tendons, auger-cast piles, belled piers, etc.
of the lower helix. Today, all Chance helical piles/anchors are man- Therefore, helical piles/anchors can be used as an alternative
ufactured using the industry standard of three diameter spacing. method to drilled shafts and driven piles. Practical constraints,
primarily related to installation, currently limit the maximum
INDUSTRY STANDARD: HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR FORM FITS design load per helical pile/anchor to 100 kip (445 kN) in ten-
FUNCTION sion and 300 kip (1335 kN) in compression, which means heli-
cal piles/anchors can resist relatively light to medium loads on
The helical pile/anchor is not a complex product, but it continues
a per pile/anchor basis and much heavier loading when used
to serve in ever-expanding roles in civil construction applications.
in pile groups. But as is the case with virtually all engineering
However, you will probably not find helical piles/anchors men-
problems, more than one solution exists. It is the responsibil-
tioned in most foundation engineering textbooks, and familiar-
ity of the engineer to evaluate all possible alternatives, and to
ity with helical piles/anchors is still lacking among most civil and
select the most cost-effective solution.
structural engineers with a foundation background. This situation
is slowly changing. Helical piles are listed as a deep foundation Today, helical piles/anchors are commonly used for residential,
system since the 2009 edition of the International Building Code light commercial, and heavy commercial construction; machin-
(IBC). In addition, ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358 for Helical ery/equipment foundations; telecommunication and transmis-
Pile Systems and Devices was published in 2007 and has been sion towers; tie-downs for wind and/or seismic forces; and
CHANCE HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR ADVANTAGES, TABLE 1-3
SUMMARY OF CHANCE HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR ADVANTAGES
INTRODUCTION
• No need for concrete to cure
• Quick, easy turnkey installation • Solution for:
• Immediate loading • Restricted-access sites
• Small installation equipment • High water table
• Pre-engineered system • Weak surface soils
• Easily field modified • Environmentally friendly
• Torque-to-capacity relationship • No vibration
for production control
• No spoils to remove
• Install in any weather
virtually any application where site access is limited or remote. PROJECTS REQUIRING DEEP FOUNDATIONS DUE TO WEAK
They have become the deep foundation of choice for walk- SURFACE SOIL
ways and boardwalks in environmentally sensitive areas, such
Helical piles/anchors are designed as end-bearing
as wetlands and protected forestland. In expansive soil areas,
piles which transfer loads to competent load-bearing
helical piles can save money and time when compared to ex-
strata. Helical piles/anchors eliminate high mobilization costs as-
pensive over-excavation and fill options. Helical piles/anchors
sociated with driven piles, drilled shafts, or auger-cast piles. They
do have several advantages (see following section) that make
also don’t require spoils to be removed, and for flowable sands,
them the foundation of choice for many applications including
soft clays, and organic soils, no casings are required, unlike drilled
these general categories:
shafts or caissons. When using the Chance Helical Pulldown®
• Machinery/equipment foundations micropiles, you have not only end-bearing capacity, but also the
additional capacity from the friction developed along the grout/
• Limited-access sites
soil interface.
• Wind and seismic loading
FLOODED AND/OR POOR SURFACE CONDITIONS
• Replacement for drilled/driven piles
When surface conditions make spread footings impossible and
equipment mobilization difficult, helical piles/anchors are a good
alternative since installation requires only a mini-excavator, a rub-
ADVANTAGES OF CHANCE® ber-tired backhoe, or small tracked machine.
LIMITED ACCESS
Each project has unique factors that determine the most accept-
In confined areas with low overhead, helical piles/anchors can be
able foundation system. The following summarizes situations
installed with portable equipment. This is particularly useful for
where helical piles/anchors present sensible solutions.
rehabilitation work.
INTRODUCTION
EXPANSIVE SOILS REMEDIAL APPLICATIONS

The depth of expansive soils from the surface varies, but a typical Helical piles can supplement or replace existing foundations
depth is approximately 10 feet. The bearing plates of a helical distressed from differential settlement, cracking, heaving, or
pile/anchor are usually placed well below this depth. This means general foundation failure. Patented products such as the Chance®
that only the small-cross-section shaft of the helical pile/anchor Helical Pier Foundation System provide a complete solution.
is affected by the expansive soils. The swell force on the shaft is Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., uses patented products to attach
directly proportional to the swell adhesion value and the surface the helical piles to existing foundations and either stabilize the
area between the soil and the shaft. Since helical piles have much structure against further settlement or lift it back to near-original
smaller shafts than driven piles or auger-cast piles, uplift forces condition. This system is installed only by trained, authorized, and
on helical piles are much smaller. Research by R.L. Hargrave and certified dealers/installing contractors.
R.E. Thorsten in the Dallas area (1993) demonstrated helical piles’
Helical piles are ideal for remedial work since they can be installed
effectiveness in expansive soils.
by portable equipment in confined interior spaces. Additionally,
BAD WEATHER INSTALLATION there is no need to worry about heavy equipment near existing
foundations. And, unlike driven piles, helical piles are vibration free.
Because helical piles/anchors can be installed in any weather,
The building can continue to operate with little inconvenience to
work does not need to be interrupted.
its occupants. Other deep foundation systems, such as auger-cast
CONTAMINATED SOILS piles, disturb the soil, thereby undermining existing foundations.
Helical piles/anchors are ideal for contaminated soils because no
spoils need to be removed.
TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
Helical piles/anchors can easily be removed by reversing the in-
stallation process. This makes removal of temporary structures
simple.
INTRODUCTION
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF Around Multi-Helix Anchors in Sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol.
7, No. 3, pp. 145-152.
HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR Clemence, S.P. and Smithling, A.P., 1984. Dynamic Uplift Capacity of
Helical Anchors in Sand. Proceedings of the 4th Australia-New Zealand
TECHNICAL LITERATURE
Conference on Geomechanics, Vol. 1, pp. 88-93.
Clemence, S.P., Thorsten, T.E., and Edwards, B., 1990. Helical Anchors:
Overview of Application and Design. Foundation Drilling, Jan., pp. 8-12.
Adams, J.I. and Hayes, D.C., 1967. The Uplift Capacity of Shallow Clemence, S.P., Crouch, L.K., and Stephenson, R.W., 1994. Prediction
Foundations. Ontario Hydro Research Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-13. of Uplift Capacity for Helical Anchors in Sand. Proceedings of the 2nd
Adams, J.I. and Klym, T.W., 1972. A Study of Anchors for Transmission Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo.
Tower Foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. Cox, R., 1995. Alexander Mitchell and the Screw-Pile. Centre for Civil
89-104. Engineering Heritage, Trinity College, Dublin, 14 pp.
Black, D.R. and Pack, J.S., 2002. Design and Performance of Helical Screw Curle, R., 1995. Screw Anchors Economically Control Pipeline Bouyancy in
Piles in Collapsible and Expansive Soils in Arid Regions of the United Muskeg. Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 93, No. 17.
States. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Piling and
Deep Foundations, pp. 469-476. Das, B.M., 1990. Earth Anchors. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,
241 p.
Bobbitt, D.W., and Clemence, S.P., 1987. Helical Anchors: Application and
Design Criteria. Proceedings of the 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Deardorff, D. A., 2007. Torque Correlation Factors for Round Shaft Helical
Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 6-105 - 6-120. Piles. Deep Foundations Institute Symposium on Helical Pile Foundations,
Nov., 2007, 20 pp.
Bobbitt, D.E. and Thorsten, R., 1989. The Use of Helical Tieback Anchors
for a Permanent Retaining Deardorff, D. and Luna, R, 2009. LRFD for Helical Piles: An Overview.
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 185, Contemporary Topics in
Wall. Foundation Congress, ASCE. Deep Foundations IFCEE09, March 2009, p. 480.
Bradka, T.D., 1997. Vertical Capacity of Helical Screw Anchor Piles. M.S. Downey, S., 2003. Helical Piles with Grouted Shafts – a Case History.
Report, Geotechnical Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations, Deep
of Alberta. Foundations Institute, pp. 291-298.
Bustamante, M. and Gianeselli, L., 1998. Installation Parameters and Engineering News, 1903. The Pennsylvania Railroad Tunnel Under the
Capacity of Screwed Piles. Proceedings of the 3rd International North River, at New York City. Oct. 15, pp. 336-341.
Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles:
BAP III, pp. 95-108. Engineering News, 1915. A Submerged Pump Crib Pinned Down with
Screw Piles. March 18, p. 529.
Carville, C.A. and Walton, R.W., 1994. Design Guidelines for Screw Anchors.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Construction Engineering News Record, 1948. Screw Piles Support Turkish Pier. Jan.
of Deep Foundations, Vol. 2, pp. 646-655. 8, p. 99.
Carville, C.A. and Walton, R.W., 1995. Foundation Repair Using Helical The Engineering Record, 1906. The Cienfuegos Screw Pile Pier. Jan. 20,
Screw Anchors. Foundation Upgrading and Repair for Infrastructure p. 80.
Improvement, ASCE, pp. 56-75. Engineering Record, 1912. Steel Screw Piles, Feb. 17, p. 181.
Clemence, S.P., 1984. The Uplift and Bearing Capacity of Helix Anchors Fabre, R., 2005. Behavior of Helical Screw Piles in Clay and Sand, M.S.
in Soil. Vols. 1,2 & 3, Contract Report TT112-1 Niagra Mohawk Power Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ma.
Corporation, Syracuse, N.Y. Feld, J., 1953. A Historical Chapter: British Royal Engineers’ Papers on Soil
Clemence, S.P., 1994. Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soils. Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1937-1974. Geotechnique, Vol.3,
Proceedings of the 2nd Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Cairo, Vol. pp. 242-247.
1, pp. 332-343. Ghaly, A.M., 1995. Drivability and Pullout Resistance of Helical Units in
Clemence, S.P. and Pepe, F.D. Jr., 1984. Measurement of Lateral Stress Saturated Sands. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 61-66.
Ghaly, A.M., 1996. closure to Drivability and Pullout Resistance of Helical Soil. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
Units in Saturated Sands. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.139-141. and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 1019-1022.
Ghaly, A.M. and Clemence, S.P., 1998. Pullout Performance of Hoyt, R.M., Seider, G., Reese, L.C., and Wang, S.T., 1995. Buckling of Helical
Inclined Helical Screw Anchors in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Anchors Used for Underpinning. Foundation Upgrading and Repair for
INTRODUCTION
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 7, pp. 617-627. Infrastructure Improvement, ASCE, pp. 89-108.
Ghaly, A.M. and Clemence, S.P., 1999. closure to Pullout Performance Huang, F.C., Mohmood, I., Joolazadeh, M., and Axten, G.W., 1995. Design
of Inclined Helical Screw Anchors in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Considerations and Field Load Tests of a Helical Anchoring System
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 12, pp. 1102-1104. for Foundation Renovation. Foundation Upgrading and Repair for
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M., 1991. Experimental and Theoretical Studies Infrastructure Improvement, ASCE, pp. 76-88.
on Installation Torque of Screw Anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Jacobs, C.M., 1910. The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania
Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 353-364. Railroad. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 68,
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M., 1991. Stress Development in Sand Due To pp. 40-56.
Installation and Uplifting of Screw Anchors. Proceedings of the 4th Jennings, R. and Bobbitt, D., 2003. Helical Pulldown Micropiles Support
International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Vol. 1, pp. Museum Celebrating the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
565-570. Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations, DFI, pp.
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M, 1992. Stress and Strains Around Helical Screw 285-290.
Anchors in Sand. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 27-42. Johnston, G. H. and Ladanyi, B., 1974. Field Tests of Deep Power-Installed
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A.M., 1994. Model Investigation of the Performance Screw Anchors in Permafrost. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, No.
of Single Anchors and Groups of Anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 3, pp. 348-358.
Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 273-284. Johnston, R.J., Swanston, D.N. Baxandall, F.W., 1999. Helical Piling
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A., 1994. Ultimate Pullout Resistance of Single Foundations in Juneau, Alaska. Cold Regions Engineering: Putting
Vertical Anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. Research into Practice 1999.
661-672. Khatri, D. and Stringer, S., 2003. Helical Pile Foundation Anchors as a
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A., 1994. Ultimate Pullout Resistance of Groups Practical Alternative. Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference on Deep
of Vertical Anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. Foundations, DFI, pp. 299-308.
673-682. Klosky, J.L., Sture, S., Hon-Yim Ko, H.Y. and Barnes, F., 1998. Helical
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A., 1995. closure to Ultimate Pullout Resistance Anchors for Combined Anchoring and Soil Testing in Lunar Operations.
of Single Vertical Anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32, No. Space 98 ASCE.
6, pp. 1093-1094. Kennedy, D., 1930. Construction of Screw-Pile Jetty at Bhavnagar. Selected
Ghaly, A.M. and Hanna, A., 2003. Response of Anchors to Variations in Engineering Paper No. 95, The Institution of Civil Engineers, 13 pp.
Displacement-Based Loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, Khatri, D. and Stringer, S., 2003. Helical Pile Foundation Anchors as a
No. ?, pp. 694-701. Practical Alternative. Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference on Deep
Ghaly, A.M., Hanna, A.M. and Hanna, M.S., 1991. Uplift Behavior of Screw Foundations, DFI, pp. 299-308.
Anchors in Sand - I: Dry Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Klym, T.W., Radhakrishna, H.S., and Howard, K., 19??. Helical Plate Anchors
ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 5, pp. 773-793. for Tower Foundations. Proceedings of the 25th Canadian Geotechnical
Ghaly, A.M., Hanna, A.M. and Hanna, M.S., 1991. Uplift Behavior of Screw Conference, pp. 141-159.
Anchors in Sand - II: Hydrostatic and Flow Conditions. Journal of Kraft, D.C., Davis, J. And Raaf, D.B., 2003. Use of Helical Piles Set into Soft
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 5, pp. 794-808. Rock for 1500-Ton Screw Press Foundation. Proceedings of 28th Annual
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M., 1991. Installation Torque of Screw Conference on Deep Foundations, DFI, pp. 209-218.
Anchors in Dry Sand. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 77-92. Kumar, J., 1995. discussion of Ultimate Pullout Resistance of Single
Ghaly, A.M., Hanna, A.M. and Hanna, M.S., 1991. Uplift Behavior of Screw Vertical Anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32, No. 6, p. 1093.
Anchors in Sand - I: Dry Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Levesque, C.L., Wheaton, D.E. and Valsangkar, A.J., 2003. Centrifuge
ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 5, pp. 773-793. Modeling of Helical Anchors in Sand. Proceedings of the 12th Panamerican
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., Ranjan, G. and Hanna, M., 1991. Helical Anchors in Dry Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp.
and Submerged Sand Subjected to Surcharge. Journal of Geotechnical 1859-1863.
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 10, pp. 1463-1470. Liu, H., Zubeck, H., and Baginski, S., 1999. Evaluation of Helical Piers
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., Ranjan, G. and Hanna, M., 1993. closure to Helical in Frozen Ground. Cold Regions Engineering: Putting Research into
Anchors in Dry and Submerged Sand Subjected to Surcharge. Journal of Practice 1999.
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 392-394. Livneh, B. and El Naggar, M.H., 2007. Axial Load Testing and Numerical
Gunnink, Brett; Gammon, Scott; Barker, Michael; Berry, Ron, 1995. A Finite Modeling of Square Shaft Helical Piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal.
Element Approach to the Buckling Behavior of Helical Soil Piers. Journal Lutenegger, A.J., Smith, B.L. and Kabir, M.G., 1988. Use of In Situ Tests
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE. to Predict Uplift Performance of Multi-Helix Anchors. Special Topics in
Hanna, A. and Ghaly, A., 1992. Effects of Ko and Overconsolidation on Foundations, ASCE, pp. 93-110.
Uplift Capacity. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. Lutenegger, A.J. and Kempker, J.H., 2008. Preservation of Historic
9, pp. 1449-1469. Structures Using Screw-Pile Foundations. Proceedings of the 6th
Hanna, A. and Ghaly, A., 1994. Ultimate Pullout Resistance of Groups International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historic Constructions,
of Vertical Anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. Vol. 2, pp 1079-1086.
673-682. Lutenegger, A.J. and Kempker, J.H., April 2009. History Repeats, Screw
Hargrave, R.L. and Thorsten, R.E., 1992. Helical Piers in Expansive Soils Piles Come of Age – Again, Structural Engineer Magazine.
of Dallas, Texas. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Lutenegger, A.J., 2008. Tension Tests on Single-Helix Screw-Piles in Clay.
Expansive Soils. Proceedings of the 2nd British Geotechnical Association International
Haskew, B.B., 1930. The Rebuilding of the Bassein Bridges on the Bombay, Conference on Foundations, Dundee, Scotland.
Baroda and Central India Railway. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Lutenegger, A.J., 2009. Cylindrical Shear of Plate bearing? – Uplift
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 230, pp. 204-233. Behavior of Multi-Helix Screw Anchors in Clay.
Hawkins, K. and Thorsten, R. 2009. Load Test Results-Large Diameter Lutenegger, A.J., 2010. Using Helical Screw-Piles for Upgrading Existing
Helical Pipe Piles. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 185, Foundations for Urban Regeneration.
Contemporary Topics in Deep Foundations, IFCEE09, March 2009, p. 488. Lutenegger, A.J., September 2010. Shaft Resistance of Grouted Helical
Herrod, H., 1930. Screw-Piling, with Particular Reference to Screw-Piles Micropiles in Clay. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Sewage Sea Outfall Works. Selected Engineering Paper No. 94, The Micropiles, Washington, D.C.
Institution of Civil Engineers, 23 pp. Lutenegger, A.J., January 2011. Historical Development of Iron Screw-Pile
Hovland, H.J., 1993. discussion of Helical Anchors in Dry and Submerged Foundations: 1836-1900. International Journal for the History of Eng. &
Sand Subjected to Surcharge. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Tech., Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 108-128.
ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 391-392. Lutenegger, A.J., June 2011. Behavior of Grouted Shaft Helical Anchors in
Hoyt, R.M. and Clemence, S.P., 1989. Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clay. DFI Journal, Vol. 5, No. 5.
Lutenegger, A.J., November 2012. Discussion of “Ultimate Uplift Capacity Robinson, K.E. and Taylor, H., 1969. Selection and Performance of Anchors
of Multiplate Helical Type Anchors in Clay” by R.S. Merifield, Journal of for Guyed Transmission Towers. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 6,
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. pp. 119-135.
McDonald, J.K., 1999. discussion of Pullout Performance of Inclined Helical Rodgers, T.E. Jr., 1987. High Capacity Multi-Helix Screw Anchors for
INTRODUCTION
Screw Anchors in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Transmission Line Foundations. Foundation for Transmission Line Towers,
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 12, p. 1102. ASCE, pp. 81-95.
Mitsch, M.P. and Clemence, S.P., 1985. The Uplift Capacity of Helix Anchors Rupiper, S. and Edwards, W.G., 1989. Helical Bearing Plate Foundations for
and Sand. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, pp. 26-47. Underpinning. Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices,
Mooney, J.S., Adamczak, S.Jr., and Clemence, S.P., 1985. Uplift Capacity ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 221-230.
of Helix Anchors in Clay and Silt. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations Rupiper, S., 1994. Helical Plate Bearing Members, A Practical Solution to
in Soil, ASCE, pp. 48-72. Deep Foundations. Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Morgan, H.D., 1944. The Design of Wharves on Soft Ground. Journal of the Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 2, pp. 980-991.
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 22, pp. 5-25. Scientific American, 1904. Driving a Test Pile for the Hudson River Tunnel.
(discussions by F.E. Wentworth-Shields, C.W. Knight, F.M.G. Du-Plat-Taylor, April 23, p. 324.
J.S. Wilson, L.F. Cooling, S. Packshaw, A.W. Skempton, G.P. Manning, J. Schmidt, R. and Nasr, M., 2004. Screw Piles: Uses and Considerations.
Bickley, J.E.G. Palmer, and L.Turner, pp. 25-45.) Structure Magazine, June, pp. 29-
Muiden, M.A., 1926. Screw-Pile Mooring-Berths. Selected Engineering Seider, G.L., 1993. Eccentric Loading of Helical Piers for Underpinning.
Papers No. 37, The Institution of Civil Engineers, 14 pp. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Case Histories in
Narasimha Rao, .S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., Shetty, M.D. and Joshi, V.V., 1989. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 139-145.
Uplift Capacity of Screw Pile Anchors. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 20, Seider, G. L., 2000. Versatile Steel Screw Anchors. Structural Engineer,
No. 2, pp. 139-159. March.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Prasad, C.V., 1990. Experimental Seider, G. L., 2004. Helical Foundations: What the Engineer Needs to
Studies on Model Screw Pile Anchors. Proceedings of the Indian Know. Structure Magazine, June, pp. 27-28.
Geotechnical Conference, Bombay, pp. 465-468. Seider, G.L. and Smith, W.P., 1995. Helical Tieback Anchors Help
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Shetty, M.D., 1991. The Behavior of Reconstruct Failed Sheet Pile Wall. Proceedings of the 45th Highway
Model Screw Piles in Cohesive Soils. Soil and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, Geology Symposium, Charleston, W,V.
pp. 35-50. Seider. G.L., Thorsten, R. E., and Clemence, S.P., 2003. Helical Piles with
Narasimha Rao, S. and Prasad, Y.V.S.N., 1993. Estimation of Uplift Capacity Grouted Shafts – A Practical Overview. Proceedings of 28th Annual
of Helical Anchors in Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Conference on Deep Foundations, DFI, pp. 219-232.
Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 352-357. Shaheen, W.A., 1985. The Behavior of Helical Anchors in Soil. M.S. Thesis,
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Veeresh, C., 1993. Behavior of Department of Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Embedded Model Screw Anchors in Soft Clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, Ma.
No. 4, pp. 605-614. Shaheen, W.A. and Demars, K.R., 1995. Interaction of Multiple Helical
Narasimha Rao, S. and Prasad, Y.V.S.N., 1992. discussion of Uplift Earth Anchors Embedded in Granular Soil. Marine Georesources and
Behavior of Screw Anchors in Sand. I: Dry Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Geotechnology, Vol. 13, pp. 357-374. Tench, R., 1944. Cast Iron Piles Screw-
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 9, pp. 1474-1476. Driven to Rock. Engineering News-Record, December 28, pp. 60-61.
Nasr. M.H., 2004. Large Capacity Screw Piles. Proceedings of the Trofimenkov, J.G. and Maruipolshii, L.G., 1964. Screw Piles as Foundations
International Conference on Future Vision and Challenges for Urban of Supports and Towers of Transmission Lines. Soil Mechanics and
Development, Cairo, Egypt,. Foundation Engineering, (Osnovaniya Fundamenty I Mekhanika Gruntov),
Pack, J.S., 2000. Design of Helical Piles for Heavily Loaded Structures. Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 232-239.
New Technological and Design Developments in Deep Foundations, Trofimenkov, J.G. and Maruipolshii, L.G., 1965. Screw Piles Used for Mast
ASCE, pp. 353-367. and Tower Foundations. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
Pack, J.S., 2003. Helical Foundation and Tiebacks: Quality Control, on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 328-332.
Inspection and Performance Monitoring. Proceedings of 28th Annual Udwari, J.J, Rodgers, T.E., and Singh, H., 1979. A Rational Approach to
Conference on Deep Foundations, DFI, pp. 269 - 284. the Design of High Capacity Multi-Helix Screw Anchors. Proceedings of
Pack, J.S. and McNeill, K.M., 2003. Square Shaft Helical Screw Piles in the 7th Annual IEEE/PES, Transmission and Distribution Exposition, pp.
Expansive Clay Areas. Proceedings of the 12th Panamerican Conference 606-610.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 1825-1832. Vickars, R.A. and Clemence, S.P., 2000. Performance of Helical Piles with
Perko, H.A., 2000. Energy Method for Predicting the Installation Torque Grouted Shafts. New Technological and Design Developments in Deep
of Helical Foundations and Anchors. New Technological and Design Foundations, ASCE, pp. 327-341.
Developments in Deep Foundations, ASCE, pp. 342-352. Weech, C.N., 2002. Installation and Testing of Helical Piles in a Sensitive
Perko, H.A., 2003. Lateral Capacity and Buckling Resistance of Helix Fine-Grained Soil. M.S. Thesis, Dept. Of Civil Engineering, University of
Foundations. Foundations Technology Seminar, DFI, University of British Columbia.
Cincinnati. Weikart, A.M. and Clemence, S.P., 1987. Helix Anchor Foundations - Two
Perko, H.A., 2004. Introduction to Corrosion and Galvanizing of Helix Case Histories. Foundations for Transmission Line Towers, ASCE, pp.
Foundations. Deep Foundations Institute Specialty Seminar on Helical 72-80.
Foundations and Tiebacks, Tampa, Florida, 7 pp. White, B.G., 1949. The Construction of Military Ports in Gareloch and Loch
Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Narasimha Rao, S., 1994. Pullout Behavior of Model Ryan. Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, Vol. 44, No. 514, pp.
Piles and Helical Pile Anchors Subjected to Lateral Cyclic Loading. 212-216.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 110-119. Wilson, G., 1950. The Bearing Capacity of Screw Piles and Screwcrete
Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Narasimha Rao, S., 1996. Lateral Capacity of Helical Cylinders. Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers – London, Vol. 34,
Piles in Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 11, No. 5, pp. 4-73.
pp. 938-941. (discussions by H.D. Morgan, A.W. Skempton, J. Bickley, C.C. Marshall, G.G.
Prasad, Y.V.S.N., 1996. discussion of Drivability and Pullout Resistance of Meyerhof, P.A. Scott, D.H. Little, N.S. Boulton, and G. Wood, pp. 74-93. also
Helical Units in Saturated Sands. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. discussions by A.S.E. Ackermann, F.L. Cassel, W.T. Marshall, P.W. Rowe,
139. G.P. Tschebotarioff, R.J.C. Tweed, R. Pavry, R.E. Gibson, and A.A. Yassin,
Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers-London, Vol. 34, pp. 374-386.)
Puri, V.K., Stephenson, R.W., Dziedzic, E. and Goen, L., 1984. Helical
Anchor Piles Under Lateral Loading. ASTM STP 835, pp. 194-213. Yokel, F.Y., Chung, R.M., and Yancey, C.W.C., 1981. NBS Studies of Mobil
Home Foundations. U.S. National Bureau of Standards Report NBSIR
Rabeler, R.C., 1989. Soil Corrosion Evaluation of Screw Anchors. ASTM STP
81-2238.
1013, pp.
Zhang, D. J. Y., 1999. Predicting Capacity of Helical Screw Piles in Alberta
Radhakrishna, H.S., 1975. Helix Anchor Tests in Stiff Fissured Clay. Ontario
Soils. M.S. Thesis University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Hydro Research Division Research Report.
Zubeck, H. and Liu, H. 2000. Helical Piers in Frozen Ground. Proceedings
Radhakrishna, H.S., 1976. Helix Anchor Tests in Sand. Ontario Hydro
of the 3rd International Workshop on Micropiles, Turku Finland, Tampre
Research Division Research Report 76-130-K, pp. 1-33.
University of Technology, Geotechnical Laboratory Publication No. 4
SECTION 2: SOIL MECHANICS
CONTENTS
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................2-2
Soil Mechanics....................................................................................................................................................2-2
Site Investigations.............................................................................................................................................2-7
SOIL MECHANICS
DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
INTRODUCTION
The use of manufactured steel foundation products generally usually differ from each other. Topsoil is seldom used for con-
requires a prior geotechnical investigation of the subsurface struction. Figure 2-1 shows a typical generalized soil profile.
condition of the foundation soils at the site of a proposed proj-
Deeper layers will have varying suitability depending on their
ect. In addition to the geotechnical investigation, it is necessary
properties and location. It is important to relate engineering
to define the structural load requirements and required Factor
properties to individual soil layers in order for the data to be
of Safety (FS) for use in the overall design approach. Chance®
meaningful. If data from several layers of varying strength
Civil Construction manufactures or supplies two main lines of
are averaged, the result can be misleading and meaningless.
steel foundation products:
Equally misleading is the practice of factoring a given soil’s en-
• Atlas Resistance® piers for underpinning and repair of resi- gineering properties for design. This can lead to overly conser-
dential and commercial buildings, retaining structures and vative foundation design.
SOIL MECHANICS
slabs.
• Chance® helical piles for new construction and repair of res-
idential and commercial buildings; Chance helical tiebacks
and a Soil Screw® retention system used in excavation
shoring systems, retaining walls and slope stabilization;
and Chance helical anchors are utilized for communication
towers, transmission & distribution power lines, signs, light
standards and commercial buildings subject to wind and
earthquake load.
SOIL MECHANICS
Terzaghi stated in his book Theoretical Soil Mechanics (1943):
“. . . the theories of soil mechanics provide us only with a work-
ing hypothesis, because our knowledge of the average physical
properties of the subsoil and of the orientation of the bound-
aries between the individual strata is always incomplete and
often utterly inadequate. Nevertheless, from a practical point
of view, the working hypothesis furnished by soil mechanics is
as useful as the theory of structures in other branches of civil
engineering.”
Advance planning and careful observation by the engineer
during the construction process can help fill the gaps between
working hypothesis and fact. The intent of this section of the
Design Manual is to provide a basic background or review of
soil mechanics so the engineer can develop a useful “working
hypothesis” for the design and use of Chance helical piles and
Atlas Resistance piers.
THE SOIL PROFILE

Rock or soil material, derived by geologic processes, are sub-
ject to physical and chemical changes brought about by the cli-
mate and other factors prevalent at the location of the rock or GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
soil material. Vegetation, rainfall, freeze/thaw cycles, drought, FIGURE 2-1
erosion, leaching, and other natural processes result in gradual
but profound changes in the character of the soil over the pas- DEFINITION OF SOIL
sage of time. These processes bring about the soil profile.
Soil is defined as sediments or other accumulation of mineral
The soil profile is a natural succession of zones or strata be- particles produced by the physical or chemical disintegration
low the ground surface. It may extend to various depths, and of rock, plus the air, water, organic matter, and other substanc-
each stratum may have various thicknesses. The upper layer of es that may be included. Soil is typically a non-homogeneous,
the profile is typically rich in organic plant and animal residues porous, earthen material whose engineering behavior is influ-
mixed with a given mineral-based soil. Soil layers below the enced by changes in composition, moisture content, degree of
topsoil can usually be distinguished by a contrast in color and saturation, density, and stress history.
degree of weathering. The physical properties of each layer
correctly termed the unit weight. Density may be expressed ei-
ther as a wet density (including both soil and water) or as a dry
density (soil only). Moisture content is the ratio of the weight
of water to the weight of soil solids expressed at a percent.
Porosity is the ratio of the volume of voids to the total volume
of the soil mass regardless of the amount of air or water con-
tained in the voids. Void ratio is the ratio of the volume of voids
to the volume of solids.
The porosity and void ratio of a soil depend upon the degree
of compaction or consolidation. For a particular soil in differ-
Moisture Content Wn Ww / Ws
ent conditions, the porosity and void ratio will vary and can be
Degree of Saturation S Vw / Vv used to judge relative stability and load-carrying capacity – i.e.,
Void Ratio e Vv / Vs stability and load capacity increase as porosity and void ratio
SOIL MECHANICS
Porosity n Vv / Vt
decrease. If water fills all the voids in a soil mass, the soil is said
to be saturated, i.e., S = 100%.
Dry Unit Weight (Dry Density) gd Ws / Vt
Permeability or hydraulic conductivity is the property of soil
Total Unit Weight gt (Ws + Ww) / Vt
that allows it to transmit water. Its value depends largely on
Saturated Unit Weight gs (Ws + Vvgw)Vt the size and number of the void spaces, which in turn depends
Effective (Submerged) Unit Weight g1 g s - gw on the size, shape, and state of packing of the soil grains. A
clay soil can have the same void ratio and unit weight as a
sand soil, but the clay will have a lower permeability because
SOIL PHASES AND INDEX PROPERTIES
of the much smaller pores or flow channels in the soil struc-
FIGURE 2-2
ture. Water drains slowly from fine-grained soils like clays. As
the pore water drains, clays creep, or consolidate slowly over
time. Sands have high permeability, thus pore water will drain
The origin of soil can be broken down to two basic types: resid- quickly. As a result, sands will creep, or consolidate quickly
ual and transported. Residual soil is produced by the in-place when loaded until the water drains. After drainage, the creep
weathering (decomposition) of rock by chemical or physical reduces significantly.
action. Residual soils may be very thick in areas of intense
weathering such as the tropics, or they may be thin or absent
BASIC SOIL TYPES
in areas of rapid erosion such as steep slopes. Residual soils
are usually clayey or silty, and their properties are related to As stated above, soil is typically a non-homogeneous material.
climate and other factors prevalent at the location of the soil. The solid mineral particles in soils vary widely in size, shape, min-
Residual soils are usually preferred to support foundations, as eralogical composition, and surface-chemical characteristics. This
they tend to have better and more predictable engineering solid portion of the soil mass is often referred to as the soil skel-
properties. eton, and the pattern of arrangement of the individual particles is
called the soil structure.
Transported or deposited soils are derived by the movement
of soil from one location to another location by natural means. The sizes of soil particles and the distribution of sizes throughout
The means are generally wind, water, ice, and gravity. The char- the soil mass are important factors which influence soil properties
acter of the resulting deposit often reflects the modes of trans- and performance. There are two basic soil types that are defined
portation and deposition and the source material. Deposits by by particle size. The first type is coarse-grained soils. Coarse-
water include alluvial floodplains, coastal plains, and beaches. grained soils are defined as soil that have 50% or more particles
Deposits by wind include sand dunes and loess. Deposits by retained by the #200 sieve (0.074 mm). The #200 sieve has 200
melting ice include glacial till and outwash. Each of these ma- openings per inch.
terials has behavioral characteristics dependent on geological Coarse-grained soils consist of cobbles, gravels, and sands.
origin, and the geological name, such as loess, conveys much Coarse-grained soils are sometimes referred to as granular or co-
useful information. Transported soils – particularly by wind hesionless soils. The particles of cohesionless soils typically do
or water – can be of poor quality in terms of engineering not stick together except in the presence of moisture, whose sur-
properties. face tension tends to hold particles together. This is commonly
A soil mass is a porous material containing solid particles in- referred to as apparent cohesion.
terspersed with pores or voids. These voids may be filled with The second type of soil is fine-grained soil. Fine-Grained soils con-
air, water, or both. Figure 2-2 shows a conceptual block dia- sist of soils in which 50% or more of the particles are small enough
gram of relative volumes of air, water, and soil solids in a given to pass through the #200 sieve. Typical Fine-Grained soils are silts
volume of soil. Pertinent volumes are indicated by symbols to and clays. Silt particles typically range from 0.074 to 0.002 mm.
the left while weights of these material volumes are indicated Clay particles are less than 0.002 mm. It is not uncommon for clay
by symbols to the right. Figure 2-2 also provides several terms
used to define the relative amounts of soil, air, and water in a
soil mass. Density is the mass of a unit volume of soil. It is more
particles to be less than 0.001 mm (colloidal size). Fine-grained SOIL CONSISTENCY STATES AND INDEX PROPERTIES
soils are sometimes referred to as cohesive soils. The particles of
The consistency of fine-grained soils can range from a dry solid
cohesive soils tend to stick together due to molecular attraction.
condition to a liquid form with successive addition of water and
For convenience in expressing the size characteristics of the vari- mixing as necessary to expand pore space for acceptance of wa-
ous soil fractions, a number of particle-size classifications have ter. The consistency passes from solid to semi-solid to plastic
been proposed by different agencies. Table 2-1 shows the cat- solid to viscous liquid as shown in Figure 2-4. In 1911, Atterberg,
egory of various soil particles as proposed by the Unified Soil a Swedish soil scientist, defined moisture contents representing
Classification System (USCS), which has gained wide recognition. limits dividing the various states of consistency. These limits are
An effective way to present particle size data is to use grain-size known as Atterberg Limits. The shrinkage limit (SL) separates
distribution curves such as shown in Figure 2-3. Such curves solid from semisolid behavior, the plastic limit (PL) separates
are drawn on a semi-logarithmic scale, with the percentages finer semisolid from plastic behavior, and the liquid limit (LL) separates
than the grain size shown as the ordinate on the arithmetic scale. plastic from liquid state. Soils with water content above the liquid
SOIL MECHANICS
The shape of such curves shows at a glance the general grading limit behave as a viscous liquid.
characteristics of soil. For example, the dark line on Figure 2-3 The width of the plastic state (LL-PL), in terms of moisture con-
represents a “Well-Graded” soil – with particles in a wide range. tent, is defined as the plasticity index (PI). The PI is an important
Well-graded soils consist of particles that fall into a broad range of indicator of the plastic behavior a soil will exhibit. The Casagrande
sizes class, i.e., gravel, sand, silt-size, clay-size, and colloidal-size. Plasticity Chart, shown in Figure 2-5, is a good indicator of the
differences in plasticity that different fine-grained soils can have.
The softness of saturated clay can be expressed numerically
SOIL PARTICLE SIZES, TABLE 2-1
by the liquidity index (L.I.) defined as L.I. = (wn –P.L.)/(L.L.-P.L).
Particle Familiar Liquidity Index is a very useful parameter to evaluate the state
Fraction Sieve Size Diameter
Size Term Reference of natural fine-grained soils and only requires measurement of
the natural water content, the Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit.
Boulders --- 12” Plus 300 mm Plus Volleyball
Atterberg limits can be used as an approximate indicator of stress
Cobbles --- 3”-12” 75 - 300 mm Baseball history of a given soil. Values of L.I. greater than or equal to one
Coarse 0.75”- 3” 19 - 75 mm Marbles & are indicative of very soft sensitive soils. In other words, the soil
Gravels structure may be converted into a viscous fluid when disturbed
Fine No. 4 - 0.75” 4.76 - 19 mm Peas
2 - 4.76 mm
or remolded by pile driving, caisson drilling, or the installation of
Coarse No. 10 - No. 4 Rock Salt, Chance® helical piles/anchors, or Atlas Resistance® piers.
0.42 - 2 mm
Sand Medium No. 40 - No. 10 Table Salt,
0.074 - .042
Fine No. 200 - No. 40 Sugar If the moisture content (wn) of saturated clay is approximately
mm
the same as the L.L. (L.I. = 1.0), the soil is probably near normally
Fines (silts
--- Passing No. 200 0.074 mm Flour consolidated. This typically results in an empirical torque multi-
and clays)
plier for helical piles/anchors (Kt) = 10. If the wn of saturated clay
is greater than the L.L. (L.I. > 1.0), the soil is on the verge of being
a viscous liquid and Kt will be less than 10. If the wn of saturated
clay is close to the P.L. (L.I. = 0), the soil is dry and overconsoli-
dated and Kt typically ranges between 12 and 14. If the wn of a
saturated clay is intermediate (between the PL and LL), the soil is
probably over consolidated and Kt will be above 10. Many natu-
ral fine-grained soils are over consolidated, or have a history of
having been loaded to a pressure higher than exists today. Some
common causes are desiccation, the removal of overburden
through geological erosion, or melting of overriding glacial ice.
Clays lying at shallow depth and above the water table often ex-
hibit overconsolidated behavior known as desiccation. They be-
have as overconsolidated, but the overburden pressure required
has never existed in the soil. Desiccated clays are caused by an
equivalent internal tension resulting from moisture evaporation.
This is sometimes referred to as negative pore pressure. The
problems with desiccated or partly dry expansive clay are pre-
dicting the amount of potential expansion and the expansion or
swell pressure so that preventive measures can be taken.
Sensitivity of fine grained soils is defined as the ratio of the und-
rained shear strength of a saturated soil in the undisturbed state
TYPICAL GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES to that of the soil in the remolded state St = suund/surem. Most clays
FIGURE 2-3 are sensitive to some degree, but highly sensitive soils cannot be
counted on for shear strength after a Chance® helical pile, Atlas
SOIL MECHANICS
PLASTICITY AND ATTERBERG LIMITS
FIGURE 2-4 FIGURE 2-5
Resistance® pier, drilled shaft, driven pile, etc. has passed through COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (G & S)
it. Some soils are “insensitive”, that is, the remolded strength is
GW and SW groups comprise well-graded gravely and sandy
about the same as the undisturbed strength. Highly sensitive soils
soils that contain less than 5% of non-plastic fines passing the
include marine deposits in a salt water environment and subse-
#200 sieve. GP and SP groups comprise poorly graded gravels
quently subjected to flushing by fresh water. Typical values of soil
and sands containing less than 5% of non-plastic fines. GM and
sensitivity are shown in Table 2-2.
SM groups generally include gravels or sands that contain more
than 12% of fines having little or no plasticity. GC and SC groups
SENSITIVITY OF SOILS, TABLE 2-2 comprise gravelly or sandy soils with more than 12% of fines,
Soil Type Description Sensitivity which exhibit either low or high plasticity.
Overconsolidated, Low to Medium

Insensitive 1-3 FINE-GRAINED SOILS (M & C)
Plastic Clays & Silty Clays
Normally Consolidated, Medium
4-8
ML and MH groups include the predominately silty materials
Medium Plastic Clays Sensitivity and micaceous or diatomaceous soils. An arbitrary division be-
Highly tween the two groups is where the liquid limit is 50. CL and CH
Marine Clays 10-80
Sensitive groups comprise clays with low (L.L. < 50)and high (L.L. > 50)
liquid limits, respectively. They are primarily inorganic clays.
ENGINEERING SOIL CLASSIFICATION Low plasticity clays are classified as CL and are usually lean
clays, sandy clays, or silty clays. Medium-plasticity and high
The engineering soil classification commonly used by plasticity clays are classified as CH.
Geotechnical Engineers is the Unified Soil Classification System
ORGANIC SOILS (O & PT)
(USCS). The Unified System incorporates the textural charac-
teristics of the soil into engineering classification and utiliz- OL and OH groups are characterized by the presence of or-
es results of laboratory grain-size data and Atterberg Limits ganic matter, including organic silts and clays. The Pt group is
shown in Table 2-1. The basics of the system are shown in Table highly organic soils that are very compressible and have unde-
2-4. All soils are classified into 15 groups, each group being sirable construction characteristics. Peat, humus, and swamp
designated by two letters. These letters are abbreviations of soils with a highly organic texture are typical.
certain soil characteristics as shown in Table 2-3.
Classification of a soil in the United Soil Classification
System will require laboratory tests to determine the criti-
USCS SOIL GROUP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS, TABLE 2-3 cal properties, but a tentative field classification is often
1st Symbol 2nd Symbol made by drillers, geologists, or engineers; but considerable
skill and experience are required. Soil boring logs often in-
G Gravel O Organic
clude the engineering classification of soils as described
S Sand W Well Graded by the USCS.
M Non-plastic or Low Plasticity Fines P Poorly Graded
C Plastic Fines L Low Liquid Limit EFFECTIVE STRESS AND PORE WATER PRESSURE
Pt Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils H High Liquid Limit The total stress within a mass of soil at any point below a water
table is equal to the sum of two components, which are known
as effective stress and pore water pressure. Effective stress
is defined as the total force on a cross section of a soil mass
SPECIFICS OF THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS), TABLE 2-4
Group
Major Divisions Typical Descriptions
Symbols
Gravels - 50% Clean GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures. Little or no fines.
or more Gravels
of coarse GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures. Little or no fines.
fraction Gravels GM Silty gravels. Gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
retained on #4 with
Coarse Grained
sieve. Fines. GC Clayey gravels. Gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
Soils- more than
50% retained on SW Well-graded sands and gravelly sands. Little or no fines.
Sands - 50% Clean
#200 sieve.*
or more Sands.
of coarse SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands. Little or no fines.
SOIL MECHANICS
fraction SM Silty sands. Sand-silt mixtures.

passes #4 Sand with
sieve. Fines SC Clayey sands. Sand-clay mixtures.
ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey find sands.
Silts and Clays - Liquid
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.
limit less than 50.
Fine-Grained
Soils - 50% or OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.
more passes MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts.
#200 sieve.*
Silts and Clays - Liquid
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
limit 50 or more
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
Highly Organic Soils. PT Peat, muck and other highly organic soils.
*Based on the material passing the 3” (76 mm) sieve.
which is transmitted from grain to grain of the soil, divided by DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
the area of the cross section, including both solid particles and
Most unsaturated coarse-grained soils and some mixed grain
void spaces. It sometimes is referred to as inter-granular stress.
soils, have sufficiently high permeability that applied loads do
Pore water pressure is defined as the unit stress carried by the
not generate pore water pressures or any pore water pressures
water in the soil pores in a cross section. Effective stress gov-
can dissipate during shear. This is also true if the load is applied
erns soil behavior and can be expressed as:
very slowly and water is allowed to drain. The shear strength
of these soils generally consists of both a “cohesive” compo-
nent and a “frictional” component so that the shear strength
EQUATION 2-1
may be reasonably described by the Mohr-Coulomb equation
σ’ = σ - u as shown in Equation 2-3.
where s’ = the effective stress in the soil
s = total (or applied) stress UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
u = pore water pressure Saturated fine-grained soils, such as clays and silty clays sub-
jected to rapid loading have a low enough permeability that
SOIL STRENGTH excess pore water pressures cannot dissipate during shear.
One of the most important engineering properties of soil is its The behavior of these soils is controlled by undrained shear
shearing strength, or its ability to resist sliding along internal strength. The strength is composed of only a “cohesive” com-
surfaces within a given mass. Shear strength is the property ponent and not a “frictional” component. The strength of these
that materially influences the bearing capacity of a foundation soils, is sometimes called “cohesion” (c), but a better term
soil and the design of Chance® helical piles/anchors, or Atlas is simply undrained shear strength, su. The undrained shear
Resistance® piers. The basic principle is similar in many respects strength is controlled by stress history, stress path, loading rate
to an object that resists sliding when resting on a table. and vertical effective stress.
The shear strength is the maximum shear resistance that the

ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
materials are capable of developing. Shear strength of soil con-
sists of two parts. The first part is the friction between particles The shear strength of coarse-grained soils, such as sands, grav-
(physical property). The second part is called cohesion, or no- els and some silts, is closely analogous to the frictional resis-
load shear strength due to a chemical bond between particles. tance of solids in contact. The relationship between the normal
stress acting on a plane in the soil and its shearing strength
can be expressed by the following equation, in terms of stress:
EQUATION 2-2 Cohesion is analogous to two sheets of flypaper with their
sticky sides in contact. Considerable force is required to slide
τ = σtanφ
one over the other, even though no normal stress is applied.
where t = the shearing stress at failure, or the shear strength
Cohesion is the molecular bonding or attraction between soil
s = normal stress acting on the failure plane particles. It is a function of clay mineralogy, moisture content,
ϕ = friction angle particle orientation (soil structure), and density. Cohesion is as-
sociated with fine grain materials such as clays and some silts.
The internal friction of a given soil mass is related to the sliding
friction between individual soil grains and the interlocking of soil COULOMB EQUATION FOR SHEAR STRENGTH
particles. Shear strength attributable to friction requires a normal The equation for shear strength as a linear function of total
force (s), and the soil material must exhibit friction characteris- stress is called the Coulomb equation because it was first pro-
tics, such as multiple contact areas. In dense soils, the individual posed by Coulomb in 1773.
SOIL MECHANICS
soil grains can interlock, much like the teeth of two highly irregu-
lar gears. For sliding to occur, the individual grains must be lifted EQUATION 2-3
over one another against the normal stress (s). Therefore, the τf = c + σtanφ
force required to overcome particle interlock is proportional to
the normal stress, just the same as sliding friction is proportional
to normal stress. In soil mechanics, ϕ is designated the angle of In terms of effective stress:
internal friction, because it represents the sum of sliding friction
plus interlocking. The angle of internal friction (ϕ) is a function of
density, roundness or angularity, and particle size. EQUATION 2-4
τf = c’ + (σ - u) tanφ’
COHESION where tf = shear strength at failure
When saturated clay is consolidated, that is, when the volume of c’
=
cohesion
voids decreases as a result of water being squeezed out of the s = total stress acting on the failure plane
pores, the shear strength increases with normal stress. If the shear ϕ’ = friction angle
strength of clays which have a previous history of consolidation
u = pore water pressure
(i.e., pre-consolidated) is measured, the relationship between
shear strength and normal stress is no longer a line intersect-
ing the ordinate at zero. The clays exhibit a memory, or cohesive Equations 2-3 and 2-4 are two of the most widely used equations
shear strength. In other words, the clays remember the pre-con- in geotechnical engineering, since they approximately describe
solidation pressure they were previously subjected to. This means the shear strength of any soil under drained conditions. They are
considerable shear strength is retained by the soil. Figure 2-6 is an the basis for bearing capacity Equations 5-6 and 5-31 presented
example of the relationship between shear strength and normal in Section 5.
stress for a pre-consolidated plastic clay as derived from a triaxial
shear test. The intersection of the line at the ordinate is called the
cohesion. SITE INVESTIGATIONS
To this point, various definitions, identification properties, limit
states, engineering classifications, and soil strength properties
have been discussed. This section details some of the more
common soil exploration methods used to determine these
various soil parameters.
shear stress
angle of The primary purpose of a geotechnical site investigation is to

internal
friction - ø identify the subsurface stratification, and the key soil proper-
ties for design of the steel foundation elements. Such studies
shear strength
cohesion
are useful for the following reasons:

Atlas Resistance® piers:
lower • To locate the depth of a suitable bearing stratum for end
normal stress
confining
stress higher confining stress bearing support of the underpinning pier.
maximum stress • To establish the location of any weak or potentially liquefi-

maximum vertical stress able soil zones in which column stability of the pier shaft
must be considered.
MOHR’S DIAGRAM FOR MODERATELY PLASTIC SOIL • To determine if there are any barriers to installing the pier
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION (1996) to the required depth such as rubble fill, boulders, zones of
FIGURE 2-6 chert or other similar rock, voids or cavities within the soil
mass, any of which might require pre-drilling.
• To do a preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential structure repair, (2) a review of the general soil and geologic
of the foundation soils as related to the performance life conditions in the proximity of the site, and (3) a site visit to
of the steel pier. observe topography and drainage conditions, rock outcrops if
present, placement of borings, evidence of soil fill, including
rubble and debris and evidence of landslide conditions. The
CHANCE® HELICAL PILES/ANCHORS, TIEBACKS
planning portion includes making a preliminary determination
AND SOIL SCREW® ANCHORS:
of the number and depth of each boring as well as determining
• To locate the depth and thickness of the soil stratum suit- the frequency of soil sampling for laboratory testing and re-
able for seating the helical plates of the pile and to de- questing the marking of all utilities in the zone in which borings
termine the necessary soil strength parameters of that will be conducted. Indicated below are recommended guide-
stratum. lines for determining the number of borings and the depth to
• To establish the location of weak zones, such as peat type which the boring should be taken based on the project type.
soils, or potentially liquefiable soils in which column sta-
SOIL MECHANICS
bility of the pile for compression loading situations may MINIMUM NUMBER OF TEST BORING(S)
require investigation.
Whether the project involves underpinning/repair of an exist-
• To locate the depth of the groundwater table (GWT). ing structure or new construction, borings should be made at
each site where helical piles or resistance piers are to be in-
• To determine if there are any barriers to installing the piles
stalled. The recommended minimum number of borings neces-
to the required depth such as fill, boulders or zones of
sary to establish a foundation soil profile is given below:
cemented soils, or other conditions, which might require
pre-drilling. • Residential Home - One (1) boring for every 100 to 150
lineal feet of foundation.
• To do a preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential
of the foundation soils as related to the performance life • Commercial Building - One (1) boring for every 50 to 100
of the steel pile. lineal feet for multistory-story structures, and every 100 to
150 lineal feet of foundation for other commercial build-
The extent to which a soil exploration program should reach
ings, warehouses and manufacturing buildings.
depends on the magnitude of the project. If the proposed con-
struction program involves only a small expenditure, the de- • Communication Towers - One (1) boring for each location
signer cannot afford to include more in the investigation than of a cluster of piles or anchors, and one (1) boring at the
a small number of exploratory borings, test pits or helical trial tower center foundation footing.
probe piles and a few classification tests on representative soil
• Sheet Pile/Earth Stabilization for Earth Cuts - One (1) bor-
samples. The lack of information about subsoil conditions must
ing for every 200 to 400 feet of project length.
be compensated for by using a liberal factor of safety. However,
if a large-scale construction operation is to be carried out un- • If the project is small or when the project has a restricted
der similar soil conditions, the cost of a thorough and elaborate budget, helical trial probe piles installed at the site can
subsoil investigation is usually small compared to the savings provide information regarding the depth to the bearing
that can be realized by utilizing the results in design and con- strata and pile capacity.
struction, or compared to the expense that would arise from • Or, boring number can be based on the overall project
a failure due to erroneous design assumptions. The designer area, or based on minimum requirements per applicable
must be familiar with the tools and processes available for ex- building codes.
ploring the soil, and with the methods for analyzing the results
of laboratory and field tests.
DEPTH OF TEST BORING(S)
A geotechnical site investigation generally consists of four
The depth of each boring will vary depending on the project
phases: (1) Reconnaissance and Planning, (2) Test Boring
type, magnitude of foundation loads and area extent of the
and Sampling Program, (3) Laboratory Testing, and (4) a
project structure. Some general guidelines for use in estimating
Geotechnical Report. A brief description of the requirements
required boring depths are given below:
and procedures, along with the required soil parameters used
in designing manufactured steel foundation products, is given • Residential Home - At least 15 feet deep with final 5 feet
in the following sections. into good bearing stratum, generally “N” > 8 to 10 (See
next section “Test Boring and Sampling Program” for a
INITIAL RECONNAISSANCE AND PLANNING description of Standard Penetration Test and “N” values.)
The first step in any subsoil exploration program should be an • Commercial Building - For a single story structure at least
investigation of the general geological character of the site. 20 feet deep with final 5 to 10 feet into good bearing stra-
The more clearly the site geology is understood, the more ef- tum (generally “N” > 15); add 5 foot depth for each ad-
ficiently the soil exploration can be performed. ditional story.
Reconnaissance and Planning includes: (1) review of the pro- • Communication Towers - Minimum of 35 feet for towers
posed project and structural load requirements and size of over 100 feet tall and at least 20 feet into a suitable bear-
the structure and whether the project is new construction or ing stratum (typically medium dense to dense for sands
METHOD OF BORING AND FREQUENCY OF SAMPLING
Drilling is typically the most economical and most expedient
procedure for making borings although test pits can be an al-
ternative for some projects. Three common types of borings
obtained using truck or track mounted drill rigs are 1) wash
borings (mud rotary), and 2) solid-stem continuous flight
(CFA) auger drilling and 3) hollow stem flight auger (HSA) drill-
ing. Any one of the three can be used, but CFA auger drilling
is the most common – particularly for shallow borings. Wash
borings or mud rotary drilling use casings to hold the borehole
open and a drilling fluid to bring solid cuttings to the surface.
The casing is either driven with a hammer or rotated mechani-
SOIL MECHANICS
cally while the hole is being advanced. The cutting bit and drill
rods are inserted inside the casing and are rotated manually
or mechanically. The cuttings allow the driller to visually clas-
sify the soil as to its type and condition and record the data
on a log sheet at the depth of the cutting bit. Wash borings
typically use water or drilling mud such as bentonite slurry de-
pending on the soil. In some soil profiles, drilling mud prevents
caving, making full-length casing unnecessary. While drilling
proceeds, the driller observes the color and appearance of the
mixture of soil and water/mud. This enables the driller to es-
tablish the vertical sequence of the soil profile. At 5 ft (1.5 m)
intervals, or when a change in strata is noticed, the cutting bit
is removed and a spoon sample is taken.
Auger drilling typically uses a continuous solid-stem flight au-
ger rotated mechanically while the hole is being advanced. The
continuous flight auger (CFA) often includes a hollow stem,
AUGER DRILLING OPERATION which acts as a casing to hold the borehole open. Water or
FIGURE 2-7 drilling mud is typically not used. Cuttings are carried to the
surface by the auger flights, which allow visual classification
and stiff to very stiff for clays) for helical anchors/piles. of the soil. The advantage of the hollow stem auger is to per-
The suitable bearing stratum should have a minimum “N” mit the sampler and rod to be inserted down through the au-
value of 12 for sands and a minimum of 10 for cohesive ger without removing the auger sections each time a sampler
soils. is inserted. The auger acts as a temporary casing. Samplers
are inserted inside the auger casing to retrieve disturbed and
• Sheet Piling/Earth Stabilization - Boring should be taken
to a depth that is at least as deep as the structure (sheet
pile, retaining wall, etc.) to be anchored or until a suitable
stratum is reached for seating the helical plates of the tie-
backs (generally medium or denser sand or stiff clays). Drop
Hammer
• Active Seismic Areas - Depth per local codes.
Drill
TEST BORING AND SAMPLING PROGRAM Stem
In some cases, especially for small projects and shallow con-

ditions, test borings may be conducted using hand augers or 6” (150 mm)
Increment
other portable equipment. In most cases, however, the site in- Marks
vestigation will typically require drilling using a truck mounted
drill rig.
The second step of the site investigation is to make exploratory
Hollow
boreholes or test pits that furnish more specific information Stem
regarding the general character and thickness of the individual Auger
soil strata. This step and an investigation of the general geolog-
ical character of the site are recommended minimums. Other
steps depend on the size of the project and the character of
the soil profile.
FIGURE 2-8
undisturbed soil samples typically at 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals. concerning relative density or the stiffness of in-situ soil con-
Figure 2-7 demonstrates an auger drilling operation. Solid-stem sists of counting the number of blows of a drop weight re-
augers are designated by the outside diameter of the auger quired to drive the sampling spoon a specified distance into
flights. Common sizes are 3 inch, 4 inch, and 6 inch. Hollow- the ground. This dynamic sounding procedure is called the
stem augers are designated by the inside diameter of the pipe. standard penetration test (SPT). The essential features include
3-1/4 inch and 4-1/4 inch are common sizes. a drop hammer weighing 140 lb (63.5 kg) falling through a
height of 30” (0.76 m) onto an anvil at the top of the drill rods,
Solid-stem continuous flight augers consist of a solid steel cen-
and a split spoon (SS) sampler having an external diameter of
tral shaft with a continuous auger, typically available in 5 foot
2” (50.8 mm) and a length of 30” (0.76 m). The spoon is at-
sections. The borehole is advanced by rotating the auger, which
tached to the drill rods and lowered to the bottom of the drill
brings soil cuttings to the ground surface. Disturbed samples
hole. After the spoon reaches the bottom, the number of blows
of soil may be taken from the augers, but in order to obtain
of the hammer is counted to achieve three successive penetra-
undisturbed samples, the augers must be removed and a sam-
tions of 6” (0.15 m). The number of blows for the first 6” is dis-
SOIL MECHANICS
pling tool placed in the bottom of the borehole. Continuous

regarded because of the disturbance that exists at the bottom
Flight Augers work well in stiff to very stiff fine-grained soils
of the drill hole. The number of blows for the second and third
that maintain an open borehole, but do not work in very soft
6” increments are added and designated the standard penetra-
clays or sands and loose silts below the water table. These con-
tion test (SPT), “N” value, or blow count. The data obtained
ditions require either wash boring or the use of Hollow Stem
from SPT tests are commonly recorded on soil boring logs rela-
Augers (HSA).
tive to the sounding depth where the sample was taken. SPT
The groundwater table (GWT), or phreatic surface is defined values are widely used to correlate the shearing strength of
as the elevation at which the pressure in the water is equal soil for the design of shallow and deep foundations – includ-
to that of the atmosphere. Information regarding the location ing Chance® helical piles and Atlas Resistance® piers. The SPT
of the groundwater table is very important to the design and values also can assist in determining the depth of installation
construction of deep foundations – especially in granular soils. requirements for Atlas Resistance piers. Values of soil friction
Careful observations should always be made and recorded, if angle “ϕ” and cohesion “c” can be selected through correlation
circumstances permit, during exploratory drilling. It is custom- with the SPT “N” values. Details of the equipment and stan-
ary to note the water level on completion of the hole and af- dardized procedures are specified in ASTM D 1586. Figure 2-8
ter allowing the hole to stand overnight or for 24 hours before illustrates a drill crew conducting a Standard Penetration Test.
backfilling. The use of drilling mud to stabilize the walls of the The split spoon sampler is shown in Figure 2-9.
hole may preclude obtaining this information.
UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
SOIL SAMPLING In general, soil samples taken from split spoon samplers are
Geotechnical Site Investigations almost always include the col- always considered disturbed to some degree for two reasons:
lection of soil samples for identification and description, labo- 1) the sampler is driven into the soil, and 2) the split spoon is
ratory testing for soil classification and laboratory testing for very thick. For soil samples to be used for laboratory analysis,
soil strength and stiffness. There are two broad types of soil the degree of disturbance of the samples must be reduced to
samples that are often collected; 1) disturbed samples, and 2) a minimum. Reasonably satisfactory samples can be obtained
undisturbed samples. In general, disturbed samples may either in 50 and 76 mm samplers made of steel tubing about 1.5 mm
be obtained from augers as previously discussed or more com- thick. The lower ends are beveled to a cutting edge to give
monly they are obtained using the Standard Penetration Test a slight inside clearance. This type of sampler is commonly
(SPT). Undisturbed samples are typically obtained with thin- referred to as a “Shelby tube”. The Shelby tube is attached to
walled push tubes called Shelby Tubes (ST). the end of the drill rod and pushed vertically down into the
soil to obtain an undisturbed sample. Hand samples or grab
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AND SAMPLING samples are sometimes taken from cuttings or test pits and are
useful for soil classification and determining index properties.
The cuttings from exploratory drill holes are inadequate to fur- Details of the equipment and proper procedures for obtaining
nish a satisfactory conception of the engineering characteris- thin-walled Shelby Tube samples are specified in ASTM D1587.
tics of the soils encountered, or even the thickness and depths
of the various strata. To obtain soil samples from test borings,
a sampling spoon is attached to the drill rod and lowered to IN-SITU TESTING METHODS
the bottom of the hole. The spoon is driven into the soil to
obtain a sample and is then removed from the hole. The spoon CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) / PIEZOCONE (CPTU)
is opened up and the recovery (soil sample length inside the
The Cone Penetration Test consists of a cylindrical probe with a
spoon) is recorded. The soil is extracted from the spoon and
cone tip having an apex angle of 60° that is pushed slowly into
inspected and described by the driller. A portion of the sample
the ground. The standard size cone has a diameter of 1.405 inch,
is placed in a glass jar and sealed for later visual inspection and
which gives a projected end area of 10 cm2. Most cones also have
laboratory determination of index properties.
a short section behind the tip that is called the sleeve. The force
The most common method of obtaining some information on the tip and the sleeve are measured independently during
A = 1.0 to 2.0 in (25 to 50 mm) CPT/CPTU
B = 18.0 to 30.0 in (0.457 to 0.762 m) FIGURE 2-10
C = 1.375 ± 0.005 in (34.93 ± 0.13 mm)
D = 1.50 + 0.05 - 0.00 in (38.1 + 1.3 = 0.0 mm)
Recovered E = 0.10 ± 0.02 in (2.54 ± 0.25 mm)
soil F = 2.00 + 0.05 - 0.00 in (50.8 + 1.3 - 0.0 mm)
SOIL MECHANICS
sample G = 16.0º to 23.0º
Split Spoon Sample

The 1½ in (38 mm) inside diameter split barrel
Split FIGURE 2-11
Barrel may be used with a 16-gauge wall thickness
Tube split liner. The penetrating end of the drive shoe
Open may be slightly rounded. Metal or plastic retain-
Shoe ers may be used to retain soil samples.
GEOMETRY OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER (ASTM D 1586)
FIGURE 2-9
FIGURE 2-12
penetration to give the cone tip resistance, qc, and the sleeve re- Two pressure readings are
taken; 1) the A-Reading, which is the
sistance, fs. These values may then be used to evaluate changes pressure required to just initiate movement of the membrane
in soil layering at a site and to estimate individual soil proper- into the soil, and 2) the B-Reading, which is the pressure re-
ties, such as shear strength and stress history. Some cones are quired to expand the center of the membrane 1 mm into the
also equipped with a porewater pressure sensor to measure the soil. The two Readings are corrected for the stiffness of the
excess porewater pressure as the cone advances. This is called membrane to give two pressure readings, P0 and P1. P0 and P1
a piezocone. The cone tip resistance obtained from a piezocone are then used along with the soil effective stress at each test
is defined as qt, the “effective” or corrected cone tip resistance depth to obtain estimates of specific soil properties such as
since it is corrected for porewater pressure. A figure of a CPT and shear strength, modulus, stress history and in-situ lateral stress.
CPTU are shown in Figure 2-10. The specific requirements of the test are given in ASTM D6635.
Cone penetrometers cannot penetrate more than a few meters

in dense sand, but they have been used to depths up to 60 m FIELD VANE TEST (FVT)
or more in soft soils. The friction ratio, defined as the friction re- The Field Vane Test (FVT) or Vane Shear Test (VST) is used to
sistance divided by the tip resistance can be correlated with the measure the undrained shear strength and Sensitivity of me-
type of soil encountered by the penetrometer. Since no samples dium stiff to very soft saturated fine-grained soils. It is consid-
are obtained by use of cone penetrometers, borings and sam- ered one of the most reliable and direct in-situ test methods
pling are usually needed for definitive information about the type for determining undrained shear strength and the only in-situ
of soil being investigated. test that may be used to determine Sensitivity. The test con-
sists of inserting a thin four-bladed vane into the soil and rotat-
DILATOMETER TEST (DMT) ing slowly to create a shear failure in the soil. The vane is usu-
ally rectangular with a height to diameter ratio (H/D) of 2, as
The Dilatometer Test consists of a flat stainless steel blade with
shown in Figure 2-12. Initially, the maximum torque is measured
a circular, flexible membrane mounted on one side of the blade,
to obtain the peak or undisturbed undrained shear strength.
as shown on Figure 2-11. The blade is pushed into the ground,
Then, the vane is rotated 10 times and the test is repeated to
much like a CPT or CPTU, but instead of providing continuous
obtain the remolded undrained shear strength. The ratio of
data, pushing is stopped every 1 foot. Immediately after push-
undisturbed to remolded strength is defined as Sensitivity, as
ing is stopped, the flexible membrane is expanded into the soil
previously described. The specific requirements of the test are
using nitrogen gas and a control console at the ground surface.
given in ASTM D2573.
Figure 2-12
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF VARIOUS ROCKS, TABLE 2-5

Nitrogen
Young’s
Modulus
Bulk Compressive Tensile
at Zero Porosity
Rock Density Strength Strength
Load (%)
(g/cm3) (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
Control Console (105 kg/
cm2)
Coaxial Cable
Granite 2-6 2.6 - 2.7 0.5 - 1.5 1,000 - 2,500 70 - 250
Microgranite 3-8
Ground Line
Syenite 6-8
Diorite 7 - 10 1,800 - 3,000 150 - 300
Dolerite 8 - 11 3.0 - 3.05 0.1 - 0.5 2,000 - 3,500 150 - 350
Gabbro 7 - 11 3.0 - 3.1 0.1 - 0.2 1,000 - 3,000 150 - 300
SOIL MECHANICS
Rods Basalt 6 - 10 2.8 - 2.9 0.1 - 1.0 1,500 - 3,000 100 - 300
Sandstone 0.5 - 8 2.0 - 2.6 5 - 25 200 - 1,700 40 - 250
Shale 1 - 3.5 2.0 - 2.4 10 - 30 100 - 1,000 20 - 100
Mudstone 2-5
Limestone 1-8 2.2 - 2.6 5 - 20 300 - 3,500 50 - 250
Dolomite 4 - 8.4 2.5 - 2.6 1-5 800 - 2,500 150 - 250
Blade Coal 1-2 50 - 500 20 - 50
Quartzite 2.65 0.1 - .05 1,500 - 3,000 100 - 300
Gneiss 2.9 - 3.0 0.5 - 1.5 500 - 2,000 50 - 200
Marble 2.6 - 2.7 0.5 - 2 1,000 - 2,500 70 - 200
Slate 2.6 - 2.7 0.1 - 0.5 1,000 - 2,000 70 - 200
FIGURE 2-13 Notes:
1) For the igneous rocks listed above, Poisson’s ratio is approximately 0.25
2) For a certain rock type, the strength normally increases with an increase in
density and increase in Young’s Modulus (after Farmer, 1968)
3) Taken from Foundation Engineering Handbook , Winterkom and Fong, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, page 72.
The maximum torque (T) is measured during rotation and for a ROCK CORING AND QUALITY OF ROCK MEASUREMENT
vane with H/D = 2 the undrained shear strength is determined
When bedrock is encountered, and rock anchors are a design
from:
consideration, a continuous rock core must be recovered to the
EQUATION 2-5 depth or length specified. Typical rock anchors may be seated
20 ft. or 30 ft. into the rock formation.
su = (0.273T)/D3
In addition to conducting compressive tests on the recovered
rock core samples (See Table 2-5), the rock core is examined
Vanes are available in different sizes to suit the soil at a particu-
and measured to determine the rock competency (soundness
lar site. The Field Vane Test may be especially useful in evaluat-
or quality). The rock quality designation (RQD) is the most
ing sites for helical piles/anchors as it may give some insight
commonly used measure of rock quality and is defined as:
to the engineer into the degree of disturbance and strength
reduction that the soil may experience during installation, de- RQD = Σ Length of intact pieces of core (>100 mm)
pending on the Sensitivity. It is important that the exact ge- Length of core run
ometry of the vane (e.g., H, D, thickness of blades) and test The values of RQD range between 0 and 1.0 where an RQD of
procedures used be described in a Geotechnical Report so that 0.90 or higher is considered excellent quality rock.
the engineer may make any adjustments to the test results for
Helical piles/anchors rotated or torqued into the ground can-
the equipment used.
not be installed into hard, competent bedrock. However, in up-
per bedrock surfaces comprised of weathered bedrock mate-
HELICAL PROBE
rial such as weathered shale or sandstone, the helix plates can
Shear strength also can be estimated by installing a helical pile often be advanced if the RQD is 0.30 or less.
“probe” and logging installation torque vs. depth. The torque
The presence of an intact bedrock surface represents the ideal
values can be used to infer shear strength based on the torque-
ground condition for Atlas Resistance® piers. In this ground
to-capacity relationship discussed in Section 6.
condition, the Atlas Resistance pier is installed to the rigid
bearing surface represented by the bedrock layer.
LABORATORY TESTING OF test is a relatively inexpensive test to determine the soil friction
angle and may also be used for undrained testing of cohesive
RECOVERED SOIL SAMPLES samples. More refined laboratory testing may be appropriate
Laboratory testing is typically part of a subsurface investiga- for large projects and may offer a cost saving potential by jus-
tion and may vary in scope depending upon project require- tifying higher soil strength than using less sophisticated test
ments or variability in soil conditions. Some of the more typical methods. Some of the more complex strength tests include,
laboratory tests are described below: Consolidated Drained (CD), Consolidated Undrained (CU) and
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Triaxial tests for total and ef-
CLASSIFICATION / CHARACTERIZATION TESTS fective stress paths at project specific confining stresses.
• Visual Classification – Samples collected during the drill-

THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
ing operations should be visually classified. Every recov-
ered sample from the field boring and sampling program The geotechnical report provides a summary of the findings of
SOIL MECHANICS
is inspected visually and given a visual description as to the subsurface investigation, and the results of the laboratory
its collection depth, percent recovery, moisture condi- testing. Geotechnical reports usually include an introduction
tions, soil color, inclusion type and quantity, approximate detailing the scope of work performed, site history including
strength, odor and composition (See Table 2-4). In addi- geology, subsurface conditions, soil profile, groundwater loca-
tion to this visual classification, a representative number of tion, potential design constraints such as seismic parameters
samples are selected to conduct the following tests: and corrosion potential, foundation options, allowable load ca-
pacities, and an appendix which includes soil boring logs. Soil
• Water Content – measures the amount of moisture in the
boring logs provide a wealth of information that is useful in
soil. Moisture or water content is measured by weighing
the design of Chance® helical piles and Atlas Resistance® piers.
a soil sample taken from the field on a laboratory scale.
Boring logs come in variety of designs since there is no stan-
The soil sample is then placed in a standard oven for a suf-
dard form, but they contain basically the same type of informa-
ficient time to allow all the moisture to evaporate. After
tion – most of which has been discussed in this section. Items
being removed from the oven, the soil sample is weighed
to expect on a soil boring are: total boring depth, soil profile,
again. The dried weight is subtracted from the original
description of soil samples, sample number and type, Standard
weight to determine the water weight of the sample.
Penetration Test N-values, moisture content, Atterberg limits,
These methods are also used to determine the total (wet)
unconfined compression strength or undrained shear strength
unit weight and the dry unit weight.
(cohesion), groundwater table location, type of drilling used,
• Particle Size Analysis – measures the distribution of par- type of SPT hammer used, and sample recovery. An example
ticle sizes within the soil sample. boring log is shown in Table 2-6 & 2-7. Table 2-6 is a soil boring
• Atterberg Limits – Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL), taken in a coarse-grained sand soil. Table 2-7 is a soil boring
Shrinkage Limit (SL), and Plastic Index (PI) – applies to co- taken in a fine-grained clay soil.
hesive types of soil and is a measure of the relative stiffness
of the soil and potential for expansion. Index properties PROBLEM SOIL CONDITIONS
(LL, PL, SL, and PI) are determined using specially devel-
All natural materials, such as soil, will exhibit conditions of vari-
oped apparatus and procedures for performing these tests.
ability that may make a single solution inadequate for inevi-
The equipment, specifications and procedures are closely
table problems that arise. It is wise to remember Dr. Terzaghi’s
followed in ASTM D 4318 Classification / Characterization
emphasis to have a secondary solution ready when dealing
Tests. The Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit are particularly
with the variability of soils.
important since they may be used along with the natural
water content to determine the Liquidity Index.
DEEP FILL, ORGANIC AND COLLAPSIBLE SOILS
STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS The existence of deep fills, organic and collapsible soils on a
given project site are typically known before the start of the
In some instances undisturbed soil samples are recovered in
project. This is usually determined during the subsurface in-
the field using a thin wall Shelby tube. These recovered sam-
vestigation by means of drilling or sounding. However, on large
ples are tested either in triaxial or direct shear tests to deter-
projects like an underground pipeline or transmission line that
mine directly the friction angle “ϕ” and the cohesion “c” of the
covers many miles, these soils may occur in undetected pock-
soil. For cohesive (clay) soil samples, an unconfined compres-
ets and hence present a potential problem. The best solution
sion test “UC” is often conducted. The unconfined compres-
is to be aware of the possibility of their existence and be pre-
sion test is used to determine the unconfined compression
pared to install Chance® helical piles and Atlas Resistance® piers
strength “qu” of the clay soil. The cohesion of the clay sample is
deeper to penetrate through this material into better bearing
then taken to be one-half of “qu”. The unconfined compression
soil. It is not recommended to locate the helical bearing plates
test is commonly performed due to its low cost; however the
or the tip of the Atlas Resistance® pier in these soils.
results tend to be conservative and simulate only total stress
conditions with no confining pressure which may not be ap-
propriate for the project. For granular soils, the Direct Shear
SAMPLE BORING LOG IN COARSE-GRAINED SOIL, TABLE 2-6
SOIL MECHANICS
SAMPLE BORING LOG IN FINE-GRAINED SOIL, TABLE 2-7
SOIL MECHANICS
LOOSE LIQUEFIABLE SOILS SEASONALLY FROZEN GROUND
Some deposits of saturated sand and silty sand are naturally The most obvious soil in this category is the frost susceptible
loose and may be prone to lose strength or liquefy during an soils (typically, silt) as illustrated by the growth of frost nee-
earthquake or other dynamic loading. These soils are typically dles and ice lenses in freezing weather. This leads to a com-
identified by very low SPT N-values (typically less than about monly observed expansion phenomenon known as frost heave.
6) and should be viewed with caution. Frost heave is typically observed on roadbeds, under concrete
slabs, and along freshly exposed cuts. Capillary breaks and va-
SENSITIVE CLAYS por barriers in conjunction with proper drainage will do much
to control this problem, before Chance® helical piles or Atlas
Some marine clay deposits are also very sensitive and can
Resistance® piers are installed.
lose most of their shear strength when disturbed and when
loaded dynamically. These deposits are typically identified with A subcategory of this condition is seasonal permafrost. If pos-
sible, these ice lenses should be penetrated and not relied on
SOIL MECHANICS
Liquidity Index greater than about 1.2.

for end bearing.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soils exist all over the earth’s surface, in nearly every
region. These soils are often described as having high shrink- REFERENCES
swell behavior since they can also shrink if dried out. The natu- Bowles, Joseph E., Foundation Analysis and Design, Fourth
ral in-place weathering of rock produces sand, then silt, and Edition, McGraw Hill, 1988.
finally clay particles – hence the fact that clay is a common soil
Chapel, Thomas A. (1998), Field Investigation of Helical and
type. Most clay soils exhibit volume change potential depend-
Concrete Piers in Expansive Soil, Proceedings of the Second
ing on moisture content, mineralogy, and soil structure. The up-
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 1998)
ward forces (swell pressure) of expansive clay may far exceed
Beijing, China.
the adfreeze forces generated by seasonally frozen ground,
yet foundations continue to be founded routinely in expansive Hough, B.K., Basic Soils Engineering, Second Edition, Ronald
soil with no allowance for the potential expansion. Foundations Press Co., NY, 1969.
should be designed to penetrate below the expansive soil’s ac-
Portland Cement Association, PCA Soil Primer, 1992.
tive zone, or be designed to withstand the forces applied the
foundation, e.g., to prevent “slab dishing” or “doming.” The ac- Spangler, Merlin G. and R.L. Handy, Soil Engineering, Fourth
tive zone is defined as the depth of expansive soil that is af- Edition, Harper and Row Publishers, NY, 1982.
fected by seasonal moisture variation. Another method used Terzaghi, Karl., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and
to design foundations on expansive soil is to prevent the soil’s Sons, NY, 1943.
moisture content from changing. Theoretically, if the moisture
Terzaghi, Karl, R.B. Peck and G. Mesri, Soil Mechanics in
content does not change, the volume of the clay soil will not
Engineering Practice, Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons, NY,
change. This is typically difficult to control.
1996.
The tensile strength of deep foundations must be sufficient to
Weech, C. N., Installation and Load Testing of Helical Piles in
resist the high tensile forces applied to the foundation by ex-
a Sensitive Fine-Grained Soil, Thesis in Partial Fulfillment for
pansive soil via skin friction within the active zone. As an ex-
Masters Degree, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
pansive soil swells or heaves, the adhesion force between the
B.C., 2002.
soil and the side of the foundation can be of sufficient magni-
tude to “jack” a foundation out of the ground. Chance® helical
piles are a good choice in expansive soils due to their relatively
small shaft size – which results in less surface area subjected
to swell pressures and jacking forces. Isolating footings, slabs,
and grade beams from subgrade soils by using void form is a
typical detail used in areas like Denver, Colorado, where ex-
pansive soil is present. The void form isolates the structure
from contact with the expansive soil, thereby eliminating the
destructive effects of swell pressures.
A Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 25 to 30 is a red flag to
the geotechnical engineer. A PI ≥ 25 to 30 indicates the soil
has significant volume change potential and should be investi-
gated further. There are fairly simple tests (Atterberg, soil suc-
tion test, swell potential) that can be conducted but should be
practiced by the informed designer.
SECTION 3: PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
CONTENTS
Feasibility Of Using Chance® Helical or Atlas Resistance® Pier Products....................................3-2
Shaft Size Selection Based on Soil Parameters .................................................................................. 3-4
Preliminary Chance Helical Pile/Anchor and Atlas Resistance® Pier Design Guide................ 3-4
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
FEASIBILITY OF USING NOTE: All foundation systems should be designed under
the direct supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer
CHANCE® HELICAL OR ATLAS knowledgeable in product selection and application.
RESISTANCE® PRODUCTS Hubbell steel foundation products offer simplicity in design

and flexibility in adapting to the project. The design for ulti-
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. manufactures steel foundation mate and allowable bearing capacities, anchor or tieback loads
products that can be designed for a wide range of soil condi- for helical products, is established using classical geotechnical
tions. In order to assist the designer/user in selecting the proper theory and analysis, and supplemented by empirical relation-
product for the application, Figure 3-1 shows the product type ships developed from field load tests. In order to conduct the
suitable for various soils and rock conditions. When reviewing design, geotechnical information is required at the site. The de-
Figure 3-1, the designer/user should note the following items: sign and data shown in this manual are not intended for use in
1. The most common selection of soil parameters for de- actual design situations. Each project and application is differ-
sign is from field testing using the ASTM D1586 Standard ent as to soils, structure, and all other related factors.
Penetration Test (SPT) and field or laboratory testing of
shear strength (cohesion “c” and friction angle "j”). Refer FACTORS OF SAFETY
to Section 2 in this manual for a detailed discussion of
geotechnical investigation requirements and to Section 4 To recognize the variability of soil conditions that may exist at
for a detailed discussion of structural load requirements a site, as well as the varied nature of loading on structures and
for projects using Chance® helical piles/anchors and/or how these loads are transferred through foundations, Hubbell
Atlas Resistance® piers. Power Systems, Inc. recommends an appropriate Factor of
Safety (FS) when using Chance® Helical and Atlas Resistance®
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
2. A range is noted based on SPT “N” values where the Atlas pier foundation products. Generally, the minimum FS is 2 on all
Resistance® type of pier will provide the foundation under- permanent loading conditions and 1.5 for any temporary load
pinning support in an end-bearing mode. This “N” value is situation. National and local building codes may require more
generally above 30 to 35 in cohesionless (sands and grav- stringent Factors of Safety on certain projects.
els) soils and above 35 to 40 in cohesive clay soils.
Refer to Section 5 for a discussion of Factors of Safety when
3. A range is indicated for use of the helical piles (compres- using Atlas Resistance® piers for underpinning (remedial re-
sion) and helical anchors (tension). As noted on the chart, pair) applications.
there are certain conditions for weathered rock and ce-
mented sands where an initial predrilling will permit the
installation of helical plates under relatively high installing SITE ACCESS
torque (generally above 10,000 ft-lbs). Helical piles/an- The proximity to other structures, rights-of-way and obstruc-
chors have been successfully installed on projects where tions are some of the first considerations for any construction
the target depth is not homogenous or consists of hard or improvement. Equipment access may be restricted due to
clays, cemented sands or weathered rock. These factors overhead limits and safety issues. The designer needs to con-
must be considered and evaluated before a design can be sider all the possible limitations when selecting a foundation
finalized. Modifications may have to be made to the de- system. Chance® helical piles/anchors and Atlas Resistance®
sign to be able to accomplish embedment into the target piers can generally be used anywhere a soil boring can be tak-
stratum such as: en and are virtually the most access-problem-free foundation
• Cutting a “sea shell” shape into the leading edge of systems available today. Restricted access and similar concerns
one or more of the helical plates. should be shown on the bid documents with the usual notes
concerning site conditions.
• Predrilling prior to the installation of a helical pile/
anchor. Vibration and noise can be another limitation to convention-
al deep foundations (i.e., driven piles, drilled piers). Chance®
• Using a shaft configuration that provides adequate helical piles/anchors and Atlas Resistance® piers have been
torques and resistance to “spikes” during installation. installed inside office buildings, restaurants, retail shops and
The product selection chart shown in Figure 3-1 is intended for hospitals without interrupting their normal routines. Chance®
use on a preliminary basis. Hubbell assumes no responsibility helical pile and Atlas Resistance® pier certified installers can
for the accuracy of design when based solely on Figure 3-1. A assist the designer in determining the best type of product for
Preliminary Design Request Form is provided at the end of this the application.
section. This form can be copied and then completed with the
required information to request a preliminary design (applica-
WORKING LOADS
tion) by the Hubbell engineering department. The completed
form can be sent to Hubbell or directly to your local Chance® Helical piles have been used in compression to working (design)
Distributor. loads of 200 kip, in the form of the Chance Helical Pulldown®
Micropile which is detailed later in this manual. In a “normal
consolidated” soil, the working load per foundation is typically
less than 100 kip, but special cases may apply.
Working tension loads are typically 100 kip or less. The soil used in the controlled fills of roadway and railway fills to make
is generally the limiting factor as the number and size of he- improvements to the infrastructure.
lical piles/anchors can be varied to suit the application. The
Helical piles should be capable of penetrating the collapsible
designer should determine the shaft series of products to use
soils (such as loess) and poorly cemented granular soils in the
from the information provided in Section 7 – Product Drawings
southwestern United States.
and Ratings.
Atlas Resistance® piers have been used in compression to
working (design loads) of 70 kip+. The soil conditions, weight
EQUIPMENT
of the existing foundation, and type of foundation are gen- Equipment suitability consideration and selection is the do-
erally the limiting factors when determining the number and main of the contractor. Certified Chance® Installers are familiar
size of Atlas Resistance piers to use in a given application. The with the various spatial requirements for his equipment and is
designer should determine the shaft series of products to use best able to determine the type of mounted or portable equip-
from the information provided in Section 7 - Product Drawings ment they can utilize to do the work. The designer may contact
and Ratings. the local Chance® Distributor or certified installer for guidance
on this matter. A wide variety of equipment can be utilized for
projects based on such considerations as interior vs. exterior
SOILS construction and headroom. Mini-excavators have been used
Soil may be defined for engineering purposes as the uncon- indoors to install helical piles.
solidated material in the upper mantle of the earth. Soil is vari-
able by the nature of its weathering and/or deposition. The
more accurately one can define the soil at a particular site; the
CONTRACTORS
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
better one can predict the behavior of any deep foundation, Certified Chance® Installers are available in nearly all areas of
such as a Chance® helical pile, Helical Pulldown® Micropile or North America. These installers should be experienced in the
Atlas Resistance® pier. In the absence of sufficient soil data, type of work specified. A current project list should be submit-
assumptions can be made by the designer. The field engineer ted as evidence of experience.
or responsible person needs to be prepared to make changes
in the field based on the soil conditions encountered during
CODES
construction.
Building codes may have restrictions regarding the founda-
As noted earlier, Atlas Resistance® piers will provide the foun-
tion type. Generally, Chance® helical piles and Atlas Resistance®
dation underpinning support in an end-bearing mode provided
piers fall under the category of deep foundations, such as
N-values are generally above 30 to 35 in cohesionless (sands
driven piles or drilled piers. The underpinning shaft series
and gravels) soils and above 35 to 40 in cohesive clay soils.
of Chance® helical piles and Atlas Resistance® Models AP-
Chance® helical piles can be installed into residual soil and vir-
2-3500.165 and AP-2-3500.165 (M) have been evaluated to
gin or undisturbed soils other than rock, herein defined as hav-
show compliance with past and also the latest revisions of
ing a SPT “N-value” less than 80 to 100 blows per foot per
the International Building Code (IBC). Chance® Type SS5,
ASTM D1586. This implies that the correct shaft series of helical
SS175, RS2875.203, RS2875.276, RS3500.300, SS175/RS3500
piles must be chosen to match to the soil density. For example,
Combo, and RS4500.377 helical piles and bracket assemblies
a standard 1-1/2” shaft, Type SS helical pile with a total helix
have been evaluated per International Code Council Evaluation
area of 1 square foot may require so much installing torque
Services (ICC-ES) Acceptance Criteria AC358 for Helical
that it may have difficulty penetrating into the bearing stratum
Systems and Devices. In Canada, CCMC Report 13193-R shows
without exceeding the torsional strength of the shaft.
compliance with the latest revisions of the Canadian Building
Water-deposited soil, marine, riverene (terraces or delta) and Code (CBC). The current evaluation reports can all be found at
lacustrine soil have a high degree of variability. They may be www.chancefoundationsolutions.com.
highly sensitive and may regain strength with time. In these
conditions, it is good practice to extend helical piles and resis-
tance piers deeper into more suitable bearing soil.
Very soft or very loose natural, virgin or undisturbed soils over-
lying a very dense soil layer, such as unweathered rock, present
an ideal situation for the installation of Atlas Resistance® piers.
Similar soil profiles could present a challenge to the installa-
tion of helical piles depending on the weathered nature of the
underlying rock. The helices may not develop enough down-
ward thrust in upper soils to penetrate into the hard underlying
material. Down pressure is often applied to the shaft to assist
in penetration of the helices into the hard underlying material.
The use of helical piles/anchors in controlled or engineered fill
is another good application. For example, helical tiebacks are
SHAFT SIZE SELECTION Figure 3-1 shows the same information as contained in the above
table along with soil conditions suited for Atlas Resistance®
BASED ON SOIL piers. This figure does not address the proper product selec-
tion based on its application. Atlas Resistance piers are used
PARAMETERS primarily for remedial repair applications involving an existing
An additional condition that must be evaluated is the ability structure. Chance® helical piles/anchors are used for not only
of the helical pile to penetrate soil to the required depth. For remedial repair applications, but for new commercial and resi-
example, a foundation design may require an installation that dential construction, tieback walls, SOIL SCREW® walls, tele-
penetrates a dense fill layer consisting of compacted construc- communication towers, electric utility towers, pipeline buoy-
tion debris (concrete, rubble, etc.) through a compressible or- ancy control, etc.
ganic layer below the fill and finally into the bearing strata. A
helical pile shaft with a higher torque rating may be required to
adequately penetrate through the fill even though a helical pile
PRELIMINARY CHANCE®
shaft with a lower torque rating would satisfy the ultimate ca- HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR
pacity requirement. Table 3-1 outlines the maximum blow count
or N-value that a particular shaft will typically penetrate. Note AND ATLAS RESISTANCE®
that the Type SS helical piles with higher strength shafts and
helix material will penetrate harder/denser soils than the Type
PIER DESIGN GUIDE
RS helical piles. Penetrating into harder/denser soils is gener-
ally required to support larger loads. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. manufactures Chance® helical piles/
anchors and Atlas Resistance® pier products for use as tension
The N-values listed in this table are intended to serve as a guide
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
anchors and/or compression piles for varied foundation support

in the preliminary selection of the appropriate shaft series
applications. There are many different applications for these end
based on using multi-helix configurations. The limits are not
bearing piles and each application will require:
intended to be absolute values and higher N-value soils may be
penetrated by varying helix diameter, quantity and geometry. • An evaluation of the soil strata and soil characteristics of that
Therefore, local field installation experience may indicate more stratum in which the helical plates or Atlas Resistance® pier
appropriate maximum N-values. tip will be seated.
• A selection of the appropriate Atlas Resistance® pier, in-
CHANCE® HELICAL SHAFT SERIES SELECTION, TABLE 3-1 cluding shaft type and bracket type or Chance® helical pile
SHAFT TORQUE MAX MAX foundation, including shaft type, helical plate size, number
SHAFT
SIZE RATING N60-VALUE N60-VALUE and configuration. (Note: Type RS piles or Chance Helical
SERIES
in (mm) Ft-lb (N-m) Clay* Sand* Pulldown® Micropiles are strongly recommended in bearing/
4,000 compression applications where the N-value of supporting
SS125 1-1/4 (32) 25 20
(5,400) soil around the shaft is less than 4. These piles have great-
5,700 er column stiffness relative to the standard Chance® Type
SS5 1-1/2 (38) 40 30
(7,730) SS piles. Refer to Buckling/Slenderness Considerations in
7,000 Section 5 of this Technical Design Manual for a detailed dis-
SS150 1-1/2 (38) 60 50
(9,500) cussion of this subject).
10,500 • A determination of the ultimate bearing capacity and suit-
SS175 1-3/4 (44) 65 65
(14,240) able FS.
16,000
SS200 2 (51)
(21,700)
<80 <80 The preliminary design guide shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 is in-
tended to assist certified installers, general contractors and con-
21,000
SS225 2-1/4 (57) <80 <80 sulting engineers in the selection of the appropriate Chance® heli-
(28,475)
cal pile or Atlas Resistance® pier.
7,000
RS2875.203 2-7/8 (73) 25 20
(9,491) Design should involve professional geotechnical and engineer-
8,000 ing input. Specific information involving the structures, soil
RS2875.276 2-7/8 (73) 25 20 characteristics and foundation conditions must be used for the
(10,847)
13,000
final design.
RS3500.300 3-1/2 (89) 25 20
(17,600)
25,000
RS4500.337 4-1/2 (114) 30 25
(33,900)
Large
Varies
Diameter
based on 30 30
Pipe Pile
Shaft Size
(LDPP)
*N-value or Blow Count, from Standard Penetration
Test per ASTM D1586
CHANCE® Helical Piles / Anchors
HUBBELL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
S C
SS125
CHANCE® HELICAL PILE / ANCHOR
S C
SSS5
and ATLAS RESISTANCE® PIER
SS150 S C
PRODUCT SELECTION GUIDE
S/C
SS175
S/C
SS200, SS225
PRODUCT SERIES
S C
RS2875., RS3500
RS4500 S C
S C
ATLAS RESISTANCE® Piers
S = SAND
C = CLAY
VERY WEATHERED TO WEATHERED ROCK;

SOIL CEMENTED SANDS; HARD CLAY SOILS COMPETENT ROCK
1
SANDS VERY DENSE IGNEOUS ROCK
DOLERITE
DENSE BASALT
DIORITE
MEDIUM
GRANITE
LOOSE
VERY
LOOSE
1
METAMORPHIC ROCK
QUARTZITE
SOIL GNEISS ROCK
SCHIST
CLAYS HARD
PRODUCT SELECTION GUIDE, FIGURE 3-1

VERY STIFF
1
STIFF SEDIMENTARY ROCK LIMESTONE
VERY
SOFT MEDIUM DOLOMITE
TO
SOFT SANDSTONE
SHALE
POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

0 6 10 17 25 30 40 50 65 80 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.90
STANDARD PENETRATION BLOW COUNT (per ASTM D1586) ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)2
“N” (BLOWS PER FOOT)
NOTES:
1. Range of RQD of Slightly Weathered to Competent Rock.
Σ length of intact pieces of core > 100 mm
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) =
length of core advance
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
Preliminary Design Flowchart for New Construction
CHANCE® Helical Piles/Anchors
Owner, Prime Contractor or Consultant

Requires Deep Foundation or Anchorage Design
Geotechnical Review by CHANCE Helical Pile/Anchor Designer,

Report
CHANCE Distributor, and/or
Structural Certifed CHANCE Installer

Loads
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
Feasibility Assessment
Product Selection
Load Capacity Calculations

APPLICATION
Compression
Tension
Tiebacks
Soil Screw® Anchors
Lateral Load and Buckling
Corrosion
Installation Criteria and Report
Specifications and Shop

Drawings (as required)
DESIGN FLOWCHART FOR CHANCE® HELICAL PILES AND ANCHORS (NEW CONSTRUCTION), FIGURE 3-2
Design Steps
Atlas Resistance ® Piers
Owner, Prime Contractor or Consultant
Requires Remedial Deep Foundation Design
Determine NO YES
Structural Loading
Structural Available
Loads
(See Section 4)
Review by CHANCE® Helical Pile/Anchor
Geotechnical Designer, CHANCE® Distributor,
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
Report and/or Certified CHANCE® Installer
YES Feasibility NO
Assessment
Select Pier Type (See Section 7)
Determine Pier Spacing and

Select Shaft Size
• Based on Load
• Based on Analysis of Strength of Footing
• Based on Ultimate Strength of
Suitable Piers
Calculation of Pier Strength Requirements
Lateral Load Buckling
Corrosion
Installation Criteria and Report
Specification and Shop

Drawings (as required)
DESIGN FLOWCHART FOR ATLAS RESISTANCE® PIERS (REMEDIAL REPAIR APPLICATIONS), FIGURE 3-3
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REQUEST FORM
Contact at Chance Civil Construction: ___________________________________________________
Installing Contractor
Firm: Contact:
Phone: Fax: Cell:
Project
Name: Type: o Foundation o Underpinning/Shoring
Address: o New Construction o Rock
o Tieback Retaining o Other:
o Soil Nail Retaining
Project Engineer? o Yes o No
Firm: Contact:
PRODUCT FEASIBILITY
Address: Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Geotechnical Engineer? o Yes o No
Firm: Contact:
Address: Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Loads
Design Load FS (Mech) #1 FS (Geo) #1 Design Load FS (Mech) #2 FS (Geo) #2
Compression
Tension
Shear
Overturning
Define the owner’s expectations and the scope of the project:

________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following are attached: o Plans o Soil Boring o Soil Resistivity o Soil pH
If any of the above are not attached, please explain:

________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Date: ________________ Requested Response: ______________________ CHANCE #: ___________ Response: ______________
Please copy and complete this form to submit a design request.
SECTION 4: LOAD DETERMINATION
CONTENTS
Structural Loads .............................................................................................................................................. 4-2
Preliminary Tieback Design Guide............................................................................................................ 4-3
Tables For Estimating Dead Line (DL) & Live Line (LL) Loads...................................................... 4-6
Tables For Estimating Free Spans Between Supports...................................................................... 4-8
Preliminary Design Guidelines For Reinforced Concrete Grade Beams.................................... 4-12
Preliminary Design Guidelines For Reinforced Concrete Pile Caps............................................4-19
LOAD DETERMINATION
DISCLAIMER
specifications.
and requirements.
STRUCTURAL LOADS
ULTIMATE LOAD
TYPES OF LOADS The ultimate load is the greatest dead and live load combination
There are generally five common loads that may be resisted by multiplied by the factor of safety. This load may or may not be
a given foundation element. These are compression, tension, the load used for foundation design.
lateral, moment, and torsion loads. It is anticipated that anyone NOTE: Ultimate load is not the same as ultimate capacity. A
reading this manual will know the meanings of these loads, but foundation has some finite capacity to resist load. The ultimate
for completeness we will describe them for our purposes here. capacity may be defined as the minimum load at which failure
A compression load is one that will axially shorten a foundation of the foundation is likely to occur and at which it can no longer
and is typically considered to act vertically downward. The support any additional load.
tension load tends to lengthen a foundation and is often
taken to be acting vertically upward. A lateral load is one that REVERSING LOADS
acts parallel to the surface of the earth or perpendicular to
Foundation design must allow for the possibility that a load
a vertically installed foundation. The lateral load can also be
may reverse or change direction. This may not be a frequent
referred to as a shear load. Moment load bends the foundation
occurrence, but when wind changes course or during seismic
about one of its transverse axes. Torsion tends to twist the
events, certain loads may change direction. A foundation may
foundation about its longitudinal axis.
undergo tension and compression loads at different times or
This design manual generally assumes the use of allowable a reversal in the direction of the applied shear load. The load
strength design (ASD), i.e., the entire Factor of Safety (FS) transfer of couplings is an important part of the design process
is applied to the ultimate capacity of the steel foundation for reversing loads.
product in the soil to determine a safe (or design) strength.
Section 7 of this Design Manual provides the Nominal, LRFD
design, and ASD allowable strengths of Chance® helical piles/
DYNAMIC LOADS
anchors. The designer can choose to use either limit states or Dynamic or cyclic loads are encountered when supporting
allowable strength design for helical piles/anchors. certain types of equipment or in conditions involving repetitive
impact loads. They are also encountered during seismic events
and variable wind events. These loads can prove destructive
DESIGN OR WORKING LOAD
in some soil conditions and inconsequential in others. The
The design load or working load is typically considered to be designer must take steps to account for these possibilities.
LOAD DETERMINATION
the same load. This is a combination of dead and live loads. Research has shown that multi-helix anchors and piles are
The dead load is simply the gravity load of the structure, better suited to resist dynamic or cyclic loads. Higher factors
equipment, etc. that exerts a constant force on the foundation. of safety should be considered when designing for dynamic
The live load takes into account seismic events; wind, snow, loads.
and ice loads; and occupancy activities. Live loads are transient
loads that are dynamic in nature. Design or working loads are
sometimes referred to as unfactored loads because they do
CODES AND STANDARDS
not include any Factor of Safety. The minimum load conditions are usually specified in the
governing building codes. There are municipal, state, and
Loads associated with backfill soil should be considered in any
regional codes as well as model codes that are proposed for
type of structural underpinning application. Soil load may be
general usage. The designer must adhere to the codes for the
present in foundation lifting or restoration activities and can
project location. Chapter 18 of the 2021 IBC contains code
represent a significant percentage of the overall design load on
sections for helical piles and sections for general design of
an individual underpinning element, sometimes approaching
deep foundations. Section 4 of ICC-ES ESR-2794 provides
as much as 50% of the total design load.
guidelines for the design and installation of helical piles.
FACTOR OF SAFETY
Before a foundation design is complete, a Factor of Safety (FS)
must be selected and applied. In allowable strength design, the
FS is the ratio between the ultimate capacity of the foundation
and the design load. A Factor of Safety of 2 is typical but can
vary depending on the quality of the information available for
the design process and if testing or reliable production control
is used. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., recommends a minimum
FS of 2 for permanent loading conditions and 1.5 for any
temporary loading condition. See Section 5 for a discussion
of Factors of Safety when using Atlas Resistance® piers for
underpinning (remedial repair) applications.
PRELIMINARY TIEBACK
DESIGN GUIDE channels, W sections, or H sections, these members shall
be positioned relative to the wall face so that their webs are
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., manufactures multi-helix collinear with the tieback tendon. If the waler is not properly
products for use as tiebacks to assist in stabilizing and oriented with respect to the tieback tendon, then bending
anchoring structures subjected to lateral loads from earth and moments and shear loads could be introduced into the tieback
water pressure. There are many applications for these tieback tendon that could result in a premature failure of the tendon.
products and each application will require: The tieback tendon is intended to resist only axial loading.
• A
. n evaluation of the soil characteristics and the lateral
earth and water loads on the retaining structure, TIEBACK DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• A selection of the appropriate tieback product, FOR BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALL
including shaft type, helix size(s), and configuration, APPLICATIONS
and In most regions of the United States, many homes have
• A determination of the tension load capacity and basement walls below grade. Over time, the settling of the
suitable Factor of Safety. ground, plugging of drain tile, extensive rains, plumbing leaks,
and other environmental factors can cause these basement
The following preliminary design guide information is intended
walls to bulge inward, crack, or be subjected to other forms of
to assist dealers, installing contractors, and consulting
distress. The Chance helical tieback can be an effective repair
engineers in estimating the required tieback force and
method for distressed basement walls (see Figures 4-2 through
placement for the more common tieback applications and to
4-4). There are some general guidelines that are important to
select the appropriate Chance® helical tieback product. Figure
understand and follow when specifying tiebacks for basement
4-1 illustrates a typical temporary soldier pile and lagging
wall repair or retaining wall support.
retaining wall utilizing Chance helical tiebacks. The commercial
uses of Chance helical tiebacks include both permanent and ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURE CONDITIONS
temporary sheet pile walls, bulkheads for marine applications, Figure 4-2 shows a distressed basement wall with active earth
concrete reinforced walls, precast concrete panel walls, etc. pressure pushing against the wall as well as water pressure
They have been used in multi-tier tieback walls to heights of due to the indicated soil saturation condition. Active earth
50 feet. pressure is defined as the pressure exerted by the earth on a
When using an external waler system consisting of double structure that causes movement of the structure away from
LOAD DETERMINATION
It is recommended that a Registered Professional Engineer conduct the design.
FIRST
WALER FLOOR
THREADED BAR,
BEVEL WASHER,
& NUT GROUND
WATER
TABLE
RETAINING DISTRESSED
WALL BASEMENT
WALL
TRANSITION
FROM SQUARE
BAR TO
THREADED BAR ACTIVE SOIL
PRESSURE ZONE
SOLDIER PILE PA (RESULTANT SOIL LATERAL
FORCE AGAINST WALL)
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION BASEMENT PW (RESULTANT WATER
SLAB PRESSURE FORCE
AGAINST WALL)
WATER PRESSURE AGAINST

WALL (DUE TO GROUND
SATURATION)
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DISTRESSED BASEMENT WALL WITH ACTIVE

TIEBACK CONFIGURATION SOIL PRESSURE AND WATER PRESSURE
ACTING AGAINST THE WALL
LOCATION AND PLACEMENT OF TIEBACKS
Every tieback wall situation is unique, but there are some
aspects that merit special attention. The placement of the
anchor is influenced by the height of the soil backfill against
the wall. Figure 4-3 shows this condition and a guide for setting
SEPARATION OF FAILURE
the location and minimum length of installation of the tieback.
PLANE AND BEARING
PRESSURE BULB
Experience indicates that the tieback should be located close
to the point of maximum wall bulge and/or close to the most
severe transverse crack. In cases where walls are constructed
of concrete block or where severe cracking occurred in solid
5° TO 30° concrete walls, a vertical and/or transverse steel channel (waler)
D = DIAMETER OF MINIMUM
TOP-MOST HELIX 3D DEPTH = 5D or plate must be used to maintain wall integrity. For other types
of wall distress such as multiple cracking or cracking induced
30° TO 45°
by differential settlement, the tieback placement location must
be selected on a case-by-case basis.
Another factor to consider is the height of soil cover over
BEARING PRESSURE BULB D
the helical tieback. Figure 4-3 shows that the recommended
MINIMUM minimum height of soil cover is five times the diameter of the
DISTANCE = 5D
largest helix plate. Finally, the helical anchor must be installed
to a sufficient distance away from the wall as shown in Figure
4-3 for the top-most helix plate to fully develop bearing
FAILURE PLANE
capacity with adequate separation between the active failure
plane and helix bearing pressure bulb. This requires the length
of installation to be related to the height of soil backfill, also
shown in Figure 4-3. The top-most helix must be located a
GUIDELINES FOR DEPTH AND LENGTH FOR A TYPICAL
minimum of five times its diameter beyond the assumed active
INSTALLATION WITH HELICAL TIEBACKS
failure plane.
FIGURE 4-3
ESTIMATING TIEBACK LOAD REQUIREMENTS
Estimating the lateral loads exerted by the earth against
LOAD DETERMINATION
basement walls or retaining walls requires knowledge of:

the soil mass. Most often it is the combined effect of active
earth pressure and water pressure that leads to basement wall • The soil type and condition,
bulges and cracks.
• The structural dimensions of the retaining structure,
The installed helical tieback anchor capacity is developed and
through bearing pressure against the helix plate. The passive
• Other geotechnical conditions (e.g., ground water
earth pressure against the wall aids the tieback anchor in
table).
supporting the wall. Passive earth pressure is defined as the
pressure the soil on the inside (or lower elevation side) of the Figures 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 were prepared for preliminary design
wall exerts in opposition to the active pressure of the soil outside assistance in estimating tieback load requirements. Figures
the wall. The passive pressure occurs because the soil is in 4-5 and 4-6 illustrate cases where no ground water table is
sufficient compression to develop internal shearing resistance. present at the site. If hydrostatic water pressure is present, the
The helical tieback anchor must be installed properly to ensure magnitude of this pressure is determined and added to the
the helical anchor capacity coupled with passive earth pressure earth pressure load requirement. In those cases where the soil
is sufficient to resist the active pressures. and subsurface drainage conditions are not known, it should be
assumed in the design that water pressure will be present. It is
When a helical tieback is installed and anchored in place, two
critical for basement wall repair to include remedial drainage
options are available:
work to prevent any future condition of soil saturation and
• A
. portion of the soil is removed, the helical tieback is resulting water pressure against the wall and/or to take into
used to restore the wall toward its original position, and account the full effect of water pressure against the wall in the
the soil is backfilled against the wall, or tieback design (see Figure 4-2).
• The helical tieback is loaded and locked in position As a guideline in preparing tieback load requirement estimates,
with no restoration. In this case, the wall is merely one tieback row (tier) was used for walls of 15 feet of height
stabilized in its deflected position. or less and two tieback rows (tiers) for walls ranging in height
from 15 feet to 25 feet. Individual project conditions and design
In either case, the soil will continue to exert active pressure
considerations can cause changes in these guidelines.
against the wall.
BASEMENT WALL
H = Height of backfill
n = Tieback location from top of wall = 0.2 to 0.6
FS = Factor of Safety = 1.5 < FS < 2.5
T = Tension load (lb/ft of wall)/cos(φ). Assumes
tieback provides 80% of lateral support. nH
φ
TU = 18(H2)FS/cos(φ) (no water pressure present)
T or TU
TU = 45(H2)FS/cos(φ) (water pressure present) H
NOTE: Top of wall is assumed to be restrained in the

lateral direction
ESTIMATED TIEBACK FORCE REQUIRED FOR BASEMENT APPLICATIONS

FIGURE 4-4
RETAINING WALL
LOAD DETERMINATION
H = Height of backfill (walls 15 ft or less)
n = Tieback location from top of wall = 0.25 to 0.40
nH φ
FS = Factor of Safety = 1.5 < FS < 2.5
T = Tension load (lb/ft of wall)/cos(φ) T or TU
TU = 25(H2)FS/cos(φ) H
NOTE: Top of wall is assumed free to translate
ESTIMATED TIEBACK FORCE REQUIRED FOR RETAINING WALLS 15 FEET HIGH OR LESS
FIGURE 4-5
H = Height of backfill (walls 15 to 25 ft)
nH
n = Upper tieback location from top of wall = 0.20 to 0.30
φ
m = Lower tieback location from top of wall = 0.50 to 0.75
mH
FS = Factor of Safety = 1.5 < FS < 2.5 TN or TNU
H
T = Tension load (lb/ft of wall)/cos(φ)
φ
TNU = 12(H2)FS/cos(φ)
TMU = 18(H2)FS/cos(φ)
NOTE: Top of wall is assumed free to translate
TM or TMU
ESTIMATED TIEBACK FORCE REQUIRED FOR RETAINING

WALLS 15 FEET TO 25 FEET
FIGURE 4-6
TECHNICAL DESIGN ASSISTANCE

The engineers at Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., have expertise in you in collecting the data required to submit the Preliminary
all elements of design and installation of Chance® helical piles/ Design Initiation Form and job specific data. The distributor, in-
anchors, tiebacks, Soil Screw® anchors, and Atlas Resistance® stalling contractor, or dealer will either send Preliminary Design
piers. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., will prepare a complimen- requests to Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., or will directly provide
tary product selection (Preliminary Design) on a particular the complimentary service.
project for use by the engineer of record and our installing The Preliminary Design Initiation Form may be found on the
contractor or dealer. last page of Section 3 in this manual. Please familiarize yourself
If you require engineering assistance in evaluating an appli- with the information you will need before calling for assistance.
LOAD DETERMINATION
cation, please contact your Chance Distributor or Certified

Chance Installer in your area. These professionals will assist
TABLES FOR ESTIMATING DEAD LINE (DL) & LIVE LINE (LL) LOADS
Tables 4-1 through 4-5 are provided solely as estimates of the who is familiar with the site and site-specific structural loading
dead and live line loads acting along a perimeter grade beam. conduct the final analysis of the dead and live line loads acting
It is recommended that a Registered Professional Engineer along the perimeter grade beam.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH CONCRETE SLAB FLOORS, TABLE 4-1

BUILDING DIMENSIONS (ft)
20’ x 20’ x 20’ x 30’ x 30’ x 30’ x 40’ x 40’ x 40’ x
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
20’ 30’ 40’ 30’ 45’ 60’ 40’ 60’ 80’
ESTIMATED DEAD LOAD (DL) AT FOUNDATION (lb/ft)
One Story - Wood/metal/vinyl walls with wood
725 742 753 742 758 768 776 797 810
framing on footing
One Story - Masonry walls with wood framing
975 992 1003 992 1008 1018 1026 1047 1060
on footing
Two Story - Wood/metal/vinyl walls with wood
965 1004 1012 1004 1040 1063 1082 1129 1160
framing on footing
Two Story - First floor masonry, second floor
1215 1254 1280 1254 1290 1313 1332 1379 1410
wood/metal
Two Story - Masonry walls with wood framing
1465 1504 1530 1504 1540 1563 1582 1629 1660
on footing
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH BASEMENTS, TABLE 4-2
20’ x 20’ x 20’ x 30’ x 30’ x 30’ x 40’ x 40’ x 40’ x
20’ 30’ 40’ 30’ 45’ 60’ 40’ 60’ 80’
One Story - Wood/metal/vinyl walls with wood
1060 1092 1114 1092 1121 1140 1156 1195 1220
framing on footing
One Story - Masonry walls with wood framing
1310 1342 1364 1342 1371 1390 1406 1445 1470
on footing
Two Story - Wood/metal/vinyl walls with wood
1300 1354 1390 1354 1403 1435 1462 1528 1570
framing on footing
Two Story - First floor masonry, second floor
1550 1604 1640 1604 1653 1685 1712 1778 1820
wood/metal
Two Story - Masonry walls with wood framing
1800 1854 1890 1854 1903 1935 1962 2028 2070
on footing
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, TABLE 4-3

20’ x 20’ x 20’ x 30’ x 30’ x 30’ x 40’ x 40’ x 40’ x
20’ 30’ 40’ 30’ 45’ 60’ 40’ 60’ 80’
One Story - Precast concrete walls on footing
2150 2175 2192 2175 2198 2213 2225 2255 2275
with slab floor
One Story - Precast concrete walls and
3130 3175 3205 3175 3217 3243 3265 3320 3355
basement on footing
Two Story - Precast concrete walls on footing
3425 3475 3508 3475 3521 3550 3611 3636 3675
with slab floor
LOAD DETERMINATION
Two Story - Precast concrete walls and
4490 4560 4607 4560 4624 4665 4700 4786 4840
basement on footing
ESTIMATING LIVE LOADS, TABLE 4-4

20’ x 20’ x 20’ x 30’ x 30’ x 30’ x 40’ x 40’ x 40’ x
20’ 30’ 40’ 30’ 45’ 60’ 40’ 60’ 80’
ESTIMATED LIVE LOAD (LL) AT FOUNDATION (lb/ft)
One Story - Residential on slab N/A
One Story - Residential on basement
One Story - Residential over crawl space 250 300 333 300 346 375 400 461 500
Two Story - Residential on slab
Two Story - Residential on basement
500 600 667 600 692 750 800 923 1000
Two Story - Residential over crawl space
One Story - Commercial on slab N/A
One Story - Commercial on basement
450 540 600 540 623 675 720 831 900
Two Story - Commercial on slab
Two Story - Commercial on basement 900 1080 1200 1080 1246 1350 1440 1662 1800
ESTIMATING SNOW LOADS (SL)
The required Snow Load Factor (SK) can be determined from the SL = SK(w)L / 2(w + L)
locally approved building code. This factor will be given in pounds
where
per square foot. To determine the Snow Load (SL) along the
perimeter of the structure, use the following: w = width of building
L = length of building
ESTIMATING FOUNDATION SOIL LOAD (W), TABLE 4-5
FOOTING HEIGHT SOIL TYPE

TOE OF SOIL COHESIVE GRANULAR
LOAD FROM SOIL OVERBURDEN WIDTH OVERBURDEN Wb1 Wb2 Wb1 Wb2
(B) (in) (H) (ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft)
B
2 55 220 75 240
4 110 880 125 960
3
6 165 1980 188 2160
8 220 3520 250 3840
2 110 220 125 240
Wb2 4 220 880 250 960
H
Wb1
6
6 330 1980 375 2160
8 440 3520 500 3840
2 165 220 500 240
4 330 880 1000 960
9
6 495 1980 1500 2160
8 660 3520 2000 3840
2 220 220 250 240
LOAD DETERMINATION
NOTE: Wb2 may be reduced or may not apply 4 440 880 500 960
12
when only stabilizing the structure 6 660 1980 750 2160
8 880 3520 1000 3840
USE TABLE 4-5 FOR STRUCTURAL UNDERPINNING APPLICATIONS.
TABLES FOR ESTIMATING FREE SPANS BETWEEN SUPPORTS

Tables 4-6 through 4-9 are provided to help estimate spacing EQUATION 4-1
of Chance® helical piles or Atlas Resistance® piers. One must
Ls = [Fy(d)As / 1.875(P)]1/2
clearly understand that the tables were calculated assuming
where
the foundation element was fabricated using proper construc-
tion techniques with properly embedded reinforcing bars rated Ls = Maximum footing free span (ft)
at 60 ksi and with high-quality concrete having a 28-day com- Fy = Rebar yield strength = 24,000 psi
pressive strength of 3,000 psi. After calculating maximum free d = Moment arm distance (in)
span using Equation 4-1, the results were checked to ensure As = Cross section area of steel (in2)
beam shear did not yield a shorter maximum span. Keep in
P = Structural line load (lb/ft)
mind that poor construction techniques and/or substandard
materials will shorten the allowable span. A Factor of Safety
must be applied to the calculated maximum Chance helical pile EQUATION 4-2
or Atlas Resistance pier spacing based upon experience and x = (LS + wp / 12)
judgment. FSf
where
x = Pile/pier spacing
wp = Width of foundation contact with pile/pier (in)
FSf = Factor of Safety based upon field conditions and
engineering judgment
EXAMPLE
The structure has a 6” thick footing along with an 8” tall stem For this project, specify the spacing at a maximum 6 feet on
wall that was cast with the footing. It was reported that build- center to allow for unexpected defects in the beam or founda-
ing code required a minimum of two #4 reinforcing bars spaced tion loading or for possible field adjustments caused by ob-
3” from the bottom and sides of the concrete. The structure is a structions or utilities.
single story wood frame building with masonry veneer and a 4”
When one wants to reduce the number of piles/piers on a proj-
concrete slab. The structural load on the perimeter footing was
ect, it is important to keep in mind that the distances in the
calculated at 1,020 lb/ft plus 250 lb/ft soil overburden.
tables are for a free span between supports. A supplemental
steel footing could be offered to the client, which will effec-
tively expand the distance between piles/piers while maintain-
Ls = [Fy(d)As / 1.875(P)]1/2 Equation 4-1
ing the required free span distance.
given
If we consider the example above, depending upon the com-
Fy = 24,000 psi
plexity of the architecture, the number of piles/ piers could be
d = (6” - 3”) + 8” = 11”
reduced by perhaps 10% to 15% on the total project by simply
AS = 2 x 0.1963 = 0.3926 in2 installing a 24” long, 3/8” x 6” x 6” supplemental steel beam
P = 1020 + 250 = 1270 lb/ft under the footing.

then x = (LS + wp / 12) Equation 4-2
LS = [(24,000 x 11 x 0.3926) / (1.875 x 1270)]1/2 FSf
[43.526]1/2
=
given
LS = 6.6 ft = maximum free span
wp = 24” (supplemental steel beam length)
FSf = 1.2 (inspection revealed a well-built foundation)
x = (LS + wp / 12) Equation 4-2

then
FSf
x = (6.6 + 24 / 12) / 1.2
given
x = 8.6 / 1.2 = 7.17 ft (pier spacing can be increased to
wp = 10” (width of Atlas® AP-2-UFB-3500.165 pier
7 ft on center)
bracket or Chance® Underpinning helical pile
LOAD DETERMINATION
bracket C1500121)
FSf = 1.2 (inspection revealed a well-built foundation) The piles/piers could, if the architecture allows, be spaced on
7-foot centers, while still maintaining the desired 6-foot free
span distance.
then
x = (6.6 + 10 / 12) / 1.2 Tables 4-6 through 4-9 will assist the designer and installer to
estimate the maximum free span allowable for some common
x = 6.19 ft (specify pier spacing at 6 feet on center)
foundation configurations.
BLOCK STEM WALL OR
NON-DOWELLED CAST
STEM WALL
STEM WALL
HEIGHT
d
8” FOOTING
d=3”
6” FOOTING
2 - #4 2 - #4
REBARS REBARS
(GR 60) (GR 60)
WARNING! THE DESIGNER MUST APPLY A FACTOR OF SAFETY TO THE MAXIMUM FREE SPAN WHEN PLANNING THE
UNDERPINNING DESIGN SO BEAM FAILURE IS NOT EXPERIENCED.
6” THICK REINFORCED CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTING MAXIMUM FREE SPANS, TABLE 4-6
6” THICK X 16” SPREAD BUILDING LINE LOAD (lb/ft)

LOAD DETERMINATION
FOOTING 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500
(SEE FIGURE 4-7) MAXIMUM FREE SPAN BETWEEN SUPPORTS
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60);
concrete block or cast stem 3’-11” 3’-2” – – – – – – – – – –
wall (not dowelled) d = 3”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60);
6” x 12” tall cast stem wall
8’-8” 7’-1” 6’-2” 5’-6” 5’ 4’-8” 4’-4” 4’-1” – – – –
(dowelled or monolithic)
d = 15”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60);
– 8’-5” 7’-3” 6’-6” 5’-11” 5’-6” 5’-2” 4’-10” 4’-7” 4’-5” 4’-2” –
d = 21”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60);
– – 8’-5” 7’-4” 6’-9” 6’-3” 5’-10” 5’-6” 5’-2” 5’ 4’-9” 4’-7”
d = 27”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60);
– – – – – 8’-7” 8’ 7’-7” 7’-2” 6’-10” 6’-6” 6’-3”
d = 51”
BUILDING LINE LOAD (lb/ft)
8” THICK X 16”
SPREAD FOOTING 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000
(SEE FIGURE 4-8)
MAXIMUM FREE SPAN BETWEEN SUPPORTS
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60); concrete
block or cast stem wall (not 4’-6” 3’-9” 3’-6” – – – – – – – – –
dowelled) d = 5”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60); 8” x 12”

tall cast stem wall (dowelled or 7’-7” 6’-6” 5’-10” 5’-4” 4’-11” 4’-7” 4’-4” 4’-2” 3’-11” 3’-9” 3’-8” 3’-5”
monolithic) d = 17”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60); 8” x 18”

tall cast stem wall (dowelled or – 7’-7” 6’-10” 6’-2” 5’-9” 5’-5” 5’-1” 4’-10” 4’-7” 4’-5” 4’-3” 4’-1”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60); 8” x 24”
tall cast stem wall (dowelled or – 8’-6” 7’-8” 7’ 6’-5” 6’ 5’-8” 5’-5” 5’-2” 4’-11” 4’-9” 4’-7”
2 - #4 rebars (Gr 60); 8” x 48”

tall cast stem wall (dowelled or – – – – – 8’-2” 7’-8” 7’-4” 7’ 6’-8” 6’-5” 6’-2”
12” THICK X 24”
SPREAD FOOTING 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000
(SEE FIGURE 4-9)
LOAD DETERMINATION
3 - #5 rebars (Gr 60); 10” x 12”
tall cast stem wall (dowelled or 8’-4” 7’-10” 7’-2” 7’ 6’-8” 6’-5” 6’-2” 5’-11” 5’-9” 5’-7” 5’-5” 5’-3”
3 - #5 rebars (Gr 60); 10” x 18”

tall cast stem wall (dowelled or – – 8’-5” 8’ 7’-7” 7’-3” 7’ 6’-9” 6’-6” 6’-4” 6’-1” 5’-11”
3 - #5 rebars (Gr 60); 10” x 24”

tall cast stem wall (dowelled or – – – – – 8’ 7’-9” 7’-5” 7’-2” 7’ 6’-9” 6’-7”
MONOLITHIC REINFORCED CONCRETE GRADE BEAM FOOTING MAXIMUM FREE SPANS, TABLE 4-9
TURNED DOWN FOUNDATION
CONSTRUCTION 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500
(SEE FIGURE 4-10)
12” high perimeter beam; 2 - #4

6’-9” 5’-6” 4’-9” 4’-3” 3’-11” 3’-7” – – – – – –
bottom rebars (Gr 60) d = 9”

– – 8’-2” 7’-5” 6’-8” 6’-2” 5’-9” 5’-6” 5’-2” 4’-11” 4’-9” 4’-6”

– – – 8’-1” 7’-5” 6’-10” 6’-5” 6’-1” 5’-9” 5’-6” 5’-3” 5’
STEM WALL
HEIGHT
12” FOOTING
3 - #5 REBARS (GR 60)
FIGURE 4-9
LOAD DETERMINATION
d
BEAM
HEIGHT
2 - #5 REBARS (GR 60)

FIGURE 4-10
PRELIMINARY DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR

REINFORCED CONCRETE GRADE BEAMS
Building loads are most commonly transferred to helical piles the grade beam is for illustration purposes only. The thickness of
through concrete grade beams. Figures 4-11 through 4-15 and the void form will depend on site-specific conditions. The final
Tables 4-10 through 4-14 provide preliminary design guidance design should be conducted and approved by a Registered Pro-
for grade beam sizing and steel reinforcement configuration. fessional Engineer.
These tables include the total line load for live loads on the beam
and the dead load of the beam and structure. The 4” void under
CRAWL SPACE WALL
SEE TABLE FOR TOP & BOTTOM REINFORCING (SPLICE TOP AT MID-SPAN
OF PILES; SPLICE BOTTOM OVER PILE)
SUPPORT TOP OF WALL WITH ADEQUATE ANCHOR BOLTS
AND FRAMING
#4 @ 20”
EACH FACE
AS REQ. BACKFILL
5’
MAX 10” MIN
CRAWL SEE TABLE FOR
FROST
SPACE STIRRUPS (VERT.
DEPTH
REINFORCEMENT)
+6” (MIN)
PERIMETER
DRAIN
16”
MIN 10”
4” VOID FORM CHANCE®

UNDER FOOTING HELICAL PILE
(EXPANSIVE SOILS
ONLY)
CRAWL SPACE WALL REINFORCING

STEEL CONFIGURATION (SEE TABLE 4-10)
FIGURE 4-11 18”
LOAD DETERMINATION
CRAWL SPACE WALL REINFORCING STEEL CONFIGURATION, TABLE 4-10
TOTAL FOUNDATION LINE LOAD

3,000 (lb/ft) 4,000 (lb/ft) 5,000 (lb/ft) 6,000 (lb/ft) 7,000 (lb/ft)
PILE WALL
SPACING HEIGHT STEEL REINFORCING BARS REQUIRED
TOP & STIRRUP TOP & STIRRUP TOP & STIRRUP TOP & STIRRUP TOP & STIRRUP
BOTTOM (O.C.) BOTTOM (O.C.) BOTTOM (O.C.) BOTTOM (O.C.) BOTTOM (O.C.)
3’ 2 - #5 2 - #6 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7
8’ 4’ 2 - #4 #3 @ 15” 2 - #5 #3 @ 15” 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #7 #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #4 2 - #4 2 - #5 2 - #5 2 - #6
3’ 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 2 - #8
10’ 4’ 2 - #5 #3 @ 15” 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #7 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #5 2 - #5 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7
3’ 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 4 - #6 4 - #7
12’ 4’ 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #7 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 4 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 4 - #6
3’ 2 - #8 4 - #6 4 - #7 4 - #8 #3 @ 11” 5 - #8 #3 @ 9”
15’ 4’ 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 4 - #6 #3 @ 15” 4 - #7 4 - #8
#3 @ 15” #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #7 2 - #8 4 - #7 4 - #7 4 - #7
GARDEN LEVEL WALL
SEE TABLE FOR TOP & BOTTOM REINFORCING (SPLICE TOP AT SUPPORT TOP OF WALL WITH ADEQUATE ANCHOR BOLTS
MID-SPAN OF PILES; SPLICE BOTTOM OVER PILE) AND FRAMING
#4 @ 20” EACH
FACE AS REQ.
BACKFILL
3’ TO 5’
BELOW
GRADE
SEE TABLE FOR 10” MIN
FROST STIRRUPS (VERT.
DEPTH REINFORCEMENT)
+6” (MIN)
4” MIN
16” PERIMETER DRAIN

MIN
10”
4” VOID FORM
UNDER FOOTING
(EXPANSIVE SOILS ONLY)
CHANCE® HELICAL PILE
GARDEN LEVEL WALL REINFORCING

LOAD DETERMINATION
STEEL CONFIGURATION (SEE TABLE 4-11) 18”

FIGURE 4-12
GARDEN LEVEL WALL REINFORCING STEEL CONFIGURATION, TABLE 4-11

PILE WALL
3’ 2 - #5 2 - #6 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7
#3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15”
8’ 4’ 2 - #4 2 - #5 2 - #6 2 - #6 2 - #7
5’ 2 - #4 #3 @ 12” 2 - #4 #3 @ 12” 2 - #5 #3 @ 12” 2 - #5 #3 @ 12” 2 - #6 #3 @ 12”
3’ 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 2 - #8
#3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15”
10’ 4’ 2 - #5 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #8 2 - #8
5’ 2 - #5 #3 @ 12” 2 - #6 #3 @ 12” 2 - #6 #3 @ 12” 2 - #7 #3 @ 12” 2 - #7 #3 @ 12”
3’ 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 4 - #6 4 - #7
#3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15”
12’ 4’ 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #8 2 - #8 2 - #8
5’ 2 - #6 #3 @ 12” 2 - #7 #3 @ 12” 2 - #7 #3 @ 12” 2 - #8 #3 @ 12” 4 - #6 #3 @ 12”
3’ 2 - #8 4 - #6 4 - #7 4 - #8 #3 @ 10” 5 - #8 #3 @ 9”
#3 @ 15” #3 @ 15” #3 @ 15”
15’ 4’ 2 - #8 2 - #8 4 - #6 4 - #7 #3 @ 15” 4 - #8 #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #7 #3 @ 12” 2 - #8 #3 @ 12” 4 - #7 #3 @ 12” 4 - #7 #3 @ 12” 4 - #7 #3 @ 12”
GRADE FROST WALL
SEE TABLE FOR TOP & BOTTOM REINFORCING (SPLICE

TOP AT MID-SPAN OF PILES; SPLICE BOTTOM OVER PILE)
#4 @ 20” EACH FACE

BACKFILL
AS REQ.
FROST 10” MIN

SEE TABLE FOR
DEPTH
STIRRUPS (VERT.
+6” (MIN)
REINFORCEMENT)
PERIMETER DRAIN
10”
4” VOID FORM CHANCE® HELICAL PILE

UNDER FOOTING
(EXPANSIVE SOILS ONLY)
GRADE FROST WALL REINFORCING STEEL
LOAD DETERMINATION
CONFIGURATION (SEE TABLE 4-12)
18”
FIGURE 4-13
GRADE FROST WALL REINFORCING STEEL CONFIGURATION, TABLE 4-12

PILE WALL
3’ 2 - #5 2 - #6 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7
8’ 4’ 2 - #4 #3 @ 15” 2 - #5 #3 @ 15” 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #7 #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #4 2 - #4 2 - #5 2 - #5 2 - #6
3’ 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 2 - #8
10’ 4’ 2 - #5 #3 @ 15” 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #7 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #5 2 - #5 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7
3’ 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 4 - #6 4 - #7
12’ 4’ 2 - #6 #3 @ 15” 2 - #7 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #6 2 - #7 2 - #7 2 - #8 4 - #6
3’ 2 - #8 4 - #6 4 - #7 4 - #8 #3 @ 12” 4 - #8 #3 @ 9”
15’ 4’ 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 2 - #8 #3 @ 15” 4 - #7 #3 @ 15” 4 - #7 4 - #8
#3 @ 15” #3 @ 15”
5’ 2 - #7 2 - #8 4 - #7 4 - #7 4 - #7
BASEMENT WALL
SEE TABLE FOR TOP & BOTTOM REINFORCING (SPLICE

TOP AT MID-SPAN OF PILES; SPLICE BOTTOM OVER PILE)
SUPPORT TOP OF WALL WITH ADEQUATE
ANCHOR BOLTS AND FRAMING
#4 @ 20” EACH
FACE AS REQ. BACKFILL
SEE TABLE FOR NEED

FOR ADDITIONAL
#5 X 10’ LONG @ 12” O.C.
CENTERED INSIDE FACE
SEE TABLE FOR STIRRUPS

7’ TO 12’ (VERT. REINFORCEMENT)
10” MIN FOR WALL

LESS THAN 8’-6”;
12” MIN FOR WALL GREATER THAN 8’-6”
LOAD DETERMINATION
4” MIN
16”
MIN PERIMETER DRAIN
12”
4” VOID FORM
UNDER FOOTING
(EXPANSIVE SOILS ONLY) CHANCE® HELICAL PILE
BASEMENT WALL REINFORCING STEEL 18”

FIGURE 4-14
BASEMENT WALL REINFORCING STEEL CONFIGURATION, TABLE 4-13

PILE WALL
7’ 2 - #4 #3 @ 11” 2 - #4 #3 @ 11” 2 - #4 #3 @ 11” 2 - #5 #3 @ 11” 2 - #5 #3 @ 11”
8’ 2 - #4 #3 @ 8” 2 - #4 #3 @ 8” 2 - #4 #3 @ 8” 2 - #4 #3 @ 8” 2 - #5 #3 @ 8”
9’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” 2 - #4 #4 @ 12”
8’
10’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #4 #4 @ 9”
11’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” *
12’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” *
7’ 2 - #4 #3 @ 11” 2 - #5 #3 @ 11” 2 - #5 #3 @ 11” 2 - #6 #3 @ 11” 2 - #6 #3 @ 11”
8’ 2 - #4 #3 @ 8” 2 - #4 #3 @ 8” 2 - #5 #3 @ 8” 2 - #5 #3 @ 8” 2 - #6 #3 @ 8”
9’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” 2 - #6 #4 @ 12”
10’
10’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #5 #4 @ 9” 2 - #5 #4 @ 9”
11’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 16” *
12’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” *
7’ 2 - #5 #3 @ 11” 2 - #6 #3 @ 11” 2 - #6 #3 @ 11” 2 - #7 #3 @ 11” 2 - #7 #3 @ 11”
8’ 2 - #5 #3 @ 8” 2 - #5 #3 @ 8” 2 - #6 #3 @ 8” 2 - #6 #3 @ 8” 2 - #7 #3 @ 8”
9’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” 2 - #6 #4 @ 12” 2 - #6 #4 @ 12” 2 - #7 #4 @ 12”
12’
10’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 9” 2 - #5 #4 @ 9” 2 - #5 #4 @ 9” 2 - #6 #4 @ 9” 2 - #6 #4 @ 9”
11’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #6 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #6 #4 @ 16” *
12’ 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #4 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #6 #4 @ 12” *
LOAD DETERMINATION
7’ 2 - #6 #3 @ 11” 2 - #7 #3 @ 11” 2 - #8 #3 @ 11” 4 - #6 #3 @ 11” 4 - #7 #3 @ 11”
8’ 2 - #6 #3 @ 8” 2 - #7 #3 @ 8” 2 - #7 #3 @ 8” 2 - #8 #3 @ 8” 4 - #6 #3 @ 8”
9’ 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” 2 - #6 #4 @ 12” 2 - #7 #4 @ 12” 2 - #8 #4 @ 12” 2 - #8 #4 @ 12”
15’
10’ 2 - #5 #4 @ 9” 2 - #6 #4 @ 9” 2 - #7 #4 @ 9” 2 - #7 #4 @ 9” 2 - #8 #4 @ 9”
11’ 2 - #5 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #6 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #6 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #7 #4 @ 16” * 2 - #7 #4 @ 16” *
12’ 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #5 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #6 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #7 #4 @ 12” * 2 - #7 #4 @ 12” *
* NOTE: Requires added #5 10’ long @ 12” O.C. bars centered vertically on inside wall face – See Figure 4-14.
GRADE BEAM
SEE TABLE FOR SUPPORT TOP

TOP & BOTTOM OF WALL WITH
REINFORCING ADEQUATE
(SPLICE TOP ANCHOR BOLTS
AT MID-SPAN OF AND FRAMING
PILES; SPLICE
BOTTOM OVER PILE)
HEIGHT
(SEE TABLE)
SEE TABLE FOR

STIRRUPS (VERT.
REINFORCEMENT)
3” COVER
(TYP.)
12”
CHANCE®
HELICAL PILE
LOAD DETERMINATION
GRADE BEAM REINFORCING STEEL

FIGURE 4-15
GRADE BEAM REINFORCING STEEL CONFIGURATION, TABLE 4-14

2,000 (lb/ft) 3,000 (lb/ft) 4,000 (lb/ft)
PILE
SPACING STEEL REINFORCING BARS REQUIRED
TOP & STIRRUPS TOP & STIRRUPS TOP & STIRRUPS
HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT
BOTTOM (O.C.) BOTTOM (O.C.) BOTTOM (O.C.)
8’ 18” 2 - #5 #3 @ 12” 20” 3 - #5 #3 @ 12” 24” 4 - #5 #3 @ 12”
10’ 18” 3 - #5 #3 @ 12” 22” 3 - #5 #3 @ 12” 30” 4 - #5 #3 @ 15”
12’ 24” 3 - #5 #3 @ 12” 27” 4 - #5 #3 @ 15” 30” 4 - #5 #3 @ 15”
15’ 24” 4 - #5 #3 @ 12” 30” 4 - #5 #3 @ 15” 36” 4 - #6 #3 @ 18”
PRELIMINARY DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
REINFORCED CONCRETE PILE CAPS
Pile cap configurations may be determined from Table 4-15. proper pile cap plate size is indicated at the bottom of the up-
The table is based upon American Concrete Institute (ACI) cri- per portion of the table.
teria for concrete bearing stress from external bearing plates
STEP 2. The pile cap thickness is then determined from the
at working loads and from the American Institute of Steel Con-
lower portion of Table 4-15. Select the group of rows for the
struction (AISC) criteria for bending stress in the steel plate
desired helical pile shaft series. Under the column for the de-
overhang. Step 1 is based upon a yield-line theory whether
sired pile cap plate size (as determined in Step 1), select the
bending is across a corner or parallel to an edge.
smallest pile cap thickness that exceeds the expected pile
STEP 1. Select a pile cap plate size from Table 4-15 by looking working load.
at the proper row for applicable concrete strength. Locate the
lowest value that exceeds the expected pile working load. The
CONCRETE STRENGTH
PILE CAP SIZE
PILE CAP THICKNESS
LOAD DETERMINATION
CHANCE® HELICAL
PILE SHAFT SIZE
PILE
WORKING
LOAD
PILE CAP CONFIGURATION

(SEE TABLE 4-15)
FIGURE 4-16
PILE CAP CONFIGURATION, TABLE 4-15
PILE CAP PLATE SIZE SELECTOR

STEP 1 LIMITING PILE WORKING LOADS CONTROLLED BY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF
CONCRETE
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
COMPRESSIVE WORKING LOAD ON HELICAL PILE (lb)
(psi)
3,000 14,100 32,400 57,600 90,000
3,500 16,800 37,800 67,200 105,000
4,000 19,200 43,200 76,800 120,000
4,500 21,600 48,600 86,400
5,000 24,000 54,000 96,000
RECOMMENDED PILE CAP SIZE
4” x 4” 6” x 6” 8” x 8” 10” x 10”
PILE CAP PLATE THICKNESS SELECTOR
STEP 2 LIMITING PILE WORKING LOADS CONTROLLED BY BENDING STRESS IN PLATE
OVERHANG
PILE CAP SIZE (FROM STEP 1 ABOVE)
HELICAL PILE PILE CAP
4” X 4” 6” X 6” 8” X 8” 10” X 10”
SHAFT SERIES THICKNESS
COMPRESSIVE WORKING LOAD ON HELICAL PILE (lb)
1/4” 23,200 9,780 7,080 5,330
RS2875.203 3/8” 52,200 22,000 15,900 12,000
RS2875.276 1/2” 39,100 28,300 21,300
3/4” 88,000 63,700 47,900
1/4” 12,100 8,080 6,250
3/8” 27,200 18,200 14,100
RS3500.300 1/2” 48,300 32,300 25,000
3/4” 109,000 72,700 56,300
1” 100,000
LOAD DETERMINATION
1/4” 20,000 10,800 8,080

3/8” 45,000 24,400 18,200
RS4500.337
1/2” 80,000 43,300 32,300
3/4” 97,500 72,700
1/4” 10,000 6,000 5,000 4,000
3/8” 21,000 12,000 10,000 9,000
SS5
1/2” 40,000 25,000 18,000 16,000
SS150
3/4” 85,000 50,000 40,000 35,000
1” 90,000 75,000 65,000
1/4” 14,000 7,000 6,000 5,000
3/8” 31,000 15,000 11,000 10,000
SS175 1/2” 56,000 27,000 20,000 18,000
3/4” 60,000 45,000 38,000
1” 105,000 80,000 70,000
1/4” 21,000 9,000 6,500 5,500
3/8” 45,000 18,000 13,000 11,000
SS200 1/2” 82,000 32,000 22,000 19,000
3/4” 71,000 50,000 42,000
1” 90,000 75,000
SECTION 5: DESIGN METHODOLOGY
CONTENTS
5.1 Atlas Resistance Pier Capacity ..........................................................................................................5-2
5.2 Chance Helical Pile/Anchor Ultimate Bearing Capacity............................................................5-3
5.3 Evaluating Soil Properties For Design .......................................................................................... 5-14
5.4 Factor Of Safety ...................................................................................................................................5-20
5.5 HeliCAP Helical Capacity Design Software ............................................................................... 5-22
5.6 Application Guidelines For Chance Helical Piles/Anchors.................................................... 5-25
5.7 Lateral Capacity Of Helical Piles .................................................................................................... 5-25
5.8 Buckling/Bracing/Slenderness Considerations.........................................................................5-30
5.9 Helical Pile Deflection At Working Load......................................................................................5-34
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
DISCLAIMER
specifications.
Installation conditions, including soil and structure conditions, vary widely from location to location and
from point to point on a site.
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, 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 takes great pride and has every
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., does NOT warrant the work of its dealers/installing contractors in the
installation of Chance® Civil Construction foundation support products.
5.1 ATLAS RESISTANCE
PIER CAPACITY
Atlas Resistance® piers develop their capacity primarily
through end bearing. The current accepted practice is for Atlas
Resistance piers to be installed to a preset performance design
criterion. The development of a theoretical capacity model is
under study.
In general, the tip of the Atlas Resistance pier should be
embedded in cohesionless soils with Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) blow count (N60) values above the 30 to 35 range and in
cohesive soils with SPT N60 values above the 35 to 40 range.
Past installation experience indicates that Atlas Resistance
piers will provide foundation underpinning support via end
bearing when positioned into these SPT N60 value ranges. See
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 for assumed failure patterns under a pile tip
in dense sand.
The Atlas Resistance pier is a manufactured, two-stage prod-
uct designed specifically to produce structural support capac-
ity. The first stage is to drive the pier pipe to a firm bearing stra-
tum. In the second stage, the lift equipment is combined with a
manifold system to lift the structure. The Atlas Resistance pier
system procedure provides measured support capacity. Atlas
Resistance piers are spaced at adequate centers so that each
pier is driven to a suitable stratum and then tested to a force ASSUMED FAILURE PATTERN UNDER PILE POINT
greater than the force required to lift the structure. This proce- FIGURE 5-1
dure effectively load-tests each pier prior to lift and provides a
measured Factor of Safety (FS) on each pier at lift.
PERFORMANCE DESIGN CRITERION
The following guidelines are intended to serve as a basis for
the selection and installation of a proper Atlas Resistance pier.
• Pier Working Load: The required working load per pier
(Pw) is calculated based on the dead loads and live loads
and the pier spacing that was selected considering the
ability of the existing foundation to span between the pro-
posed pier locations.
EQUATION 5-1
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Pw = xP
where
x = Selected pier spacing
P = Line load on footing = DL + LL + SL + W
DL = Dead load
LL = Live load
SL = Snow load
W = Soil load
• Hardware Factor of Safety: Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.,

recommends a minimum Factor of Safety (FSh) of 2.0 for
structural capacity of the hardware (pier pipe, bracket,
etc.). The hardware Factor of Safety may be varied based
on engineering judgement.
• Hardware Structural Capacity: The required structural FAILURE PATTERN UNDER PILE POINT IN DENSE SAND
minimum ultimate capacity of the hardware (Rw ULT) is FIGURE 5-2
calculated from the pier working load and the hardware
Factor of Safety.
EQUATION 5-2 • Maximum Proof Load: The proof load (pier installation
force) must be limited to avoid overloading the pier
Rw ULT = Pw(FSh) system hardware during installation. Hubbell Power
where Systems, Inc., recommends that the maximum proof load
Pw = Pier working load (Rp MAX) not exceed 1.65 times the published maximum
FSh = Hardware Factor of Safety = 2.0 (may be varied working capacity (Rh WORK) of the pier system (found in
based on engineering judgment) Section 7 of this manual) without engineering approval.
The maximum working capacity of the pier system is half
of the ultimate capacity.
• Pier System Selection: Select a pier system with a pub-
lished ultimate capacity (Rh ULT) (found in Section 7 of this EQUATION 5-6
manual) equal to or greater than the required minimum Rp MAX ≤ 1.65(Rh WORK) or
ultimate hardware capacity.
Rp MAX ≤ 1.65(Rh ULT)/2
where
EQUATION 5-3 Rh WORK = Pier system published maximum working
Rh ULT ≥ Rw ULT capacity = (Rh ULT)/2
where Rh ULT = Pier system published ultimate capacity
Rw ULT = Minimum ultimate hardware capacity based on
pier working load Additional notes:
Current practice by Hubbell is to limit the unsupported pier
• Maximum Pier Spacing: Check the maximum pier spac- pipe exposure to a maximum of 2 feet at the published work-
ing (xMAX) based upon the selected pier system hardware ing loads for the standard pier systems. The soil must have an
capacity. The selected pier spacing must be less than or SPT N60 value greater than 4. The pier pipe must be sleeved for
equal to the maximum pier spacing (x ≤ xMAX). pier pipe exposures greater than 2 feet and up to 6 feet and/
or through the depths where the SPT N60 value is 4 or less. The
sleeve must extend at least 36 inches beyond the unsupported
EQUATION 5-4 exposure and/or the area of weak soil. If the anticipated lift is
xMAX = (Rh ULT) / (FSh)P to exceed 4 inches, the Atlas Resistance Continuous Lift pier
(foundation must be structurally capable of spanning this distance) system should be used.
where Atlas Resistance piers can be located as close as 12 inches
Rh ULT = Pier system published ultimate capacity (305 mm) between adjacent piers to develop a “cluster” of
FSh = Hardware Factor of Safety load-bearing elements.
P = Line load on footing
5.2 CHANCE HELICAL PILE/
• Proof Load: Atlas Resistance® piers are installed using a
ANCHOR ULTIMATE BEARING
two-stage process as noted above. First, the pier is driven CAPACITY
to a firm bearing stratum. The installation resistance force The capacity of a helical pile/anchor is dependent on the
applied during this stage is called the proof load (Rp). The strength of the soil, the projected area of the helix plate(s), and
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
minimum proof load is calculated from the pier working the depth of the helix plate(s) below grade. The soil strength
load and the proof load Factor of Safety (FSp). Hubbell can be evaluated by various field and lab test techniques. The
recommends a minimum FSp of 1.5 at installation unless projected area is controlled by the size and number of helix
structural lift occurs first. Experience has shown that in plates. Helical piles and anchors may be used for a variety of
most cases the footing and stem wall foundation system applications for compression loading (helical piles) and tension
that will withstand a given long-term working load will loading (helical anchors). Helical piles and anchors are generally
withstand a pier installation force (proof load) of up to 1.5 classified as either shallow or deep depending on the depth of
times that long-term working load. If footing damage oc- installation of the top helix below the ground surface, usually
curs during installation, the free span between piers (LP with respect to the top helix diameter. There are some situations
MAX) may be excessive. in which the installation may be considered partway between
EQUATION 5-5 shallow and deep, or intermediate. In this manual, only design
procedures for shallow and deep installations will be described.
Rp = (FSP)Pw = 1.5Pw
Table 1 gives a summary of the most common design situations
where
involving helical piles and anchors that might be encountered.
FSP = Proof load Factor of Safety = 1.5 Note that the use of shallow multi-helix anchors for either com-
Pw = Pier working load pression or tension loading is not a typical application and is not
covered in this manual.
The dividing line between shallow and deep foundations has The following is Terzaghi’s general bearing capacity equation
been reported by various researchers to be between three and (Equation 5-7), which is used to determine the ultimate capacity
eight times the foundation diameter. To avoid problems with of soil (Qult, a.k.a. QH). This equation and its use will be discussed
shallow installations, the minimum recommended embedment in this section, as it forms the basis of determining helix capac-
depth for helical piles is five times the diameter of the top-most ity in soil.
helix (5B). For tension anchors it is five feet or 5B, whichever is
EQUATION 5-7
greater. The embedment depth is the vertical distance from the
surface to the top-most helix. Whenever a Chance® helical pile/ Qult = Ah(cNc+q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg)
anchor is considered for a project, it should be applied as a deep where
foundation for the following reasons: Ah = Projected helix area
1. A deep bearing plate provides an increased ultimate capac- c = Soil cohesion
ity both in uplift and compression. q’ = Effective overburden pressure
2. The failure at ultimate capacity will be progressive with no B = Footing width (base width)
sudden decrease in load resistance after the ultimate ca- g’ = Effective unit weight of the soil
pacity has been achieved.
and Nc, Nq, and Ng are bearing capacity factors
The approach taken herein for single-helix piles/anchors as-
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors are shown in Table 5-2.
sumes that the soil failure mechanism will follow the theory of
general bearing capacity failure. For multi-helix helical piles and Following is based on Bowles (1988) concerning the use of
anchors, two possible modes of failure are considered in design, Equation 5-7 for deep foundations where the various terms of
depending on the relative spacing of the helix plates. For wide the bearing capacity equation are distinguished.
helix spacing (spacing ≥ 3B), the individual plate bearing meth- 1. The cohesion term predominates in cohesive soil.
od is used; for close helix spacing (spacing < 3B), the perimeter
shear method is used. These two methods are illustrated in Fig- 2. The depth term (q’Nq) predominates in cohesionless soils.
ures 5-3a & 5-3c (individual plate bearing) and Figures 5-3b & Only a small increase in D (vertical depth to footing or
5-3d (perimeter shear). With individual plate bearing, the helix helix plate) increases Qult substantially.
capacity is determined by calculating the unit bearing capacity 3. The base width term 0.5g’BNg provides some increase in
of the soil at the helix depth and multiplying the result by the bearing capacity for cohesive and cohesionless soils. In
helix projected area. The process is completed for each helix, cases where B < 3 to 4 m (9.8 to 13.1 ft), this term could be
and the individual helix capacities are added to yield the total neglected with little error.
pile/anchor capacity. Side resistance along the central shaft is
The base width term of the bearing capacity equation is not
typically not used to determine capacity but may be included
used when dealing with helical piles/anchors because, as
when the central shaft is round, as will be discussed later in this
Bowles indicates, the resulting value of that term is quite small.
section. The individual plate bearing method assumes that load
The effective overburden pressure (q’, of consequence for co-
capacity will be developed simultaneously and independently
hesionless soils) is the product of depth and the effective unit
by each helix, i.e., no interaction occurs between helix plates.
weight of the soil. The water table location may cause a reduc-
The perimeter shear method assumes that the close helix spac-
tion in the soil bearing capacity. The effective unit weight of the
ing causes a prism of soil to develop between the helix plates
soil is its in-situ unit weight when it is above the water table.
and that failure in this zone occurs along a plane as shown in
However, the effective unit weight of soil below the water table
Figures 5-3b & d. In reality, the perimeter shear method includes
is its in-situ unit weight less the unit weight of water.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
plate bearing and perimeter shear failure as illustrated.
TYPICAL APPLICATIONS FOR SINGLE-HELIX AND MULTI-HELIX HELICAL PILES AND ANCHORS, TABLE 5-1
SINGLE-HELIX MULTI-HELIX
FAILURE CONDITION FAILURE CONDITION

SOIL TYPE
Shallow Deep Shallow Deep
C T C T C T C T
Clay
Sand
Mixed Soils
C = Compression T = Tension
COMPRESSION COMPRESSION
QC QC
GROUND SURFACE GROUND SURFACE
5 B 1 MIN 5 B 1 MIN
DEPTH B1 DEPTH B1
B2 B2
SIDE RESISTANCE
HELIX SPACING ≥ 3B HELIX SPACING < 3B
B3 CAPACITY ≈ 0 B3
INDIVIDUAL PLATE BEARING PERIMETER SHEAR

5-3a 5-3b
TENSION TENSION
QT QT
5 � (1.5 m) OR 5B 1 5 � (1.5 m) OR 5B 1
(WHICHEVER IS (WHICHEVER IS
GREATER) GREATER)
MIN DEPTH MIN DEPTH
B1 B1
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
B2 B2
SIDE RESISTANCE
HELIX SPACING ≥ 3B HELIX SPACING < 3B
CAPACITY ≈ 0
B3 B3
INDIVIDUAL PLATE BEARING PERIMETER SHEAR

5-3c 5-3d
COMPARISON BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL PLATE BEARING AND PERIMETER SHEAR FOR COMPRESSION AND TENSION LOADING
FIGURE 5-3
TERZAGHI’S SHALLOW FOUNDATION BEARING CAPACITY 5. F
. or saturated clay soils, Nq = 1.0; For sands, Nq is a func-
FACTORS [BOWLES (1988) AND ASCE (1993A)], TABLE 5-2 tion of the friction angle, ϕ’.
6. F
. or square shaft piles/anchors, the side resistance is
ϕ’ Nc Ng Nq
generally ignored. For round shaft piles/anchors there
0 5.7 0.0 1.0 may be a component of side resistance that contributes
10 9.6 1.2 2.7 to capacity depending on the configuration of connec-
tions between extension sections.
12 10.8 1.7 3.3
7. In all cases, for both compression and tension loading,
14 12.1 2.3 4.0
the upper limit of capacity is governed by the structural
16 13.7 3.0 4.9 capacity of the pile/anchor as provided by the manu-
18 15.5 3.9 6.0 facturer. See Section 7 of this manual for structural ca-
pacity ratings of Chance® helical piles/anchors.
20 17.7 4.9 7.4
There is cause for concern when a helical pile/anchor installa-
22 20.3 5.8 9.2 tion is terminated in sand above the water table with the likeli-
24 23.4 7.8 11.4 hood that the water table will rise with time to be above the
helix plates. In this situation, the helical pile/anchor lead sec-
26 27.1 11.7 14.2
tion configuration and depth should be determined with the
28 31.6 15.7 17.8 water at its highest anticipated level. Then the capacity of the
same helical pile/anchor should be determined in the same soil
30 37.2 19.7 22.5
with the water level below the helical pile/anchor. This will typi-
32 44.0 27.9 28.5 cally produce higher load capacities and a more difficult instal-
34 52.6 36.0 36.5 lation, i.e., it will require more installation torque. In some cases,
a larger helical pile/anchor product series, i.e., one with greater
36 63.5 52.0 47.2 torque capacity, must be used to enable installation into the
38 77.5 80.0 61.5 dry conditions.
40 95.7 100.4 81.3 5.2.1 SINGLE-HELIX HELICAL PILES AND AN-

42 119.7 180.0 108.7 CHORS—SHALLOW INSTALLATION
44 151.9 257.0 147.7 5.2.1.1 COMPRESSION LOADING (SHALLOW SINGLE HELIX)
A shallow installation, like a shallow foundation, is one in which
46 196.2 420.0 204.2
the ratio of depth of the helix (D) to diameter of the helix (B) is
48 258.3 780.1 287.8 less than 5, i.e., D/B < 5. In this case, the design is analogous to
compression loading of a shallow foundation.
NOTES ON USE OF TERZAGHI’S BEARING 5.2.1.1.a Saturated Clays (φ’ = 0; c > 0)
CAPACITY EQUATION: In saturated clays with ϕ’ = 0, the term Ng = 0 and Nq = 1.0. The
bearing capacity equation becomes:
1. Because helix plates are generally round, Terzaghi’s
adjustment for circular footings is sometimes used for EQUATION 5-10
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
compression loading: Qult = Ah(cNc + g’D)

EQUATION 5-8 where
Qult = Ah(1.3cNc + q’Nq + 0.3g’BNg) Qult = Ultimate bearing capacity
Ah = Projected helix area
2. Because B is considered very small for helical piles and c = Cohesion; for ϕ’ = 0, c = undrained shear
anchors, relative to most concrete footings, most engi- strength = su
neers choose to ignore the term 0.5g’BNg in design. Nc = Bearing capacity factor; for ϕ’ = 0 for round
plates, Nc = 6.0(1 + 0.2D/B) ≤ 9
3. In saturated clays under compression loading, Skemp-
ton’s (1951) Bearing Capacity Factor for shallow, round g’ = Effective unit weight of soil above helical pile
helical plates can also be used: D = Depth
EQUATION 5-9 Note: The term g’D is sometimes ignored because it is

very small.
Nc = 6.0(1 + 0.2D/B) ≤ 9.0
5.2.1.1.b Sands (φ’ > 0; c = 0)
In clean sands with zero cohesion, the cohesion term of
4. The unit weight of the soil is the total (wet) unit weight the bearing capacity equation drops out and only two
if the helical plate(s) is above the water table and the terms remain:
buoyant unit weight if the helical plate(s) is below the
water table.
12
10
Breakout Factor (Fc)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Relative Anchor Embedment (D/B)
VARIATION IN UPLIFT BREAKOUT FACTOR FOR

SHALLOW SINGLE-HELIX ANCHORS IN CLAY
FIGURE 5-4
EQUATION 5-11 5.2.1.2.a Saturated Clays (φ’ = 0; c > 0)

Test results and analytical studies indicate that the breakout
Qult = Ah(q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg) factor (Fc) for saturated clays in undrained loading varies as a
where function of the relative embedment of the plate, i.e., D/B. This is
q’ = Effective surcharge (overburden pressure) = g’D much like the transition of shallow to deep foundation behav-
Nq and Ng are evaluated from the table of bearing capacity ior under compression loading. Figure 5-4 shows the variation
factors. in Fc vs. D/B for circular plates. This figure [from Das (1990)]
shows that Fc = 1.2D/B ≤ 9, so that at D/B > 7.5, Fc = 9 (i.e.,
Note: The term 0.5g’BNg is typically ignored for helical piles be-
the transition from shallow to deep behavior under tension in
cause the helix plate is small.
clays occurs at about D/B > 7.5). In this case, the equation for
5.2.1.1.c Mixed Soils (φ’ > 0; c > 0) ultimate uplift capacity (QultU) is similar to Equation 5-10 and
Many soils, such as mixed-grain silty sands, sandy silts, clay- is given as:
ey sands, etc., have frictional and cohesive components
EQUATION 5-13
of strength. In these cases, the bearing capacity equation
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
includes all three terms: QultU = Ah(cFc + γ’D)
EQUATION 5-12 where

c = Cohesion; for φ’ = 0, c = undrained shear
Qult = Ah(cNc + q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg) strength = su
Note: The term 0.5g’BNg is typically ignored for helical piles Fc = Breakout factor; for φ’ = 0, Fc = 1.2D/B ≤ 9
because the helix plate is small. g’ = Effective unit weight of soil above helical anchor
5.2.1.2 TENSION LOADING—AXIAL UPLIFT (SHALLOW plate
SINGLE HELIX) D = Depth
Under tension loading in axial uplift, the behavior of a shallow Note: The term g’D is sometimes ignored because it is very
single-helix helical anchor is currently approached more-or- small.
less as an “inverse” bearing capacity problem and the concern
is for the failure surface to reach the ground surface, producing In some situations, the undrained shear strength of clays under
“breakout” of the helical plate. Helical anchors should not be tension loading may be reduced to account for soil disturbance
installed at vertical depths less than 5 feet or 5 times the di- above the helical plate as a result of installation. This depends
ameter of the top-most helix, whichever is greater, for tension on the sensitivity of the clay and is a matter of engineering
loading. The design approach is similar to that under compres- judgment.
sion loading, except that instead of using a bearing capacity
factor (Nc), a breakout factor (Fc) is used.
EQUATION 5-16
QultU
QultU = Ws + {πgK0tan(φ’)cos2(φ’/2) [B(D2)/2 +
D3tan(φ’/2)/3)]} + cAc
where
Ac = Surface area of truncated cone
The surface area of a truncated cone can be obtained from:
EQUATION 5-17
D
Ac = π{(R2 + r2) + [(R2 – r2) + (D(R + r))2]0.5}
where
r = Radius of helical plate = B/2
ϕ’/2 ϕ’/2
R = Radius of cone failure surface at the ground
surface = B/2 + (D)tan(φ’/2)
The additional component of uplift resistance resulting from
B soil cohesion is sometimes ignored since soil cohesion is often
PROPOSED FAILURE MECHANISM FOR SHALLOW lost due to water infiltration or a rising water table.
SINGLE-HELIX ANCHORS IN DENSE SAND
FIGURE 5-5 5.2.2 SINGLE-HELIX HELICAL PILES AND
ANCHORS—DEEP INSTALLATION
5.2.1.2.b Sands (φ’ > 0; c = 0)
In sands, uplift loading of shallow (generally D/B < 5) single- Deep installations of helical piles and anchors are generally
helix anchors develops a failure zone that looks similar to an more common than shallow installations provided there is suf-
inverted, truncated cone. The failure is assumed to take place ficient soil depth to perform the installation. The reason is sim-
by perimeter shear acting along this failure surface, which is ply that higher load capacities are generally developed from a
inclined from the vertical at an angle of about ϕ’/2 as shown deeper installation in the same soil, so it makes more sense ec-
in Figure 5-5. The uplift force must also lift the mass of the soil onomically to utilize a deep installation when possible. Figure
within the truncated cone. The ultimate uplift capacity (QultU) 5-6 illustrates the single-helix plate capacity model, wherein
is calculated from: the soil failure mechanism follows the theory of general plate
bearing capacity. Compression capacity is mobilized from soil
EQUATION 5-14
below the helix plate and tension capacity from soil above the
QultU = Ws + {πgK0tan(φ’)cos2(φ’/2) [B(D)2/2 + helix plate.
D3tan(φ’/2)/3]} 5.2.2.1 COMPRESSION LOADING (DEEP SINGLE HELIX)
where A deep installation, like a deep foundation, is one in which the
Ws = Mass of soil in truncated cone = gV ratio of depth (D) of the helix to diameter (B) of the helix is
g = Total (wet) unit weight greater than or equal to 5, i.e., D/B ≥ 5. In this case, the design
is analogous to compression loading of a deep end-bearing
V = Volume of truncated cone
foundation.
K0 = At-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient
B = Helix diameter
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
5.2.2.1.a Saturated Clays (φ’ = 0; c > 0)

D = Vertical plate depth
Under compression loading, the ultimate capacity of a single-
helix helical pile in clay is calculated from Equation 5-10 as:
The volume of the truncated cone is determined from:
EQUATION 5-15 Qult = Ah(suNc + g’D)
where
V = πD/3 {2(B)2 + [B + 2Dtan(φ’/2)]2 + 2BDtan(φ’/2)} Nc = Bearing capacity factor for deep failure = 9
The value of the at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient for which yields
sands can reasonably be calculated as: K0 = 1 – sin(φ’)
EQUATION 5-18
5.2.1.2.c Mixed Soils (φ’ > 0; c > 0)
Qult = Ah(9su + g’D)
For shallow installations in mixed soils with frictional and co-
hesive components of shear strength, there is another compo-
nent of the resisting force in uplift added to the components 5.2.2.1.b Sands (φ’ > 0; c = 0)
included in equation 5-14. This added component results from
For clean, saturated sands, the cohesion is normally considered
cohesion acting along the surface of the truncated cone failure
to be zero, and Equation 5-11 is used to calculate the ultimate
zone between the helical plate and the ground surface. Adding
capacity.
a new term to equation 5-14 to account for the cohesion effect
yields: Qult = Ah(q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg)
COMPRESSION TENSION
QC QT
5 ft (1.5 m) OR 5B
5B MIN (WHICHEVER IS
DEPTH GREATER)
MIN DEPTH
SIDE RESISTANCE SIDE RESISTANCE
CAPACITY ≈ 0 CAPACITY ≈ 0
B
SINGLE-HELIX PLATE BEARING CAPACITY MODEL—HELICAL PILES WITH SLENDER SHAFTS

FIGURE 5-6
Even in sands with moisture or a small amount of fines that 5.2.2.1.c Mixed Soils (φ’ > 0; c > 0)
may give some cohesion, this is usually ignored. Because the
The ultimate capacity of a deep single-helix helical pile in
area of the plate is small, the contribution of the width term
mixed-grain soils can be calculated from traditional bearing
to ultimate capacity is very small and the width term is often
capacity theory using Equation 5-12:
ignored, leaving:
EQUATION 5-19 Qult = Ah(cNc + q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg)
Qult = Ahq’Nq Note: The term 0.5g’BNg is typically ignored for helical piles be-
For deep installations, the bearing capacity factor (Nq) cause the helix plate is small.
is usually obtained from values used for determining the 5.2.2.2 TENSION LOADING—AXIAL UPLIFT
end-bearing capacity for deep pile foundations, which are dif- (DEEP SINGLE HELIX)
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
ferent than the values used for shallow foundations. There are 5.2.2.2.a Saturated Clays (φ’ = 0; c > 0)
a number of recommendations for Nq available in foundation Under tension loading, the ultimate uplift capacity (QultU) of a
engineering textbooks as shown in Figure 5-7. The difference in single-helix helical anchor in clay is calculated using the same
Nq values shown in Figure 5-7 is largely related to the assump- approach given in Section 5.2.2.1.a. In some cases, a reduction
tions used in the failure mechanism. Figure 5-8 gives a reason- may be made in the undrained shear strength to account for
able chart of Nq values as a function of the friction angle of the soil disturbance above the helical plate as a result of instal-
soil (ϕ’) that may be used for helical piles and anchors in co- lation, depending on the sensitivity of the clay. As previously
hesionless soils. The value of Nq in Figure 5-8 is obtained from: noted in Section 5.2.1.2.a, for a deep installation (D/B > 7.5) the
EQUATION 5-20 breakout factor (Fc) has a default value of 9. The bearing ca-
pacity equation becomes:
Nq = 0.5(12φ’)φ’/54
Note: In some sands, the unit end-bearing capacity of deep QultU = Ah(9su + g’D)
foundations may reach a limiting value. The point at which this
occurs is generally termed the critical depth. Critical depth is 5.2.2.2.b Sands (φ’ > 0; c = 0)
defined as the depth at which effective vertical stress, a.k.a. In sands, the tension capacity of a helical anchor is generally
overburden pressure, will not increase with depth. Critical depth assumed to be equal to the compression capacity provided
is not specifically defined for helical piles and anchors, but engi- that the soil above the helix is the same as the soil below the
neers often use it with deep installation in saturated sands. helix in a zone of about 3 helix diameters. Again, for clean,
Bearing Capacity Factor Curve
for Cohesionless Soils
100
90
80
70
Bearing Capacity Factor

60
(Nq)
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)
RECOMMENDED BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR (Nq)

FOR DEEP HELICAL PILES/ANCHORS IN SAND
FIGURE 5-8
5.2.3 MULTI-HELIX HELICAL PILES AND

ANCHORS—DEEP INSTALLATION
The ultimate capacity of deep multi-helix helical piles and an-
chors depends on the geometry of the helical section, namely
the size and number of helical plates and the spacing between
the plates. As shown in Figures 5-3b and 5-3d, if the spacing
of helix plates is close, the helix plates interact with each other.
REPORTED VALUES OF BEARING CAPACITY The capacity is developed along the failure surface of the pe-
FACTOR (Nq) FOR DEEP FOUNDATIONS rimeter shear zone and by end bearing of the end helix plate
IN SANDS [WINTERKORN & FANG (1983)] (the bottom plate for compression loading or the top plate for
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
FIGURE 5-7 tension loading). If the spacing of the helix plates is adequate,
saturated sands, the cohesion is normally considered to be the capacity is the sum of the capacities developed by the in-
zero, reducing the ultimate uplift capacity to: dividual helix plates, as shown in Figures 5-3a and 5-3c. There
is no interaction between helix plates, and no capacity is devel-
QultU = Ah(q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg) oped along the shaft between the helix plates.
Also, because the area of the plate is small, the contribution of In the US, most manufacturers of helical piles and anchors use
the width term to ultimate capacity is very small and the width a standard helix spacing of 3 times the helix diameter. This
term is often ignored, leaving: spacing was originally used in Chance® products over 35 years
ago and is assumed to allow individual helix plates to develop
QultU = Ahq’Nq full capacity with no interaction between helix plates. Most
Chance helical piles and anchors use interhelix spacing that
5.2.2.2.c Mixed Soils (φ’ > 0; c > 0) is based on the diameter of the lower helix. For example, the
The ultimate capacity of a deep helical anchor in mixed-grain distance between a 10-inch (254 mm) and a 12-inch (305 mm)
soils can be calculated from traditional bearing capacity theory helix is three times the diameter of the lower helix, or 10 x 3 =
using Equation 5-12: 30 inches (762 mm).
The first section, called the lead or starter, contains the helix
QultU = Ah(cNc + q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg)
plates. A lead section typically includes up to four helix plates.
Note: The term 0.5g’BNg is typically ignored for helical anchors Additional helix plates can be added, if required, with the use
because the helix plate is small. of helical extensions. Standard helix sizes and projected
STANDARD HELIX SIZES, TABLE 5-3
5.2.4 ROUND SHAFT HELICAL PILES
LEAD SECTION AND EXTENSIONS
AND ANCHORS
DIAMETER AREA Helical piles and anchors are available with a square shaft or
(in) [cm] (ft2) [m2] a round pipe shaft. Square shaft is used for tension applica-
6 [15] 0.185 [0.0172] tions and for compression applications when shaft buckling or
bracing is not an issue. Round shaft helical piles have become
8 [20] 0.336 [0.0312]
increasingly popular for use in compression loading for both
10 [25] 0.531 [0.0493] new construction and remediation, or underpinning, of exist-
12 [30] 0.771 [0.0716] ing structures. They may be either single- or multi-helix piles.
14 [35] 1.049 [0.0974] Typical round shaft pile diameters range from 2-7/8 inches (73
mm) to 12-3/4 inches (324 mm). Design for round shaft helical
16 [40] 1.385 [0.1286]
piles is essentially the same as previously described for square
areas are shown in Table 5-3. Comprehensive tables of helix shaft piles with two simple modifications: 1) Some provision is
projected areas, for the full plate area and the net plate area usually made to include the additional load capacity developed
without the shaft, are included in Section 7 of this manual for via side resistance by the round shaft, and 2) in tension loading,
square shaft and round shaft helical piles. The helix plates are the area of the helical plate is reduced to account for the cen-
usually arranged on the shaft such that their diameters remain tral shaft as shown in Figure 5-12b. In compression loading, the
constant or increase as the plates get farther from the pilot full projected area of the helix plate develops capacity since
point (tip). The practical limit on the number of helix plates per the pipe generally plugs with soil.
pile/anchor is usually four to five in fine-grained soils and six in
Typically, the length of the shaft for about one helix diameter
coarse-grained or granular soils.
above the helix is not included in calculating side resistance
due to skin friction. In addition, load capacity due to side re-
5.2.3.1 COMPRESSION LOADING sistance along the pile shaft is generally mobilized only if the
The ultimate capacity of a multi-helix helical pile with an inter- shaft diameter is at least 3.5 inches (89 mm).
helix spacing greater than or equal to 3 (s/B ≥ 3) is generally 5.2.4.1 SIDE RESISTANCE IN CLAYS (φ’ = 0; c > 0)
calculated as the summation of the capacities of the individual
plates: In clays, the side resistance developed by round shaft helical
piles and anchors is considered in much the same way as side
EQUATION 5-21 resistance developed by driven piles. In this traditional ap-
Qt = ∑Qh proach that is used for many driven piles in clays and available
in most textbooks, the available adhesion between the shaft
where
and the clay is obtained as a percentage of the undrained shear
Qt = Total ultimate capacity of a multi-helix helical
strength of the clay. This is the undrained or “Alpha” method
pile/anchor
in which:
Qh = Ultimate capacity of an individual helix
EQUATION 5-22
a = fs/su
5.2.3.2 TENSION LOADING
where
As previously noted, in soft clays, especially those with high
a = Adhesion factor
sensitivity, it may be appropriate to reduce the undrained shear
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
fs = Unit side resistance
strength of the undisturbed clay for design of anchors in ten-
sion. This measure is to account for some disturbance of the su = Undrained shear strength of the clay
clay due to anchor installation, and is left to the discretion of The value of α is usually obtained from any one of several pub-
the engineer. Most of the evidence shows that in uniform soils, lished charts and is typically related to the absolute value of
the tension capacity of multi-helix anchors is the same as in the undrained shear strength of the clay. Figures 5-9 and 5-10
compression. This means that the ultimate capacity of a multi- give typical plots of α vs. undrained shear strength for a num-
helix helical anchor with plate spacing of 3B or more may be ber of cases in which fs has been back-calculated from actual
calculated as the summation of the individual plate capacities pile load tests. Generally, it is sufficient to select an average val-
using Equation 5-21: ue of α for a given undrained shear strength for use in design.
Qt = ∑Qh
There is some evidence that shows that in tension, the unit
capacity of the trailing helix plates is somewhat less than the
leading helix capacity. Engineers may wish to apply a reduc-
tion factor of about 10% for each additional helix on the helical
anchor to account for this behavior.
The total side resistance (Qf) is then obtained from: Adhesion as a Function of Undrained Shear Strength
EQUATION 5-23
Qf = πd(L)fs
where
d = Diameter of central shaft
L = Length of round shaft in contact with soil
Adhesion Factor, a
The design line given by the American Petroleum Institute
(API) shown in Figure 5-11 may also be used in which:
For su < 500 psf, a = 1.0
For su > 1500 psf, a = 0.5
For 500 psf < su < 1500 psf, a varies linearly between 1.0
and 0.5
The side resistance should only be calculated for that portion
of the shaft length that is in full contact with the soil. This will
depend on the length of the lead section, the design of the
shaft couplings that connect the pile sections, and the type of
soil. In the case of flush connections between extension sec-
tions, the entire shaft is in full contact with the soil. On the VARIATION IN ADHESION FACTOR WITH
other hand, flanged and bolted connections generally create UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF CLAYS
an annulus between the shaft and soil as the pile or anchor is [CANADIAN FOUNDATION MANUAL (2006)]
installed as shown in Figure 5-12c. This is because the coupling, FIGURE 5-9
being larger than the shaft, displaces and compacts soil. Gen-
erally, the length of the central shaft between couplings is not
considered to develop side resistance unless the disturbed soil 5.2.5 HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR SPACING AND
moves back against the shaft or sufficient time is allowed for the MINIMUM DEPTH
soil to recover. If side resistance is calculated for shaft lengths
5.2.5.1 REASONABILITY CHECK
where soil recovery has occurred between couplings, reduced
It is important to evaluate the validity of the values obtained
shear strength should be used for the soil in those zones.
when determining the bearing capacity and side resistance
5.2.4.2 SIDE RESISTANCE IN SANDS AND MIXED SOILS of the soil. The calculated theoretical ultimate capacity is
(φ’ > 0; c ≥ 0) no better than the data used to obtain that value. Data from
soils reports, boring logs, the water table depth, and load
The side resistance of steel round shaft piles and anchors in
information may not accurately represent actual conditions
coarse-grained soils, such as sands and mixed soils, is more
where the helical pile/anchor must function. Empirical values
complex than in clays but can still be determined using tradi-
that are used and estimates of strength parameters, etc. that
tional deep foundation analyses. The Department of the Navy
must be made because of lack of data affect the calculated
Design Manual DM-7 also gives a simplified method for esti-
bearing capacity and side resistance value. In situations where
mating the unit side resistance for straight-shaft steel piles. The
soil data is insufficient or not available, a helical trial probe pile/
value of fs is related to the friction angle of the soil (ϕ’) and the
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
anchor can help determine data such as the location of bearing

effective vertical stress (σ’vo) as given in Table 5-4.
strata, pile/anchor capacity, the location of soft/loose soil, and
VALUES OF UNIT SIDE RESISTANCE FOR STEEL PILES IN the presence of obstructions such as cobbles, boulders, and
SAND [NAVY MANUAL DM-7 (1974)], TABLE 5-4 debris.
FRICTION ANGLE OF SOIL (φ’) An important step in the process of determining the capacity
s’vo of a helical pile/anchor is to conduct a reasonability check. The
20 25 30 35 40
(psf) engineer should use the best engineering judgment to perform
UNIT SIDE RESISTANCE (fs) (psf) the reasonability check. This should be based on experience,
500 137 175 217 263 315 historical test data, and consulting colleagues. This is easily
1000 273 350 433 525 629 overlooked but must be performed by the designer or by others.
1500 410 524 650 788 944 5.2.5.2 HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR SPACING
2000 546 700 866 1050 1259 Once the capacity of the helical pile/anchor is determined,
2500 683 875 1082 1313 1574 turn attention to the location of the foundation element with
respect to the structure and to other helical piles/anchors. It
3000 819 1049 1300 1575 1888
is recommended that the center-to-center spacing between
3500 956 1244 1516 1838 2203 adjacent piles/anchors be no less than five times the diameter
4000 1092 1399 1732 2101 2517 of the largest helix. The minimum spacing is three feet (0.91m).
Adhesion factor a for piles with penetration lengths less than
50 m in clay (data from Dennis and Olson, 1983 a & b; Stas and Values of a versus undrained shear strength
Kulhawy, 1984)
VARIATION IN ADHESION FACTOR WITH UNDRAINED VARIATION IN ADHESION FACTOR FROM

SHEAR STRENGTH OF CLAYS [MURTHY (2003)] AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE [ASCE (1993B)]
COMPRESSION TENSION COMPRESSION

QC QT QC
GROUND SURFACE GROUND SURFACE GROUND SURFACE
5 ft (1.5 m) OR 5B
DEPTH Qf (WHICHEVER IS Qf
D SIDE
GREATER)
MIN DEPTH 5B MIN RESISTANCE
DEPTH PRESENT
ONLY ON
B QBT Qf LEAD
SECTION
AREA OF PLATE
REDUCED TO
QBC B
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
B ACCOUNT FOR
SHAFT
QC = QBC + Qf QT = QBT + Qf QC = QBC + Qf QBC
5-12a 5-12b 5-12c

BEHAVIOR OF SHALLOW BEHAVIOR OF SHALLOW BEHAVIOR OF DEEP ROUND SHAFT
ROUND SHAFT HELICAL PILES ROUND SHAFT HELICAL ANCHORS HELICAL PILES WITH COUPLINGS
INDIVIDUAL BEARING AND SIDE RESISTANCE MODELS FOR HELICAL PILES AND ANCHORS WITH ROUND (PIPE) SHAFTS
FIGURE 5-12
This minimum spacing should be used only when the job can in only a small increase in the bearing capacity of the helical
be accomplished no other way and should involve special pile/anchor. Critical depth for helical piles is best determined
care during installation to ensure that the spacing does not by an experienced foundation engineer. Hubbell recommends
decrease with depth. Minimum spacing requirements apply the use of critical depths of 20B to 30B in loose, saturated
only to the helix bearing plate(s), i.e., the pile/anchor shaft can soils at deep depth, where B is the diameter of the largest
be battered to achieve minimum spacing. Spacing between helix plate. The 20B to 30B critical depth is the depth into a
the helical piles/anchors and other foundation elements, either suitable bearing stratum and is not necessarily measured from
existing or future, requires special consideration and is beyond the ground surface.
the scope of this section.
Research into group effect, or the reduction of capacity due to 5.3 EVALUATING SOIL PROPERTIES
close spacing, has recently been undertaken by Hubbell Power
Systems, Inc., engineers. Bearing capacity theory indicates FOR DESIGN
that capacity reduction due to group effect is possible. The design of helical piles/anchors using the traditional soil
Current research indicates the critical horizontal spacing (no mechanics approach described in the previous section requires
group effect) for helical anchors in stiff clay is greater than 2 evaluation of soil properties for input into the various bearing
diameters, but there is no group reduction effect in soft to firm and side resistance capacity equations. Table 5-5 summarizes
clay. Research also indicates the critical horizontal spacing the required soil properties for different site conditions for
is greater than 5 diameters in dense sand but is greater than design of single-helix and multi-helix helical piles/anchors.
3 diameters in loose to medium-dense sand. It is considered
Geotechnical design of helical piles/anchors requires informa-
good practice to install helical piles/anchors into a dense
tion on the shear strength of saturated fine-grained soils, i.e.,
bearing stratum to increase the bearing capacity beyond the
undrained shear strength (su), and the drained friction angle of
required capacity when center-to-center spacing is less than 3
coarse-grained soils (ϕ’). The best approach to evaluating these
to 5 times the diameter of the largest helix.
properties for design is a thorough site investigation and labo-
5.2.5.3 MINIMUM DEPTH ratory testing program on high-quality, undisturbed samples.
As mentioned earlier, the minimum embedment depth recom- However, this is not always possible or practical, and engineers
mended by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., for a helical deep often rely on information obtained from field testing, such as
foundation is five helix diameters (5B), where B is the diam- the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Whenever possible, other
eter of the top-most helix. The 5B depth is the vertical distance high-quality field tests, such as the Field Vane Test (FVT), Cone
from the surface to the top-most helix. Standard practice is to Penetration Test (CPT), Piezocone Test (CPTU), Dilatometer
locate the top-most helix 6B to 8B vertically below the ground Test (DMT), Pressuremeter Test (PMT), or Borehole Shear Test
surface where practical. Minimum depth is also a function of (BST), are preferred. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A SITE-
other factors such as seasonally frozen ground, active zones SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION.
(depth of wetting), and depth of compressive soils. These fac- 5.3.1 ESTIMATING UNDRAINED SHEAR
tors are generally related to seasonal variations of soil strength
parameters but can also be related to long-term conditions
STRENGTH (su) IN CLAYS
such as periods of drought or extended wet conditions. The The undrained shear strength of saturated clays, silty clays, and
minimum embedment depth recommended by Hubbell for a clayey silts is not an independent soil property like the liquid
helical deep foundation subject to seasonal variations is three limit of clay content, but instead depends on the test method
diameters (3B) below the depth of soil where these seasonal used for the measurement. Correlations are available for es-
timating undrained shear strength from the results obtained
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
variations will occur. For example, frost depths may require

embedment depths that exceed the 5B minimum, depending from several of the field tests noted above. The most common
on the project location. ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358 has field results that may be available to engineers for design of
specified a minimum depth for helical tension anchors. AC358 helical piles/anchors are the SPT and CPT/CPTU.
states that for tension applications, as a minimum, the helical 5.3.1.1 su FROM SPT
anchor must be installed such that the minimum depth from
the ground surface to the uppermost helix is 12B, where B is the A number of correlations exist for estimating the undrained
diameter of the largest helix. This disparity between minimum shear strength and unconfined compressive strength (qu) of
depth requirements can be reconciled by reviewing published fine-grained soils from SPT results. Several of these correla-
literature on the subject or by performing load tests. tions
5.2.5.4 CRITICAL DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES REQUIRED FOR HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR

DESIGN FOR VARIOUS SITE CONDITIONS, TABLE 5-5
In granular soils, helical pile/anchor capacity is a function of the
angle of internal friction (ϕ) and vertical effective overburden REQUIRED SOIL PROPERTIES
stress. Therefore, as a helical pile or anchor is extended SOIL UNSATURATED

SATURATED COARSE
deeper into soil, theoretical methods predict that the pile PROPERTY FINE GRAINED
FINE GRAINED GRAINED
CATEGORY MIXED
capacity will increase without limit as the effective vertical
stress increases with increasing depth. In reality, there may Shear strength su φ' c, φ'
be a critical depth where any further increase in depth results
Unit weight gsat gwet or gbuoy gwet
are given in Tables 5-6 and 5-7. The undrained shear strength is REPORTED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N60 VALUE AND
generally considered to be one-half the unconfined compres- UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (qu), TABLE 5-7
sive strength. Caution should be used when using these cor- CORRELATION
relations since they have been developed for specific geologic TO UNCONFINED UNITS
SOIL TYPE REFERENCE
deposits and the SPT field procedure used may not have been COMPRESSIVE OF qu
the same in all cases. STRENGTH
Terzaghi &
5.3.1.2 su FROM CPT/CPTU qu = 12.5N60 kPa Fine grained
Peck (1967)
The undrained shear strength may also be estimated from Golder
qu = N60/8 tsf Clay
the CPT tip resistance or from the CPTU effective (net) tip (1961)
resistance (e.g., Lunne et al. 1995). qu = 25N60 kPa Clay Sanglerat
qu = 20N60 kPa Silty clay (1972)
An estimate of su can be found from the CPT tip resistance by
using an equation derived from the bearing capacity equation: qu = 25N60
Highly plastic clay
Medium-plasticity Sowers
EQUATION 5-24 qu = 15N60 kPa
clay (1979)
qu = 7.5N60
Low-plasticity clay
su = (qc – svo)/Nk
where qu = 24N60 kPa Clay Nixon (1982)
qc = CPT tip resistance Sarac &

qu = 62.5(N60 - 3.4) kPa Popovic
svo = Total vertical stress at the cone tip = depth x (1982)
total soil unit weight
Behpoor &
Nk = Empirical cone factor qu = 15N60 kPa CL and CL-ML Ghahramani
The value of Nk varies somewhat with soil stiffness, plasticity, (1989)
stress history and other factors. However, many reported ob- Kulhawy
servations in which su has been obtained from both laboratory qu = 58N600.72 kPa Fine grained & Mayne
(1990)
triaxial tests and field vane tests suggest that a reasonable val-
ue of Nk for a wide range of soils is on the order of 16. qu = 13.6N60 CH
Sivrikaya
qu = 9.8N60 CL
Estimating su from the CPTU effective tip resistance uses a kPa & Togrol
qu = 8.6N60 Fine grained
(2002)
modified approach since the tip resistance is corrected for qu = (0.19π + 6.2)N60 Fine grained
pore pressure effects to give the effective tip resistance (qt).
The undrained shear strength is estimated from:
The value of Nkt also has been shown to vary for different soils,
EQUATION 5-25 but a reasonable, conservative value for massive clays is on the
order of 12. For very stiff, fissured clays, the value of Nkt may
su = (qt – svo)/Nkt
be as high as 30.
where
Other methods are available for estimating undrained shear
qt = CPTU effective tip resistance
strength from CPTU pore pressure measurements or by first
Nkt = Empirical cone factor
estimating the stress history from CPT/CPTU results and then
REPORTED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N60 VALUE AND converting to undrained shear strength, e.g., NCHRP (2007)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (su), TABLE 5-6 and Schnaid (2009), both of which are viable approaches.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
CORRELATION
UNITS
TO UNDRAINED SOIL TYPE REFERENCE
OF su 5.3.1.3 ESTIMATING SHEAR STRENGTH OF FINE-GRAINED
SHEAR STRENGTH
SOILS—OTHER METHODS
Japanese Hara et al.
su = 29N600.72 kPa cohesive soils (1974) 5.3.1.3.a Vane Shear Test
Insensitive Shear strength of fine-grained soils may be measured in the
Stroud
su = 4.5N60 tsf overconsolidated (1974)
clays in U.K. field and in the laboratory. One of the most versatile devices for
su = 8N60 for N60 < 10 investigating undrained shear strength and sensitivity of soft
su = 7N60 for 10 < N60 < 20 Guabirotuba Tavares clays is the vane shear test. The test device generally consists
kPa
su = 6N60 for 20 < N60 < 30 clay (1988)
su = 5N60 for 30 < N60 < 40 of a four-bladed rectangular vane fastened to the bottom of
a vertical rod. The blades are pressed their full depth into the
Ajayi &
su =1.39N60 + 74.2 tsf Tropical soil Balogun clay surface and then rotated at a constant rate by a crank han-
(1988)
dle. The torque required to rotate the vane is measured. The
Sao Paulo shear resistance of the soil can be computed from the torque
su = 12.5N60 kPa overconsolidated Decourt
su = 10.5N60 tsf (1989) and dimensions of the vane.
clay
Note: 1 kPa = 20.9 psf One type of portable vane shear tester is the Torvane. It is a con-
venient hand-held device useful for investigating the strength
of clays in the walls of test pits in the field or for rapid scan-
ning of the strength of Shelby tubes or split-spoon samples. EMPIRICAL VALUES FOR SOIL CONSISTENCY,
A calibrated spring allows undrained shear strength (cohesion) OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO, AND UNDRAINED SHEAR
to be read directly from the indicator. STRENGTH VS. SPT N60 VALUE, TABLE 5-8
CONSISTENCY
SPT N60 VALUES
STRENGTH (skf)
5.3.1.3.b Pocket Penetrometer Test
UNDRAINED
COMMENTS
HISTORY
STRESS
SHEAR
TERM
[kPa]
Another device used to estimate undrained shear strength in
the laboratory or the field is the Pocket Penetrometer. As with
the vane shear test, the pocket penetrometer is commonly
used on Shelby tube and split spoon samples and in freshly cut
test pits to evaluate the consistency and approximate uncon- Normally Runs
Very
fined compressive strength (qu) of clay soils. The penetrom- consolidated 0-2 < 0.25 [< 12] through
soft
eter’s plunger is pushed into the soil 1/4” and a reading is taken OCR = 1 fingers
from the sliding scale on the side. The scale is a direct reading Normally
0.38 [18.2] to
Squeezes
of shear strength. Pocket penetrometer values should be used Soft consolidated 3-5 easily in
0.63 [30.2]
OCR ≈ 1 to 1.2 fingers
with caution and geotechnical reports should include correla-
tions to unconfined compression strength or cohesion. It is not Normally Can be
0.75 [36] to
Medium consolidated 6-9 formed into
recommended for use in sands or gravel soils. 1.13 [54.1]
OCR = 1 to 2 a ball
Hard to
5.3.1.3.c Unconfined Compression Test Normally
1.25 [59.9] to 2 deform
Stiff consolidated to 10-16
The unconfined compression (UC) test is used to determine [95.8] by hand
OCR of 2 to 3
squeezing
the consistency of saturated clays and other cohesive soils.
A cylindrical specimen is set up between end plates. A verti- Very hard to
Very Overconsolidated 2.13 [102] to
17-30 deform by
cal load is applied incrementally at such a rate as to produce stiff OCR = 4 to 8 3.75 [179.6]
hand
a vertical strain of about 1% to 2% per minute, which is rapid
Nearly
enough to prevent a volume change in the sample due to drain- Highly
impossible
age. The unconfined compressive strength (qu) is considered Hard overconsolidated > 30 > 3.75 [> 179.6]
to deform
to be equal to the load at which failure occurs divided by the OCR > 8
by hand
cross-sectional area of the sample at the time of failure. In clay
soils where undrained conditions are expected to be the lower
5.3.2.1 φ’ FROM SPT
design limit (i.e., the minimum Factor of Safety), the undrained
shear strength (i.e., cohesion) governs the behavior of the clay. Several correlations have been proposed to estimate the
This undrained shear strength is approximately equal to 1/2 the drained friction angle in sands from SPT results. A summary of
unconfined compressive strength of undisturbed samples (see several of the more popular correlations is given in Table 5-9.
Laboratory Testing of Recovered Soil Samples in Section 2 of The correlation of Hatanaka & Uchida (1996) is shown in Figure
this manual). 5-13, taken from the FHWA Reference Manual on Subsurface
Investigations (2002).
5.3.1.3.d Empirical Correlations 5.3.2.2 φ’ FROM CPT/CPTU
The consistency of clays and other cohesive soils is usually An approach derived from bearing capacity theory, similar to
described as very soft, soft, medium, stiff, very stiff, or hard. the one used to estimate su from the CPT/CPTU tip resistance
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Values of consistency, overconsolidation ratio (OCR), and und- in clays, may be used to estimate the friction angle of sands.
rained shear strength (cohesion) empirically correlated to SPT Robertson and Campanella (1983) summarized a number of
N60 values per ASTM D1586 are given in Table 5-8 (Bowles, available calibration chamber tests on five sands and suggest-
1988). It should be noted that consistency correlations can be ed a simple correlation between the normalized CPT tip resis-
misleading because of the many variables inherent in the sam- tance and a cone bearing capacity factor (Nq):
pling method and the soil deposits sampled. As such, Table 5-8
EQUATION 5-27
should be used as a guide.
Nq = (qc / s’vo) = 0.194exp[7.63tan(φ’)]
5.3.2 ESTIMATING FRICTION ANGLE (φ’) where

IN SANDS
Results from the SPT and CPT may be used to estimate the s’vo = Vertical effective (corrected for pore water
drained friction angle of sands and other coarse-grained soils. pressure) stress at cone tip
Generally, site investigations involving coarse-grained soils will This relationship is shown in Figure 5-15.
include the use of either the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) The friction angle may also be estimated from the CPTU effec-
or the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT). tive tip resistance. Early calibration chamber data suggested
a simple empirical correlation:
REPORTED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N60 VALUE AND EMPIRICAL VALUES FOR RELATIVE DENSITY, FRICTION AN-
φ’ FOR COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, TABLE 5-9 GLE, AND UNIT WEIGHT VS. SPT BLOW COUNT (ASSUMING
A 20-FOOT (6-METER) DEPTH OF OVERBURDEN AND 70%
CORRELATION REFERENCE
ROD EFFICIENCY ON HAMMER), TABLE 5-10
φ’ = (0.3N60)0.5 + 27˚ Peck et al. (1953)
Very Medium Very
φ’ = (10N60)/35 + 27˚ Meyerhof (1956) DESCRIPTION Loose Dense
loose dense dense
φ’ = (20N60)0.5 + 15˚ Kishida (1967) RELATIVE DENSITY
0 15 35 65 85
(Dr) (%)
φ’ = (N60/σ’vo)0.5 +26.9˚
Parry (1977)
(σ’vo in MN/m2) FINE 1-2 3-6 7-15 16-30 ?
φ’ = (15N60)0.5 +15˚ Shioi & Fukui (1982) SPT (N70) MEDIUM 2-3 4-6 8-20 21-40 40+
φ’ = (15.4(N1)60)0.5 + 20˚ Hatanaka & Uchida (1996) COARSE 3-6 5-9 10-25 26-45 45+
FINE 26-28 28-30 30-33 33-38 38+

EQUATION 5-28 FRICTION
ANGLE MEDIUM 27-29 29-32 32-36 36-42 50+
φ’ = arctan[0.1 + 0.38log(qt/s’vo)] (φ’)
COARSE 28-30 30-34 34-40 40-50 50+
Equation 5-28 is shown in Figure 5-17.
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT
Additional test results from 24 different sands were compiled 70-100 90-115 110-130 110-140 130-150
(γwet) (pcf)
by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) who proposed the following ex-
pression:
EQUATION 5-29 very dense, or extremely dense. The Standard Penetration
Test is a good measure of granular soil density. Empirical val-
φ’ = 17.70 + 11.0log(qt1)
ues for relative density, friction angle, and unit weight as cor-
where related to SPT N70 values per ASTM D1586 are given in Table
qt1 = (qt/satm)/(s’vo/satm)0.5 5-10 (Bowles, 1988). It should be noted that SPT values can be
satm = Atmospheric pressure (1 atm = 1 bar = 100 kPa = amplified in gravel because a 1” or larger gravel particle may
1 tsf = 14.7 psi) get lodged in the opening of the sampler. This can be checked
by noting the length of sample recovery on the soil boring log
5.3.2.3 EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS (see Table 2-6). A short recovery in gravelly soils may indicate
a plugged sampler. A short or “low” recovery may also be indi-
The relative density of sands, gravels, and other granular soils
cated by loose sand that falls out of the bottom of the sampler
is usually described as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense,
during removal from the borehole.
Friction Angle (φ') (deg)
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Normalized (N1)60
PEAK FRICTION ANGLE OF SANDS FROM SPT RESISTANCE—CORRELATION OF HATANAKA & UCHIDA (1996)
[FHWA REFERENCE MANUAL ON SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS (2002)]
FIGURE 5-13
RELATIVE DENSITY OF CLEAN SANDS FROM SPT RESISTANCE
FIGURE 5-14
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEARING CAPACITY NUMBER AND FRICTION ANGLE

FROM NORMALIZED CPT TIP RESISTANCE [ROBERTSON AND CAMPANELLA (1983)]
FIGURE 5-15
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELATIVE DENSITY AND CPT NORMALIZED TIP STRESS
FOR NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED (NC) AND OVERCONSOLIDATED (OC) SANDS
FIGURE 5-16
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRICTION ANGLE AND CPTU EFFECTIVE TIP RESISTANCE

FIGURE 5-17
5.3.3 DIRECT ESTIMATE OF UNIT SIDE Regarding the SPT data:
RESISTANCE (fs) OF STEEL ROUND SHAFT 1. The results most likely represent a wide range in field prac-
PILES AND GROUTED HELICAL MICROPILES tice including a wide range in energy or hammer efficiency.
Suggestions for estimating the unit side resistance (fs) of deep 2. It is likely that other variations in field practice or equip-
foundations in a variety of soils have been presented by various ment, such as spoon geometry, are not consistent among
authors. This approach is convenient for helical piles/anchors the various studies and may affect results. Engineers
and reduces assumptions in first estimating shear strength and should use the correlations in Table 5-11 with caution.
then estimating other factors to obtain fs. Poulos (1989) summa-
rized a number of reported correlations between pile unit side
resistance and SPT N60 value and suggested that most of these
5.4 FACTOR OF SAFETY
correlations could be expressed using the general equation: The equations discussed above are used to obtain the ultimate
capacity of a helical pile/anchor. For allowable (working) stress
EQUATION 5-30
design (ASD), an appropriate Factor of Safety must be ap-
fs = b + aN plied to reduce the ultimate capacity to an acceptable design
Lutenegger (2011) presented a summary, shown in Table 5-11, of (or working) capacity. The designer determines the Factor of
more-or-less “global” reported correlations between SPT N60 Safety to be used. In general, a minimum Factor of Safety of 2
values and unit side resistance for both driven and bored piles is recommended. For tieback applications, the Factor of Safety
in a number of different soil materials. typically ranges between 1.25 and 2.
Engineers might ask, “Why should the SPT N60 value correlate Design or working loads are sometimes referred to as unfac-
to unit side resistance?” Other than being purely coincidental, tored loads and do not include any Factor of Safety. They may
there must be a rational and logical explanation for such obser- arise from dead loads, live loads, snow loads, and/or earth-
vations. The range in reported values of a given in Table 5-11 is quake loads for bearing (compression) loading conditions;
quite large, and the results might seem of limited use. Nonethe- from dead loads, live loads, snow loads, and/or wind loads
less, we can make some general observations and summarize for anchor loading conditions; and from earth pressure, water
these observations: pressure, and surcharge loads (from buildings, etc.) for helical
tieback or Soil Screw® earth retention anchor conditions.
1. For most of these correlations, the value of β is very low
and for practical purposes may be reasonably neglected Ultimate loads, sometimes referred to as fully factored loads,
with little effect on the correlation, which simplifies equa- already fully incorporate a Factor of Safety for the loading con-
tion 5-30 to: ditions described above. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., recom-
mends a minimum Factor of Safety of 2.0 for permanent load-
EQUATION 5-31
ing conditions and 1.5 for temporary loading conditions. This
fs = aN Factor of Safety is applied to the design or working loads as
Note that equation 5-31 is similar to equation 5-22, sug- defined above to achieve the ultimate load requirement. Na-
gesting a correlation between SPT N60 values and und- tional and local building code regulations may require more
rained shear strength (su) in fine-grained soils. stringent Factors of Safety on certain projects.
2. The value of a ranges from 0.3 to 12.5. Most current structural design standards in Canada use a limit
states design (LSD) approach for the structural design of heli-
3. The observations presented in Table 5-11 generally suggest
cal piles/anchors, rather than working or allowable stress design
higher values of a for fine-grained soils as compared to
(ASD). All specified loads (dead, live, snow, wind, seismic, etc.)
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
coarse-grained soils.
are factored in accordance with appropriate load factors, and
4. Values of a are generally higher for driven piles as com- load combinations should be considered. In addition, the geo-
pared to bored piles. technical resistance of the helical pile/anchor must be factored.
The values of a vary considerably for several obvious reasons Geotechnical resistance factors for helical piles/anchors are
related to the pile data and the SPT data. not yet clearly defined. Therefore, a rational approach should
With regard to the pile data: be taken by the designer and resistance factors should be con-
sidered that are suitable to specific requirements. These are
1. The data represent a wide range of pile types, i.e., different typical geotechnical resistance factors for helical piles:
geometry such as open- and closed-end pipe and H-Piles;
construction practices such as dry bored and wet bored; Compression: 0.65 to 0.75
pile size; pile plugging; L/d; and other factors. Tension: 0.55 to 0.65
2. Different methods may have been used to interpret the
ultimate capacity and to isolate the side resistance from
end bearing.
3. The unit side resistance from pile tests is typically aver-
aged over the length of the pile except in the case of well-
instrumented piles.
REPORTED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPT N60 VALUE AND UNIT SIDE RESISTANCE [LUTENEGGER (2011)], TABLE 5-11
PILE TYPE SOIL β α REFERENCE
Granular 0 2.0 Meyerhof (1976)
Miscellaneous soils
10 3.3 Decourt (1982)
(fs < 170 kPa)
Cohesive 0 10 Shioi & Fukui (1982)

Driven
displacement Cohesive 0 3 Bazaraa & Kurkur
Cohesionless 0 1.8 (1986)
Sandy 29 2.0
Kanai & Yubuuchi (1989)
Clayey 34 4.0
Miscellaneous 0 1.9 Robert (1997)
Granular 0 1.0 Meyerhof (1976)
Granular 55 5.8 Fujita et al. (1977)
Cohesionless 0 3.3 Wright & Reese (1979)
Cohesive (fs < 170 kpa) 10 3.3 Decourt (1982)
Cohesive 0 5.0 Shioi & Fukui (1982)
Cohesive 0 1.8
Bazaraa & Kurkur (1986)
Cohesionless 0 0.6
Residual soil & weathered rock 0 2.0 Broms et al. (1988)
Clay 0 1.3
Koike et al. (1988)
Sand 0 0.3
Sandy soil 35 3.9
Kanai & Yubuuchi (1989)
Cohesive 24 4.9
Bored
Residual soil 0 4.5 Winter et al. (1989)
Gravel 0 6.0
Sand 0 4.0
Hirayama (1990)
Silt 0 2.5
Clay 0 1.0
Residual soils 0 2.0 Chang & Broms (1991)
Clayey soil 0 10.0

Matsui (1993)
Sandy soil 0 3.0
17.3 1.18
Miscellaneous Vrymoed (1994)
18.2 0.65
Miscellaneous 0 1.9 Robert (1997)
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Sand 0 5.05 Kuwabara & Tanaka (1998)
Weathered rock 0 4 Wada (2003)
Cohesionless 0 5.0 Shoi & Fukui

Cohesive 0 10.0 (1982)
Cast-in-place Cohesionless 30 2.0

(Fs < 200 kPa)
Yamashita et al. (1987)
Cohesive
(Fs < 150 kPa) 0 5.0
Note: fs = b + aN60 (fs in units of kPa)
5.5 HELICAP HELICAL CAPACITY sistance, refer to the Help screen or contact Hubbell applica-
tion engineers.
DESIGN SOFTWARE The image below is from HeliCAP v3.0 helical capacity design
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., engineers developed HeliCAP® he- software. It shows a typical work page with the soil profile on
lical capacity design software to determine the bearing capacity the left and helical pile capacity on the right.
of helical piles and anchors in soil. It has been revised several
times to provide additional features such as side resistance for
steel pipe piles and grouted-shaft helical piles. HeliCAP software
5.5.1 HELICAP SOFTWARE BEARING
is available to engineers and designers upon request. The soft- CAPACITY METHODOLOGY
ware uses the same theory of general bearing capacity as pre- As detailed earlier in this section, the individual plate bearing
sented in Section 5.2 for deep foundations (depth ≥ 5B). A key method states that the capacity of a single or multi-helix pile/
feature of HeliCAP software is that it is designed to work with anchor is determined by summing the bearing capacities of the
the information commonly available from soils reports. In North individual helix plates. Thus:
America, soil investigation usually includes a soil boring as de-
Qt = SQh
scribed in Section 2 of this manual. The most common informa-
tion available from the soil boring is the soil profile, groundwater where
location, and SPT blow count data per ASTM D1586. To utilize Qt = Total ultimate multi-helix pile/anchor capacity
this data, the software includes blow count correlations for
shear strength, angle of internal friction, and unit weight. These Qh = Individual helix ultimate capacity
correlations are generally accepted as reasonable approxima- HeliCAP design software determines the ultimate bearing ca-
tions given the available blow count data. pacity of an individual helix with the following equation. An up-
The equations, factors, empirical values, etc., presented in this per limit for this capacity is based on helix strength that can be
section are used in the HeliCAP v3.0 helical capacity design obtained from the manufacturer. See Section 7 of this manual
software. Using this software makes the selection of a helical for the mechanical strengths of helix plates.
pile/anchor much quicker versus using hand calculations. It al- EQUATION 5-32
lows calculations to be made quickly while varying the differ-
Qh = Ah(cNc + q’Nq) ≤ Qs
ent parameters to arrive at the most appropriate solution. As
with any calculations, the results from this software are no bet- where
ter than the input data used to generate them. Ah = Projected helix area
The software will assist in determining an appropriate helical Qs = Capacity upper limit = helix mechanical strength
lead configuration and overall pile/anchor length. It also pro-
vides an estimate of the installation torque. The helical lead Design Examples 8-3 through 8-12 in Section 8 illustrate the
configuration can vary by the number and sizes of helix plates use of the standard bearing equation to determine the bearing
required to develop adequate capacity. Helical pile/anchor capacities of helical piles/anchors. These design examples are
length may vary due to the combined effects of the lead con- taken from actual projects involving residential and commer-
figuration and soil strength. Generally speaking, the shorter cial new construction, boardwalks, tiebacks, telecommunica-
the pile length for a given load, the better the performance will tion towers, pipeline buoyancy control, etc.
be in regard to deflection under load.
HeliCAP® design software calculates ultimate capacity and 5.5.1.1 SANDS (φ’ > 0; c = 0)
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
must have an appropriate Factor of Safety applied to the re-

HeliCAP design software determines the ultimate bearing ca-
sults. The software has additional features that allow it to be
pacity of a helix (Qh) in a non-cohesive sand or gravel soil with
used for other applications, but it is beyond the scope of this
Equation 5-33, which is derived from Equation 5-32 with the
manual to present all facets of the software. For additional as-
fine-grain (clay) term eliminated (also see Equation 5-19).
The bearing capacity factor (Nq) is dependent on the angle of These correlations were originally determined from Tables 3-2
internal friction (ϕ’) of the soil. When a value is provided for and 3-3 in Bowles’ first edition of Foundation Analysis and
the friction angle, HeliCAP software uses Figure 5-8 (Nq vs. ϕ’) Design. These relationships provide an approximation of the
and Equation 5-20 to determine the value for Nq. The graph in total unit weight. They have been modified slightly from how
Figure 5-8 allows the determination of Nq for a specific angle they were originally presented as experience has suggested.
of internal friction when measured in degrees. This curve was NOTE: The correlated total unit weight values determined
adapted from work by Meyerhof (1976). Equation 5-20 was by HeliCAP software can be overridden. This is encouraged
written for the curve shown in Figure 5-8, which is Myerhof’s when more reliable soil data are available.
Nq values divided by 2 for long-term applications. When the
angle of internal friction is not known, the software estimates 5.5.1.2 FINE-GRAIN COHESIVE SOILS (φ’ = 0; c > 0)
it (and Nq) by using blow counts obtained from the Standard
HeliCAP® design software determines the ultimate bearing
Penetration Test per ASTM D1586. Equation 5-34 provides an
capacity of a helix (Qh) in a cohesive or fine-grained soil with
estimate of the angle of internal friction from SPT blow count
Equation 5-40, which is derived from Equation 5-32 with the
data. This equation is based on empirical data given by Bowles
coarse-grained (sand) term eliminated. Equation 40 is simi-
(1968) and its results should be used with caution. Note: The
lar to Equation 5-18 with the overburden term neglected.
correlated φ’ and Nq values determined by HeliCAP software
The bearing capacity factor (Nc) is 9 provided the installa-
can be overridden. This is encouraged when more reliable soil
tion depth below grade is at least five times the diameter of
data are available.
the top-most helix.
EQUATION 5-33
EQUATION 5-40
Qh = Ahq’Nq = Ahg’DNq
Qh = AhcNc = Ah(su)9
where
where
g’ = Effective unit weight of the soil
c = Cohesion; for φ’ = 0, c = undrained shear
D = Vertical depth to helix plate
strength = su
Nq = Bearing capacity factor for non-cohesive
Nc = Bearing capacity factor for deep failure = 9
component of soil
(depth ≥ 5B)
EQUATION 5-34 In the event that cohesion or undrained shear strength values
are not available, HeliCAP software uses the following equation
φ’ = 0.28N60 + 27.4
to estimate undrained shear strength values when SPT blow
where counts are available. This equation is based on empirical values
φ’ = Angle of internal friction and is offered only as a guide when undrained shear strength
values are otherwise not available. Results obtained using
N60 = Blow count per ASTM D1586 Standard Penetration
estimated shear strength values should be used with caution.
Test
NOTE: The correlated undrained shear strength values
In the event unit weight values are not available, HeliCAP soft- determined by HeliCAP software can be overridden. This is
ware uses the following equations to obtain estimated unit encouraged when more reliable soil data are available.
weight values when blow counts from ASTM D1586 Standard
EQUATION 5-41
Penetration Tests are available.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
c (ksf) = N60/8 = 0.125N60
EQUATION 5-35
c (kPa) = 6N60
N60 = 0 γ = 65 (lb/ft3)
where
EQUATION 5-36 c = Cohesion; for φ’ = 0; c = undrained shear
0 < N60 ≤ 7 γ = 60 + 5N60 (lb/ft3) strength = su
N60 = Blow count value per ASTM D1586 Standard
EQUATION 5-37 Penetration Test
8 ≤ N60 ≤ 10 γ = 100 (lb/ft3) If unit weight values are not available, the software uses the
following equations to obtain estimated unit weight values
EQUATION 5-38 when blow counts from ASTM D1586 Standard Penetration
11 ≤ N60 < 50 γ = 90 + N60 (lb/ft3) Tests are available.
EQUATION 5-42
EQUATION 5-39
0 < N60 ≤ 19 γ = 80 + 2N60 (lb/ft3)
N60 ≥ 50 γ = 140 (lb/ft3)
EQUATION 5-43
20 ≤ N60 ≤ 40 γ = 120 (lb/ft3)
EQUATION 5-44 resistance for grouted columns only (Helical Pulldown®
micropiles). The US Navy method uses the Department of the
41 ≤ N60 < 50 γ = 120 + 2(N60 - 40) (lb/ft3) Navy Design Manual 7, Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth
Structures (1974). The software uses the Navy method to
EQUATION 5-45
calculate side resistance for both grouted columns and steel
N60 ≥ 50 γ = 140 (lb/ft3) round shafts.
5.5.2.1 GOUVENOT METHOD
These correlations were originally determined from Tables 3-2
and 3-3 in Bowles’ first edition of Foundation Analysis and De- Gouvenot reported a range of values for unit side resistance of
sign. These relationships provide an approximation of the total concrete/grout columns based on a number of field load tests.
unit weight. They have been modified slightly from how they The soil conditions are divided into three categories based on
were originally presented as experience has suggested. NOTE: friction angle (ϕ) and cohesion (c). The equations used to cal-
The correlated total unit weight values determined by Heli- culate fs are:
CAP software can be overridden. This is encouraged when • Type I: Sands and gravels with 35° < φ < 45° and c = 0:
more reliable soil data are available.
EQUATION 5-47
5.5.1.3 MIXED SOILS (φ’ > 0; c > 0) fs = σotan(φ)

where
HeliCAP software determines the bearing capacity of a mixed
soil, one that exhibits cohesion and friction properties, by use σo = Mean normal stress for the grout column
of Equation 5-32. This is straightforward when accurate values
are available for the cohesion (undrained shear strength) and
• Type II: Mixed soils; fine, loose silty sands with 20° < φ <
friction terms (ϕ’ & γ’) of the equation. It is not possible to use
30° and sandy clays with 205 psf < c < 1024 psf (9.8 kPa
ASTM D1586 SPT blow count correlations to determine all soil
< c < 49 kPa)
strength variables in the bearing capacity equation. Therefore,
the designer must take another approach when accurate val- EQUATION 5-48
ues are not available for both terms of the equation.
fs = sosin(φ) + (c)cos(φ)
One suggestion is to first consider the soil as fine grained (co-
hesive) only and determine capacity. Then consider the same
• Type III: Clays with 1024 psf < c < 4096 psf (49 kPa < c <
soil as coarse grained (cohesionless) only and determine ca-
196 kPa)
pacity. Finally, take the lower of the two results and use that
as the soil bearing capacity and apply appropriate Factors of EQUATION 5-49
Safety, etc.
fs = c
for
5.5.2 HELICAP SOFTWARE SIDE
1024 psf < c < 2048 pfs (49 kPa < c < 98 kPa)
RESISTANCE METHODOLOGY
and:
As discussed earlier in this section, the side resistance (Qf) de-
veloped by round shaft or grouted-shaft helical piles is consid- EQUATION 5-50
ered similarly to side resistance developed by driven piles. He- fs = 2048 psf (98 kPa)
liCAP design software uses the traditional approach presented
for
in most foundation design textbooks.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
2048 psf ≤ c < 4096 psf (98 kPa ≤ c < 196 kPa)
The general equation is:
EQUATION 5-46
In HeliCAP® design software, this analysis assumes a uni-
Qf = S[π(B)fs(∆Lf)] form shaft diameter for each soil layer and, if required, the
where side resistance capacity of the pile near the surface can be
B = Diameter of steel or grout pile column omitted.
fs = Unit side resistance (sum of friction and
adhesion between soil and pile) 5.5.2.2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY DESIGN MANUAL 7
∆Lf = Incremental pile length over which πB and fs are METHOD
considered to be constant • For cohesive soils (a method):
HeliCAP software uses two empirical methods to calculate EQUATION 5-51
side resistance: The Gouvenot method and the US Depart-
ment of the Navy method. The Gouvenot method is named af- Qf = S[p(B)Ca(∆Lf)]
ter the French researcher who conducted tests on a variety of where
grouted-shaft micropiles including gravity-fed grout columns. Ca = Adhesion factor (see Table 5-12)
The software uses the Gouvenot method to calculate side
• For cohesionless soils (a method):
EQUATION 5-52 RECOMMENDED ADHESION VALUES IN CLAY
[NAVY MANUAL DM-7 (1974)], TABLE 5-12
Qf = S[pB(q’)Ktan(ϕ’)(∆Lf)]
COHESION (c) ADHESION
where PILE TYPE SOIL CONSISTENCY
(psf) (Ca) (psf)
q’ = Effective vertical stress on element ∆Lf Very soft 0-250 0-250
K = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure ranging Soft 250-500 250-480
from Ko to about 1.75 depending on volume
Grout Medium stiff 500-1000 480-750
displacement, initial soil density, etc. Values
Stiff 1000-2000 750-950
close to Ko are generally recommended because
Very stiff 2000-4000 950-1300
of long-term soil creep effects. As a default, use
Ko = 1. Very soft 0-250 0-250
φ’ = Effective friction angle between soil and pile shaft Soft 250-500 250-460
Steel Medium stiff 500-1000 460-700

• For cohesionless soils (alternate Navy method):
Stiff 1000-2000 700-720
EQUATION 5-53
Very stiff 2000-4000 720-750
Qf = S[p(B)S(∆Lf)]
GROUTED PILES IN SAND [NAVY MANUAL DM-7 (1974)],
where TABLE 5-13
S = Average side resistance on pile surface area =
EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
Potan(ϕ’) (see Table 5-13) (ϕ’) (degrees)
Po = Average overburden pressure Po (psf)
20 25 30 35 40
For steel round shaft piles in sand, HeliCAP software uses the S = AVERAGE SIDE RESISTANCE ON PILE SURFACE (psf)
alternate Navy method to calculate side resistance with Equa- 500 182 233 289 350 420
tion 5-46 and fs values from Table 5-4. 1000 364 466 577 700 839
Tables 5-4, 5-12, and 5-13 are derived from graphs in the De- 1500 546 699 866 1050 1259
partment of the Navy Design Manual 7, Soil Mechanics, Foun- 2000 728 933 1155 1400 1678
dations and Earth Structures (1974). Later editions of Design
2500 910 1166 1443 1751 2098
Manual 7 limit the depth at which the average overburden pres-
sure is assumed to increase. The following is an excerpt from 3000 1092 1399 1732 2100 2517
the manual regarding this limiting depth: 3500 1274 1632 2021 2451 2937
“Experimental and field evidence indicate that bearing pres- 4000 1456 1865 2309 2801 3356
sure and skin friction increase with vertical effective stress (Po)
up to a limiting depth of embedment, depending on the rela-
tive density of the granular soil and position of the water table. • The uppermost helix should be installed at least three helix
Beyond this limiting depth (10B± to 40B±) there is very little diameters into competent load-bearing soil. It is best if all
increase in end bearing, and increase in side friction is directly helix plates are installed into the same soil stratum.
proportional to the surface area of the pile. Therefore, if D is • For a given shaft length, use fewer longer extensions rath-
greater than 20B, limit Po at the pile tip to that value corre- er than many shorter extensions. This will result in fewer
sponding to D = 20B.” (D = depth of the pile embedment over connections and better load/deflection response.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
which side friction is considered and B = diameter of the pile.)
• Check the relative economic feasibility of helical pile/an-
Design Example 8-5 in Section 8 illustrates the use of the chor options if more than one combination of helix con-
Navy Design Manual 7 method to calculate the side resistance figuration and overall length can be used.
capacity of a Chance® Helical Pulldown® micropile.
5.6 APPLICATION GUIDELINES 5.7 LATERAL CAPACITY OF

FOR CHANCE HELICAL PILES/AN- HELICAL PILES
CHORS 5.7.1 INTRODUCTION
The uppermost helix should be installed at least three diam- The primary function of a deep foundation is to resist axial
eters below the depth of seasonal variation in soil properties. loads, but in some cases, they will be subjected to horizontal or
Therefore, it is important to check the frost depth or “mud” lateral loads. Lateral loads may be from wind, seismic events,
line at the project site. Seasonal variation in soil properties live loads, water flow, etc. The resistance to lateral loads is in
may require the minimum vertical depth to exceed five helix part a function of the near-surface soil type and strength and
diameters. The influence of the structure’s existing foundation the effective projected area of the structure bearing against
(if any) on the helical pile/anchor should also be considered. the soil. This section provides a summarized description of
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., recommends helical piles/anchors the methods and procedures available to determine the lateral
be located at least five diameters below or away from existing capacity of helical piles/anchors in soil.
foundation elements.
The analysis of deep foundations under lateral loading is pile-supported footings and pile caps due to the possibility
complicated because the soil reaction (resistance) at any point the soil will settle away from the footing or pile cap. Expansive
along the shaft is a function of the deflection, which in turn soils, compressible strata, and liquefiable soils can result in a
is dependent on the soil resistance. Solving for the response void under footings and pile caps.
of a deep foundation under lateral loading is one type of
5.7.2.1 FINITE-DIFFERENCE METHOD
soil-structure interaction problem best suited for numerical
methods on a computer. Square shaft (SS) helical piles/ Several computer programs, such as LPILE (Ensoft, Austin,
anchors do not provide any significant resistance to lateral TX), are revisions of the COM624 program (Matlock and Re-
loads. However, round shaft (RS) helical piles/anchors and ese) and its predecessor Beam-Column 28 (Matlock and Hali-
Helical Pulldown® micropiles can provide significant resistance burton) that both use the p-y concept, i.e., soil resistance is a
to lateral loads depending on the soil conditions. nonlinear function of pile deflection, which was further devel-
oped by Poulos (1973). This method is versatile and provides
In recent years, a considerable amount of research has been
a practical design method. This is made possible by the use of
conducted on the lateral capacity of grouted-shaft helical
computers to solve the governing nonlinear, fourth-order dif-
piles—both with and without casing. Abdelghany & Naggar
ferential equation, which is explained in greater detail on page
(2010) and Sharnouby & Naggar (2011) applied alternating
5-32. Lateral load analysis software gives the designer the tools
cyclic lateral loads to helical piles of various configurations in
necessary to evaluate the force-deflection behavior of a helical
an effort to simulate seismic conditions. Their research showed
pile/anchor embedded in soil.
that helical piles with grouted shafts retain all their axial load
capacity after being subjected to high-deflection lateral load. Figures 5-19 and 5-20 are sample LPILE Plus plots of lateral
shaft deflection and bending moment vs. depth with the top
5.7.2 LATERAL RESISTANCE—METHODS USED of the pile fixed against rotation. From results like these, the
Most helical piles/anchors have slender shafts [diameter less designer can quickly determine the lateral response at various
than 3 inches (89 mm)] that offer limited resistance to lateral horizontal loads up to the structural limit of the pile, which is
loads when installed vertically. Load tests have validated the typically the pile’s ability to withstand bending. Many geotech-
concept that vertical pile foundations are capable of resisting nical consultants use LPILE or other soil-structure interaction
lateral loads via shear and bending. Several methods are avail- programs to predict soil-pile response to lateral loads.
able to analyze the lateral capacity of foundations in soil, in- 5.7.2.2 BROMS’ (1964A & 1964B) METHOD
cluding: 1) Finite-difference method; 2) Broms’ method (1964a)
Broms’ method is best suited for applications where the top
and (1964b); 3) Murthy (2003) direct method; and 4) Evans &
section of the helical pile/anchor is a greater diameter than the
Duncan (1982) method as presented by Coduto (2001). Each
bottom section. Enlarged top sections are commonly used to
of these methods may be applied to round shaft helical piles.
increase the lateral capacity of the foundation shaft. Design
Lateral resistance can also be provided by passive earth pressure Example 8-13 in Section 8 illustrates this. It uses Broms’ method
against the structural elements of the foundation. The resisting for short piles in cohesive soil. A short pile is one that is rigid
elements of the structure include the pile cap, grade beams, and enough that it will move by rotation or translation in the direc-
stem walls. The passive earth pressure against the structural ele- tion the load is tending. A long pile is one for which the top will
ments can be calculated using the Rankine method. rotate or translate without moving the bottom of the pile, i.e., a
Battered or inclined helical piles/anchors can be used to resist plastic hinge will form.
lateral loads by assuming that the horizontal load on the struc- Broms developed lateral capacity methods for short and long
ture is resisted by components of the axial load. The implicit piles in cohesive and non-cohesive soil. Broms theorized that a
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
assumption in this is that battered foundations do not deflect short, free-headed pile rotates about a center, above the lower
laterally, which is not true. Therefore, it is better practice to use end of the pile, without substantial deformation along its axis.
vertically installed helical piles/anchors to resist only vertical The resistance is the sum of the net of the earth pressures
loads and battered helical piles/anchors to resist only lateral above the center of rotation and the passive earth pressure
loads. When battered piles are required to resist both vertical below the center of rotation. The end-bearing influence or
and lateral loads, it is good practice to limit the pile inclina- effect is neglected. Likewise, the passive earth pressure on the
tion angle to less than 15°. Figure 18 presents lateral resistance uppermost 1.5 diameters of shaft and the active earth pressure
methods for helical piles. on the back of the pile are neglected.
Friction resistance along the bottom of a footing, especially in
the case of a continuous strip footing or large pile cap, can be
significant. The friction component in a sandy soil is simply the
structure’s dead weight multiplied by the tangent of the angle
of internal friction. In the case of clay, cohesion times the area
of the footing may be used for the friction component. When
battered piles are used to prevent lateral movement, the fric-
tion may be included in the computation. The designer is ad-
vised to use caution when using friction for lateral resistance.
Some building codes do not permit friction resistance under
ENLARGED SHAFT SECTION GRADE BEAM & PILE CAP BATTERED PILES
PASSIVE EARTH
BENDING MOMENT
PRESSURE RESISTANCE PILE CAP
DISTRIBUTION IN PILE
OPTIONAL LATERAL TIEBACK
LATERAL RESISTANCE METHODS

FIGURE 5-17 LATERAL RESISTANCE METHODS
FIGURE 5-18
Medical Office Bldg. - Portland, CT - RS6625 Medical Office Bldg. - Portland, CT - RS6625
Lateral Deflection (in) Bending Moment (in-kips)
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
7
7
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
Case 1 Case 1
Case 2 Case 2
Case 3 Case 3
14
14
LPILE PLUS SAMPLE PLOT—DEFLECTION VS. DEPTH LPILE PLUS SAMPLE PLOT—BENDING MOMENT VS. DEPTH
Figure 5-21 is a reaction/shear/moment diagram that COEFFICIENTS OF EARTH PRESSURE [DAS (1987)],
demonstrates the Broms theory for laterally loaded short TABLE 5-14
piles in cohesive soils. A simple static solution of these K0,
diagrams will yield the required embedment depth and shaft SOIL K0, TOTAL Ka, TOTAL Kp, TOTAL
DRAINED
diameter of the top section required to resist the specified
Clay, soft * 0.6 1 1 1
lateral load. It is recommended for the designer to obtain
and review Broms’ technical papers (see References at Clay, hard * 0.5 0.8 1 1
the end of this section) to learn about the various solution Sand, loose 0.6 0.53 0.2 3
methods in cohesive and non-cohesive soils. The Broms
method was probably the most widely used method prior to Sand, dense 0.4 0.35 0.3 4.6
the finite-difference and finite-element methods used today * Assume saturated clays
and gives fair agreement with field results for short piles.
5.7.2.3 LATERAL CAPACITY BY PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE where

K0 = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
Passive earth pressure on the projected area of the pile cap,
ϕ’ = Effective friction angle of soil
grade beam, or stem wall can be calculated by the Rankine
Ka = Coefficient of active earth pressure
(circa 1857) method, which assumes no soil cohesion or wall-
soil friction. One can use known or assumed soil parameters to Kp = Coefficient of passive earth pressure
determine the magnitude of the passive earth pressure minus Pa = Active earth pressure
the active earth pressure on the other side of the foundation r = Unit weight of soil
as shown in Figure 5-22. The following are general equations to
H = Height of wall or resisting element
calculate active and passive pressures on a wall for the simple
c = Cohesion
case of a frictionless vertical face and a horizontal ground
surface. Equations 5-57 and 5-58 are Rankine equations for Pp = Passive earth pressure
sand, and Equations 5-59 and 5-60 are the previous equations
Equations 5-54 through 5-60 are from Department of the Navy
modified to include cohesion in clay or cohesive soils. Three
Design Manual 7.
basic conditions are required for validity of the equations:
Table 5-14 is a tabulation of the coefficients for at-rest, active,
1. The soil material is homogenous.
and passive earth pressure for various soil types, relative densi-
2. Sufficient movement has occurred so the shear strength ties, and consistencies.
on the failure surface is completely mobilized.
Using the Rankine solution may be an over-simplification of
3. The resisting element is vertical and resultant forces are the problem but tends to be conservative since the height of
horizontal. the projected area of the footing or pile cap is not large and
EQUATION 5-54 the cohesion term will generally be small. Design Example
8-15 in Section 8 illustrates the use of the Passive Resistance
K0 = 1 - sin(ϕ’) method to determine the lateral capacity of a foundation.
EQUATION 5-55
5.7.2.4 BATTERED CHANCE® HELICAL PILES/ANCHORS FOR
Ka = tan2(45 - ϕ’/2) LATERAL LOADING
Lateral loads are commonly resolved with battered helical piles
EQUATION 5-56
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
and anchors. The method is to statically resolve the axial load

Kp = tan2(45 + ϕ’/2) capacity into its vertical and horizontal components. As stated
earlier, it is best to use vertically installed helical piles and an-
For granular soil (sand): chors to resist only vertical loads and battered helical piles and
EQUATION 5-57 anchors to resist only lateral loads.
Pa = KarH2/2 Chance helical piles and anchors have been supplied to the
seismic-prone areas of the west coast of the United States
EQUATION 5-58 and Canada for over 35 years for civil construction projects.
Pp = Kpϕ'rH2/2 In tension applications, they have been in service for over 60
years. They have been subjected to many earthquakes and af-
tershocks with good experience. To date, there have been no
For cohesive soil (clay):
ill effects observed using battered helical piles and anchors in
EQUATION 5-59
seismic areas. These foundations, both vertically installed and
Pa = KarH2/2 - 2cH + 2c2/ϕ’r battered, have been subjected to several earthquakes of mag-
nitude 7+ on the Richter scale with no adverse effects. Anec-
EQUATION 5-60 dotal evidence indicates that the structures on helical piles ex-
Pp = KprH2/2 + 2cH perienced less earthquake-induced distress than their adjacent
structures on other types of foundations. Their performances
were documented anecdotally in technical literature, including
the Engineering News Record.
BROMS’ METHOD FOR SHORT PILES IN CLAY (ENERGY STRUCTURES, INC., 1994)
FIGURE 5-21
Full scale seismic tests of helical piles were performed in 2016

at the University of California - San Diego shake table. Several
different simulations were performed, including the Northridge
GRADE BEAM
and Takatori seismic events. Various helical pile configurations
were installed in the test box, including square and round shaft
Pp
piles of varying diameters. The reader is referred to numerous
documents published about these studies (Cerato et al., 2017, Pa
Elsawy et al., 2017 and 2019.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
5.7.3 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The lateral capacity of round shaft (RS) helical piles and an-
chors is greater than that of square shaft (SS) because of the
larger section sizes. Typical pipe diameters of 2-7/8” (73mm), SOIL: LOOSE SAND
3-1/2” (89 mm), and 4-1/2” (114 mm) OD are used for Chance®
round shaft helical piles. As shown in Design Example 8-13 in
Section 8, enlarged shaft sections are used for certain applica-
tions. From a practical standpoint, the largest diameter helical
pile available from Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., is 10-3/4” di-
ameter, but larger shaft diameters are available on a project-
specific basis.
As previously noted, there are several other methods used to
FIGURE 5-21 EARTH PRESSURE ON A GRADE BEAM
analyze the lateral capacity of pile shafts. Murthy (2003) also
presented a direct method for evaluating the lateral behavior
of battered (inclined) piles. EARTH PRESSURE ON A GRADE BEAM
FIGURE 5-22
5.8 BUCKLING/BRACING/ tional Building Code requires deep foundations to be braced
to provide lateral stability in all directions. Bracing can be pro-
SLENDERNESS CONSIDERATIONS vided in various ways including pile groups of three or more;
alternate lines of piles spaced apart; and using slabs, footings,
grade beams, and other foundation elements to provide lateral
5.8.1 INTRODUCTION stability. When Chance® helical piles and Atlas Resistance® piers
Buckling of slender foundation elements is a common concern are used for foundation repair, the piers must be braced as in
among designers and structural engineers. The literature shows situation 3 above. Figures 5-23 and 5-24 show two methods
that several researchers have addressed buckling of piles and that are often used to ensure adequate bracing is achieved.
micropiles over the years [Bjerrum (1957), Davisson (1963),
Figure 5-23 is a portion of a grade beam foundation under-
Mascardi (1970), and Gouvenot (1975)]. Their results gener-
pinned with Atlas Resistance piers. The grade beam provides
ally support the conclusion that buckling is likely to occur only
torsional stiffness based on its section properties and steel re-
in soils with very poor strength properties, such as peat, very
inforcement. The 90° foundation element on the left end also
loose sands, and soft clay.
provides torsional and shear stiffness. Figure 5-24 is a portion
However, it cannot be inferred that buckling of a helical pile of a long, continuous grade beam foundation underpinned with
will never occur. Buckling of helical piles in soil is a complex Atlas Resistance piers. The piers are staggered and alternated
problem best analyzed using numerical methods on a comput- on the inside and outside, which provides bracing.
er. It involves parameters such as the shaft section and elastic
properties, coupling strength and stiffness, soil strength and
5.8.3 BUCKLING BACKGROUND
stiffness, and the eccentricity of the applied load. This section
presents a description of the procedures available to evaluate Buckling of columns most often relates to the allowable
buckling of helical piles and recommendations that aid the sys- compression load for a given unsupported length. The
tematic performance of buckling analysis. mathematician Leonhard Euler solved the question of critical
compression load in the 18th century with a basic equation
Buckling analysis of helical piles under compression loads,
included in most strength of materials textbooks.
especially square shaft helical piles, may be important in three
situations: EQUATION 5-61
1. When an end-bearing pile is relatively long (>20 feet [>6 Pcrit = π2EI/(KLu)2
m]) and is installed through very soft clay into a very hard where
underlying layer. E = Modulus of elasticity
2. When a pile is installed in loose, saturated clean sand that I = Moment of inertia
undergoes liquefaction during an earthquake event. K = End condition parameter that depends on fixity
3. When a pile is subject to excessive eccentric load without Lu = Unsupported length
adequate bracing. Most helical piles have slender shafts, which can lead to very
5.8.2 BRACING high slenderness ratios (KLu/r) depending on the length of the
pile shaft. This condition would be a concern if the helical piles
Designers and structural engineers must consider bracing of were in air or water and subjected to a compressive load. For
pile foundation elements, especially helical piles and resistance this case, the critical buckling load could be estimated using
piers with slender shafts. Section 1810.2.2 of the 2021 Interna- the well-known Euler equation (Equation 5-61).
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
PIER BRACING NEAR GRADE BEAM CORNER PIER BRACING ON CONTINUOUS GRADE BEAM
However, helical piles are not supported by air or water, but by 5.8.5 BUCKLING ANALYSIS BY DAVISSON
soil. This is the reason helical piles can be loaded in compression
(1963) METHOD
well beyond the critical buckling loads predicted by Equation
5-61. As a practical guideline, soil with N60 SPT blow counts per A number of solutions have been developed for various com-
ASTM D1586 greater than 4 along the entire embedded length binations of pile head and tip boundary conditions and for
of the helical pile shaft has been found to provide adequate the cases of constant modulus of subgrade reaction (kh) with
support to resist buckling provided there are no horizontal depth. One of these solutions is the Davisson (1963) method as
(shear) loads or bending moments applied to the top of the described below. Solutions for various boundary conditions are
pile. Only the very weak soils are of practical concern. For soils presented by Davisson as shown in Figure 5-25. The solutions
with N60 values of 4 blows/ft or less, buckling calculations in Figure 5-25 are presented in dimensionless form as a plot
can be done by hand using the Davisson Method (1963) or of buckling load ratio (Ucr) versus length ratio (lmax). The axial
by computer solution using the finite-difference technique as load on the pile is assumed to be constant, i.e., no load transfer
implemented in the LPILE computer program (Ensoft, Austin, due to side resistance occurs, and the pile is assumed to be
TX). In addition, the engineers at Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., initially perfectly straight.
have developed a macro-based computer solution using the EQUATION 5-62
finite-element technique with finite element analysis software
Ucr = PcrR2/EpIp or Pcr = UcrEpIp/R2
from ANSYS, Inc. If required, application engineers can provide
project-specific buckling calculations given sufficient data where
relating to the applied loads and the soil profile. If you need Ucr = Dimensionless buckling load ratio
engineering assistance, please contact the Chance distributor Pcr = Critical buckling load
in your area. Contact information for Chance distributors EQUATION 5-63
R = 4√EPIP/khB
can be found at www.chancefoundationsolutions.com. These
Ep = Modulus of elasticity of pile shaft
professionals will help you to collect the data required to
Ip = Moment of inertia of pile shaft
perform a buckling analysis. The distributor will either send this
kh = Modulus of subgrade reaction
data to Hubbell for a buckling analysis or directly provide this
service. B = Pile shaft diameter
5.8.4 BUCKLING/LATERAL STABILITY PER

INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC)
REQUIREMENTS
IBC 2021 Section 1810.2.1 Lateral Support states that any soil
other than fluid soil shall be deemed to afford sufficient lateral
support to prevent buckling of deep foundation elements
in accordance with accepted engineering practice and the
applicable provisions of this code. Per IBC 2021 section 1810.2.1,
piers/piles can be considered fixed and laterally supported at
5 feet below the ground surface when driven into firm ground
and at 10 feet below the ground surface when driven into soft
material. The IBC does not specifically define fluid, soft, and
firm soil. To remedy this, ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
defines these soil terms as follows:
• Firm soils are defined as any soil with a Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N60) of five or greater.
• Soft soils are defined as any soil with an SPT blow count
(N60) greater than zero and less than five.
• Fluid soils are defined as any soil with an SPT blow count
(N60) of zero [weight of hammer (WOH) or weight of rods
(WOR)].
Therefore, one method to check the effects of buckling and
lateral stability of helical piles and resistance piers is to assume
the depth to fixity is either 5 feet in firm soil or 10 feet in soft soil.
The corresponding axial compression capacity of the pile shaft
is determined based on either 5 feet or 10 feet of unsupported
length. This is the method used to determine the nominal, LRFD BUCKLING LOAD RATIO (Ucr) VS.
design, and ASD allowable compression strengths of the helical LENGTH RATIO (lmax) [POULOS AND DAVIS (1980)]
pile product families provided in Section 7 of this manual. FIGURE 5-25
EQUATION 5-64 The first term of the equation corresponds to the equation
for beams subject to transverse loading. The second term
lmax = L/R
represents the effect of the axial compressive load. The
where
third term represents the effect of the reaction from the
lmax = Dimensionless length ratio soil. For soil properties varying with depth, it is convenient
L = Pile shaft length over which kh is considered to to solve this equation using numerical procedures such
be constant as the finite-element or finite-difference methods. Reese,
By assuming a constant modulus of subgrade reaction (kh) for et al. (1997) outlines the process to solve Equation 5-65
a given soil profile to determine R and lmax and using Figure using a finite-difference approach. Several computer
5-25 to determine Ucr, Equation 5-62 can be solved for the crit- programs are commercially available that are applicable to
ical buckling load. Typical values for kh are shown in Table 5-15. piles subject to axial and lateral loads as well as bending
moments. Such programs allow the introduction of soil and
Figure 5-25 shows that the boundary conditions at the pile
pile shaft properties that vary with depth and can be used
head and tip exert a controlling influence on Ucr, with the low-
advantageously for design of helical piles and micropiles
est buckling loads occurring for piles with free (unrestrained)
subject to centered or eccentric loads.
ends. Design Example 8-16 in Section 8 illustrates the use of
the Davisson (1968) method to determine the critical buckling To define the critical load for a particular structure using
load. the finite-difference technique, it is necessary to analyze
the structure under successively increasing loads. This is
5.8.6 BUCKLING ANALYSIS BY necessary because the solution algorithm becomes unstable
FINITE-DIFFERENCE METHOD at loads above the critical load. This instability may be seen
as a convergence to a physically illogical configuration or a
Another way to determine the buckling load of a helical pile
failure to converge to any solution. Since physically illogical
in soil is to model it based on the classical Winkler (mathe-
configurations are not always easily recognized, it is best to
matician, circa 1867) concept of a beam-column on an elastic
build up a context of correct solutions at low loads with which
foundation. The finite-difference technique can then be used
any new solution can be compared. Design Example 8-17 in
to solve the governing differential equation for successively
Section 8 illustrates the use of the finite-difference method to
greater loads until, at or near the buckling load, failure to con-
determine the critical buckling load.
verge to a solution occurs. The derivation for the differential
equation for the beam-column on an elastic foundation was
given by Hetenyi (1946). The assumption is made that a shaft
5.8.7 BUCKLING ANALYSIS BY
on an elastic foundation is subjected not only to lateral loading, FINITE ELEMENTS
but also to compressive force acting at the center of gravity of
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., has developed a design tool
the end cross-sections of the shaft, leading to the differential
integrated with FEA software from ANSYS, Inc, to determine
equation:
the load response and buckling of helical piles. The method uses
EQUATION 5-65 a limited nonlinear model of the soil to simulate soil resistance
EI(d4y/dx4) + Q(d2y/dx2) + Esy = 0 response without requiring the solution time inherent in a full
nonlinear model. The model is still more sophisticated than a
where
simple elastic foundation model and allows for different soil
EI = Flexural rigidity of the foundation shaft
layers and types.
y = Lateral deflection of the shaft at a point x along
The helical pile components are modeled as 3-D beam elements
the length of the shaft
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
assumed to have elastic response. Couplings are modeled from

x = Distance along the axis, i.e., along the
actual test data, which includes an initial zero stiffness, elastic/
shaft
rotation stiffness, and a final failed condition which includes
Q = Axial compressive load on the helical some residual stiffness. Macros are used to create soil property
pile data sets, helical pile component libraries, and load options
Esy = Soil reaction per unit length with end conditions at the pile head.
Es = Secant modulus of the soil response After the helical pile has been configured and the soil and load
curve conditions specified, the macros increment the load, solve for
the current load, and update the lateral resistance based on the
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION—TYPICAL VALUES,
lateral deflection. After each solution, the FEA post-processor
TABLE 5-15
extracts the lateral deflection and recalculates the lateral
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION stiffness of the soil for each element. The macro then restarts
SOIL DESCRIPTION
(kh) (pci)
the analysis for the next load increment. This incremental
Very soft clay 15-20 process continues until buckling occurs. Various outputs such
Soft clay 30-75
as deflection and bending moment plots can be generated
from the results. Design Example 8-18 in Section 8 illustrates
Loose sand 20 the use of the finite-element method to determine the critical
buckling load.
5.8.8 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS— Chance Helical Pulldown micropiles cannot be installed in
every soil condition. To date, grouted-shaft helical piles have
BUCKLING
been successfully installed in overburden soil with SPT N60
As stated previously, where soft and/or loose soils (SPT N60 blow counts greater than 10 blows/ft. In those cases, the
blow count ≤ 4) overlie the bearing stratum, the possibility of grouted shaft is being used to develop greater load capacity
shaft buckling must be considered. Buckling also becomes and a stiffer response, not necessarily to prevent buckling.
a potential limiting factor where lateral loads (bending and Contractors have successfully installed Helical Pulldown
shear) are present in combination with compressive loads. micropiles in glacial tills (SPT N60 > 50) using special
Factors that determine the buckling load include the helical soil-displacement methods. Increasingly dense soil makes
pile shaft diameter, length, flexural stiffness, and strength; the installation more difficult for the displacement element, which
soil stiffness and strength; any lateral shear and/or moment must force soil laterally outward from the central steel shaft.
applied at the pile head; and pile head fixity conditions (fixed,
pinned, free, etc.). In addition, all extendable helical piles
have couplings or joints used to connect succeeding sections
together in order to install the helix plates into bearing soil.
Bolted couplings or joints 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. 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.
Concerns about slender shafts and joint stiffness, along with
the fact that helical piles are routinely installed in soils with poor
strength, are some of the reasons why helical piles are often
installed with grouted shafts (Helical Pulldown® micropiles)
and are available with larger diameter round pipe shafts.
Round shaft (RS) helical piles have better buckling resistance
than square shaft (SS) piles because they have greater section
moduli (flexural resistance), plus they have greater resistance
to lateral deflection in soil due to their larger lateral dimensions.
See the specifications section of the helical pile product family
pages in Section 7 for the section properties and dimensions of
SS and RS helical piles/anchors. RS EXTENSION
SS helical piles/anchors provide the most efficient capacity-to-

torque relationship (see Section 6, Installation Methodology).
RS helical piles/anchors provide lateral capacity and better
buckling resistance. A good compromise to address buckling
in soft/loose soils is to use helical combination piles, or combo SS TO RS TRANSITION
piles for short. A combo pile consists of a square shaft lead
section and round shaft extension sections (see Figure 5-26).
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
The combo pile provides the advantages of SS and RS piles, SS LEAD SECTION
which enables the combo pile to penetrate dense/hard soils
and provide a larger shaft section in the soft/loose soils above
the bearing strata. See Section 7 for more information on
combo piles.
The Chance® Helical Pulldown® micropile is a method for
constructing a grout column around the shaft of either a
square shaft or round shaft helical pile installed in soft/loose SS TO RS COMBINATION PILE
soil. The installation process displaces soil around the central FIGURE 5-26
steel shaft and replaces it with a gravity-fed neat cement grout
mixture. Upon curing, the grout forms a column that increases
the section modulus of the pile shaft to the point that buckling
is not the limiting condition. In addition to buckling resistance,
the grout column increases axial load capacity due to skin
friction and/or adhesion along the column and stiffens the
load-deflection response of the pile. See Section 7 for more
information on Helical Pulldown micropiles.
5.9 HELICAL PILE DEFLECTION AT Using an ASD Factor of Safety of 2.0, the working load for
this anchor is (19,500 lb)/2.0 = 9,750 lb. Because the
WORKING LOAD load-deflection curves of helical piles/anchors are generally
Most of the discussion thus far has focused on evaluating nonlinear, it would be expected that the deflection at the
the ultimate load capacity of helical piles/anchors in axial working load would be less than one half of the deflection at
compression or tension. This is considered as the load limit the ultimate load (1.20 inches). In this case, the deflection at
state and gives the upper bound on the load capacity. The the working load of 9,750 lb is on the order of 0.36 inches.
deflections of the pile/anchor at this load state will be very Using a lower Factor of Safety results in a higher deflection
large (> 2 inches [>51 mm]), and the pile/anchor deflection will at the working load. For example, if a Factor of Safety of 1.5
continue to increase with no additional increase in load capacity. is used, the working load becomes (19,500 lb)/1.5 = 13,000 lb,
It is also of great interest to most engineers to consider the and the deflection corresponding to this load is on the order
behavior of a helical pile/anchor at a lower working load or of 0.55 inches.
serviceability state which is well below the load limit state. Based on a review of a number of tests performed on
We can consider a typical load-deflection curve as shown single-helix piles/anchors in Colorado, Cherry and Perko
in Figure 5-27. This plot shows the test results of a 1.5-inch (2012) suggested that for many piles/anchors, the deflection
square shaft helical anchor with a single 12-inch helix installed at the working loads (FS = 2.0) averaged about 0.25 inches.
to a depth of 10 feet in a medium-dense silty sand. The test Additional work is needed to determine how this may vary for
was performed in tension. According to the IBC, the ultimate multi-helix piles/anchors and if other soils produce different
capacity is the load producing a net deflection of 10% of the behavior.
helix diameter. In this case, the ultimate capacity occurs at
1.20 inches of deflection, which corresponds to 19,500 lb. It
is obvious that in this case, as in most cases, the anchor can
actually hold load up to a deflection of as much as 20% of the
helix diameter.
(in)
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
DEFLECTION VS. LOAD PLOT

FIGURE 5-27
REFERENCES:
1. Specification ASTM D1586, Standard Test Method for Penetration 15. Design Manual DM7, NAVFAC, Foundations and Earth Structures,
Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils, American Society for Government Printing Office, 1986.
Testing and Materials.
16. Design Manual DM7, NAVFAC, Soil Mechanics, Government Printing
2. Abdelghany, Y, and El Naggar (2010), Full-scale Experimental Office, 1986.
and Numberical Analysis of Instrumented Helical Screw Piles
17. Gouvenot, D., Essais en France et a l’Etranger sur le Frottement
Under Axial and Lateral Montonic and Cyclic Loadings – A
Lateral en Fondation: Amelioration par Injection, Travaux, 464, Nov,
Promising Solution for Seismic Retrofitting. Proceedings of the
Paris, France, 1973.
6th International Engineering and Construction Conference, Cairo,
Egypt. 18. HeliCALC Micropile Design Assessment Program, Theoretical and
User’s Manual, Hubbell Power Systems/A.B. Chance Co., 2001.
3. Bjerrum, L., Norwegian Experiences with Steel Piles to Rock,
Geotechnique, Vol 7, 1957. 19. Hetenya, M., Beams on Elastic Foundations, The University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1946.
4. Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, First Edition,
McGraw-Hill, 1968. 20. Hoyt, Robert M., Gary L. Seider, Lymon C. Reese and Shin-Tower
Wang, Buckling of Helical Anchors Used for Underpinning,
5. Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, Fourth Edition,
Proceedings, ASCE National Convention, San Diego, CA, 1995.
McGraw-Hill, 1988.
21. Meyerhof, George Geoffrey, Bearing Capacity and Settlement of
6. Brinch Hansen, J., The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Piles
Pile Foundations, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Against Transversal Forces, Geoteknish Institute Bulletin No. 12,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume
Copenhagen, 1961.
102, No GT3, 1976.
7. Broms, Bengt. B., Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils,
22. Poulos, H.G., Analysis of Piles in Soils Undergoing Lateral
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
Movements, JSMFD, ASCE, Vol. 99, SM5, 1973.
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 90, SM2, 1964.
23. Reese, L.C., The Analysis of Piles Under Lateral Loading,
8. Broms, Bengt B., Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils,
Proceedings, Symposium on the Interaction of Structure and
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
Foundation, Midland Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, vol. 90 SM3, 1964.
Society, University of Birmingham, England, 1971.
9. Cadden, Allen and Jesus Gomez, Buckling of Micropiles, ADSC-IAF
24. Reese, L.C. and S.J. Wright, Drilled Shaft Design and Construction
Micropile Committee, Dallas, TX, 2002.
Guidelines Manual, US Department of Transportation, Federal
10. Clemence, Samuel P. and others, Uplift Behavior of Anchor Highway Administration, 1977.
Foundations in Soil, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1985.
25. Reese, L.C., W.M. Wang, J.A. Arrellaga, and J. Hendrix, Computer
11. Das, Braja M., Theoretical Foundation Engineering, Elsevier Science Program LPILEPLUS Technical Manual, Version 3.0, Ensoft, Inc.,
Publishing Company Inc., New York, NY, 1987. AUSTIN, TX, 1997.
12. Davis, E.H., The Application of the Theory of Plasticity to 26. Sharnouby and El Naggar (2011), Montonic and Cyclic Lateral
Foundation Problems-Limit Analysis, Post Graduate Course, Full-scale Testing of Reinforced Helical Pulldown Micropiles,
University of Sydney, Australia, 1961. Proceedings of the DFI Annual Conference 2011, Boston, MA.
13. Davisson, M.T., Estimating Buckling Loads for Piles, Proceedings 27. Terzaghi, K. and R.B. Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
of the Second Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.
Foundation Engineering, Brazil, Vol 1, 1963.
28. Deep Foundations Institute (DFI),
14. Davisson, M.T., Laterally Loaded Capacity of Piles, Highway Helical Pile Foundation Design Guide. 2019.
Research Record, No. 333: 104-112, 1970.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
SECTION 6: INSTALLATION METHODOLOGY
CONTENTS
Atlas Resistance® Piers................................................................................................................................... 6-2
Chance® Helical Piles/Anchors.................................................................................................................... 6-4
Installation Torque/Capacity Relationship............................................................................................. 6-4
Torque Indicator Calibration....................................................................................................................... 6-12
Installation Termination Criteria................................................................................................................ 6-12
DISCLAIMER
specifications.
INSTALLATION METHODOLOGY
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. shall not be responsible for or liable to you and/or your customers for the adop-
tion, revision, implementation, use, or misuse of this information. Hubbell, Inc. takes great pride and has every
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. does NOT warrant the work of its dealers/installing contractors in the installation
ATLAS RESISTANCE® PIERS LOAD VERIFICATION
Atlas Resistance® Piers develop their capacity as a result of a Atlas Resistance® Piers are installed using hydraulic cylinders
pile tip or end bearing reaction in soil or rock that is achieved with known effective areas. Although larger cylinders are avail-
by hydraulically driving hollow pier sections to suitable strata able for extreme load conditions, the standard installation cyl-
utilizing the reaction weight of an existing structure. The fric- inders have an effective area of 8.29 in2. The effective area of
tion reduction collar on the initial or starter section allows for the cylinder is multiplied by the hydraulic pressure monitored
an end bearing pile. Most Atlas Resistance® Piers are installed by a gauge mounted between the hydraulic pump and the
to a force equal to a minimum of 150% of the calculated to- cylinder. The net result of this number is the actual force (in
tal load at each pier placement. The total load condition is a lbs) achieved as the pier sections are driven against the reac-
sum of the structure Dead Loads (DL) and all known potential tion weight of the structure until the required load is achieved
Live Loads (LL). In addition to the usual calculated loads, it is or structure lift occurs. Additional pier sections are added
extremely important to include loads imposed from soil over- as necessary until a competent bearing stratum is reached.
burden over a projected area, primarily outside of the founda- The force is logged at the end of each pier section driven on
tion wall footprint (toe or heel) of the footing. The area of the the field installation log.
projection plus the height of soils above it produce a loading
condition that is quite often in excess of the structure load it- TWO STAGE SYSTEM METHODOLOGY
self. When lifting the structure is required, an additional “soil
Atlas Resistance® Piers incorporate a two-stage installation pro-
wedge” area and/or volume should be considered relative to
cedure that consists of first driving each pier individually, us-
the soil type and its characteristics. To be conservative in de-
ing the structure as reaction to install the pier, followed by the
sign calculations it is prudent to consider the long-term load-
second stage of installation that transfers the structure loads to
ing effect from soils outside of the vertical and horizontal plane
all the installed piers simultaneously during lifting or stabilizing.
of the soil overburden even when stabilization only is required.
This two-stage process is required to obtain an adequate Factor
of Safety (FS). During the first stage of installing the piers, the
integrity of the foundation and the dead weight of the structure
determines the extent to which additional Factors of Safety can
be achieved between the installation force and final lift loads.
Figure 6-1 provides a schematic drawing that illustrates the in-
stallation of pier sections. The second stage occurs when all or
most of the piers are loaded simultaneously using a manifold or
series of manifolds and hydraulic cylinders placed at each pier.
The manifolds and cylinders are connected to a pump or series
of pumps depending on the number of piers being lifted. Dur-
ing the lifting stage the hydraulic pressure is monitored on each
manifold system gauge. Typical 25 ton lifting cylinders have an
effective area of 5.15 in2. The load at each pier is monitored at
the final lock off and noted on the field installation logs. The
actual lift or lock off load at each pier can then be compared to
the installation loads at each pier to determine the actual Factor
of Safety developed between installation loads and actual loads
required to produce structural lift and support. Figure 6-2 pro-
vides a schematic drawing illustrating the lift stage.
BEARING CAPACITY
The compressive bearing capacity of Atlas Resistance® Piers is
developed predominantly by end-bearing due to the friction
reduction collar at the lead end of the initial or starter section.
Friction calculations do not normally enter into design steps
unless required to comply with some older municipal codes. In-

creased tip areas (larger diameter pipe) will typically increase
load resistance during installation of the pile. Standard pier
section diameters are 2-7/8”, 3-1/2”, and 4-1/2”. The selection
of pier size is determined through consideration of pile load
requirement, column stability (buckling concerns) structure in-
tegrity and the ability to drive the pile past seasonal zones of
INSTALLATION CONFIGURATION influence relative to available reaction forces. Bracket assem-
FIGURE 6-1 blies are coupled with the appropriate pier section size to ser-
vice both the geotechnical and structural requirements.
CLAY SOILS
In clay soil conditions defined as very stiff to hard, i.e., Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) “N” values in excess of 35-40 blows/
foot, it has been shown empirically that an Atlas Resistance®
Pier can generate substantial end-bearing capacity, often in
excess of 50,000-60,000 lbs of bearing resistance. While the
high capacities defy absolute calculation for both very dense
sand and hard clay, empirical data developed over the last
several decades gives evidence to this phenomenon. Data de-
veloped by A.S. Vesic (1972) for the Transportation Research
Board suggests that hard/dense soil develops very high capac-
ities due to the formation of a larger pile bulb at the base of
an end-bearing foundation. This phenomenon results in higher
values for the bearing capacity factor (Nq), especially for driv-
en piles. Figure 6-3 is an excerpt from Patent 1.217.128 issued to
L. White. It is a graphical rendition of the assumed large stress
bulb formed under a pile tip.
SAND SOILS
Atlas Resistance® Piers also develop substantial end-bearing
capacities in granular soils, but the sand or gravel must typi-
cally exhibit a high relative density with “N” values in excess of
30-35 blows/ft. The same pile bulb described above for clay
soils will form at the base of an Atlas Resistance® Pier in sand
soils. In granular soils, the overburden pressure (effective verti-
cal confining stress) has a large influence on bearing capacity,
so the deeper the pier tip is embedded, the higher the bearing
capacity will be for a given sand deposit of uniform density. A
design condition consisting of a shallow ground water table
(GWT) will require Atlas Resistance® Piers to be installed to a
RESTORATION USING LIFT HEAD sufficient depth to counteract the reduction in confining stress
AND HYDRAULIC RAM caused by the buoyancy effect of the water.
FIGURE 6-2
BEDROCK
The presence of an intact bedrock surface represents an ideal
ground condition for a totally end-bearing load transfer for any
type of foundation. In this case the Atlas Resistance® Pier is
installed to the rigid bearing surface represented by the bed-
rock layer, with load confirmation being verified by monitoring
of the hydraulic pressure and effective area of the installation
cylinder. The design capacity in this case is directly related to
the structural strength of the pier shaft and bracket assembly.
INSTALLATION OVERVIEW
When the loading, structural and geotechnical conditions have
been determined, the proper pier brackets and pier sections
can be selected. Following excavation for the installation, the

footing (if present) is notched to a point flush with the wall to
be underpinned. Should steel reinforcement be encountered,
notify the Engineer of Record prior to cutting. This procedure
is performed to minimize the eccentricity of the pier assembly.
In situations where notching the footing is prohibited, consid-
eration needs to be given to the published pier capacity rat-
ASSUMED STRESS BULB UNDER PILE TIP ings if the footing extension from the wall is excessive, possibly
FIGURE 6-3 increasing the eccentric load on the pier assembly resulting in
a lower capacity. The bottom of the footing should be prepped
and/or a load bearing grout added between the pier bracket
and footing to provide a uniform bearing connection. This is a
critical point, especially in high load conditions. Failure to com-
ply with this step could result in a point load on the bracket and
cause an early bracket failure.
When the bracket and installation equipment are properly po-
sitioned and anchored to the foundation or wall, the starter
section can be placed in a vertical and plumb position. Acti-
vate the hydraulic pump to advance and retract the installation
cylinder as necessary to drive the pier sections (see photo at
top right). The pressure is recorded at the end of each 42” pier
section. Continue driving pier sections until reaching strata ca-
pable of resisting the estimated Proof Load (PL) or until struc-
ture lift occurs. When approaching the end of the drive, a good
rule of thumb is to drive pipe until either the structure begins
to lift and/or the pressure continues to build. If a small amount
of movement has occurred but the pressure remains constant,
an experienced installer will continue to drive pipe until either
a more significant movement is noted or a consistent build in
pressure occurs. Depending on the integrity of the foundation
and the comfort level of the installer, this will often result in
substantial Factors of Safety in excess of 1.5. When driving the
pier pipe is completed, the final pier section is removed and
cut or cut in place to the required elevation. When the cut pier
section has been reinstalled on the pier, the installation equip-
ment is removed and moved to the next pier location to be
installed. When all the piers have been installed, lift heads and
lift cylinders are placed on all the piers. The cylinders, mani-
folds and hydraulic pump are connected.
Load is applied uniformly, as much as possible (see photo at
bottom right). Upon transfer of load to the entire pier assembly,
lift pressures are noted at each pier and recorded on the field
log. When all the lift cylinders have been locked off, shims and
pins can be installed on the 2-Piece brackets or the nuts on the
Continuous Lift brackets can be tightened to lock the load on
the brackets. The Lift Heads and Lift Cylinders can be removed.
The actual verified Factor of Safety between installation pre-
load and final lock off load can then be confirmed. Table 6-1 is an
example of the driving (installation) and lift forces that could be torque from the machine to the helix plate(s). Most helical piles
involved in the installation of Atlas Resistance® Piers. in North America use a low displacement (less than 4.5 inch
Refer to the Atlas Resistance® Standard, Heavy Duty and Modi- (114 mm) diameter shaft in order to reduce friction and soil dis-
fied 2-Piece Pier Systems Model Specification found under the placement during installation. A helical pile/anchor functions
Resources tab on www.chancefoundationsolutions.com for de- similar to a wood screw except that it has a discontinuous
tailed installation instructions. thread-form and is made to a much larger scale.
CHANCE® HELICAL PILE/ANCHORS INSTALLATION TORQUE/CAPACITY

A helical pile/anchor is a low soil displacement foundation ele- RELATIONSHIP
ment specifically designed to minimize disturbance during in- When installed into soil, a helical pile/anchors functions as an
stallation. In their simplest forms, helical piles/anchors consist axially loaded end-bearing deep foundation. The helix plates
of at least one helix plate and a central steel shaft (see Figure serve a two-fold purpose. The first purpose is to provide the
6-4). The helix geometry is very important in that it provides means to install the helical pile/anchor. The second purpose
the downward force or thrust that pulls a helical pile/anchor is to provide the bearing element for load transfer to soil. As
into the ground. The helix plate(s) must be a true ramped spiral such, helical pile/anchor design is keyed to these two purpos-
with a uniform pitch to maximize efficiency during installation. es, both of which can be used to predict the ultimate capacity.
If the helix is not formed properly, it will disturb the soil more
Section 5 detailed how helix plates act as bearing elements.
than if a true helix advances at a rate of one pitch per revolu-
The capacity is determined by multiplying the unit bearing ca-
tion. The central steel shaft transmits the rotational energy or
INSTALLATION LOAD VS LIFT LOAD, TABLE 6-1 EQUATION 6-1
Qult = Kt x T
First Stage Second Stage
where
DRIVE/PUSH LIFT
Qult = Ultimate uplift capacity [lb (kN)]
Installation STD Drive Pier Lift/ STD Lift Ram Safety
Load Cylinder Lock Effective Area Factor Kt = Empirical torque factor [ft-1 (m-1)]
Summary Effective Area Summary (sq. in.) Drive T = Average installation torque [lb-ft (kN-m)]
(sq. in.) vs Lift
8.29 ß à 5.15
Hoyt and Clemence recommended Kt = 10 ft-1 (33 m-1) for
Pier Pier
PSI CAPACITY PSI LOAD SF square shaft (SS) and round shaft (RS) helical anchors less than
# #
3.5” (89 mm) in diameter, 7 ft-1 (23 m-1) for 3.5” diameter round
1 4,200 34.8 1 4,000 20.6 1.7
shafts, and 3 ft-1 (9.8 m-1) for 8-5/8” (219 mm) diameter round
2 4,600 38.1 2 4,000 20.6 1.9 shafts. The value of Kt is not a constant - it may range from 3
3 4,600 38.1 3 4,500 23.2 1.6 to 20 ft-1 (10 to 66 m-1), depending on soil conditions, shaft size
4 4,800 39.8 ß à 4 4,500 23.2 1.7 and shape, helix thickness, and application (tension or com-
pression). For Chance® Type SS Square Shaft Helical Piles/
5 5,000 41.5 5 4,800 24.7 1.7
Anchors, Kt typically ranges from 10 to 13 ft-1 (33 to 43 m-1),
with 10 ft-1 (33 m-1) being the recommended default value. For
pacity of the soil at each helix location by the projected area Chance® Type RS Pipe Shaft Helical Piles/Anchors, Kt typically
of each helix. This capacity is generally defined as the ultimate ranges from 3 to 10 ft-1 (10 to 33 m-1), with 9 ft-1 (30 m-1) being
theoretical capacity because it is based on soil parameters ei- the recommended default for Type RS2875; 7 ft-1 (23 m-1) be-
ther directly measured or empirically derived from soil explora- ing the recommended default for Type RS3500.300; and 6 ft-1
tion sounding data. (20 m-1) being the recommended default for Type RS4500.337.
The purpose of this section is to provide a basic understanding The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (2006) recom-
of how installation torque (or installation energy) provides a
simple, reliable means to predict the capacity of a helical pile/
anchor. More importantly, this prediction method is indepen-
dent of the bearing capacity method detailed in Section 5, so
it can be used as a “field production control” method to verify Central
capacity during installation. The installation torque-to-capacity Steel
Shaft
relationship is an empirical method originally developed by the
A.B. Chance Company in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Hub-
bell Power Systems, Inc. has long promoted the concept that
the torsional energy required to install a helical pile/anchor can
H2
be related to the ultimate capacity of a pile/anchor. Precise def- Helix
inition of the relationship for all possible variables remains to Diameter Pitch
be achieved. However, simple empirical relationships, originally
derived for tension loads but also valid for compression loads,
have been used for a number of years. The principle is that
as a helical pile/anchor is installed (screwed) into increasingly
denser/harder soil, the resistance to installation (called instal-
lation energy or torque) will increase. Likewise, the higher the
installation torque, the higher the axial capacity of the installed
pile/anchor. Per the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) Helical
Pile Foundation Design Guide (2019), capacity-to-torque cor-
relation factors, Kt, have been statistically established based
on a large database of installations, and the method has been H1
used successfully in helical pile applications. Hoyt and Clem- Helix
ence (1989) presented a landmark paper on this topic at the Diameter Pitch
12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering. They proposed the following formula that re-
lates the ultimate capacity of a helical pile/anchor to its instal-
Helix
lation torque: Pilot Thickness
Point
HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR
FIGURE 6-4
mends values of Kt = 7 ft-1 for pipe shaft helical piles with 90 sion load, where it is appropriate to use the final (last) instal-
mm OD, and Kt = 3 ft-1 for pipe shaft helical piles approaching lation torque.
200 mm OD.
ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358 for Helical Pile Systems and
The correlation between installation torque (T), and the ulti- Devices Section 3.13.2 provides prequalified torque correlation
mate capacity (Qult) of a helical pile/anchor, is a simple concept (Kt) values for conforming helical pile systems based on shaft
but a complicated reality. This is partly because there are a size and shape. They are the same as recommended by Hubbell
large number of factors that can influence the determination of Power Systems, Inc. and by Hoyt and Clemence. Hubbell Power
the empirical torque factor Kt. A number of these factors (not Systems, Inc. helical piles are conforming per AC358. The AC358
including soil), are summarized in Table 6.2. Kt values are the same for both tension and compression axial
loads.
It is important to understand that torque correlation is valid
when the helical pile/anchor is advancing at a rate of penetra- The International Building Code (IBC) 2021 Section 1810.3.3.1.9
tion nearly equal to one helix pitch per revolution. Large dis- states there are three ways to determine the capacity of helical
placement shafts [>8-5/8” (219mm)] are less likely to advance piles—including well documented correlations with installation
at this rate, which means torque correlation cannot be used as torque.
a means to determine capacity.
SOIL FACTORS INFLUENCING Kt
FACTORS INFLUENCING Kt, TABLE 6-2
Locating helix bearing plates in very soft, loose, or sensitive
Factors Affecting Installation Factors Affecting Ultimate soils will typically result in Kt values less than the recommend-
Torque (T) Capacity (Qult)
ed default. This is because some soils, such as salt leached ma-
Method of Measuring Installation Number and Size of Helix rine clays and lacustrine clays, are very sensitive and lose con-
Torque (T) Plates
siderable shear strength when disturbed. It is better to extend
Installed Depth Used to Determine Direction of Loading (Tension the helical pile/anchor beyond sensitive soils into competent
“Average” Torque or Compression)
bearing strata. If it’s not practical to extend the helical pile/
Applied Down-Force or “Crowd” Geometry of Couplings anchor beyond sensitive soils, testing is required to determine
the appropriate Kt.
Rate of Rotation Spacing of Helix Plates
Full-scale load testing has shown that helical anchors/piles
Alignment of Pile/Anchor Shape and Size of Shaft typically have at least the same capacity in compression as in
tension. In practice, compression capacity is generally higher
Time between Installation and than tension capacity because the pile/anchor bears on soil
Rate of Advance
Loading
below rather than above the helix plates, plus at least one he-
Geometry of Couplings lix plate is bearing on undisturbed soil. Soil above the bearing
plates is disturbed by the slicing action of the helix, but not
Shape and Size of Shaft overly disturbed by being “augured” and removed. Typically,
the same values of Kt are used for both tension and compres-
Shape and Size of Shaft sion applications. This generally results in conservative results
for compression applications. A poorly formed helix shape will
Number & Size of Helix Plates
disturb soil enough to adversely affect the torque-to-capacity
Pitch of Helix Plates
relationship, i.e., Kt is reduced. To prevent this, Hubbell Power
Systems, Inc. uses matching metal dies to form helix plates
which are as near to a true helical shape as is practically pos-
sible. To understand all the factors that Kt is a function of, one
The factors listed in Table 6-2 are some of the reasons why
must first understand how helical piles/anchors interact with
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. has a dealer certification program.
the soil during installation.
Contractors who install helical piles/anchors are trained in the
proper methods and techniques before they are certified. In
order for Equation 6-1 to be useful, installation torque must TORQUE RESISTANCE FACTORS
be measured. There are a variety of methods used to measure There are two main factors that contribute to the torque resis-
torque. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. offers two in-line torque tance generated during a pile/anchor installation, friction and
indicators; in-line indicators are the best method to determine penetration resistance. Of the two factors, friction is the larger
torque for capacity prediction. Other useful methods to mea- component of torque resistance.
sure torque are presented later in this section. For torque cor-
relation to be valid, the rate of penetration should be between
FRICTION HAS TWO BASIC PARTS:
2.5” to 3” per revolution. The rotation speed should be con-
sistent and in the range of 5 to 20 RPM. And, the minimum (1) Friction on the helix plate and friction along the central steel
effective torsional resistance criterion (the average installation shaft. Friction resistance increases with helix size because the
torque) should be taken over the last 3 feet of penetration at surface area of the helix in contact with the soil increases with
1-foot intervals, unless a single helix pile is used for compres- the square of the diameter (see Figure 6-5). Likewise, friction
resistance increases with pitch size, i.e., the larger the pitch, the
greater the resistance. This is analogous to the difference be-
tween a coarse thread and a fine thread bolt. Basic physics tells
us that “work” is defined as force times distance. A larger pitch
causes the helix to travel a greater distance per revolution, thus
more work is required.
(2) Friction along the central steel shaft is similar to friction
on the helix plate. Friction resistance increases with shaft size
because the surface area of the shaft in contact with the soil in- Ø
creases as the diameter increases. An important performance

factor for helical pile/anchors is the helix to shaft diameter ratio
(Hd/Sd). The higher the Hd/Sd ratio, the more efficient a given
helical pile/anchor will be during installation. Friction resis-
tance also varies with shaft shape (see Figure 6-6). A round
shaft may be the most efficient section to transmit torque en-
ergy, but it has the disadvantage of full surface contact with
the soil during installation. When the central steel shaft is large
(> 3” [76 mm] in diameter) the shaft frictional resistance con-
tributes significantly to the total frictional resistance. However, δ
a square shaft (< 3” [76 mm] in diameter) has only the corners
in full surface contact with the soil during installation, thus less
shaft frictional resistance. Frictional energy (energy loss) re-
quired to install a helical pile/anchor is related to the helix and
shaft size. The total energy loss due to friction is equal to the
TOP VIEW OF HELIX
sum of the friction loss of all the individual helix plates plus the
FIGURE 6-5
length of shaft subjected to friction via contact with the soil.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE HAS TWO BASIC PARTS:

(1) Shearing resistance along the leading edge of the helix plate
to allow passage of the helix plate and penetration resistance
of the shaft/pilot point. Shearing resistance increases with helix
size because leading edge length increases as the diameter in-
creases. Shearing resistance also increases with helix thickness
because more soil has to be displaced with a thick helix than
with a thin helix (see Figure 6-7). The average distance the soil
is displaced is equal to approximately 1/2 the helix thickness,
so as the thickness increases the more work (i.e., energy) is
required to pass the helix through the soil.
(2) Penetration resistance increases with shaft size because δ
the projected area of the hub/pilot point increases with the
square of the shaft radius (see Figure 6-8). The average dis-
tance the soil is displaced is approximately equal to the radius
of the shaft, so as the shaft size increases, the more work (i.e.,
energy) is required to pass the hub/pilot point through the soil.
The penetration energy required to install a helical pile/anchor
is proportional to the volume of soil displaced times the dis-
tance traveled. The volume of soil displaced by the pile/anchor
is equal to the sum of the volumes of all the individual helix
plates plus the volume of the soil displaced by the hub/pilot

point in moving downward with every revolution.
ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS
δ
Installation energy must equal the energy required to pen-
etrate the soil (penetration resistance) plus the energy loss
due to friction (frictional resistance). The installation energy FRICTION FORCES ACTION ON CENTRAL SHAFTS
is provided by the machine and consists of two components, FIGURE 6-6
SECTION VIEW OF LEADING
EDGE WITH FLOW LINES SHAFT/PILOT POINT WITH FLOW LINES
rotation energy supplied by the torque motor and downward Kt is moderately affected by helix plate radius and strongly af-
force (or crowd) provided by the machine. The rotational en- fected by shaft diameter and helix plate thickness.
ergy provided by the motor along with the inclined plane of a
The important issue is energy efficiency. Note that a large shaft
true helical form generates the thrust necessary to overcome
helical anchor/pile takes more energy to install into the soil
the penetration and friction resistance. The rotational energy is
than a small shaft pile/anchor. Likewise, a large diameter, thick
what is termed “installation torque.” The downward force also
helix takes more energy to install into the soil than a smaller di-
overcomes penetration resistance, but its contribution is usu-
ameter, thinner helix. The importance of energy efficiency is re-
ally required only at the start of the installation, or when the
alized when one considers that the additional energy required
lead helix is transitioning from a soft soil to a hard soil.
to install a large displacement helical pile/anchor contributes
From an installation energy standpoint, the perfect helical pile/ little to the load capacity of the pile/anchor. In other words,
anchor would consist of an infinitely thin helix plate attached to the return on the energy “investment” is not as good. This con-
an infinitely strong, infinitely small diameter central steel shaft. cept is what is meant when Hubbell engineers say large shaft
This configuration would be energy efficient because pen- diameter and/ or large helix diameter (>16” diameter) pile/an-
etration resistance and frictional resistance is low. Installation chors are not efficient “torque-wise.” This doesn’t mean large
torque to capacity relationships would be high. However, infi- diameter or large helix plate piles are not capable of producing
nitely thin helix plates and infinitely small shafts are not realisti- high capacity, it just means the installation energy, i.e. machine,
cally possible, so a balanced design of size, shape, and material must be larger in order to install the pile.
is required to achieve consistent, reliable torque to capacity
If one considers an energy balance between the energy ex-
relationships.
erted during loading and the appropriate penetration energy
As stated previously, the empirical relationship between in- of each of the helix plates, then it can be realized that any in-
stallation torque and ultimate capacity is well known, but not stallation energy not specifically related to helix penetration
precisely defined. As one method of explanation, a theoretical is wasted. This fact leads to several useful observations. For
model based on energy exerted during installation has been a given helix configuration and the same available installation
proposed [Perko (2000)]. The energy model is based on equat- energy (i.e., machine):
ing the energy exerted during installation with the penetration
1. Small displacement shafts will disturb less soil than large
and frictional resistance. Perko showed how the capacity of an
displacement shafts.
installed helical pile/anchor can be expressed in terms of instal-
lation torque, applied downward force, soil displacement, and 2. Small displacement shafts result in less pore pressure
the geometry of the pile/anchor. The model indicates that Kt is buildup than large displacement shafts.
weakly dependent on crowd, final installation torque, number
3. Small displacement shafts will penetrate farther into a giv-
of helix plates, and helix pitch. The model also indicates that
en bearing strata than large displacement shafts.
26 26
24 Log-Normal PDF 24 Log-Normal PDF

α = 0.16 α = 0.26
22 22
β = 0.82 β = 0.51
20 µ = 1.39 µ = 1.48
20
σ = 1.39 σ = 1.02
18 . = 0.30 18 . = 0.56
16 16
OCCURRENCES
OCCURRENCES
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1
RATIO Qact/Qcalc RATIO Qact/Qcalc
INDIVIDUAL BEARING METHOD TORQUE CORRELATION MODEL

random variables from the capacity model. Therefore, the in-

4. Small displacement shafts will penetrate soils with higher
stallation torque correlation method yields more consistent
SPT “N” values than large displacement shafts.
results than either of the other two methods. The installation
5. Small displacement shafts will generate more axial capac- torque method does have one disadvantage, however, in that it
ity with less deflection than large displacement shafts. cannot be used until after the helical pile/anchor has been in-
stalled. Therefore, it is better suited to on-site production con-
6. Kt varies inversely with shaft diameter.
trol and termination criteria than design in the office.
Perko (2012) suggested that if both individual bearing capac-
RELIABILITY OF TORQUE/CAPACITY
ity and torque correlation are used to determine the bearing
MODEL capacity of a helical pile/anchor, the resulting capacity will be
Hoyt and Clemence (1989) analyzed 91 tension load tests at accurate to within 97.7% reliability.
24 different sites with sand, silt and clay soils all represented.
All of the tests used in the study were short term; most were
strain controlled and included a final loading step of impos- MEASURING INSTALLATION TORQUE
ing continuous deflection at a rate of approximately 4 inches The torque correlation method requires the installation torque
(102 mm) per minute. This final load was taken as the ultimate to be measured and recorded in the field. There are several
capacity. The capacity ratio Qact/Qcalc was obtained for each
test by dividing the actual capacity (Qact) by the calculated
capacity (Qcalc). Qcalc was calculated by using three different
capacity models: (1) Cylindrical shear, (2) Individual bearing,
and (3) Torque correlation. These data were then compared
and plotted on separate histograms (see Figures 6-9 and 6-10,
cylindrical shear histogram not shown).
All three capacity models exhibited the capability of over-
predicting pile/anchor capacity. This would suggest the use
of appropriate Factors of Safety. However, the authors did not
discriminate between “good” and “poor” bearing soils when

analyzing the results. In other words, some of the test data ana-
lyzed were in areas where the helix plates were located in soils
typically not suitable for end bearing, (i.e., sensitive) clays and
loose sands.
All three capacity models’ mean values were quite close, but
the range and standard deviation were significantly lower for
the torque correlation method than for the other two. This im-
proved consistency is probably due to the removal of several SHEAR PIN TORQUE LIMITER, FIGURE 6-11
methods that can be used to measure torque, and Hubbell
Power Systems, Inc. has a complete line of torque indicators
to choose from. Each one is described below along with its
advantages and disadvantages:
SHAFT TWIST
A.B. Chance Company stated in early editions of the Ency-
clopedia of Anchoring (1977) that for standard SS5 Anchors,
“the most secure anchoring will result when the shaft has a 1 to
1-1/2 twist per 5-foot section.” Shaft twist is not a true torque-
indicating device. It has been used as an indication of “good
bearing soil” since Type SS anchors were first introduced in
the mid-1960s. Shaft twist should not be used exclusively as a
true torque-indicating device. Some of the reasons for this are
listed below.
Advantages:
• Simple, cheap, easy to use.
• Doesn’t require any additional tooling.
• Visible indication of torque. DIGITAL TORQUE INDICATOR
FIGURE 6-12
Disadvantages:
• Qualitative, not quantitative torque relationship.
• Not very accurate.
• Shaft twist can’t be correlated to installation torque on a
consistent basis.
• Type SS5, SS150, SS175, SS200, and SS225 shafts twist, or
wrap-up, at different torque levels.
• Shaft twist for a round shaft is not obvious without other
means of reference.
SHEAR PIN TORQUE LIMITER

A shear pin torque limiter is a mechanical device consisting of
two shear halves mounted to a central pin such that the shear
halves are free to rotate (see Figure 6-11). Shear pins inserted DIGITAL TORQUE INDICATOR APP DISPLAY
into perimeter holes prevent the shear halves from rotating FIGURE 6-13
and are rated to shear at 500 ft-lb of torque per pin. Required
torque can be achieved by loading the shear halves with the
appropriate number of pins, i.e., 4000 ft-lb = 8 pins. The shear
pin torque limiter is mounted in line with the torque motor and
pile/anchor tooling.
Advantages:
• Simple design, easy to use.
• Tough and durable, will take a lot of abuse and keep working.
• Accurate within ± 5% if kept in good working condition.

• Torque limiter - used to prevent exceeding a specified
torque.
• Relatively inexpensive to buy and maintain.
• Easy interchange from one machine to another.
Disadvantages:
DIGITAL TORQUE INDICATOR WITH INCLUDED
• Point-wise torque indicator, i.e., indicates torque at sepa- CASE AND HARDWARE, FIGURE 6-14
rate points, not continuously.
• Requires constant unloading and reloading of shear pins. • Indicates torque by measuring pressure drop across hy-
draulic torque motor.
• Limited to 10,000 ft-lb.
• No moving parts.
• Sudden release of torsional (back-lash) energy when pins
shear. • Continuous reading torque indicator.
• Fits tools with 5-1/4” bolt circle only. • Very durable - the unit is not in the tool string.
• Pressure gauge can be located anywhere on the machine.
DIGITAL TORQUE INDICATOR
• Analog type gauge eliminates “transient” torque peaks.
A digital torque indicator is a device consisting of strain gauges
• Pressure gauge can be overlaid to read torque (ft-lb) in-
mounted to a torsion bar located between two bolt flanges (see
stead of pressure (psi).
Figure 6-12). This tool measures installation torque by measur-
ing the shear strain of the torsion bar. The digital display reads • Accurate within ± 5% if kept in good working condition.
torque directly. The digital torque indicator is mounted in-line
• After mounting, it is always ready for use.
with the torque motor and pile/anchor tooling.
• Can be provided with multiple readout gauges.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
• Simple torsion bar & strain gauge design, easy to use.
• Requires significant initial installation setup time and ma-
• Continuous reading torque indicator.
terial, i.e., hydraulic fittings, hoses, oil.
• Digital display reads torque directly.
• Requires a hydraulic pressure-to-torque correlation based
• Accurate within ± 2% if kept in good working condition. on the torque motor’s cubic inch displacement (CID) and
gear ratio.
• Fits tools with 5-1/4” and 7-5/8” bolt circles.
• For two-speed torque motors, pressure-to-torque correla-
• Calibrated with equipment traceable to US Bureau of
tion changes depending on which speed the motor is in
Standards before leaving plant.
(high or low).
• Can be used as a calibration tool for other types of
• Requires periodic recalibration against a known standard,
torque indicators.
such as the digital torque indicator, or shear pin torque
• Easy interchange from one machine to another. limiter.
• Reliable, continuous duty torque indicator. • Sensitive to hydraulic leaks in the lines that connect the
• Bluetooth technology indicator to the torque motor.
• Torque displays on base unit and transmits to Bluetooth • Relatively expensive.

device (Bluetooth device not supplied with Torque Indi- • Difficult interchange from one machine to another.
cator)
• Torque Indicator Remote Pro App is available in Android
and IOS versions for free download from Google Play™ or
Apple® App Store
Disadvantages:
• Drive tools must be switched out when installing different
types of helical pile/anchor.
DP-1 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TORQUE INDICATOR

A differential pressure torque indicator is a hydraulic device con-
sisting of back-to-back hydraulic pistons; hoses, couplings, and
a gauge (see Figure 6-15). Its operation is based on the principle
that the work output of a hydraulic torque motor is directly re-
lated to the pressure drop across the motor. The DP-1 hydrauli-
cally or mechanically “subtracts” the low pressure from the high
to obtain the “differential” pressure. Installation torque is calcu-
lated using the cubic inch displacement and gear ratio of the
torque motor. The DP-1 piston block and gauge can be mounted
anywhere on the machine. Hydraulic hoses must be connected
to the high and low pressure lines at the torque motor. DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE
TORQUE INDICATOR
Advantages:
FIGURE 6-15
TORQUE INDICATOR CALIBRATION • For single-helix compression piles, the final torsional re-
sistance reading must be equal to or exceed the specified
All torque indicators require periodic calibration. Hubbell minimum.
Power Systems, Inc. recommends that torque indicators be
• For multi-helix anchors and piles, the average of the final
calibrated at least once per year. The digital torque indicator
three torsional resistance readings must be equal to or
can be used in the field to calibrate other indicators, such as
exceed the specified minimum.
hydraulic pressure gauges and the DP-1. As torque motors age,
the relationship between hydraulic pressure and installation • The tip embedment and torsional resistance readings
torque will change. Therefore, it is recommended that hydrau- must be verified to meet or exceed the specified termina-
lic torque motors be periodically checked for pressure/torque tion criteria before terminating installation.
relationship throughout their service life.
MINIMUM BEARING DEPTH OF TOP-MOST HELIX
INSTALLATION TERMINATION For deep foundation behavior, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
CRITERIA recommends the minimum vertical depth of the top-most helix

plate should be at least five times the diameter of the top-most
The Engineer of Record can use the relationship between in- helix. Natural factors such as frost depth and active zones (ex-
stallation torque and ultimate capacity to establish minimum pansive soil) can also affect minimum depth. Hubbell Power
torque criteria for the installation of production helical piles/ Systems, Inc. recommends the minimum vertical depth of the
anchor. The recommended default values for Kt of [10ft-1 (33m- top-most helix plate should be at least three times the diam-
1)] for Chance® Type SS, [9ft-1 (30m-1)] for Type RS2875, [7ft-1
eter of the top most helix below the maximum frost depth or
(23m-1)] for Type RS3500 and [6ft-1 (20m-1)] for Type RS4500 depth of active zone. For example, if the frost depth is 4 feet
will typically provide conservative results. and the top-most helix plate is 12 in (305 mm), then the mini-
For large projects that merit the additional effort, a pre-pro- mum depth to the top-most helix is 4 + 3 x (12 in) = 7 ft (2.1 m).
duction test program can be used to establish the appropriate
torque correlation factor (Kt) for the existing project soils. It is TOLERANCES
recommended that Kt be determined by dividing the ultimate
It is possible to install helical piles/anchors within reasonable
capacity determined by load test by the average installation
tolerance ranges. For example, it is common to locate and in-
(effective) torque taken over the last 3 feet (1 meter) of pen-
stall an pile/anchor within 1 inch (25 mm) of the staked location.
etration into the bearing strata. The minimum effective torsion-
Plumbness can usually be held within ± 1° of design alignment.
al resistance criterion applies to the “background” resistance;
For vertical installations a visual plumbness check is typically
torque spikes resulting from encounters with obstacles in the
all that’s required. For battered installations, an inclinometer
ground must be ignored in determining whether the torsional
can be used to establish the required angle. See www.chance-
resistance criterion has been satisfied. The minimum effective
foundationsolutions.com for model specifications that contain
torsional resistance criterion (the average installation torque
sections on recommended termination criteria for helical piles/
taken over the last 3 feet of penetration) may not be applicable
anchors.
in certain soil profiles, such as, a relatively soft stratum overly-
ing a very hard stratum. Engineering judgment must be exer-
cised. See Appendix B for more detailed explanation of full- TORSIONAL STRENGTH RATING
scale load tests. Large-scale projects warrant more than one Torsional strength is important when choosing the correct
pre-production test. helical pile/anchor for a given project. It is a practical limit
Whatever method is used to determine Kt, the production heli- since the torque strength must be greater than the resistance
cal piles/anchors should be installed to a specified minimum generated during installation. In fact, the central steel shaft is
torque and overall minimum depth. These termination criteria stressed more during installation than at any other time during
should be written into the construction documents. See www. the life of the helical pile/anchor. This is why it is important to
chancefoundationsolutions.com for model specifications that control both material strength variation and process capability
contain sections on recommended termination criteria for heli- in the fabrication process. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. designs
cal piles/anchors. and manufactures helical piles/anchors to achieve the torque
ratings published in the product family sections in Section 7.
ICC-Evaluation Services ESR-2794 requires the following in-
The ratings are listed based on product series, such as SS5,

stallation termination criteria:
SS175, RS3500, etc.
• When installing single-helix anchors/piles that will be
The torque rating is defined as the maximum torsional energy
loaded in tension and all multi-helix anchors/piles,
that should be applied to the helical pile/anchor during installa-
torsional resistance must be recorded at the final tip
tion in soil. It is not the ultimate torque strength, defined as the
embedment minus 2 feet (710 mm) and final embedment
point where the central shaft experiences torsion fracture. It is
minus 1 foot (305 mm), in addition to the resistance at
best described as an allowable limit, or “safe torque” that can
final embedment.
be applied to the helical pile/anchor. Some other manufactur-
ers publish torque ratings based on ultimate torque strength.
The designer should select the product series that provides a
torque strength rating that meets or exceeds the anticipated
torsion resistance expected during the installation. HeliCAP®
Helical Capacity Design Software (see Section 5) generates
installation torque vs. depth plots that estimate the torque re-
sistance of the defined soil profile. The plotted torque values
are based on a Kt of 10 for Type SS and 9, 7 or 6 for Type RS.
The torque ratings published in the product family sections in
Section 7 are superimposed on the HeliCAP® Torque vs Depth
plot, so the user can see at a glance when the estimated torque
resistance equals or exceeds the torque rating of a given prod-
uct series.
In some instances, it may be necessary to exceed the torque
rating in order to achieve the minimum specified depth, or to
install the helical pile/anchor slightly deeper to locate the helix
plates farther into bearing stratum. This “finishing torque limit”
should never exceed the published torque rating by more than
10%. To avoid fracture under impact loading due to obstruc-
tion laden soils, choose a helical product series with at least
30% more torque strength rating than the expected torque re-
sistance. Note that the possibility of torsion fracture increases
significantly as the applied torque increases beyond the pub-
lished ratings. The need to install helical pile/anchors deeper
is better accomplished by reducing the size and/or number
of helix plates, or by choosing a helical product series with a
higher torque rating.
REFERENCES:
1. A.B. Chance Company, Encyclopedia of Anchoring, Bulletin 01-

9401UA, 1977, A.B. Chance Company, Centralia, MO
2. A.B. Chance, a Division of Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., Product
Selection Guide - Resistance Piers and Helical Piles for Remedial
(Underpinning) Applications, Bulletin 01-0601, Hubbell, Inc.,
Centralia, MO, 2006.
3. Clemence, S. P., L.K. Crouch and R.W. Stephenson, Prediction
of Uplift Capacity for Helical Anchors in Sand, Conference
Proceedings from the Second Geotechnical Engineering
Conference - Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, 1994.
4. Crouch, L.K. and R.W. Stephenson (1991), Installation Torque
Requirements and Uplift Capacity of Helical Soil Anchors Using
Measured Geotechnical Properties of Soil, Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 1994.
5. Hargrave, R.L., and R.E. Thorsten, Helical Piers in Expansive Soils of
Dallas,Texas, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Expansive Soils, 1992.
6. Hoyt, R.M. and S.P. Clemence, Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors
in Soil, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
1989.
7. Perko, Howard A., Energy Method for Predicting Installation Torque
of Helical Foundations and Anchors, Proceedings of Sessions of
Geo-Denver 2000, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication N0. 100,
2000.
8. Helical Pile Design Guide, by the Deep Foundations Instititue’s

(DFI) Helical Piles and Tiebacks Committee (2019).
SECTION 7: DRAWINGS AND RATINGS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CONTENTS
Atlas Resistance Piers.....................................................................................................................................7-2
Chance Helical Piles/Anchors....................................................................................................................... 7-7
Square Shaft Helical Piles and Anchors
SS125.............................................................................................................................................................. 7-11
SS5................................................................................................................................................................. 7-14
SS150............................................................................................................................................................. 7-17
SS175............................................................................................................................................................7-20
SS200.......................................................................................................................................................... 7-23
SS225........................................................................................................................................................... 7-26
Round Shaft Helical Piles and Anchors
RS2875.203................................................................................................................................................ 7-29
RS2875.203 Building Code.................................................................................................................. 7-32
RS2875.276................................................................................................................................................ 7-36
RS2875.276 Building Code.................................................................................................................. 7-39
RS2875.276 High Capacity.................................................................................................................. 7-43
RS3500.300..............................................................................................................................................7-46
RS3500.300 Building Code................................................................................................................7-49
RS4500.237............................................................................................................................................... 7-53
RS4500.337............................................................................................................................................... 7-56
RS4500.337 Building Code................................................................................................................. 7-59
RS5500.361................................................................................................................................................ 7-63
RS6625.280............................................................................................................................................... 7-66
RS7000.362............................................................................................................................................... 7-68
RS8625.250................................................................................................................................................ 7-71
RS9625.395................................................................................................................................................7-73
Chance Rock-It Helical Lead.......................................................................................................................7-75
Type SS/RS Combination Helical Piles.................................................................................................. 7-76
Chance Helical Pulldown Micropiles........................................................................................................7-77
Remedial Repair Brackets For Chance Helical Piles.......................................................................... 7-81
New Construction Pile Caps......................................................................................................................7-90
DISCLAIMER
specifications.
and requirements.
ATLAS RESISTANCE PIERS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
The Atlas Resistance® pier is an assembly of structural steel skin friction on the pier pipe during installation. Hubbell Power
components that includes a steel bracket attached to the foun- Systems, Inc., offers a broad range of pier pipe sizes and reme-
dation or slab, which is then mounted on a steel pier that is in- dial repair brackets for both foundation and slab underpinning
stalled to bedrock or firm bearing stratum. The lead pier starter applications. This section will discuss those products in detail
section includes a unique friction-reduction collar that reduces along with their capacity ratings.
PIER PIPE SHAFTS
ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER CROSS-SECTION DRAWINGS

FIGURE 7-1
ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER SECTION PROPERTIES, TABLE 7-1
SECTION MODULUS
MOMENT OF (in3) [cm3]
WALL METAL
PRODUCT SHAFT SIZE PERIMETER INERTIA
THICKNESS AREA
SERIES (in) [mm] (in) [cm] (in4) [cm4]
(in) [mm] (in2) [cm2]
Ix-x, Iy-y, Ix-y
Sx-x, Sy-y Sx-y
RS2875.165 2.875 [73] 0.165 [4.2] 1.4 [9.0] 9.0 [22.9] 1.29 [53.7] 0.90 [14.7] 0.90 [14.7]
RS3500.165 3.5 [89] 0.165 [4.2] 1.7 [11.0] 11.0 [27.9] 2.41 [100.3] 1.38 [22.6] 1.38 [22.6]
RS4000.219 4.0 [101] 0.219 [5.6] 2.6 [16.8] 12.6 [32.0] 4.66 [194.0] 2.33 [38.2] 2.33 [38.2]
RS4500.237 4.5 [114] 0.237 [6.0] 3.2 [20.6] 14.1 [35.9] 7.23 [301.0] 3.21 [52.6] 3.21 [52.6]
REMEDIAL REPAIR BRACKETS FOR ATLAS RESISTANCE® PIERS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

ATLAS RESISTANCE STANDARD AND MODIFIED 2-PIECE SYSTEMS
• Use for lifts up to 4”
• All 2-piece pier systems include:
• Pier bracket
• Top pier platform
• Pier starter with friction reduction collar
• Pier section
• “M” designates one modified sleeve included
ORDER SEPARATELY: Two pier pins (two Grade 8 bolts for 4-1/2” pier) and
pier shims. Each pier requires a minimum of four anchor bolts.
NOTE: Anchor bolts not supplied by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
See Note 3 at bottom of table for available finishes.
ATLAS RESISTANCE STANDARD AND MODIFIED 2-PIECE PIER DESIGNATORS
MAX
ULTIMATE
WORKING PIER
PIER DESIGNATION CAPACITY1 FEATURES
CAPACITY1 DIA (in)
(lb)
(lb)
AP-2-UF-2875.165 60,000 30,000 2-7/8 Lowest cost
Lowest cost; Increased rotational stiffness;

AP-2-UF-2875.165M 70,000 35,000 2-7/8
Recommended for weak surface soils
AP-2-UF-3500.165 85,000 42,500 3-1/2 “Flow Coat” pier pipe standard (NER579)2
AP-2-UFVL-3500.165 86,000 43,000 3-1/2 Has additional mounting plate for two additional anchor bolts
“Flow Coat” pier pipe standard (NER579)2;

AP-2-UF-3500.165M 91,000 45,500 3-1/2
Increased rotational stiffness; Recommended for weak surface soils
Has additional mounting plate for two additional anchor bolts; In-
AP-2-UFVL-3500.165M 91,000 45,500 3-1/2
creased rotational stiffness
AP-2-UF-4000.219 98,000 49,000 4 Higher capacity; Easier installation than AP2-3500M
AP-2-UFVL-4000.219 110,000 55,000 4 Has additional mounting plate for two additional anchor bolts
AP-2-UF-4500.237 141,000 70,500 4-1/2 Highest capacity
Notes:
1 Capacities based upon maximum pipe exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N) of
4. The capacities are based on a pier depth to fixity of 5'-6''.
2 Complies with the structural provisions of the most recent editions of BOCA National Code, ICBO Uniform Code, SBCCI Standard Code, and 2000
International Building and Residential Code (2002 Accumulative Supplement).
3 Available finishes: P = Entire product supplied mill finish steel. G = Entire product supplied galvanized. PA = Plain steel bracket assy; “Flow Coat”
corrosion protection on pier pipe. GA = HDG bracket assy; “Flow Coat” corrosion protection on pier pipe.
ATLAS RESISTANCE® 2-PIECE PLATE PIER SYSTEMS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
• Easy surface mount installation

• May be used for round columns (custom manufactured
- see information below)
• Use for lifts up to 4''
• All plate pier systems include:
• Pier bracket
• Pier section
ORDER SEPARATELY: Two pier pins (two Grade 8 bolts
for 4-1/2” pier) and pier shims. Six or eight anchor bolts per
pier are required (consult specification drawings on www.
chancefoundationsolutions.com for anchor bolt specifications).
NOTE: Anchor bolts not supplied by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
ATLAS RESISTANCE 2-PIECE PIER PLATE PIER DESIGNATORS
MAX
ULTIMATE
WORKING PIER
PIER DESIGNATION CAPACITY1 FEATURES
CAPACITY1 DIA (in)
(lb)
(lb)
AP-2-PP-2875.165 60,000 30,000 2-7/8 Lowest cost
Lowest cost; Increased rotational stiffness;

AP-2-PP-2875.165M 70,000 35,000 2-7/8
Standard pier for most applications; “Flow Coat” pier pipe

AP-2-PP-3500.165 86,000 43,000 3-1/2
standard
“Flow Coat” pier pipe standard; Increased rotational stiffness;

AP-2-PP-3500.165M 90,000 45,000 3-1/2
AP-2-PP-4000.219 103,000 51,500 4 Larger pier pipe; Higher capacity
Commercial and Industrial applications;

AP-2-PP-4500.237 112,000 56,000 4-1/2
Greater pier pipe diameter; Highest capacity
Notes:
1. Capacities based upon maximum pipe exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N) of
4. The capacities are based on a pier depth to fixity of 5’-6”.
2. Mounting distance from bottom of stem wall to bottom of plate pier bracket must be greater than 5”.
3. Available Finishes: P = Entire product supplied mill finish steel. G = Entire product supplied galvanized. PA = Plain steel bracket assy; “Flow Coat”
ROUND COLUMN APPLICATIONS
Where a plate pier must be attached to a round column, the pier bracket can be custom manufactured at extra cost to match
the radius of the column and the side rail width will be extended for clearance. Please provide diameter of column when ordering.
Specify: AP-2-PPRC-2875.165, AP-2-PPRC-3500.165M, or AP-2-PPRC-4000.219.
ATLAS RESISTANCE® CONTINUOUS LIFT PIER SYSTEMS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• Use for lifts exceeding 4”
• Exceptional extended lift capabilities
• All continuous lift pier systems include:
• Continuous lift pier bracket assembly
• Cap plate assembly
• Top pier sleeve (not applicable on AP-CL-UF-4000.219)
• Pier section
ORDER SEPARATELY: Reuseable lift head, continuous thread rebar,

nuts, and 6 anchor bolts.
ATLAS RESISTANCE CONTINUOUS LIFT PIER DESIGNATORS
ULTIMATE MAX WORKING

PIER
PIER DESIGNATION CAPACITY1 CAPACITY1 FEATURES
DIA (in)
(lb) (lb)
AP-CL-UF-2875.165 40,000 20,000 2-7/8 Lowest cost
AP-CL-UF-3500.165 61,000 30,500 3-1/2 “Flow Coat” pier pipe standard
AP-CL-UF-4000.219
100,000 50,000 4 Higher capacity
(Similar to illustration)
Notes:
1. Capacities based upon maximum pipe exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
blow count (N) of 4. The capacities are based on a pier depth to fixity of 5'-6''.
2. Available Finishes: P = Entire product supplied mill finish steel. G = Entire product supplied galvanized. PA = Plain steel bracket assy; “Flow Coat”
ATLAS RESISTANCE® 2-PIECE PREDRILLED PIER SYSTEMS
• Use for lifts up to 4”
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
• Drilled pier access hole required where unsuitable rock

is near surface
• Use where designer requires penetration into bearing
rock
• Eccentricity from wall to centerline of pipe is 6-3/4”
• All pre-drilled piers include:
• Pier bracket
• Pier section
ORDER SEPARATELY: Two pier pins and four anchor bolts per
pier and shims as required.
ATLAS RESISTANCE 2-PIECE PREDRILLED PIER DESIGNATORS

PIER
DIA (in)
(lb) (lb)
AP-2-UFPDVL-2875.165M 58,000 29,000 2-7/8 Lowest cost
Low cost; Corrosion resistant;

AP-2-UFPDVL-3500.165M 62,000 31,000 3-1/2
“Flow Coat” pier pipe standard
AP-2-UFPDVL-4000.219 76,000 38,000 4 Higher capacity
Highest capacity; Commercial

AP-2-UFPD-4500.237 92,000 46,000 4-1/2
and Industrial applications
Notes:
1 Capacities based upon maximum pipe exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N) of 4.
The capacities are based on a pier depth to fixity of 5'-6".
2 Available Finishes: P = Entire product supplied mill finish steel. G = Entire product supplied galvanized. PA = Plain steel bracket assy; “Flow Coat”
ATLAS RESISTANCE 2-PIECE PREDRILLED PLATE PIER DESIGNATORS (SPECIAL ORDER; NOT SHOWN)

PIER
DIA (in)
(lb) (lb)
Lowest cost; Corrosion resistant; “Flow Coat” pier
AP-2-PPPD-3500.165 76,000 38,000 3-1/2
pipe standard
Low cost; Corrosion resistant; “Flow Coat” pier pipe
AP-2-PPPD-3500.165M 80,000 40,000 3-1/2
standard
AP-2-PPPD-4000.219 83,000 41,500 4 Higher capacity
Highest capacity; Commercial and

AP-2-PPPD-4500.237 95,000 47,500 4-1/2
Industrial applications
Notes:
1 Capacities based upon maximum pipe exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N) of 4.
The capacities are based on a pier depth to fixity of 5'-6".
2 Mounting distance from bottom of stem wall to bottom of plate pier bracket must be greater than 5”.
CHANCE HELICAL PILES/ANCHORS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

INTRODUCTION
A helical pile/anchor is a factory-manufactured steel deep foundation system designed to
resist axial compression, axial tension, and/or lateral loads from structures. It consists of
a central steel shaft with one or more helical-shaped bearing plates welded to the central
SQUARE SHAFT steel shaft. The central steel shaft can be one-piece (non-extendable) or fully extendable
PILE/ANCHOR with one or more extension shafts, couplings, and a bracket/termination that allows for
connection to building structures. A helical pile/anchor is screwed into the ground by ap-
plication of torsion and can be extended until a required depth or a suitable bearing soil
stratum is reached. Load is transferred to the soil through the helix bearing plates. Central
steel shafts are available in either Type SS (Square Shaft) series or Type RS (Round Shaft)
series. The Type SS series are available in 1-1/4” to 2-1/4” solid square shaft sizes. The Type
RS series are available in 2-7/8” to 8” diameter pipe shaft sizes. Type SS/RS Combo Piles
are available for compression applications in soil conditions where dense/hard soils must
be penetrated with soft/loose soils above the bearing strata. The grouted-shaft Chance®
Helical Pulldown® micropile series is also used in applications similar to those requiring the
use of the Type SS/RS Combo Piles, but have the additional benefit of generating capacity
via skin friction along the grout-soil interface in a suitable bond zone stratum. For a com-
plete list of mechanical ratings and section properties of the central steel shafts, see the
tables found in each helical pile/anchor Product Family in this section. Refer to Section 3,
Product Feasibility and Section 6, Installation Methodology for guidelines on the proper
shaft selection based on application, soil conditions, site accessibility, etc.
Helical pile/anchor sections are joined with bolted couplings. Installation depth is limited
only by soil density and practicality based on economics. A helical bearing plate or helix
plate is one pitch of a screw thread. Most helical piles include more than one helix plate,
and the plates are arranged in a tapered configuration with the smallest helix being on the
bottom and the largest helix being on the top. The large majority of Chance helix plates,
regardless of their diameter, have a standard 3” pitch. Being a true helical shape, the helix
plates do not auger into the soil but rather screw into it with minimal soil disturbance.
Chance helix plates are “pre-qualified” per the requirements of Table 3 in ICC-ES AC358
Acceptance Criteria for Helical Pile Systems and Devices, meaning they are generally circu-
lar in plan, have a true helix shape, and are attached perpendicular to the central steel shaft
with the leading and trailing edges parallel. Helix plates are spaced at distances far enough
apart that they function independently as individual bearing elements. Consequently, the
capacity of a particular helix on a helical pile/anchor shaft is not influenced by the helix
above or below it.
LEAD SECTION AND EXTENSIONS

The starter section or lead section contains the helix plates. This lead section can include a
single helix or up to four helices. Additional helix plates can be added, if required, with the
use of helical extensions. Standard helix sizes and projected areas are shown in Tables 7-2
ROUND SHAFT PILE and 7-3 below. Table 7-2 provides helix areas for Type Round Shaft (RS) helical piles, and
Table 7-3 provides helix areas for Type Square Shaft (SS) helical piles. The full plate pro-
jected area includes the area occupied by the central steel shaft. The “area w/o hole” is the
projected area of the helix plate less the area occupied by the center shaft. Most Chance
helix plates are provided with a sharp leading edge, which is the front edge of the helix that
penetrates the soils as the helical pile/anchor is advanced clockwise though soil. The sharp
leading edge enables the helix to better slice through tough soils, roots, and seasonally
frozen ground. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., offers several helix plates with seashell lead-
ing edges as special options to the product series. Our standard configuration that works
best in most tough soils conditions is the 90° design as shown below. The seashell cut is a
leading edge with a spiral cut that is very effective when installing helical piles/anchors in
debris-laden soils, cobbles, and weathered rock.
However, it is important to remember that the bearing capac- number of helices per pile/anchor is four to five if placed in a
ity of the helical pile/anchor is reduced because the bearing cohesive soil and six if placed in a cohesionless or granular soil.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
surface area is reduced. Therefore, larger helix diameters or

Plain extensions are then added in standard lengths of 3, 5,
additional helix plates may be required when using seashell
7, or 10 feet until the lead section penetrates into the bearing
cut plates. Tables 7-2 and 7-3 include the projected areas of
strata. Standard helix configurations are provided in the prod-
helix plates offered with the seashell cut. The helix plates are
uct series tables in this section. Note that lead time will be sig-
arranged on the shaft such that their diameters increase as
nificantly reduced if a standard helix configuration is selected.
they get farther from the pilot point. The practical limits on the
STANDARD SEASHELL STANDARD SEASHELL
SHAFT SHAFT
SIZE SIZE
PLATE DIAMETER PLATE DIAMETER

LEADING LEADING
EDGE EDGE
ROUND SHAFT (RS) SQUARE SHAFT (SS)
PROJECTED VIEWS OF ROUND SHAFT AND SQUARE SHAFT HELIX PLATES

FIGURE 7-2
CHANCE® ROUND SHAFT HELIX PLATE SIZES AND PROJECTED AREAS BY PRODUCT FAMILY, TABLE 7-2
ROUND SHAFTS
STANDARD SEASHELL
DIAMETER AREA w/o HOLE FULL PLATE AREA AREA w/o HOLE FULL PLATE AREA
(in) [mm] (ft2) [m2] (ft2) [m2] (ft2) [m2] (ft2) [m2]
8 [200] 0.290 [0.0269] 0.336 [0.0312] 0.270 [0.0251] 0.316 [0.0294]

10 [250] 0.485 [0.0451] 0.531 [0.0493] 0.433 [0.0402] 0.479 [0.0445]
RS2875 12 [300] 0.725 [0.0674] 0.771 [0.0716] 0.633 [0.0588] 0.680 [0.0632]
14 (350] 1.003 [0.0932] 1.049 [0.0975] 0.869 [0.0807] 0.915 [0.0850]
16 [406] 1.31 [0.122] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
8 [200] 0.268 [0.0249] 0.336 [0.0312] N/A N/A
10 [250] 0.463 [0.0430] 0.531 [0.0493] N/A N/A
RS3500 12 [300] 0.703 [0.0653] 0.771 [0.0716] 0.612 [0.0569] 0.680 [0.0632]
14 [350] 0.981 [0.0911] 1.049 [0.0975] N/A N/A
16 [406] 1.312 [0.122] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
8 [200] 0.224 [0.0208] 0.336 [0.0312] N/A N/A
10 [250] 0.419 [0.0389] 0.531 [0.0493] 0.367 [0.0341] 0.479 [0.0445]
12 [300] 0.659 [0.0612] 0.771 [0.0716] N/A N/A
RS4500
14 [350] 0.937 [0.0871] 1.049 [0.0975] N/A N/A
16 [406] 1.266 [0.1176] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
20 [508] 2.034 [0.1889] 2.146 [0.1994] N/A N/A
CHANCE® SQUARE SHAFT HELIX PLATE SIZES AND PROJECTED AREAS BY PRODUCT FAMILY, TABLE 7-3
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

SQUARE SHAFTS
STANDARD SEASHELL
DIAMETER AREA w/o HOLE FULL PLATE AREA AREA w/o HOLE FULL PLATE AREA
(in) [mm] (ft2) [m2] (ft2) [m2] (ft2) [m2] (ft2) [m2]
6 [150] 0.174 [0.0162] 0.185 [0.0172] N/A N/A

8 [200] 0.324 [0.0301] 0.336 [0.0312] 0.304 [0.0282] 0.316 [0.0294]
10 [250] 0.519 [0.0482] 0.531 [0.0493] 0.468 [0.0435] 0.479 [0.0445]
SS125
12 [300] 0.759 [0.0705] 0.771 [0.0716] 0.668 [0.0621] 0.679 [0.0631]
14 [350] 1.037 [0.0963] 1.049 [0.0975] 0.903 [0.0839] 0.915 [0.0850]
16 [406] 1.366 [0.1269] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
6 [150] 0.169 [0.0157] 0.185 [0.0172] 0.156 [0.0145] 0.172 [0.0160]
8 [200] 0.320 [0.0297] 0.336 [0.0312] 0.300 [0.0279] 0.316 [0.0294]
SS5/ 10 [250] 0.515 [0.048] 0.531 [0.0493] 0.463 [0.0430] 0.479 [0.0445]
SS150 12 [300] 0.755 [0.0701] 0.771 [0.0716] 0.663 [0.0616] 0.679 [0.0631]
14 [350] 1.033 [0.0960] 1.049 [0.0975] 0.899 [0.0835] 0.915 [0.0850]
16 [406] 1.362 [0.1265] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
6 [150] 0.163 [0.151] 0.185 [0.0172] N/A N/A
8 [200] 0.314 [0.0292] 0.336 [0.0312] 0.293 [0.0272] 0.316 [0.0294]
10 [250] 0.509 [0.0473] 0.531 [0.0493] 0.457 [0.0425] 0.479 [0.0445]
SS175
12 [300] 0.749 [0.0696] 0.771 [0.0716] 0.658 [0.0611] 0.679 [0.0631]
14 [350] 1.027 [0.0954] 1.049 [0.0975] N/A N/A
16 [406] 1.356 [0.126] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
6 [150] 0.154 [0.0143] 0.185 [0.0172] 0.143 [0.0133] 0.172 [0.0160]
8 [200] 0.305 [0.0283] 0.336 [0.0312] N/A N/A
10 [250] 0.500 [0.0465] 0.531 [0.0493] 0.450 [0.0418] 0.479 [0.0445]
SS200
12 [300] 0.740 [0.0687] 0.771 [0.0716] N/A N/A
14 [350] 1.018 [0.0946] 1.049 [0.0975] N/A N/A
16 [406] 1.349 [0.1253] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
6 [150] 0.149 [0.0138] 0.185 [0.0172] N/A N/A
8 [200] 0.300 [0.0279] 0.336 [0.0312] N/A N/A
10 [250] 0.495 [0.0460] 0.531 [0.0493] N/A N/A
SS225
12 [300] 0.735 [0.0683] 0.771 [0.0716] N/A N/A
14 [350] 1.013 [0.0941] 1.049 [0.0975] N/A N/A
16 [406] 1.341 [0.125] 1.378 [0.128] N/A N/A
Table 7-4 is a quick reference guide for the design professional. It relates ASTM D1586 SPT N60 values for cohesive and non-cohesive
soils to the expected load capacity of various Chance® Type Square Shaft (SS) and Round Shaft (RS) helical piles. It is intended to
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
be used as a reference guide to enable the designer to quickly determine which helical pile systems to use for project-specific soil
conditions and load requirements.
CHANCE HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR LOAD CAPACITY TABLE, TABLE 7-4
SOIL TYPE PRODUCT FAMILY AXIAL COMPRESSION / TENSION CAPACITY*
N60 N60 VALUE** PILE/ SHAFT TORQUE ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

VALUE** NON- ANCHOR SIZE RATING (ft∙lb) CAPACITY (Pa = 0.5 Pu)
COHESIVE COHESIVE TYPE (in) [mm] [N∙m] (Pu) (kip) [kN] (kip) [kN]
5,700
25–35 25–30 SS5 1-1/2 [38] 57 [254] 28.5 [127]
[7,730]
7,000
25–40 25–35 SS150 1-1/2 [38] 70 [312] 35 [156]
[9,500]
10,500
35–50 35–40 SS175 1-3/4 [44] 105 [467] 52.5 [234]
[14,200]
16,000
50–70 40–60 SS200 2 [51] 160 [712] 80 [356]
[21,700]
21,000
70–90 60–80 SS225 2-1/4 [57] 210 [934] 105 [467]
[28,475]
7,000
20–25 15–20 RS2875.203 2-7/8 [73] 63 [280] 31.5 [140]
[9,490]
8,000
25–35 20–30 RS2875.276 2-7/8 [73] 72 [320] 36 [160]
[10,850]
13,000
35–40 30–35 RS3500.300 3-1/2 [89] 91 [405] 45.5 [202]
[17,600]
25,000
35–40 30–35 RS4500.337 4-1/2 [114] 150 [667] 76 [334]
[33,900]
* Based on Torque Rating – Axial Compression / Tension Capacity = Torque Rating x Kt. Well-documented correlations with installation torque are
recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9. “Default” Kt for Type SS = 10 ft-1 (33 m-1). “Default” Kt for Type
RS2875 Series = 9 ft-1 (30 m-1); for Type RS3500.300 = 7 ft-1 (23 m-1); for Type RS4500.337 = 6 ft-1 (20 m-1).
** N60 values or blow count from the Standard Penetration Test per ASTM D1586.
Notes:
1. The table above is given as a guideline only. The capacity of Chance helical piles/anchors may vary depending on factors including, but not limited
to, water table elevation and changes to that elevation, changes in soil conditions, and soil layer thicknesses.
2. Achievable capacities could be higher or lower than stated in the table depending on:
a. Site-specific conditions
b. On-site testing verification
c. Helical Pulldown® micropiles can achieve higher capacities in compression. On-site testing should be performed to verify
additional pile capacity.
d. This table is to be used for preliminary design assessment only. Capacities should be verified on a per project, site-specific basis by
a registered design professional.
3. The above table represents the hardest or densest soil conditions that the helical pile can be installed into. The helical pile will
likely achieve its torque rating quickly upon encountering the highest N values indicated above.
CHANCE TYPE SS125 HELICAL PILES AND ANCHORS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• 40 kip ULTIMATE – 20 kip ALLOWABLE CAPACITY
• INSTALLATION TORQUE RATING – 4,000 ft∙lb
• MULTI-PURPOSE 1-1/4 INCH SOLID ROUND-CORNERED-SQUARE STEEL SHAFT WITH INTEGRALLY FORMED SQUARE
UPSET SOCKETS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type SS125 helical piles and anchors have 40 kip conditions. Chance Type SS helical piles and anchors have
ultimate capacity and 20 kip working or allowable capacity a longer service life than do round shaft piles because of
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on their reduced surface area. Chance Type SS helical piles and
well-documented correlations with installation torque, which anchors feature sharpened-leading-edge helix plates that are
is recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC circular in plan to provide uniform load bearing in most soil
Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections and extensions couple conditions. Helix plates can be equipped with seashell cuts
together to extend the helix bearing plates to the required on the leading edge to enhance penetration through dense
load-bearing stratum. Solid square shaft helical piles and soils with occasional cobbles and debris. Custom lengths and
anchors provide greater penetration into bearing soils and helix configurations are available upon request. See below for
increased axial capacity in firm soils compared to round shaft additional information and other sections of this manual for
helical piles with similar torque strength. Strength calculations specifications and design details.
are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years for most soil
CHANCE TYPE SS125

HELICAL PILES AND
ANCHORS
1-1/4”
SQUARE HOLE ACCEPTS
SHAFT 5/8” DIA
COUPLING BOLT
TRUE
HELIX UP TO
3 x DIAMETER
FORM 10'-0"
SPACING
LONG
TYPICAL
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING 5/8” DIA
EDGE STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
3.5”
2.2”
45˚ PILOT POINT
SINGLE-HELIX TWIN-HELIX TRIPLE-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

LEAD SECTION LEAD SECTION LEAD SECTION SECTION SECTION DETAIL
All Hubbell Power Systems, Inc., Chance helical products are MADE IN THE U.S.A.
SS125 HELICAL PILE AND ANCHOR SPECIFICATIONS & AVAILABLE CONFIGURATIONS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SHAFT: Round-cornered-square (RCS) 1-1/4 inch solid steel

shaft produced exclusively for Chance® products.
COUPLING: Forged as a deep socket from the steel shaft mate-
rial as an integral part of the extension, connected with struc-
tural bolts.
HELIX - 3/8 INCH THICK: ASTM A572 or A1018 or A656, with
minimum yield strength of 50 ksi.
3 INCH HELIX PITCH: A standard established by Hubbell Power
Systems, Inc., for helical piles and anchors.
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 6, 8, 10, 12, or 14 inches.
All helix plates are spaced 3 times the diameter of the preced-
ing (lower) helix unless otherwise specified.
The standard helix plate has a straight sharpened leading edge
or can be ordered with a seashell cut (see Fig. 7-2). The sea-
shell cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate soils
with fill debris, cobbles, or fractured rock.
CONFIGURATIONS:
• Single-, double-, and triple-helix lead sections, 1, 5, and
7 feet long
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long CHANCE TYPE SS125
HELICAL PILE SHAFT CROSS-SECTION
• Extensions with helix plates, 3-1/2 feet long, single and FIGURE 7-3
double helix
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1.
NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local jurisdictional
authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on installing the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and RPM. A minimum Factor
of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches are typical at allowable capacity.
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF SS125 HELIX PLATES FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION & COMPRESSION1
HELIX DIAMETER THICKNESS NOMINAL STRENGTH LRFD DESIGN STRENGTH ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTH
(in) [mm] (in) [mm] (kip) [kN] (kip) [kN] (kip) [kN]
6 [150] 0.375 [9.5] 37.4 [166.3] 28.05 [124.7] 18.7 [83.2]
8 [200] 0.375 [9.5] 37.4 [166.3] 28.05 [124.7] 18.7 [83.2]
10 [250] 0.375 [9.5] 46.6 [207.3] 34.9 [155.5] 23.3 [103.6]
12 [300] 0.375 [9.5] 44.1 [196.2] 33.1 [147.2] 22.1 [98.3]
14 [350] 0.375 [9.5] 36.0 [160.1] 27.0 [120.1] 18.0 [80.1]
Notes:
For SI: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
1 Capacities based on a design corrosion level of 50 years.
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE SS125 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS (kip) [kN]
SECTION FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
TYPE & HELIX
COUNT FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED
NOMINAL DESIGN NOMINAL DESIGN NOMINAL DESIGN NOMINAL DESIGN
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above 27.3 [121.4] 24.6 [109.4] 13.4 [59.6] 12.0 [53.4] 6.8 [30.2] 6.2 [27.6]
Lead, Multi-Helix 53.6 [238.4] 48.2 [214.4] 27.3 [121.4] 24.6 [109.4]
13.4 [59.6] 12.0 [53.4] 6.8 [30.2] 6.2 [27.6]
Extension 53.6 [238.4] 48.2 [214.4] 27.3 [121.4] 24.6 [109.4]
Notes:
1 Refer to Section 4.1.3 of ESR-2794 for descriptions of fixed condition, pinned condition, soft soil, and firm soil.
2 Strength ratings are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years and presume the supported structure is braced in accordance with IBC Section
1808.2.5 and the lead section with which the extension is used will provide sufficient helix capacity to develop the full shaft capacity.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SS125 HELICAL PILE AND ANCHOR PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
Hot-rolled round-cornered-square (RCS) solid steel
SHAFT bars per ASTM A29; modified AISI 1530 with 90 ksi
minimum yield strength
CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE 1.25 in 32 mm
1.237 in 31.4 mm
CORRODED
MOMENT OF INERTIA (I) 0.20 in4 8.3 cm4
0.191 in4 7.95 cm4
CORRODED
SHAFT AREA (A) 1.55 in2 10.0 cm2
1.52 in2 9.81 cm2
SECTION CORRODED
0.32 in3 5.3 cm3
MODULUS (Sx-x) 0.31 in3 5.1 cm3
CORRODED
PERIMETER 4.79 in 12.17 cm
4.74 in 12.0 cm
COUPLING Integral forged square deep socket
One 5/8 inch diameter ASTM A325 Type 1

COUPLING BOLTS hex head bolt with threads excluded
from shear planes
0.375 inch thick, formed on matching
HELIX PLATES
metal dies, ASTM A572 Grade 50 or better
Hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1, 3.1 mil
COATINGS
minimum thickness or bare steel
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELA-
10 ft-1 33 m-1
TION FACTOR
TORQUE RATING 4,000 ft∙lb 5,400 N∙m
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
50 kip 222 kN 37.5 kip 167 kN
ASSEMBLY OF SS125
ALLOWABLE TENSION
25 kip 111 kN FIGURE 7-4
STRENGTH
TORQUE-CORRELATED CAPACITY
CAPACITY LIMIT BASED ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE
ON TORQUE CORRELA-
TION, TENSION / COM- 40 kip 178 kN 20 kip 89 kN
PRESSION
ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE SS125 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2
ASD ALLOWABLE AXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above 16.4 [72.9] 8.0 [35.6] 4.1 [18.2]
Lead, Multi-Helix 32.1 [142.8] 16.4 [72.9] 8.0 [35.6] 4.1 [18.2]
Extension 32.1 [142.8] 16.4 [72.9] 8.0 [35.6] 4.1 [18.2]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
• 57 kip ULTIMATE – 28.5 kip ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

UPSET SOCKETS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type SS5 helical piles and anchors have 57 kip conditions. Chance Type SS helical piles and anchors have
ultimate capacity and 28.5 kip working or allowable capacity a longer service life than do round shaft piles because of
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on their reduced surface area. Chance Type SS helical piles and
well-documented correlations with installation torque, which anchors feature sharpened-leading-edge helix plates that are
is recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC circular in plan to provide uniform load bearing in most soil
Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections and extensions couple conditions. Helix plates can be equipped with seashell cuts
are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years for most soil
CHANCE TYPE SS5

HELICAL PILES AND
ANCHORS
1-1/2"
SQUARE HOLE ACCEPTS
SHAFT 3/4” DIA
COUPLING BOLT
TRUE
HELIX UP TO
3 x DIAMETER
FORM 10'-0"
SPACING
LONG
TYPICAL
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING 3/4” DIA
EDGE STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
3.5”
2.2”
45˚ PILOT POINT

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

tural bolts.
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, or 16 inches.
CONFIGURATIONS:
• Single-, double-, triple-, and quad-helix lead sections,
3, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long
CHANCE TYPE SS5
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long
HELICAL PILE SHAFT CROSS-SECTION
• Extensions with helix plates, 3-1/2 and 5 feet long, FIGURE 7-5
single helix
authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on installing the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and RPM. A minimum Factor
of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches are typical at allowable capacity.
HELIX DIAMETER THICKNESS NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN ASD ALLOWABLE
(in) [mm] (in) [mm] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
6 [150] 0.375 [9.5] 57.3 [254.9] 43.0 [191.2] 28.7 [127.7]
8 [200] 0.375 [9.5] 57.3 [254.9] 43.0 [191.2] 28.7 [127.7]
10 [250] 0.375 [9.5] 47.7 [212.2] 35.8 [159.2] 23.8 [105.6]
12 [300] 0.375 [9.5] 44.2 [196.6] 33.2 [147.5] 22.1 [98.3]
14 [350] 0.375 [9.5] 54.1 [240.7] 40.6 [180.5] 27.1 [120.6]
Notes:
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS kip[kN]
TYPE & HELIX
Single 6 & 8 inch - Single 6 & 8 inch -
Lead, See Helix Strength 54.4 [242.0] 48.9 [217.5] 12.2
26.6 [118.3] 24.0 [106.8] 13.6 [60.5]
Single Helix Table Above For Other Helix Diameters, See Helix [54.3]
Strength Table Above
Lead, Multi-Helix 89.8 [399.5] 80.8 [359.4] 54.4 [242.0] 48.9 [219.5] 12.2
26.6 [118.3] 24.0 [106.8] 13.6 [60.5]
Extension 89.8 [399.5] 80.8 [359.4] 54.4 [242.0] 48.9 [219.5] [54.3]
Notes:
1808.2.5, and the lead section with which the extension is used will provide sufficient helix capacity to develop the full shaft capacity.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CORRODED
1.487 in 37.8 mm
CORRODED
0.38 in4 15.6 cm4
CORRODED
2.16 in2 13.94 cm2
SECTION MODULUS CORRODED
0.53 in3 8.7 cm3
(Sx-x) 0.40 in3 6.6 cm3
CORRODED
5.5 in 14 cm
One 3/4 inch diameter ASTM A193 Grade B7 hex

COUPLING BOLTS
head bolt with threads excluded from shear planes
0.375 inch thick, formed on matching metal dies,

HELIX PLATES
ASTM A572 Grade 50 or better
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELA-
10 ft-1 33 m-1
TION FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH ASSEMBLY OF SS5
70 kip 312 kN 52.5 kip 234 kN FIGURE 7-6
ALLOWABLE TENSION
35 kip 156 kN
STRENGTH
CAPACITY LIMIT ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE
BASED ON TORQUE
CORRELATION,
TENSION / 57 kip 254 kN 28.5 kip 127 kN
COMPRESSION
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
See Helix Strength See Helix Strength
Lead, Single Helix 16 [71.2] 8.1 [36.0]
Table Above Table Above
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 52.5 [233.5]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 45.9 [204.2]
32.6 [145.0] 16 [71.2] 8.1 [36.0]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 49.9 [222.0]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 53.8 [239.3]
Lead, Multi-Helix 53.8 [239.3] 32.6 [145.0] 16 [71.2] 8.1 [36.0]
Extension 53.8 [239.3] 32.6 [145.0] 16 [71.2] 8.1 [36.0]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

UPSET SOCKETS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type SS150 helical piles and anchors have 70 kip soil conditions. Chance Type SS helical piles and anchors
ultimate capacity and 35 kip working or allowable capacity have a longer service life than do round shaft piles because
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on of their reduced surface area. Chance Type SS helical piles
well-documented correlations with installation torque, which and anchors feature sharpened-leading-edge helix plates that
is recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC are circular in plan to provide uniform load bearing in most
Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections and extensions couple soil conditions. Helix plates can be equipped with seashell cuts
are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years for most
CHANCE TYPE SS150

HELICAL PILES AND
ANCHORS
1-1/2”
SQUARE HOLE ACCEPTS
SHAFT 3/4” DIA
COUPLING BOLT
TRUE
HELIX UP TO
3 x DIAMETER
FORM 10'-0"
SPACING
LONG
TYPICAL
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING 3/4” DIA
EDGE STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
3.5”
2.2”
45˚ PILOT POINT

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

tural bolts.
HELIX - 3/8 INCH THICK: ASTM A656 or A1018, with minimum
yield strength of 80 ksi.
3 INCH HELIX PITCH: A standard established by Hubbell Pow-
er Systems, Inc., for helical piles and anchors.
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 inches.
CONFIGURATIONS:
• Single-, double-, triple-, and quad-helix lead sections, 3,
CHANCE TYPE SS150
5, 7, and 10 feet long
HELICAL PILE SHAFT
• Plain extensions 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long CROSS-SECTION
FIGURE 7-7
• Extensions with helix plates, 4, 5, 7, and 10 feet long,
single and multi-helix
authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on installing the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and RPM. A minimum Factor of
Safety of 2 is recommended for determining allowable capacity from correlations. Axial Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches are typical at allowable capacity.
HELIX DIAMETER THICKNESS NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN ASD ALLOWABLE
(in) [mm] (in) [mm] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
6 [150] 0.375 [9.5] 57.7 [257] 43.3 [192.8] 28.8 [128]
8 [200] 0.375 [9.5] 57.7 [257] 43.3 [192.8] 28.8 [128]
10 [250] 0.375 [9.5] 61.9 [275] 46.4 [206.3] 30.9 [137]
12 [300] 0.375 [9.5] 49.7 [221] 37.3 [165.8] 24.8 [110]
14 [350] 0.375 [9.5] 52.9 [235] 39.7 [176.3] 26.5 [118]
Notes:
1Capacities based on a design corrosion level of 50 years.
TYPE & HELIX
Single 6, 8, or 10 Single 6, 8, or 10
See Helix Strength inch – 54.4 [242] inch – 48.9 [218]
Lead, Single Helix 26.6 [118] 24.0 [107] 13.6 [60.5] 12.2 [54]
Table Above For Other Helix Diameters, See Helix
Strength Table Above
Lead, Multi-Helix
99.5 [443] 89.5 [398] 54.4 [242] 48.9 [218] 26.6 [118] 24.0 [107] 13.6 [60.5] 12.2 [54]
Extension
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
CORRODED
1.487 in 37.8 mm
CORRODED
0.38 in4 15.6 cm4
CORRODED
2.16 in2 13.94 cm2
CORRODED
SECTION MODULUS (Sx-x) 0.53 in3 8.7 cm3
0.40 in3 6.6 cm3
CORRODED
5.5 in 14.0 cm

COUPLING BOLTS
0.375 inch thick, formed on matching

HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
10 ft-1 33 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
70 kip 312 kN 52.5 kip 234 kN
ASSEMBLY OF SS150
ALLOWABLE TENSION FIGURE 7-8
35 kip 156 kN
STRENGTH
ON TORQUE CORRELA-
TION, TENSION / 70 kip 312 kN 35 kip 156 kN
COMPRESSION
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above 16 [71] 8.1 [36]
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 59.6 [265]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 55.7 [248]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 51.3 [228]
32.6 [145] 16 [71] 8.1 [36]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 53.0 [236]
Lead, Multi-Helix 59.6 [265]
Extension 59.6 [265]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

UPSET SOCKETS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type SS175 helical piles and anchors have 105 kip Strength calculations are based on a design corrosion level
ultimate capacity and 52.5 kip working or allowable capacity in of 50 years for most soil conditions. Chance Type SS helical
compression and 100 kip ultimate capacity and 50 kip working piles and anchors have a longer service life than do round
or allowable capacity in tension. This capacity is based on shaft piles and anchors because of their reduced surface area.
structural strength ratings and well-documented correlations Chance Type SS helical piles and anchors feature sharpened-
with installation torque, which is recognized as one method to leading-edge helix plates that are circular in plan to provide
determine capacity per IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections uniform load bearing in most soil conditions. Helix plates can
and extensions couple together to extend the helix bearing be equipped with seashell cuts on the leading edge to enhance
plates to the required load-bearing stratum. Solid square shaft penetration through dense soils with occasional cobbles and
helical piles and anchors provide greater penetration into debris. Custom lengths and helix configurations are available
bearing soils and increased axial capacity in firm soils compared upon request. See below for additional information and other
to round shaft helical piles with similar torque strength. sections of this manual for specifications and design details.
CHANCE TYPE SS175

HELICAL PILES AND
ANCHORS
1-3/4"
SQUARE HOLE ACCEPTS
SHAFT 7/8” DIA
COUPLING BOLT
TRUE
HELIX UP TO
3 x DIAMETER
FORM 10'-0"
SPACING
LONG
TYPICAL
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING 7/8” DIA
EDGE STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
4”
2”
45˚ PILOT POINT

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

tural bolts.
HELIX - 3/8 & 1/2 INCH THICK: ASTM A656 or A1018, with min-
imum yield strength of 80 ksi.
with fill debris, cobbles, or fractured rock. CHANCE TYPE SS175
CONFIGURATIONS: HELICAL PILE SHAFT CROSS-SECTION
FIGURE 7-9
• Single-, double-, triple-, and quad-helix lead sections, 3,
3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long
NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable bear-
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long ing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local juris-
dictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on installing
• Extensions with helix plates, 4, 5, 7, and 10 feet long, the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and RPM. A
single and multi-helix minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining allowable
capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches are typical
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1. at allowable capacity.
HELIX DIAMETER THICKNESS NOMINAL STRENGTH LRFD DESIGN STRENGTH ASD ALLOWABLE
(in) [mm] (in) [mm] (kip) [kN] (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
6 [150] 0.5 [13] 123.3 [548.5] 92.5 [411.4] 61.6 [274]
8 [200] 0.375 [9.5] 84.5 [375.9] 63.4 [282] 42.3 [188.2]
10 [250] 0.375 [9.5] 66.1 [294] 49.6 [220.5] 33.1 [147.2]
12 [300] 0.375 [9.5] 57.5 [255.8] 43.1 [191.9] 28.7 [127.7]
14 [350] 0.375 [9.5] 51.8 [230.4] 38.9 [172.8] 25.9 [115.2]
Notes:
SECTION TYPE & FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above 50.5 [224.6] 45.4 [201.9] 25.8 [114.8] 23.2 [103.2]
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 164.3 [730.8] 147.8 [657.4]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 123.6 [549.8] 111.2 [494.6]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 109.3 [486.2] 98.4 [437.7] 103.0 50.5 23.2
92.7 [412.4] 45.4 [201.9] 25.8 [114.8]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 103.6 [460.8] 93.4 [415.5] [458.2] [224.6] [103.2]
Lead, Multi-Helix 164.3 [730.8] 147.8 [657.4]

Extension 164.3 [730.8] 147.8 [657.4]
Notes:
2 Strength ratings are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years and presume the supported structure is braced in accordance with IBC
Section 1808.2.5 and the lead section with which the extension is used will provide sufficient helix capacity to develop the full shaft capacity.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE 1.75 in 44.4 mm
1.737 in 44 mm
CORRODED
0.725 in4 30.1 cm4
CORRODED
2.97 in2 19.16 cm2
CORRODED
0.835 in3 13.65 cm3
CORRODED
6.5 in 16.5 cm

COUPLING BOLTS
0.375 & 0.5 inch thick, formed on matching

HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
10 ft-1 33 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
100 kip 445 kN 75 kip 334 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
50 kip 222 kN
STRENGTH
ASSEMBLY OF SS175
ON TORQUE CORRELA- FIGURE 7-10
TION, TENSION / COM- 105 kip 467 kN 52.5 kip 234 kN
PRESSION
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
Lead, Single Helix 30.2 [134.3]
Lead, Single 12” Helix See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above 28.7 [127.7] 15.4 [68.5]
Lead, Single 14” Helix 25.9 [115.2]
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 94.7 [421.2] 61.7 [274.5]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 61.8 [274.9] 61.7 [274.5]
30.2 [134.3] 15.4 [68.5]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 54.6 [242.9] 54.6 [242.9]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 51.8 [230.4] 51.8 [230.4]
Lead, Multi-Helix 98.4 [437.7] 61.7 [274.5] 30.2 [134.3] 15.4 [68.5]
Extension 98.4 [437.7] 61.7 [274.5] 30.2 [134.3] 15.4 [68.5]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• MULTI-PURPOSE 2 INCH SOLID ROUND-CORNERED-SQUARE STEEL SHAFT WITH INTEGRALLY FORMED SQUARE
UPSET SOCKETS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type SS200 helical piles and anchors have 160 kip Strength calculations are based on a design corrosion level of
ultimate capacity and 80 kip working or allowable capacity in 50 years for most soil conditions. Chance Type SS helical piles
compression and 150 kip ultimate capacity and 75 kip working and anchors have a longer service life than do round shaft piles
or allowable capacity in tension. This capacity is based on because of their reduced surface area. Chance Type SS helical
structural strength ratings and well-documented correlations piles and anchors feature sharpened-leading-edge helix plates
with installation torque, which is recognized as one method to that are circular in plan to provide uniform load bearing in most
determine capacity per IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections soil conditions. Helix plates can be equipped with seashell cuts
and extensions couple together to extend the helix bearing on the leading edge to enhance penetration through dense
plates to the required load-bearing stratum. Solid square shaft soils with occasional cobbles and debris. Custom lengths and
helical piles and anchors provide greater penetration into helix configurations are available upon request. See below for
bearing soils and increased axial capacity in firm soils compared additional information and other sections of this manual for
to round shaft helical piles with similar torque strength. specifications and design details.
CHANCE TYPE SS200

HELICAL PILES AND
TRUE ANCHORS
HELIX
FORM
HOLE ACCEPTS
1-1/8” DIA
2” 3 x DIAMETER COUPLING BOLT
SQUARE SPACING
SHAFT TYPICAL
UP TO
10'-0"
LONG
1-1/8” DIA
3” PITCH SHARP
STRUCTURAL
LEADING EDGE
GRADE BOLT
5”
2.5”
45˚ PILOT POINT
TRIPLE-HELIX QUAD-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

LEAD SECTION LEAD SECTION SECTION SECTION DETAIL
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SHAFT: Round-cornered-square (RCS) 2 inch solid steel shaft

produced exclusively for Chance® products. 2.00
COUPLING: Forged as a deep socket from the steel shaft mate- Y
tural bolts.
X X 2.00
All helix plates are spaced 3 times the diameter of the preced- R.31
ing (lower) helix unless otherwise specified. Y
2.57 CHANCE TYPE SS200
shell cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate soils HELICAL PILE SHAFT
with fill debris, cobbles, or fractured rock. CROSS-SECTION
FIGURE 7-11
CONFIGURATIONS:
• Triple- and quad-helix lead sections, 5, 7, & 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable bear-
ing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local juris-
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long dictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on installing
• Extensions with helix plates, 4, 7, and 10 feet long, the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and RPM. A
minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining allowable
single and multi-helix
capacity from correlations. Axial deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches are
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1. typical at allowable capacity.
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN ASD ALLOWABLE
HELIX DIAMETER THICKNESS
STRENGTH
(in) [mm] (in) [mm] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
(kip) [kN]
6 [150] 0.5 [13] 154 [685] 115.5 [513.8] 77 [342.5]
8 [200] 0.5 [13] 154 [685] 115.5 [513.8] 77 [342.5]
10 [250] 0.5 [13] 122.8 [546.2] 92.1 [409.7] 61.4 [273.1]
12 [300] 0.5 [13] 131.3 [584] 98.5 [438] 65.6 [291.8]
14 [350] 0.5 [13] 115.3 [512.9] 86.5 [384.7] 57.6 [256.2]
Notes:
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above 85.6 [380.8] 77.1 [342.9) 43.7 [194.4] 39.3 [174.8]
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 239.6 [1065.8] 215.6 [959]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 239.6 [1065.8] 215.6 [959]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 239.6 [1065.8] 215.6 [959]
167.5 [745] 150.8 [670.8] 86.6 [385.2] 77.1 [342.9] 43.7 [194.4] 39.3 [174.8]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 230.6 [1025.8] 207.6 [923.5]
Lead, Multi-Helix 239.6 [1065.8] 215.6 [959]
Extension 239.6 [1065.8] 215.6 [959]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE 2 in 51 mm
1.971 in 50 mm
CORRODED
1.19 in4 49.53 cm4
CORRODED
3.81 in2 24.58 cm2
CORRODED
1.21 in3 19.83 cm3
CORRODED
7.36 in 18.69 cm
One 1-1/8 inch diameter ASTM A193 Grade B7 hex

COUPLING BOLTS

HELIX PLATES
ASTM A656 or A1018 Grade 80
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
10 ft-1 33 m-1
FACTOR

ASSEMBLY OF SS200
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
FIGURE 7-12
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
150 kip 668 kN 112.5 kip 500 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
75 kip 334 kN
STRENGTH
CAPACITY LIMIT BASED ON ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE
TORQUE CORRELATION,
TENSION / COMPRESSION 160 kip 712 kN 80 kip 356 kN
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above 51.3 [228.2] 26.2 [116.5]
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 138.4 [615.6]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 127.0 [765.1]
100.3 [446.1] 51.3 [228.2] 26.2 [116.5]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 123.2 [548]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 115.2 [512.4]
Lead, Multi-Helix 143.5 [638.3] 100.3 [446.1] 51.3 [228.2] 26.2 [116.5]
Extension 143.5 [638.3] 100.3 [446.1] 51.3 [228.2] 26.2 [116.5]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

UPSET SOCKETS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type SS225 helical piles and anchors have 210 kip torque strength. Strength calculations are based on a design
ultimate capacity and 105 kip working or allowable capacity corrosion level of 50 years for most soil conditions. Chance
in compression and 200 kip ultimate capacity and 100 kip Type SS helical piles and anchors have a longer service life than
working or allowable capacity in tension. This capacity is do round shaft piles because of their reduced surface area.
based on structural strength ratings and well-documented Chance Type SS helical piles and anchors feature sharpened-
correlations with installation torque, which is recognized as leading-edge helix plates that are circular in plan to provide
one method to determine capacity per IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9. uniform load bearing in most soil conditions. Helix plates can
Lead sections and extensions couple together to extend the be equipped with seashell cuts on the leading edge to enhance
helix bearing plates to the required load-bearing stratum. penetration through dense soils with occasional cobbles and
Solid square shaft helical piles and anchors provide greater debris. Custom lengths and helix configurations are available
penetration into bearing soils and increased axial capacity in upon request. See below for additional information and other
firm soils compared to round shaft helical piles with similar sections of this manual for specifications and design details.
CHANCE TYPE SS225

HELICAL PILES AND
ANCHORS
TRUE
HELIX
FORM
HOLE ACCEPTS
2-1/4” 3 x DIAMETER 1-1/4” DIA
SQUARE SPACING COUPLING BOLT
SHAFT TYPICAL
UP TO
7'-0"
LONG
3” PITCH SHARP 1-1/4” DIA

LEADING EDGE STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
5-1/2”
2-7/8”
45˚ PILOT POINT
TRIPLE-HELIX QUAD-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

COUPLING: Forged as a deep socket from the steel shaft mate- 2.25
Y
tural bolts.
X X
Systems, Inc., for helical piles and anchors. 2.25

R.31 Y
or can be ordered with a seashell cut (see Fig. 7-2). The sea- 2.93
shell cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate soils CHANCE TYPE SS225
with fill debris, cobbles, or fractured rock. HELICAL PILE SHAFT
CROSS-SECTION
CONFIGURATIONS: FIGURE 7-13
• Triple- and quad-helix lead sections, 5, 6-1/2,
and 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, and 7 feet long jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
• Extensions with helix plates, 3-1/2 and 7 feet long, RPM. A minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining
single and multi-helix allowable capacity from correlations. Axial deflections of 0.25 to 0.50
inches are typical at allowable capacity.
HELIX DIAMETER THICKNESS NOMINAL STRENGTH LRFD DESIGN ASD ALLOWABLE

(in) [mm] (in) [mm] (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
6 [150] 0.5 [13] 188 [836.3] 141 [627.2] 94 [418.1]
8 [200] 0.5 [13] 188 [836.3] 141 [627.2] 94 [418.1]
10 [250] 0.5 [13] 151.8 [675.2] 113.9 [506.4] 75.9 [337.6]
12 [300] 0.5 [13] 141.3 [628.5] 106 [471.4] 70.6 [314]
14 [350] 0.5 [13] 126.3 [561.8] 94.7 [421.4] 63.2 [281.1]
Notes:

139.0 [618.3] 125.1 [556.5]
See Helix Strength See Helix Strength 70.9
Table Above Table Above Single 14 inch Single 14 inch [315.4]
– 126.3 [561.8] – 113.7 [505.8]
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 331.6 [1475] 298.4 [1327.3]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 293.1 [1303.8] 263.8 [1173.4]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 267.6 [1190.3] 240.9 [1071.6] 250.1 225.1 70.9
139.0 [618.3] 125.1 [556.5] 63.8 [283.8]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 252.6 [1123.6] 227.4 [1011.5] [1112.5] [1001.3] [315.4]
Lead, Multi-Helix 331.6 [1475] 298.4 [1327.3]
Extension 331.6 [1475] 298.4 [1327.3]
Notes:
2 Strength ratings are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years and presume the supported structure is braced in accordance with IBC
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CORRODED
2.237 in 56.8 mm
CORRODED
1.99 in4 82.83 cm4
CORRODED
4.93 in2 31.81 cm2
CORRODED
1.79 in3 29.37 cm3
CORRODED
8.43 in 21.41 cm
One 1-1/4 inch diameter ASTM A193 Grade B7 hex
COUPLING BOLTS

HELIX PLATES
ASTM A656 or A1018 Grade 80
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
10 ft-1 33 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
200 kip 890 kN 150 kip 667 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
100 kip 445 kN
STRENGTH
ASSEMBLY OF SS225
FIGURE 7-14
BASED ON TORQUE
CORRELATION, TENSION 210 kip 934 kN 105 kip 467 kN
/ COMPRESSION
ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE SS225

HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2

SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
See Helix Strength Table
See Helix Strength See Helix Strength
Lead, Single Helix Above, except single 6 & 42.5 [189]
Table Above Table Above
8 inch - 83.2 [370.1]
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 169.9 [755.8] 149.8 [666.3]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 146.5 [651.6] 146.5 [650.7]
83.2 [370.1] 42.5 [189]
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 133.8 [595.1] 133.8 [595.1]
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 126.4 [562.2] 126.4 [562.3]
Lead, Multi-Helix 198.6 [883.4] 149.8 [666.3] 83.2 [370.1] 42.5 [189]
Extension 198.6 [883.4] 149.8 [666.3] 83.2 [370.1] 42.5 [189]
Notes:
2 Strength ratings are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years and presume the supported structure is braced in accor-
dance with IBC Section 1808.2.5 and the lead section with which the extension is used will provide sufficient helix capacity to
develop the full shaft capacity.
CHANCE TYPE RS2875.203 HELICAL PILES
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• MULTI-PURPOSE 2-7/8” DIAMETER, 0.203” WALL, ROUND HSS SHAFT WITH INTEGRALLY FORMED UPSET SOCKETS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS2875.203 helical piles have 63 kip ultimate Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
capacity and 31.5 kip working or allowable capacity lead sections (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on bearing soils. Chance Type RS helical piles feature sharpened-
well-documented correlations with installation torque, which leading-edge helix plates that are circular in plan to provide
is recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC uniform load bearing in most soil conditions. Helix plates can
Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections and extensions couple be equipped with seashell cuts on the leading edge to enhance
together to extend the helix bearing plates to the required penetration through dense soils with occasional cobbles and
load-bearing stratum. Round shaft helical piles offer increased debris. Custom lengths and helix configurations are available
lateral and buckling resistance compared to solid square shafts upon request. See below for additional information and other
with similar torque strength. Strength calculations are based sections of this manual for specifications and design details.
on a design corrosion level of 50 years for most soil conditions.
HOLE ACCEPTS CHANCE TYPE

3/4” DIA RS2875.203 HELICAL
2-7/8” DIA
PIPE SHAFT COUPLING BOLT PILES
3’’
SPACING
UP TO
10'-0"
TRUE 3 x DIA
LONG
HELIX SPACING
FORM TYPICAL
3/4” DIA
3” PITCH STRUCTURAL
SHARP GRADE BOLT
LEADING
EDGE
6-1/4”
45 PILOT POINT
1-1/2”

RS2875.203 HELICAL PILE SPECIFICATIONS & AVAILABLE CONFIGURATIONS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SHAFT: HSS 2-7/8 inch OD x 0.203 inch (schedule 40) wall

steel shaft produced exclusively for Chance® products.
COUPLING: Forged as an integral part of the plain and helical
extension material as round deep sockets, connected with mul-
tiple structural bolts.
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 8, 10, 12, or 14 inches.
CONFIGURATIONS:
CHANCE TYPE RS2875.203
• Single-, double-, and triple-helix lead sections, 5, 7, and HELICAL PILE SHAFT CROSS-SECTION
10 feet long FIGURE 7-15
NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Extensions with helix plates, 5 and 7 feet long bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1. stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
RPM. A minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining
allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches
are typical at allowable capacity.
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF RS2875.203 HELIX PLATES FOR SHAFT
AXIAL TENSION & COMPRESSION1
HELIX DIAMETER NOMINAL STRENGTH LRFD DESIGN ASD ALLOWABLE
THICKNESS (in) [mm]
(in) [mm] (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
8 [200] 0.375 [9.5] 85.8 [381.7] 64.4 [286.3] 42.9 [190.8]
10 [250] 0.375 [9.5] 73.6 [327.4] 55.2 [245.6] 36.8 [163.7]
12 [300] 0.375 [9.5] 75.6 [336.3] 56.7 [252.2] 37.8 [168.1]
14 [350] 0.375 [9.5] 61.0 [271.3] 45.8 [203.5] 30.5 [135.7]
Notes:
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE RS2875.203 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2

69.0 [306.9] 62.1 [276.2] 64.3 [286.0] 57.9 [257.6]

55.5 49.9 37.8
Lead, Single Helix For Single For Single For Single 42.0 [186.8]
For Single [246.9] [222.0] [168.1]
14”– 54.9 14”– 61.0 14”– 57.9
14”– 61 [271.3]
[244.2] [271.3] [257.6]
Lead, Multi-Helix 69.0 [306.9] 62.1 [276.2] 64.3 [286.0] 57.9 [257.6] 55.5 49.9 37.8
42.0 [186.8]
Extension 69.0 [306.9] 62.1 [276.2] 64.3 [286.0] 57.9 [257.6] [246.9] [222.0] [168.1]
Notes:
RS2875.203 HELICAL PILE AND ANCHOR PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

Hot-rolled HSS 2-1/2 inch nominal Schedule 40 (0.203
SHAFT inch nominal wall) per ASTM A500 Grade B/C with 65
ksi minimum yield strength
CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE, OD 2.875 in 73 mm
2.862 in 72.7 mm
CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE, ID* 2.497 in 63.4 mm
2.510 in 63.75 mm
CORRODED
MOMENT OF INERTIA (I)* 1.44 in4 59.9 cm4
1.344 in4 55.9 cm4
CORRODED
SHAFT AREA (A)* 1.59 in2 10.3 cm2
1.48 in2 9.57 cm2
CORRODED
SECTION MODULUS (Sx-x)* 1.0 in3 16.4 cm3
0.939 in3 15.4 cm3
CORRODED
8.99 in 22.8 cm
COUPLING Integral forged round deep socket sleeve
Two 3/4 inch diameter SAE J429 Grade 5 hex head bolts
COUPLING BOLTS
with threads excluded from shear planes
0.375 inch thick, formed on matching metal dies, ASTM
HELIX PLATES
A572 Grade 50 or better
Hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1, 3.1 mil mini-
COATINGS
mum thickness or bare steel
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
9 ft-1 30 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
60 kip 267 kN 45 kip 200 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
30 kip 133 kN
STRENGTH
BASED ON TORQUE
ASSEMBLY OF RS2875.203
CORRELATION, TENSION / FIGURE 7-16
63 kip 280 kN 31.5 kip 140 kN
COMPRESSION
Note:
* Computed with 93% of wall thickness per AISC 360-10, B4.2
ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE RS2875.203 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2
SECTION TYPE &
HELIX COUNT FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
For Single 8” – 41.3 [183.7] For Single 8” – 38.5 [171.3] 33.2 [147.7]
See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above
For Single 14” – 30.5 [135.7]
for 10”, 12”, & 14” for 10”, 12”, & 14”
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10”

41.3 [183.7] 38.5 [171.3] 33.2 [147.7] 25.1 [111.7]
Lead, Multi-Helix 41.3 [183.7] 38.5 [171.3] 33.2 [147.7] 25.1 [111.7]
Extension 41.3 [183.7] 38.5 [171.3] 33.2 [147.7] 25.1 [111.7]
Note:
CHANCE TYPE RS2875.203 HELICAL PILES PER ICC-ES AC358 FOR
BUILDING CODE EVALUATION
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
• 60.4 kip ULTIMATE – 30.2 kip ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

• MULTI-PURPOSE 2-7/8” DIAMETER, 0.203” WALL, ROUND HSS SHAFT WITH SLEEVE COUPLINGS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS2875.203 helical piles have 60.4 kip lead sections (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into
ultimate capacity and 30.2 kip working or allowable capacity bearing soils. Chance Type RS helical piles feature sharpened-
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on leading-edge helix plates that are circular in plan to provide
well-documented correlations with installation torque, which uniform load bearing in most soil conditions. Helix plates can
is recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC be equipped with seashell cuts on the leading edge to enhance
Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections and extensions couple penetration through dense soils with occasional cobbles and
together to extend the helix bearing plates to the required debris. Custom lengths and helix configurations are available
load-bearing stratum. Round shaft helical piles offer increased upon request. See below for additional information and other
lateral and buckling resistance compared to solid square shafts sections of this manual for specifications and design details.
with similar torque strength. Strength calculations are based
Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
CHANCE TYPE
HOLE ACCEPTS RS2875.203 HELICAL
2-7/8” DIA 3/4” DIA PILES PER ICC-ES
PIPE SHAFT COUPLING BOLT AC358 FOR BUILDING
CODE EVALUATION
3’’
SPACING
UP TO
10'-0"
TRUE 3 x DIA
LONG
HELIX SPACING
FORM TYPICAL
3/4” DIA
SHARP GRADE BOLT
LEADING
EDGE
6-1/4”
45 PILOT POINT
1-1/2”
WELDED SLEEVE

RS2875.203 BUILDING CODE HELICAL PILE SPECIFICATIONS & AVAILABLE CONFIGURATIONS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

COUPLING: Welded sleeve forming a socket, connected with
multiple structural bolts.
CONFIGURATIONS:
• Single-, double-, and triple-helix lead sections, 5, 7, and CHANCE TYPE RS2875.203
10 feet long HELICAL PILE SHAFT CROSS-SECTION
FIGURE 7-17
• Extensions with helix plates, 5 and 7 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1. jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF RS2875.203 HELIX PLATES FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION &
COMPRESSION1
(in) {mm} (in) {mm} (kip) {kN} STRENGTH (kip) {kN} STRENGTH (kip) {kN}
8 {200} 0.375 {9.5} 135.0 {600.5} 101.3 {450.6} 67.5 {300.3}
10 {250} 0.375 {9.5} 122.7 {545.8} 92.0 {409.2} 61.4 {273.1}
12 {300} 0.375 {9.5} 127.1 {565.4} 95.3 {423.9} 63.6 {282.9}
14 {350} 0.375 {9.5} 124.9 {555.6} 93.7 {416.8} 62.4 {277.6}
Notes:
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE RS2875.203

HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2,3
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS (kip) {kN}
Lead, Single Helix 87.1 65.3 80.1 65.3 66.1 59.5 45.2 41.4
{387.4} {290.5} {356.3} {290.5} {294.0} {264.7} {201.1} {184.2}
Lead, Multi-Helix [84.2 [65.3 [73.9 [65.3 [56.0 [50.4 [33.2 [29.9
Extension {374.5}] {290.5}] {328.7}] {290.5}] {249.1}] {224.2}] {147.7}] {133.0}]
Notes:
2 Strength ratings include an allowance for corrosion over a 50-year service life and presume the supported structure is braced in accordance with IBC
3 Values in brackets [ ] are for use in Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CORRODED
2.862 in 72.7 mm
CORRODED
2.510 in 63.75 mm
CORRODED
1.344 in4 55.9 cm4
CORRODED
1.48 in2 9.57 cm2
CORRODED
0.939 in3 15.4 cm3
CORRODED
8.99 in 22.8 cm
COUPLING Welded round deep socket sleeve WELDED SLEEVE
COUPLING BOLTS
HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
9 ft-1 30 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
87 kip 387 kN 65.3 kip 290.5 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
43.5 kip 193.5 kN
STRENGTH
TORQUE-CORRELATED CAPACITY ASSEMBLY OF RS2875.203
CAPACITY LIMIT BASED ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE FIGURE 7-18
ON TORQUE CORRELA-
TION, TENSION / COM- 60.4 kip 269 kN 30.2 kip 134 kN
PRESSION
Note:
ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE RS2875.203 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2,3
ASD ALLOWABLE AXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH (kip) {kN}
SECTION TYPE &
HELIX COUNT FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
Lead, Single Helix 43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 39.6 {176.1} [33.5 {149.0}] 27.5 {122.3} [19.9 {88.5}]

43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 39.6 {176.1} [33.5 {149.0}] 27.5 {122.3} [19.9 {88.5}]
Lead, Multi-Helix 43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 39.6 {176.1} [33.5 {149.0}] 27.5 {122.3} [19.9 {88.5}]
Extension 43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 43.5 {193.5} [43.5 {193.5}] 39.6 {176.1} [33.5 {149.0}] 27.5 {122.3} [19.9 {88.5}]
Notes:
1 Referto Section 4.1.3 of ESR-2794 for descriptions of fixed condition, pinned condition, soft soil, and firm soil.
RS2875.203 LATERAL DEFLECTION ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES D, E, & F: The free-headed pile lateral move-
ments at allowable loads (lateral only – no vertical) of Chance® Type RS2875.203 helical piles can be determined from the following
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

table.
∆ = yt Ph = Allowable lateral load
Ph
L = Pile length
H
yt = Δ = Lateral drift of pile head
Do GROUND
h H = Length from pile head to groundline
L FIRST ZERO-
Do = Depth along pile shaft to point of first zero-deflection point
DEFLECTION
(yt = 0), a.k.a. the flexural length of pile
POINT (yt=0)
ZERO SLOPE h = Depth along pile shaft to point of zero slope (St = 0)
POINT (St = 0) M = Bending moment in pile shaft
(LOWER)
For lateral resistance in non-seismic areas, special analysis and tests of RS2875.203 helical piles indicate allowable lateral load with
less than 1/2” lateral deflection in stiff, firm, and soft soils. Test and analysis data are listed in the table. Per AC358 1.4.7, the Shaft Flex-
ural Length (Do) is measured from the top of the pile down to the first point of zero lateral deflection in the soil. AC358 1.4.8 defines
the Shaft Seismic Flexural Length (Seismic Do) as 120% of the Shaft Flexural Length, which for RS2875.203 helical piles embedded in
stiff, firm, and soft soils is 4.3 ft, 4.7 ft, and 7.0 ft respectively.
NON-SEISMIC LATERAL LOADING SEISMIC LATERAL LOADING

(SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES A, B, AND C) (SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES D, E, AND F)
STORY DRIFT (Δ)
STORY DRIFT (Δ)

MOMENT IN PILE
MOMENT IN PILE
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO yt = 0
DEPTH TO SOIL
LATERAL LOAD
LATERAL LOAD
DRIFT AT PILE
DRIFT AT PILE
yt = 0 (Do) (ft)
AT PILE HEAD
AT PILE HEAD
HEAD (yt) (in)
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
SOIL (H) (ft)
DEPTH TO
DEPTH TO
BENDING
BENDING
(Ph) (kip)
(Ph) (kip)
(Do) (ft)
(yt) (in)
(kip∙in)
(kip∙in)
(H) (ft)
(h) (ft)
(h) (ft)
HEAD
SOIL
TYPE
Stiff
Soil:
1.61 0.46 0 3.6 4.4 0.009h 21.6 1.61 0.94 0.7 4.3 7.0 0.011h 32.4
N=9
to 20
Firm
Soil:
1.30 0.46 0 3.9 4.9 0.008h 18.0 1.39 1.19 0.8 4.7 5.9 0.017h 32.4
N=5
to 8
Soft
Soil:
0.40 0.46 0 5.8 7.2 0.005h 8.4 N/A 9.0 1.2 7.0 8.5 0.088h N/A
N=1
to 4
All shaft, coupler, and bracket-tube shapes and materials have been checked for adequate ductility per AC358 3.14.3; AISC 341 Table
D1.1 (including applicable footnotes); and IBC 1810.3.6.1.
Lateral deflections during seismic loading should be checked against the ASCE-7 Table 12.12-1 (reproduced below) showing Allowable
Story Drift values for various structure lateral load resistance system types that are presented as ratios of the story height in Seismic
Design Categories D, E, and F. The story height (h) assumed for the helical pile is the depth from the pile top down to the point of
zero pile slope-from-vertical in the soil (St). The Allowable Story Drift in the seismic loading table above must be less than or equal
to the Allowable Story Drift in Table 12.12.1 in order to determine if RS2875.203 helical piles can be used in that Structure Type and
Risk Category.
TABLE 12.12.1 ALLOWABLE STORY DRIFT, Δ

Structure Risk Category
I or II III IV
Structures, other than masonry shear walls, four stories or less above the base as defined in Section 0.025h 0.020h 0.015h
11.2, with interior walls, partitions, ceilings, and exterior wall systems that have been designed to ac-
commodate the story drifts
Masonry cantilever shear wall structures 0.010h 0.010h 0.010h
Other masonry shear wall structures 0.007h 0.007h 0.007h
All other structures 0.020h 0.015h 0.010h
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS2875.276 helical piles have 72 kip ultimate ca- RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft lead sections
pacity and 36 kip working or allowable capacity in compres- (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into bearing soils.
sion or tension. This capacity is based on well-documented Chance Type RS helical piles feature sharpened-leading-edge
correlations with installation torque, which is recognized as helix plates that are circular in plan to provide uniform load
one method to determine capacity per IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9. bearing in most soil conditions. Helix plates can be equipped
Lead sections and extensions couple together to extend the with seashell cuts on the leading edge to enhance penetra-
helix bearing plates to the required load-bearing stratum. tion through dense soils with occasional cobbles and debris.
Round shaft helical piles offer increased lateral and buckling Custom lengths and helix configurations are available upon re-
resistance compared to solid square shafts with similar torque quest. See below for additional information and other sections
strength. Strength calculations are based on a design corro- of this manual for specifications and design details.
sion level of 50 years for most soil conditions. Chance Type
CHANCE TYPE
2-7/8” DIA 3/4” DIA PILES
PIPE SHAFT COUPLING BOLT
3’’
SPACING
UP TO
10’-0"
TRUE 3 x DIA
LONG
HELIX SPACING
FORM TYPICAL
3/4” DIA
SHARP GRADE BOLT
LEADING
EDGE
6-1/4”
45˚ PILOT POINT

1-1/2”

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CONFIGURATIONS:
• Single-, double-, triple-, and quad-helix lead sections, CHANCE TYPE RS2875.276 HELICAL PILE SHAFT
3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long CROSS-SECTION
FIGURE 7-19
• Extensions with helix plates, 3-1/2 feet long
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1. jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF RS2875.276

HELIX PLATES FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION & COMPRESSION1
8 [200] 0.375 [9.5] 121.4 [540.0] 91.1 [378] 60.7 [270.0]
10 [250] 0.375 [9.5] 98.9 [439.9] 74.2 [330] 49.5 [220.2]
12 [300] 0.375 [9.5] 85.3 [379.4] 63.9 [284.6] 42.7 [189.9]
14 [350] 0.375 [9.5] 53.7 [238.9] 40.3 [179.2] 26.9 [119.7]
Notes:
92.9 [413.2] 83.6 [371.9] 86.3 [383.9] 77.7 [345.6] 73.9 [328.7] 66.5 [295.8] 55.2 [245.5] 49.7 [221.1]
Lead, Single Helix
See Helix Table Above for Single 12” & 14” See Helix Table Above for Single 14”
Lead, Multi-Helix 92.9 [413.2] 83.6 [371.9] 86.3 [383.9] 77.7 [345.6]
73.9 [328.7] 66.5 [295.8] 55.2 [245.5] 49.7 [221.1]
Extension 92.9 [413.2] 83.6 [371.9] 86.3 [383.9] 77.7 [345.6]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CORRODED
2.862 in 72.7 mm
CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE, ID* 2.36 in 60 mm
2.375 in 60.3 mm
CORRODED
1.733 in4 72.1 cm4
CORRODED
2.0 in2 12.9 cm2
CORRODED
1.21 in3 19.8 cm3
CORRODED
8.99 in 22.8 cm
COUPLING BOLTS
HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
9 ft-1 30 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
90 kip 400 kN 67.5 kip 300 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
45 kip 200 kN
STRENGTH
CAPACITY LIMIT BASED ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE ASSEMBLY OF RS2875.276
ON TORQUE CORRELA- FIGURE 7-20
PRESSION
Note:
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
For Single 8” – 55.6 [247.3] For Single 8” – 51.7 [230.0] 44.3 [197.1] 33.0 [146.8]
Lead, Single Helix
See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table For Single 14” – 26.9
Above for 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 12”, & 14” [119.7]
55.6 [247.3] 51.7 [230.0] 44.3 [197.1] 33.0 [146.8]
Lead, Multi-Helix 55.6 [247.3] 51.7 [230.0] 44.3 [197.1] 33.0 [146.8]
Extension 55.6 [247.3] 51.7 [230.0] 44.3 [197.1] 33.0 [146.8]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS2875.276 helical piles have 80.1 kip ultimate Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
CHANCE TYPE
2-7/8” DIA 3/4” DIA PILES PER ICC-ES
PIPE SHAFT COUPLING BOLT
AC358 FOR BUILDING
CODE EVALUATION
3’’
SPACING
UP TO
10’-0’’
TRUE 3 x DIA
LONG
HELIX SPACING
FORM TYPICAL
3/4” DIA
SHARP GRADE BOLT
LEADING
EDGE
6-1/4”
45˚ PILOT POINT

1-1/2”
WELDED SLEEVE
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

COUPLING: Welded sleeve forming a socket connected with
or can be ordered with a seashell cut (see Fig. 7-2). The sea- CHANCE TYPE
shell cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate soils RS2875.276 HELICAL
with fill debris, cobbles, or fractured rock. PILE SHAFT
CROSS-SECTION
3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
• Extensions with helix plates, 3-1/2 feet long stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153 Class B-1. allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF RS2875.276 HELIX PLATES
FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION & COMPRESSION1
8 {200} 0.375 {9.5} 113.9 {504.4} 85.4 {378.3} 56.9 {253.1}
10 {250} 0.375 {9.5} 94.5 {420.4} 70.9 {315.3} 47.3 {210.4}
12 {300} 0.375 {9.5} 93.0 {413.7} 69.8 {310.3} 46.5 {206.8}
14 {350} 0.375 {9.5} 100.3 {446.2} 75.2 {334.7} 50.2 {223.3}
Notes:
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE RS2875.276 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2,3
SECTION
TYPE & FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED
COUNT
83.6 {371.9} 77.7 {345.6}
[80.8 {359.4}] [72.8 {323.8}] 73.9 66.5 55.2 49.7
Lead, 92.9 {413.2} See Helix 86.3 {383.9} See Helix {328.7} {295.8} {245.5} {221.1}
Single Strength Strength
Helix [89.8 {399.5}] Table Above for [80.8 {359.4}] Table Above for [64.6 [58.2 [42.4 [38.2
Single 10”, 12”, Single 10”, 12”, {287.4}] (258.9}] {188.6}] {170}]
& 14” & 14”
Lead, 92.9 {413.2} 83.6 {371.9} 86.3 {383.9} 77.7 {345.6} 73.9 66.5 55.2 49.7
Multi-
[89.8 {399.5}] [80.8 {359.4}] [80.8 {359.4}] [72.8 {323.8}] {328.7) {295.8} {245.5} {221.1}
Helix
[64.6 [58.2 [42.4 [38.2
92.9 {413.2} 83.6 {371.9} 86.3 {383.9} 77.7 {345.6}
Extension {287.4)] {258.9}] {188.6}] {170}]
[89.8 {399.5}] [80.8 {359.4}] [80.8 {359.4}] [72.8 {323.8}]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CORRODED
2.862 in 72.7 mm
CORRODED
2.375 in 60.3 mm
CORRODED
1.733 in4 72.1 cm4
CORRODED
2.0 in2 12.9 cm2
CORRODED
1.21 in3 19.8 cm3
CORRODED
8.99 in 22.8 cm
COUPLING Welded round deep socket sleeve
WELDED SLEEVE
COUPLING BOLTS
HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
9 ft-1 30 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
97.9 kip 453.3 kN 73.4 kip 326.5 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
48.9 kip 217.5 kN
STRENGTH
BASED ON TORQUE ASSEMBLY OF RS2875.276
CORRELATION, TENSION / 80.1 kip 356.3 kN 40.05 kip 178.2 kN FIGURE 7-22
COMPRESSION
Note:
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
For Single 8” – 55.6 For Single 8” – 51.7
{247.3} [53.8 {249.3}] {230.0} [48.4 {215.3}]
Lead, Single Helix 44.3 {197.1} [38.7 {172.1}] 33.0 {146.8} [25.4 {113}]
See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table
Above for 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 10”, 12”, & 14”
55.6 {247.3} [53.8 {249.3}] 51.7 {230.0} [48.4 {215.3}] 44.3 {197.1} [38.7 {172.1}] 33.0 {146.8} [25.4 {113}]
Lead, Multi-Helix 55.6 {247.3} [53.8 {249.3}] 51.7 {230.0} [48.4 (215.3}]
44.3 {197.1} [38.7 {172.1}] 33.0 {146.8} [25.4 {113}]
Extension 55.6 {247.3} [53.8 {249.3}] 51.7 {230.0} [48.4 (215.3}]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
table.
Ph
L = Pile length
H
Do GROUND
L FIRST ZERO-
DEFLECTION
POINT (yt=0)
(LOWER)
the Shaft Seismic Flexural Length (Seismic Do) as 120% of the Shaft Flexural Length, which for RS2875.276 helical piles embedded in
stiff, firm, and soft soils is 4.8 ft, 5.0 ft, and 7.6 ft respectively.

STORY DRIFT (Δ)
STORY DRIFT (Δ)

MOMENT IN PILE
MOMENT IN PILE
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO yt = 0
DEPTH TO yt = 0
DEPTH TO SOIL
DEPTH TO SOIL
LATERAL LOAD
LATERAL LOAD
DRIFT AT PILE
DRIFT AT PILE
AT PILE HEAD
AT PILE HEAD
HEAD (yt) (in)
HEAD (yt) (in)

ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
BENDING
BENDING
(Ph) (kip)
(Ph) (kip)
(Do) (ft)
(Do) (ft)
(kip∙in)
(kip∙in)
(H) (ft)
(H) (ft)
(h) (ft)
(h) (ft)
SOIL
TYPE
Stiff
Soil:
1.85 0.54 0 4.0 4.8 0.009h 27.6 1.85 1.17 0.8 4.8 5.6 0.017h 42.0
N=9
to 20
Firm
Soil:
1.48 0.54 0 4.2 5.3 0.008h 24.0 1.5 1.14 0.8 5.0 6.2 0.015h 36.0
N=5
to 8
Soft
Soil:
0.47 0.54 0 6.3 7.8 0.006h 10.8 0.50 1.29 1.3 7.6 9.2 0.012h 18.0
N=1
to 4
Risk Category.

I or II III IV
CHANCE TYPE RS2875.276 HCP HELICAL PILES
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS2875.276 HCP helical piles have 94.5 Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
kip ultimate capacity and 47.25 kip working or allowable lead sections (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into
capacity in compression or tension. This capacity is based on bearing soils. Chance Type RS helical piles feature sharpened-
HOLE ACCEPTS
3/4” DIA CHANCE TYPE
COUPLING BOLT RS2875.276 HCP
HELICAL PILES
TRUE
2-7/8” DIA HELIX
PIPE SHAFT FORM
3’’
SPACING
UP TO
10’-0’’
LONG
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING
EDGE
3 x DIA
3/4” DIA
SPACING
STRUCTURAL
TYPICAL
GRADE BOLT
6-1/4”
45˚ PILOT POINT

1-1/2”
WELDED SLEEVE
SINGLE-HELIX QUAD-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

RS2875.276 HCP HELICAL PILE SPECIFICATIONS & AVAILABLE CONFIGURATIONS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SHAFT: HSS 2-7/8 inch OD x 0.276 inch wall steel shaft pro-
duced exclusively for Chance® products.
multiple structural grade bolts.
HELIX – 3/8 INCH THICK: ASTM A656 or A1018, with minimum
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 8, 10, 12, and 14 inches.
The standard helix plate has a straight sharp leading edge or
can be ordered with a seashell cut (see Fig. 7-2). The seashell CHANCE TYPE
cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate soils with fill RS2875.276 HCP
debris, cobbles, or fractured rock. HELICAL PILE SHAFT
CROSS-SECTION
up to 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
• Extensions with helix plates, 5 feet long stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches
75 or are available black. are typical at allowable capacity.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
RS2875.276 HCP HELICAL PILE AND ANCHOR PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
Hot-rolled HSS 2.875 inch, 0.276 inch nominal wall with 80

SHAFT
CORRODED
2.862 in 72.7 mm
CORRODED
2.375 in 60.3 mm
CORRODED
1.733 in4 72.1 cm4
CORRODED
2.0 in2 12.9 cm2
CORRODED
1.21 in3 19.8 cm3
CORRODED
8.99 in 22.8 cm WELDED SLEEVE
COUPLING Welded round deep socket
Two 3/4 inch diameter SAE J429 Grade 5 hex head bolts with
COUPLING BOLTS
threads excluded from shear planes
0.375-inch thick, formed on matching metal dies, ASTM
HELIX PLATES
Hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75, 3.0 mil mini-
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
9 ft-1 30 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
100 kip 445 kN 75 kip 334 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
50 kip 222 kN
STRENGTH ASSEMBLY OF
TORQUE-CORRELATED CAPACITY RS2875.276 HCP
CAPACITY LIMIT ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE FIGURE 7-24
BASED ON TORQUE
CORRELATION, TENSION / 94.5 kip 420 kN 47.25 kip 210 kN
COMPRESSION
Note:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS3500.300 helical piles have 91 kip ultimate Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
CHANCE TYPE
RS3500.300
3-1/2” DIA TRUE HELICAL PILES
PIPE SHAFT HELIX
FORM 1-1/2“
SPACING
HOLE ACCEPTS
3/4” DIA
COUPLING BOLT UP TO
10’-0’’
LONG
3 x DIA
SPACING
TYPICAL
3/4” DIA
STRUCTURAL
3” PITCH GRADE BOLT
SHARP
LEADING
EDGE
6-1/4”
45˚ PILOT POINT
1-1/2”
TWIN-HELIX TRIPLE-HELIX QUAD-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

HELICAL PILE SHAFT
CONFIGURATIONS: CROSS-SECTION
• Single-, double-, triple-, and quad-helix lead sections, FIGURE 7-25
3-1/2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Extensions with helix plates, 3-1/2, 4, 7, and 10 stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
feet long
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75. are typical at allowable capacity.

8 [200] 0.5 [13] 158.3 [704.2] 118.7 [528.2] 79.1 [351.9]
10 [250] 0.5 [13] 132.5 [589.3] 99.4 [442] 66.3 [294.9]
12 [300] 0.5 [13] 98.4 [437.7] 73.8 [328.3] 49.2 [187.7]
14 [350] 0.5 [13] 132.3 [588.5] 99.2 [441.4] 66.2 [294.5]
Notes:

HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2
SECTION
COUNT
128.0 99.0
115.2 [512.4] 121.9 [542.2] 109.7 [488.0] 110.0 [489.3] 81.6 [363.0]
[569.4] [440.3]
Lead, See Helix Strength See Helix Strength
For Single For Single For Single For Single 90.7 [403.5] For Single
Single Helix Table Above for Table Above for
12” – 98.4 12” – 98.4 12” – 98.4 12” – 73.8 12” – 73.8
Single 10”, Single 10”,
[437.7] [437.7] [437.7] [328.3] [328.3]
12”, & 14” 12”, & 14”
Lead, Multi- 128
115.2 [512.4] 121.9 [542.2] 109.7 [488.0]
Helix [569.4] 99.0
110.0 [489.3] 90.7 [403.5] 81.6 [363.0]
128.0 [440.4]
Extension 115.2 [512.4] 121.9 [542.2] 109.7 [488.0]
[569.4]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
Hot-rolled HSS 3 inch nominal Schedule 80 (0.300 inch

SHAFT nominal wall) per ASTM A500 Grade B/C with 50 ksi
CORRODED
3.487 in 63.2 mm
CORRODED
2.955 in 75.1 mm
CORRODED
3.514 in4 146.3 cm4
CORRODED
2.692 in2 17.4 cm2
CORRODED
2.016 in3 33.0 cm3
CORRODED
10.95 in 27.8 cm
Three 3/4 in diameter SAE J429 Grade 5 hex head bolts
COUPLING BOLTS
HELIX PLATES
Hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75, 3.0 mil
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
7 ft-1 23 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
120 kip 534 kN 90 kip 400 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
60 kip 261 kN
STRENGTH
FIGURE 7-26
CAPACITY LIMIT
ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE
BASED ON TORQUE
CORRELATION, TENSION /
91 kip 405 kN 45.5 kip 202.5 kN
COMPRESSION
Note:
ASD ALLOWABLE AXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH (KIP) (KN)
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above For Single 12” – 49.2 For Single 12” – 49.2
for 10”, 12”, & 14” for 10”, 12”, & 14” [218.9] [218.9]
76.6 [340.7] 73.0 [324.7] 65.9 [293.1] 54.3 [241.5]
Lead, Multi-Helix 76.6 [340.7] 73.0 [324.7] 65.9 [293.1] 54.3 [241.5]
Extension 76.6 [340.7] 73.0 [324.7] 65.9 [293.1] 54.3 [241.5]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• MULTI-PURPOSE 3-1/2” DIAMETER, 0.300” WALL, ROUND HSS SHAFT WITH WELDED SLEEVE COUPLING
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS3500.300 helical piles have 87.5 kip Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
ultimate capacity and 43.75 kip working or allowable lead sections (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into
capacity in compression or tension. This capacity is based on bearing soils. Chance Type RS helical piles feature sharpened-
CHANCE TYPE
RS3500.300 HELICAL
3-1/2” DIA TRUE
PILES PER ICC-ES
PIPE SHAFT HELIX
FORM AC358 FOR BUILDING
1-1/2’’
CODE EVALUATION
SPACING
HOLE ACCEPTS
3/4” DIA
COUPLING BOLT UP TO
10’-0’’
LONG
3 x DIA
SPACING
TYPICAL WELDED SLEEVE
3/4” DIA
STRUCTURAL
3” PITCH GRADE BOLT
SHARP
LEADING
EDGE WELDED SLEEVE
6-1/4”
45˚ PILOT POINT
1-1/2”
TWIN-HELIX TRIPLE-HELIX QUAD-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CONFIGURATIONS: CHANCE TYPE RS3500.300
HELICAL PILE SHAFT
• Single-, double-, triple-, and quad-helix lead sections, CROSS-SECTION
3-1/2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 feet long FIGURE 7-27
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Extensions with helix plates, 3-1/2, 7, and 10 feet long jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75.
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS
OF RS3500.300 HELIX PLATES FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION & COMPRESSION1
8 {200} 0.5 {13} 141.1 {627.6} 105.8 {470.7} 70.6 {314.0}
10 {250} 0.5 {13} 155.1 {689.9} 116.3 {517.4} 77.6 {345.2}
12 {300} 0.5 {13} 159.6 {709.9} 119.7 {532.4} 79.8 {354.9]
14 {350} 0.5 {13} 139.4 {620.1} 104.6 {465.1} 69.7 {301.1}
Notes:
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE RS3500.300 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION
SECTIONS1,2,3
NOMINAL & LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTHS (kip) {kN]
SECTION
COUNT
115.2 {512.4} 109.7 {488.0)
128.0 [112.7 {501.3}] [105.1 {467.5}]
Lead,
{569.4} See Helix 121.9 {542.2} See Helix 110 {489.3} 99.0 {440.3} 90.7 {403.5} 81.6 {363.0}
Single
[125.2 Strength Table [116.7 {519.1}] Strength Table [100.7 {448}] [90.6 {403.0}] [76.2 {339.0}] [68.6 {305.1}]
Helix
{556.9}] Above for Single Above for
8” & 14” Single 8” & 14”
Lead, 128 {569.4} 115.2 {512.4} [112.7 121.9 {542.2} 109.7 {488.0) 110.0 {489.3} 99.0 {440.3}
Multi-Helix [125.2 {557}] {501.3}] [116.7 {519.1}] [105.1 {467.5}] [100.7 (448}] [90.6 (403.0}] 90.7 {403.5} 81.6 {363.0}
128 {569.4} 115.2 {512.4} [112.7 121.9 {542.2} 109.7 {488.0} 110.0 {489.3} 99.0 {440.3} [76.2 {339.0}] [68.6 {305.1}]
Extension
[125.2 {557}] {501.3}] [116.7 {519.1}] [105.1 {467.5}] [100.7 {448}] [90.6 {403.0}]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CORRODED
3.487 in 63.2 mm
CORRODED
2.955 in 75.1 mm
CORRODED
3.514 in4 146.3 cm4
CORRODED
2.692 in2 17.4 cm2
CORRODED
2.016 in3 33.0 cm3
CORRODED
10.95 in 27.8 cm
WELDED SLEEVE
COUPLING BOLTS
HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
7 ft-1 23 m-1
FACTOR
TORQUE RATING 12,500 ft∙lb 16,947.7 N∙m
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
100 kip 444.8 kN 86.1 kip 383.0 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
57.4 kip 255.3 kN
STRENGTH
CAPACITY LIMIT
ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE FIGURE 7-28
BASED ON TORQUE
CORRELATION, TENSION
87.5 kip 389.2 kN 43.75 kip 194.6 kN
/ COMPRESSION
Note:

SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above
for Single 8” & 14” for Single 8” & 14” 65.9 {293.1} 54.3 {241.5}
Lead, Single Helix
[60.3 {268.2}] [45.6 {202.8}]
76.6 {340.7} [75.0 {333.6}] 73.0 {324.7) [70.0 {311.4}]
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 76.6 {340.7} 73.0 {324.7} 65.9 {293.1} 54.3 {241.5}
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” [75.0 {333.6}] [70.0 {311.4}] [60.3 {268.2}] [45.6 {202.8}]
65.9 {293.1} 54.3 {241.5}
Lead, Multi-Helix 76.6 {340.7} [75.0 {333.6}] 73.0 {324.7} [70.0 {311.4}]
[60.3 {268.2}] [45.6 {202.8}]
65.9 {293.1} 54.3 {241.5}
Extension 76.6 {340.7} [75.0 {333.6}] 73.0 {324.7} [70.0 {311.4}]
[60.3 {268.2}] [45.6 {202.8}]
Notes:
2 Strength ratings include an allowance for corrosion over a 50-year service life and presume the supported structure is braced in accordance with
IBC Section 1810.2.2 and the lead section with which the extension is used will provide sufficient helix capacity to develop the full shaft capacity.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
table.
Ph
L = Pile length
H
Do GROUND
L FIRST ZERO-
DEFLECTION
POINT (yt=0)
(LOWER)
the Shaft Seismic Flexural Length (Seismic Do) as 120% of the Shaft Flexural Length, which for RS3500.300 helical piles embedded
in stiff, firm, and soft soils is 5.8 ft, 5.8 ft, and 8.6 ft respectively.

STORY DRIFT (Δ)
STORY DRIFT (Δ)

MOMENT IN PILE
MOMENT IN PILE
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO yt = 0
DEPTH TO yt = 0
DEPTH TO SOIL
DEPTH TO SOIL
LATERAL LOAD
LATERAL LOAD
DRIFT AT PILE
DRIFT AT PILE
AT PILE HEAD
AT PILE HEAD
HEAD (yt) (in)
HEAD (yt) (in)

ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
BENDING
BENDING
(Ph) (kip)
(Ph) (kip)
(Do) (ft)
(Do) (ft)
(kip∙in)
(kip∙in)
(H) (ft)
(H) (ft)
(h) (ft)
(h) (ft)
SOIL
TYPE
Stiff
Soil:
2.42 0.52 0 4.8 5.1 0.008h 40.8 2.42 1.17 1.0 5.8 6.6 0.015h 64.8
N=9
to 20
Firm
Soil:
1.90 0.52 0 4.8 6.1 0.007h 34.8 1.90 1.12 1.0 5.8 7.1 0.013h 52.8
N=5
to 8
Soft
Soil:
0.61 0.52 0 7.2 8.8 0.005h 15.6 0.62 1.12 1.4 8.6 10.3 0.009h 25.2
N=1
to 4
Risk Category.

I or II III IV
11.2, with interior walls, partitions, ceilings, and exterior wall systems that have been designed to accom-
modate the story drifts
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS4500.237 helical piles have 108 kip Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
ultimate capacity and 54 kip working or allowable capacity lead sections (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on well- bearing soils. Chance Type RS helical piles feature sharpened-
documented correlations with installation torque, which is leading-edge helix plates that are circular in plan to provide
recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC uniform load bearing in most soil conditions. Helix plates can
CHANCE TYPE
1-1/2”
RS4500.237 HELICAL
PILES
TRUE
4-1/2” DIA HELIX HOLE ACCEPTS
PIPE SHAFT FORM 1” DIA
COUPLING BOLT 3” SPACING
UP TO
10’-0’’ 1” DIA
LONG STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
3 x DIA
SPACING
6-1/2”
TYPICAL
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING
EDGE
45 PILOT POINT
SINGLE-HELIX TRIPLE-HELIX QUAD-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SHAFT: HSS 4-1/2 inch OD x 0.237 inch (schedule 40) wall steel
CONFIGURATIONS: HELICAL PILE SHAFT CROSS-
• Single-, double-, triple-, and quad-helix lead sections, SECTION
7 and 10 feet long FIGURE 7-29
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Extensions with helix plates, 5, 7, and 10 feet long bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75. stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and

8 [200] 0.5 [13] 244.5 [1087.6] 183.4 [815.7] 122.3 [499.5]
10 [250] 0.5 [13] 200.3 [891.0] 150.2 [608.3] 100.2 [445.7]
12 [300] 0.5 [13] 168.5 [749.5] 126.4 [562.1] 84.3 [375.0]
14 [350] 0.5 [13] 133.0 [591.6] 99.8 [443.7] 66.5 [295.8]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
CORRODED
4.487 in 114 mm
CORRODED
4.071 in 103.4 mm
CORRODED
6.415 in4 267.9 cm4
CORRODED
2.786 in2 18.09 cm2
CORRODED
2.859 in3 47.0 cm3
CORRODED
14.09 in 35.8 cm
COUPLING BOLTS Two 1 inch diameter ASTM A193 Grade B7 hex head bolts
HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
6 ft-1 20 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
120 kip 712 kN 90 kip 534 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
60 kip 356 kN
STRENGTH
TORQUE-CORRELATED CAPACITY FIGURE 7-30
ON TORQUE CORRELA-
PRESSION
Note:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS4500.337 helical piles have 150 kip ultimate RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft lead sections
capacity and 75 kip working or allowable capacity in compres- (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into bearing soils.
sion or tension. This capacity is based on well-documented Chance Type RS helical piles feature sharpened-leading-edge
correlations with installation torque, which is recognized as helix plates that are circular in plan to provide uniform load
one method to determine capacity per IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9. bearing in most soil conditions. Helix plates can be equipped
Lead sections and extensions couple together to extend the with seashell cuts on the leading edge to enhance penetra-
helix bearing plates to the required load-bearing stratum. tion through dense soils with occasional cobbles and debris.
Round shaft helical piles offer increased lateral and buckling Custom lengths and helix configurations are available upon re-
resistance compared to solid square shafts with similar torque quest. See below for additional information and other sections
strength. Strength calculations are based on a design corro- of this manual for specifications and design details.
sion level of 50 years for most soil conditions. Chance Type
CHANCE TYPE
RS4500.337 HELICAL
1-1/2”
PILES
TRUE
UP TO
10’-0’’ 1” DIA
LONG STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
3 x DIA
SPACING
6-1/2”
TYPICAL
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING
EDGE
45 PILOT POINT

DRAWINGS & RATINGS

shell cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate soils CHANCE TYPE RS4500.337
CROSS-SECTION
CONFIGURATIONS:
FIGURE 7-31
7 and 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
• Extensions with helix plates, 5, 7, and 10 feet long stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75. allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF RS4500.337 HELIX PLATES FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION & COMPRESSION1

THICKNESS (in) [mm]
(in) [mm] (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN] STRENGTH (kip) [kN]
8 [200] 0.5 [13] 244.5 [1087.6] 183.4 [815.7] 122.3 [499.5]
10 [250] 0.5 [13] 200.3 [891.0] 150.2 [668.3] 100.2 [445.7]
12 [300] 0.5 [13] 168.5 [749.5] 126.4 [562.1] 84.3 [375.0]
14 [350] 0.5 [13] 133.0 [591.6] 99.75 [443.7] 66.5 [295.8]
Notes:

186.3 167.7 175.3 156.3 140.7
191.7 [852.7] 172.6 [767.7] 157.8 [701.9]
[828.7] [746.0] [779.8] [695.3] [625.9]
Lead, Single Helix For Single For Single
For Nominal, see Helix Strength Table Above for Single 12”, & 14” 12” & 14” –
14” – 133.0
For LRFD design, see Helix Strength Table Above for 10”, 12”, & 14” see Helix
[591.6] Table Above
186.3 167.7
Lead, Multi-Helix 191.7 [852.7] 172.6 [767.8]
[828.7] [746.0] 175.3 156.3 140.7
157.8 [701.9]
186.3 167.7 [779.8] [695.3] [625.9]
Extension 191.7 [852.7] 172.6 [767.8]
[828.7] [746.0]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

SHAFT nominal wall) per ASTM A500 Grade B/C with 50 ksi mini-
mum yield strength
CORRODED
4.487 in 114 mm
CORRODED
3.886 in 98.7 mm
CORRODED
8.701 in4 362.2 cm4
CORRODED
3.951 in2 25.5 cm2
CORRODED
3.878 in3 63.6 cm3
CORRODED
14.09 in 35.8 cm
HELIX PLATES
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
6 ft-1 20 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
160 kip 712 kN 120 kip 534 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
80 kip 356 kN
STRENGTH
CAPACITY LIMIT BASED FIGURE 7-32
ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE
ON TORQUE CORRELA-
PRESSION
Note:
*Computed with 93% of wall thickness per AISC 360-10, B4.2

SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table
Above for 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 12” & 14”
114.8 [551.7] 111.6 [496.4] 105.0 [467.1] 93.6 [416.4]
Lead, Multi-Helix 114.8 [551.7] 111.6 [496.4] 105.0 [467.1] 93.6 [416.4]
Extension 114.8 [551.7] 111.6 [496.4] 105.0 [467.1] 93.6 [416.4]
Notes:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS4500.337 helical piles have 136.1 kip Chance Type RS helical piles can be coupled with square shaft
ultimate capacity and 68.1 kip working or allowable capacity lead sections (Combo Piles) to provide greater penetration into
CHANCE TYPE
1-1/2”
RS4500.337 HELICAL
PILES PER ICC-ES
AC358 FOR BUILDING
TRUE CODE EVALUATION
UP TO
10’-0’’ 1” DIA
LONG STRUCTURAL
GRADE BOLT
3 x DIA
SPACING
6-1/2”
TYPICAL
3” PITCH
SHARP
LEADING
EDGE
45 PILOT POINT

DRAWINGS & RATINGS
COUPLING: Forged as an integral part of the plain and
helical extension material as round deep sockets, connected with
HELICAL PILE SHAFT
FIGURE 7-33
7 and 10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, and 10 feet long jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
• Extensions with helix plates, 5, 7, and 10 feet long
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75. allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF RS4500.337 HELIX PLATES FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION &
COMPRESSION1
THICKNESS (in) {mm}
(in) {mm} (kip) {kN} STRENGTH (kip) {kN} STRENGTH (kip) {kN}
8 {200} 0.5 {13} 180.2 {801.6} 135.2 {601.4} 90.2 {401.2}
10 {250} 0.5 {13} 180.2 {801.6} 135.2 {601.4} 90.2 {401.2}
12 {300} 0.5 {13} 180.2 {801.6} 135.2 {601.4} 90.2 {401.2}
14 {350} 0.5 {13} 180.2 {801.6} 135.2 {601.4} 90.2 {401.2}
Notes:

HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2,3,4
SECTION
COUNT
NOMINAL DESIGN3 NOMINAL DESIGN3 NOMINAL DESIGN3 NOMINAL DESIGN
175.3 {779.8} 135.2 {601.4} 156.3 {695.3} 135.2 {601.4}
Lead, Single
See Helix Strength Table Above [166.3 [135.2 [141.0 [126.9
Helix
{739.7}] {601.4}] {627.2}] {564.5}]
Lead, Multi- 143.33 145.33 145.33 140.67
Helix 191.7 {852.7} 186.3 {828.7} 175.3 {779.8} 156.3 {695.3}
{646.5} {646.57} {646.57} {625.7}
[189.2 [181.6 [166.3 [141.0
[145.3 [145.3 [145.3 [126.9
Extension {841.6}] {807.8}] {739.7}] {627.2}]
{646.3}] {646.3}] {646.3}] {564.5}]
Notes:
2 Strength ratings include an allowance for corrosion over a 50-year service life and presume the supported structure is braced in accordance with
IBC Section 1810.2.2 and the lead section with which the extension is used will provide sufficient helix capacity to develop the full shaft capacity.
3 Limited by coupling bolt shear.
4Values in brackets [ ] are for use in Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

Hot-rolled HSS 4 inch nominal Schedule 80 (0.337 inch nomi-
SHAFT nal wall) per ASTM A500 Grade B/C with 50 ksi minimum yield
strength
CORRODED
4.487 in 114 mm
CORRODED
3.886 in 98.7 mm
CORRODED
8.701 in4 362.2 cm4
CORRODED
3.951 in2 25.5 cm2
CORRODED
3.878 in3 63.6 cm3
CORRODED
14.09 in 35.8 cm
0.5 inch thick, formed on matching metal dies, ASTM A572
HELIX PLATES
Grade 80 or better
Hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75, 3.0 mil minimum
COATINGS
thickness or bare steel
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
5.6 ft-1 18.5 m-1
FACTOR†
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
150 kip 667.2 kN 112.5 kip 500.2 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
75 kip 333.6 kN
STRENGTH
BASED ON TORQUE
CORRELATION, TENSION 136.1 kip 605.4 kN 68.1 kip 302.9 kN
/ COMPRESSION
Notes:
† Per ICC-ES AC358 Section 3.13.1.1
ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE RS4500.337 HELICAL PILE LEAD & EXTENSION SECTIONS1,2,3,4
SECTION TYPE &
FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
HELIX COUNT
See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table See Helix Strength Table
Lead, Single Helix 90.2 {401.2} [84.4 {375.5}]
Above for 8”, 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 8”, 10”, 12”, & 14” Above for 8”, 10”, 12”, & 14”

96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 93.6 {416.4} [84.4 {375.5}]
Lead, Multi-Helix 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 93.6 {416.4} [84.4 {375.5}]
Extension 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 96.9 {431} [96.9 {431.0}] 93.6 {416.4} [84.4 {375.5}]
Notes: For SI: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

3 Limited by coupling bolt shear.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
table.
Ph
L = Pile length
H
Do GROUND
L FIRST ZERO-
Do = Depth along pile shaft to point of first zero-deflection point.
DEFLECTION
POINT (yt=0) (yt = 0), a.k.a. the flexural length of pile
POINT (St = 0)
M = Bending moment in pile shaft
(LOWER)
less than 1/2” lateral deflection in stiff, firm, and soft soils. Test and analysis data are listed in the table. Per AC358 1.4.7, the Shaft
Flexural Length (Do) is measured from the top of the pile down to the first point of zero lateral deflection in the soil. AC358 1.4.8
defines the Shaft Seismic Flexural Length (Seismic Do) as 120% of the Shaft Flexural Length, which for RS4500.337 helical piles
embedded in stiff, firm, and soft soils is 6.4 ft, 6.7 ft, and 10 ft respectively.

(SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES A, B, AND C) (SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES D, E, and F)
STORY DRIFT (Δ)
STORY DRIFT (Δ)

MOMENT IN PILE
MOMENT IN PILE
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO St = 0
DEPTH TO yt = 0
DEPTH TO yt = 0
DEPTH TO SOIL
DEPTH TO SOIL
LATERAL LOAD
LATERAL LOAD
DRIFT AT PILE
DRIFT AT PILE
AT PILE HEAD
AT PILE HEAD
HEAD (yt) (in)
HEAD (yt) (in)

ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
ALLOWABLE
BENDING
BENDING
(Ph) (kip)
(Ph) (kip)
(Do) (ft)
(Do) (ft)
(kip∙in)
(kip∙in)
(H) (ft)
(H) (ft)
(h) (ft)
(h) (ft)
SOIL
TYPE
Stiff
Soil:
3.66 0.42 0 5.3 6.1 0.006h 67.2 3.66 0.97 1.1 6.4 7.2 0.011h 108.0
N=9
to 20
Firm
Soil:
2.36 0.42 0 5.6 7.1 0.005h 50.4 2.36 0.87 1.1 6.7 8.3 0.009h 76.8
N=5
to 8
Soft
Soil:
0.78 0.42 0 8.3 10.1 0.003h 24.0 0.78 0.90 1.7 10.0 11.9 0.006h 37.2
N= 1
to 4
Risk Category.

I or II III IV
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS5500.361 helical piles have 280 kip shafts with similar torque strength. Strength calculations are
ultimate capacity and 140 kip working or allowable capacity based on a design corrosion level of 50 years for most soil
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on conditions. Chance Type RS helical piles feature straight-
is recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC uniform load bearing in most soil conditions. Custom lengths
Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections and extensions couple and helix configurations are available upon request. See below
together to extend the helix bearing plates to the required for additional information and other sections of this manual for
load-bearing stratum. Round shaft helical piles offer increased specifications and design details.
lateral and buckling resistance compared to solid square
CHANCE TYPE
6" PITCH STRAIGHT RS5500.361
5-1/2” DIA LEADING EDGE HELICAL PILES
PIPE SHAFT
HOLE ACCEPTS
1-1/4” DIA
COUPLING BOLT
UP TO
10’
LONG UP TO
21’ 1-1/4” DIA
LONG COUPLING
BOLT
20”
TRUE
3 x DIA
HELIX
SPACING
FORM
TYPICAL
45 PILOT POINT
TRIPLE-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

LEAD SECTION SECTION SECTION DETAIL
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SHAFT: HSS 5-1/2 inch OD x 0.361 inch wall steel shaft pro-
duced exclusively for CHANCE products.
multiple structural grade bolts.
HELIX - 1/2, 5/8, AND 3/4 INCH THICK: ASTM A572 with mini-
mum yield strength of 50 ksi.
er Systems, Inc., for larger diameter helical piles and anchors.
The standard helix plate has a straight leading edge.
CONFIGURATIONS: CHANCE TYPE
RS5500.361 HELICAL
• Single-, double-, and triple-helix lead sections, PILE SHAFT
10 feet long CROSS-SECTION
• Plain extensions, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 21 feet long FIGURE 7-35
• Extensions with helix plates, 5 feet long

Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
75 or are available black. jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
Hot-rolled HSS 5.5 inch, 0.361 inch nominal wall with 80 ksi
SHAFT
CORRODED
5.487 in 139.4 mm
CORRODED
4.842 in 122.9 mm
CORRODED
17.51 in4 728.82 cm4
CORRODED
5.23 in2 33.74 cm2
CORRODED
6.38 in3 104.5 cm3
CORRODED
PERIMETER 17.3 in 44 cm
17.24 in 43.8 cm
COUPLING BOLTS Three 1-1/4 inch diameter SAE J429 Grade 5 hex head bolts
0.5 - 0.625-inch thick, formed on matching metal dies,

HELIX PLATES
ASTM A572 Grade 50 or better
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
5 ft-1 16.5 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
280 kip 1245 kN 210 kip 934 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
140 kip 623 kN
TORQUE-CORRELATED CAPACITY RS5500.361
ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE FIGURE 7-36
CAPACITY LIMIT
BASED ON TORQUE
/ COMPRESSION
Note:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• MULTI-PURPOSE 6-5/8” DIAMETER, 0.280” WALL, ROUND HSS SHAFT WITH WELDED SQUARE FORMED COUPLINGS
DESCRIPTION:
CHANCE TYPE
RS6625.280 HELICAL
PILES
HOLE
ACCEPTS
1” DIA
COUPLING
STUD
UP TO
10’-0’’
LONG
6-5/8” DIA
PIPE SHAFT
TRUE
HELIX
3 x DIA
FORM
SPACING 1” DIA
TYPICAL 3” PITCH
COUPLING
SHARP
STUD
LEADING
EDGE
8”
45˚ PILOT POINT
SINGLE-HELIX TWIN-HELIX LEAD SECTION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

LEAD SECTION W/ PLATE COUPLING SECTION DETAIL
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

COUPLING: Formed and welded as a deep square socket, con-
nected with multiple threaded studs & nuts.
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 12, 14, and 16 inches.
shell cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate soils CHANCE TYPE RS6625.280
CROSS-SECTION
CONFIGURATIONS:
FIGURE 7-37
• Single-, double-, and triple-helix, lead sections, 7, 10,
and 15 feet long bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
• Plain extensions, 5, 7, and 10 feet long
• Extensions with helix plates, 5, 7 and 10 feet long RPM. A minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75. are typical at allowable capacity.

Hot-rolled HSS 6 inch nominal Schedule 40 (0.280 inch nominal
SHAFT
wall) per ASTM A500 Grade B/C with 50 ksi minimum yield strength
CORRODED
6.612 in 167.95 mm
CORRODED
6.118 in 155.4 mm
CORRODED
25.05 in4 1041.2 cm4
CORRODED
4.94 in2 31.9 cm2
CORRODED
7.58 in3 124 cm3
CORRODED
20.77 in 52.7 cm
COUPLING Formed and welded square socket
COUPLING BOLTS Four 1 inch diameter Grade 2 studs
0.5 inch thick, formed on matching metal dies, ASTM A572 Grade
HELIX PLATES
80 or better
COATINGS
thickness or bare steel
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
5 ft-1 16.5 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN ASSEMBLY OF
TENSION STRENGTH
200 kip 890 kN 150 kip 667 kN
RS6625.280
ALLOWABLE TENSION
100 kip 445 kN FIGURE 7-38
STRENGTH
BASED ON TORQUE
CORRELATION, TENSION / 200 kip 890 kN 100 kip 445 Kn
COMPRESSION
Note:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• MULTI-PURPOSE 7” DIAMETER, 0.362” WALL, ROUND HSS SHAFT WITH SLEEVE COUPLINGS
DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS7000.362 helical piles have 360 kip shafts with similar torque strength. Strength calculations are
ultimate capacity and 180 kip working or allowable capacity based on a design corrosion level of 50 years for most soil
in compression or tension. This capacity is based on conditions. Chance Type RS helical piles feature straight-
is recognized as one method to determine capacity per IBC uniform load bearing in most soil conditions. Custom lengths
Section 1810.3.3.1.9. Lead sections and extensions couple and helix configurations are available upon request. See below
together to extend the helix bearing plates to the required for additional information and other sections of this manual for
load-bearing stratum. Round shaft helical piles offer increased specifications and design details.
lateral and buckling resistance compared to solid square
CHANCE TYPE
RS7000.362
HELICAL PILES
7” DIA
PIPE SHAFT
HOLE ACCEPTS
6’’ PITCH 1-1/4” DIA
STRAIGHT THREADED STUD
LEADING EDGE
UP TO
10’
TRUE UP TO
LONG
HELIX 21’
FORM LONG
3 x DIA
SPACING
TYPICAL 1-1/4” DIA
THREADED
STUD
9.3”
45 PILOT POINT
TRIPLE-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

LEAD SECTION SECTION SECTION DETAIL
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

SHAFT: HSS 7 inch OD x 0.362 inch wall steel shaft produced
exclusively for Chance® products.
COUPLING: Welded internal sleeve forming a flush fit joint,
connected with multiple structural grade bolts.
HELIX - 1/2 AND 5/8 INCH THICK: ASTM A656 with minimum
yield strength of 80 ksi, and ASTM A572 with minimum yield
strength of 50 ksi, depending on helix diameter.
6 INCH HELIX PITCH: A standard established by Hubbell
Power Systems, Inc., for larger diameter helical piles and an-
chors.
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and
26 inches.
CHANCE TYPE
RS7000.362 HELICAL
The standard helix plate has a straight leading edge. PILE SHAFT
FIGURE 7-39
• Single-, double-, and triple-helix, lead sections,
10 feet long NOTE: Helical piles shall be installed to appropriate depth in suitable
• Plain extensions, 3-1/2, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 21 feet long bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
• Extensions with helix plates, 5 and 7 feet long stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade allowable capacity from correlations. Deflections of 0.25 to 0.50 inches
75 or are available black. are typical at allowable capacity.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
Hot-rolled HSS 7 inch, 0.362 inch nominal wall with 80

SHAFT
CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE, OD 7 in 177.8 mm
6.987 in 177.5 mm
CORRODED
6.342 in 161.1 mm
CORRODED
37.58 in4 1564.2 cm4
CORRODED
6.75 in2 43.5 cm2
CORRODED
10.76 in3 176.3 cm3
CORRODED
PERIMETER 22 in 55.9 cm
21.95 in 55.7 cm
COUPLING Welded internal sleeve flush fit joint
Three 1-1/4 inch diameter ASTM A354 Grade BD
COUPLING BOLTS
threaded studs
0.5 - 0.625-inch thick, formed on matching metal dies,
HELIX PLATES
ASTM A572 Grade 50 & A656 Grade 80 or better
COATINGS
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
4 ft-1 13.2 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
360 kip 1601 kN 270 kip 1201 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
180 kip 801 kN
BASED ON TORQUE
/ COMPRESSION
Note:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• MULTI-PURPOSE 8-5/8” DIAMETER, 0.250” WALL, ROUND HSS SHAFT WITH WELDED SQUARE FORMED COUPLINGS
DESCRIPTION:
7-3/8“ CHANCE TYPE

SQUARE
RS8625.250 HELICAL
PILES
HOLE
ACCEPTS
1-1/4” DIA
THREADED
STUD
8-5/8” DIA
PIPE SHAFT
UP TO
10’-0’’
LONG
3 x DIA TRUE
SPACING HELIX
TYPICAL FORM
1-1/4”
DIA
THREADED
STUD
6" PITCH
SHARP
LEADING
EDGE 10”
45˚ PILOT POINT
8“
SQUARE
2-5/8”
SINGLE-HELIX TRIPLE-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLATE COUPLING PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

LEAD SECTION LEAD SECTION SECTION DETAIL SECTION SECTION DETAIL
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

COUPLING: Formed and welded as a deep square socket,
connected with multiple threaded studs and nuts.
HELIX - 1/2, 5/8, AND 3/4 INCH THICK: ASTM A572 with
minimum yield strength of 50 ksi, and A1018 or A656, with
minimum yield strength of 80 ksi, depending on helix diameter.
Systems, Inc., for larger diameter helical piles and anchors.
AVAILABLE HELIX DIAMETERS: 16, 18, and 24 inches.
All helix plates are spaced 3 times the diameter of the
preceding (lower) helix unless otherwise specified.
The standard helix plate has a straight sharpened leading
HELICAL PILE SHAFT
edge or can be ordered with a seashell cut (see Fig. 7-2). The
CROSS-SECTION
seashell cut is best suited when it is necessary to penetrate
FIGURE 7-41
soils with fill debris, cobbles, or fractured rock.
CONFIGURATIONS:
• Single-, double-, and triple-helix, lead sections, 5, 7, 10, bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
15, and 20 feet long jurisdictional authority. Torque-correlated capacities are based on in-
• Plain extensions, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 10 feet long RPM. A minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining
• Extensions with helix plates, 10 feet long are typical at allowable capacity.
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75.
Hot-rolled HSS 8 inch nominal Schedule 20 (0.250 inch nominal
SHAFT
wall) per ASTM A500 Grade B/C with 50 ksi minimum yield strength
CORRODED
8.612 in 218.7 mm
CORRODED
8.172 in 207.5 mm
CORRODED
51.09 in4 2123.6 cm4
CORRODED
5.80 in2 37.4 cm2
CORRODED
11.87 in3 194.1 cm3
CORRODED
27.05 in 68.1 cm
COUPLING Formed and welded square socket
COUPLING BOLTS Four 1-1/4 inch diameter Grade 2 studs
0.5 - 0.75 inch thick, formed on matching metal dies, ASTM A572
HELIX PLATES
Grade 80 or better
Hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 75, 3.0 mil minimum thick-
COATINGS
ness or bare steel
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
5 ft-1 13 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
300 kip 1334 kN 225 kip 1001 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION ASSEMBLY OF
150 kip 667 kN
STRENGTH
CAPACITY LIMIT BASED ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE FIGURE 7-42
ON TORQUE CORRELA-
PRESSION
Note:
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
Chance® Type RS9625.395 helical piles have 600 kip ultimate resistance compared to solid square shafts with similar torque-
capacity and 300 kip working or allowable capacity in com- strength. Strength calculations are based on a design corrosion
pression or tension. This capacity is based on well-document- level of 50 years for most soil conditions. Chance Type RS helical
ed correlations with installation torque, which is recognized as piles feature straight-leading-edge helix plates that are circular
one method to determine capacity per IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9. in plan to provide uniform load bearing in most soil conditions.
Lead sections and extensions couple together to extend the Custom lengths and helix configurations are available upon
helix bearing plates to the required load-bearing stratum. request. See below for additional information and other
Round shaft helical piles offer increased lateral and buckling sections of this manual for specifications and design details.
CHANCE TYPE
HOLE ACCEPTS
RS9625.395
1-1/2” DIA
THREADED STUD HELICAL PILES
9.625” DIA
PIPE SHAFT
UP TO
20’
LONG
UP TO
15’
LONG
3 x DIA
SPACING
TYPICAL
TRUE
HELIX
FORM 1-1/2” DIA
THREADED
STUD
6’’ PITCH
STRAIGHT 14”
LEADING
EDGE
45 PILOT POINT
SINGLE-HELIX TRIPLE-HELIX HELICAL EXTENSION PLAIN EXTENSION COUPLING

DRAWINGS & RATINGS
SHAFT: HSS 9-5/8 inch OD x 0.395 inch wall steel shaft

produced exclusively for Chance® products.
9.625
COUPLING: Welded external sleeve forming a flush fit joint,
0.395
connected with multiple structural grade bolts.
HELIX - 5/8 INCH THICK: ASTM A572 Grade 50 with minimum
er Systems, Inc., for larger diameter helical piles and anchors.
The standard helix plate has a straight leading edge.
CONFIGURATIONS:
HELICAL PILE SHAFT
• Single- and double-helix lead sections, 10 feet long; CROSS-SECTION
triple-helix lead sections, 15 feet long FIGURE 7-43
• Plain extensions, 10 and 20 feet long
• Extensions with helix plates, 5 and 7 feet long bearing stratum as determined by the geotechnical engineer or local
Helical products are hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade stalling the pile to its torque rating using consistent rate of advance and
75 or are available black. RPM. A minimum Factor of Safety of 2 is recommended for determining

Hot-rolled HSS 9-5/8-inch, 0.395 inch nominal wall with 80 ksi mini-
SHAFT
mum yield strength
CORRODED
SHAFT SIZE, OD 9.625 in 244.5 mm
9.612 in 244.1 mm
CORRODED
8.903 in 226.1 mm
CORRODED
MOMENT OF INERTIA (I)* 114.65 in4 4772.1 cm4 4
110.47 in 4598.1 cm4
CORRODED
10.30 in2 66.45 cm2 ASSEMBLY OF
CORRODED
SECTION MODULUS (Sx-x)* 23.8 in3 390.4 cm3 RS9625.395
22.95 in3 376.2 cm3
CORRODED FIGURE 7-44
30.1 in 76.4 cm
COUPLING Welded external sleeve flush fit joint
COUPLING BOLTS Four 1-1/2 inch diameter ASTM F1554 Grade 105 threaded studs
0.625-inch thick, formed on matching metal dies, ASTM A572 Grade
HELIX PLATES
50 or better
COATINGS
thickness or Bare Steel
TORQUE PROPERTIES
TORQUE CORRELATION
3 ft-1 10 m-1
FACTOR
STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
NOMINAL LRFD DESIGN
TENSION STRENGTH
600 kip 2669 kN 450 kip 2002 kN
ALLOWABLE TENSION
300 kip 1334.5 kN
STRENGTH
ON TORQUE CORRELA-
TION, TENSION / COM- 600 kip 2669 kN 300 kip 1334.5 kN
PRESSION
Note:
CHANCE ROCK-IT HELICAL LEAD
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

DESCRIPTION:
The ROCK-IT™ lead section is an innovative solution to pen-
etrate rocky or high-blow-count soils without pre-drilling or
field modification. The single-carbide-tip, patent-pending de-
sign was developed after site testing of several rock anchor
configurations to provide an economical yet proven solution to
reach load-bearing depths in high-blow-count material.
KEY BENEFITS:
• Wear-resistant, offset carbide tip designed to break
through rocky soil
• Reduced installation time to save time and money
• Reduced spiking of torque and chatter during
installation for better pile performance and a safer
alternative
CATALOG NO. DESCRIPTION*

C1501488 Lead, SS150, 6/8 X 3 ft, ROCK-IT
C1501509 Lead, SS175, 8/10/12 X 5 ft, ROCK-IT
C1501756 Lead, SS225, 6/8/10/12 X 10 ft, ROCK-IT
*See helical pile and anchor specifications of the product family for
torque rating, helix strengths, and pile capacities.
ROCK-IT LEAD SECTION

FIGURE 7-45
TYPE SS/RS COMBINATION
HELICAL PILES
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
CHANCE® HELICAL TRANSITION COUPLER

ADAPTS TYPE SS TO TYPE RS PILE SHAFTS
The Type SS/RS Combination Pile is used mainly in compres-
sion applications in areas where soft/loose soils are located
above the bearing strata (hard/dense soils) for the helices. The
Type RS material with its much greater section modulus will
resist columnar buckling in the soft/loose soil. Its larger shaft
diameter also provides for lateral load resistance. Due to its
slender size, the Type SS material provides the means for the
helix plates to penetrate deeper into hard/dense soil strata
than if the helical pile shaft was round shaft only. For a given
helix configuration and equal available installation energy (i.e.,
machine), a small-displacement shaft will penetrate farther into
a soil bearing stratum than a large-displacement shaft and will
disturb less soil.
It is recommended that a Chance SS/RS Combination Pile

be used in all projects where round shaft is being used. The
square shaft lead section will provide better load capacity
and less settlement than a comparable straight round
shaft pile.
The transition coupler (see Figure 7-46) adapts Type SS helical
lead sections to Type RS plain extensions. Installation of this
combination pile is the same as a standard helical pile. Table
7-5 provides the various standard transition couplers that are
available along with their ratings. Special transition couplers,
such as RS2875 to RS4500, are also available. Please contact
your area Chance distributor for availability and delivery times.
TRANSITION COUPLERS, TABLE 7-5

CATALOG NUMBER DESCRIPTION TORQUE RATINGS Kt
SS5 square shaft
C1500896 5,700 ft∙lb 9.5
to RS2875.203 round shaft
SS150 square shaft
C1500896 7,000 ft∙lb 9.5
SS150 square shaft
C1500896 7,000 ft∙lb 9.5
SS175 square shaft
C1501365 8,000 ft∙lb 9.5
SS175 square shaft to

C1500895 10,500 ft∙lb 8.5
RS3500.300 dia round shaft
SS200 square shaft

C1500937 13,000 ft∙lb 8.5
to RS3500.300 dia round shaft
SS200 square shaft

C1101443 16,000 ft∙lb 7
to RS4500 round shaft
PILE ASSEMBLY WITH
SS225 square shaft TRANSITION COUPLER
C1101418 21,000 ft∙lb 7
to RS4500 round shaft
FIGURE 7-46
CHANCE HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILES
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

The Chance® Helical Pulldown® Micropile (HPM) is a patented
(U.S. patent 5,707,180) method used to form a grout column
around the shaft of a standard square shaft or round shaft heli- GROUT RESERVOIR
cal pile. The installation process can employ grout only (see
Figure 7-47) or grout in combination with either steel or PVC
casing (see Figure 7-48). The result is a helical pile with a grout-
ed shaft similar, in terms of installation, to drilled and grouted
anchors or auger cast-in-place piles using gravity grouting.
NEAT CEMENT GROUT
(VERY FLOWABLE)
The initial reason for developing the HPM was to design a heli-
cal pile with sufficient shaft size to resist buckling. However, SQUARE (SS) OR
ROUND (RS)
since its inception, the method has demonstrated more ad- SHAFT EXTENSION
vantages than simply buckling resistance. The advantages and EXTENSION
DISPLACEMENT PLATE
limitations, based on the results of field tests, are summarized CASED EXTENSION
below: DISPLACEMENT
PLATE
• Increases buckling capacity of a helical pile shaft in soft/ SQUARE (SS) OR
ROUND (RS)
loose overburden soils to the point that end bearing con- SHAFT EXTENSION STEEL OR PVC PIPE
trols failure.
CASED LEAD
LEAD DISPLACEMENT PLATE
• Increased compression capacity due to the mobilization of DISPLACEMENT
skin friction at the grout/soil interface. Total capacity is a PLATE CASED LEAD
DISPLACEMENT PLATE
function of both skin friction and end bearing.
• The grout column provides additional corrosion protection
to the steel pile shaft from naturally occurring aggressive
soils with high metal-loss rates, organic soils such as peat,
or other corrosive environments like slag, ash, swamp, STANDARD STANDARD
LEAD
chemical waste, or other maN∙made material. SECTION
LEAD
SECTION
• Stiffens the load/deflection response of helical piles. Ax-
ial deflection per unit load is typically less than with un-
grouted shafts.
The installation procedure for Chance Helical Pulldown Micro-
piles is rather unique in that the soil along the sides of the shaft
is displaced laterally and then replaced and continuously sup-
ported by the flowable grout as the pile is installed. To begin FIGURE 7-47 FIGURE 7-48
the installation process, a helical pile is placed into the soil by
applying torque to the shaft. The helical shape of the bearing
plates creates a significant downward force that keeps the pile
advancing into the soil. After the lead section with the heli-
cal plates penetrates the soil, a lead displacement plate and
extension are placed onto the shaft. Resuming torque on the
assembly advances the helical plates and pulls the displace-
ment plate downward, forcing soil outward to create a cylin-
drical void around the shaft. From a reservoir at the surface,
a flowable grout is gravity fed and immediately fills the void
surrounding the shaft. Additional extensions and displacement
plates are added until the helical bearing plates reach the mini-
mum depth required or competent load-bearing soil. This dis-
placement pile system does not require removing spoils from
the site.
THEORETICAL GROUT VOLUME PER UNIT DEPTH, TABLE 7-6
GROUT COLUMN DIAMETER
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
PILE SHAFT SIZE (in) [mm] GROUT VOLUME (ft3/ft) [m3/m]

(in) [mm]
4 [102] 1-1/2 [38] solid square 0.071 [0.007]
1-1/2 [38] solid square 0.120 [0.011]

5 [127]
1-3/4 [44] solid square 0.115 [0.011]
1-1/2 [38] solid square 0.181 [0.017]
1-3/4 [44]solid square 0.175 [0.016]
2 [51] solid square 0.169 [0.016]
2-1/4 [57] solid square 0.161 [0.015]
6 [152]
2-7/8 x 0.203 [73 x 5.2] pipe shaft 0.185 [0.017]
2-7/8 x 0.276 [73 x 7] pipe shaft 0.181 [0.017]
3-1/2 x 0.300 [89 x 7.6] pipe shaft 0.176 [0.016]
4-1/2 x 0.337 [114 x 8.6] pipe shaft 0.166 [0.015]
1-1/2 [38] solid square 0.249 [0.023]
1-3/4 [44] solid square 0.246 [0.023]
2 [51] solid square 0.240 [0.022]
7 [178]
2-1/4 [57] solid square 0.232 [0.022]
3-1/2 x 0.300 [89 x 7.6] pipe shaft 0.246 [0.023]
4-1/2 x 0.337 [114 x 8.6] pipe shaft 0.237 [0.022]
1-3/4 [44] solid square 0.328 [0.030]
2-7/8 x 0.203 [73 x 5.2] pipe shaft 0.337 [0.031]
8 [203] 2-7/8 x 0.276 [73 x 7] pipe shaft 0.333 [0.031]
3-1/2 x 0.300 [89 x 7.6] pipe shaft 0.328 [0.030]
4-1/2 x 0.337 [114 x 8.6] pipe shaft 0.319 [0.029]
2 [51] solid square 0.367 [0.034]
8.5 [216]
2-1/4 [57] solid square 0.359 [0.033]
1-3/4 [44] solid square 0.524 [0.049]
2 [51] solid square 0.517 [0.048]
10 [254] 2-1/4 [57] solid square 0.511 [0.047]
3-1/2 x 0.300 [89 x 7.6] pipe shaft 0.525 [0.049]
4-1/2 x 0.337 [114 x 8.6] pipe shaft 0.515 [0.048]
Multiply the volume per unit depth in the table by the grout strengths of shafts without grout for comparison.
column length to calculate the total grout volume. Be sure to
Per the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 Section
use the appropriate length units of feet or meters for the grout
1808.2.9.2 & IBC 2021 Section 1810.2.1, the depth to fixity of
column length.
piles driven into soft ground can be considered fixed and later-
Note that if the piles are uncased, more grout may be required ally supported at 10 feet below the ground surface.
due to irregularities in the column and subsurface voids. Also,
don’t forget to account for the grout reservoir and waste when
bidding the job.
HIGHER COMPRESSION STRENGTHS WITH GROUTED

SHAFTS
The following tables provide the nominal, LRFD design, and
ASD allowable compression strengths of helical piles with vari-
ous diameter grouted shafts. The strengths listed are based on
an unsupported shaft length of 10 feet (3 meters) with either
a fixed or pinned end condition at the pile head. The grout
column diameters listed are the most common used per each
helical product family. Each table includes the compression
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE SS5 GROUTED-SHAFT PILES
IN SOFT SOIL1,2,3
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS (kip) [kN]
GROUT COLUMN SOFT SOIL
DIAMETER PINNED FIXED
NOMINAL DESIGN ALLOWABLE NOMINAL DESIGN ALLOWABLE
No grout 13.6 [60] 12.2 [54] 8.1 [36] 26.6 [118] 24.0 [107] 16.0 [71]
4” OD 30.2 [134] 22.6 [101] 15.1 [67] 59.2 [263] 44.4 [198] 29.6 [132]
5” OD 54.9 [244] 41.2 [183] 27.4 [122] 104.5 [465] 78.3 [348] 52.2 [232]
6” OD 86.2 [383] 64.6 [287] 43.1 [192] 148.3 [660] 111.2 [495] 74.1 [330]
7” OD 126.2 [561] 94.6 [421] 63.1 [281] 194.6 [866] 145.9 [649] 97.3 [433]
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE SS150 GROUTED-SHAFT
PILES IN SOFT SOIL1,2,3
No grout 13.6 [60] 12.2 [54] 8.1 [36] 26.6 [118] 24.0 [107] 16.0 [71]
4” OD 30.2 [134] 22.6 [101] 15.1 [67] 59.2 [263] 44.4 [198] 29.6 [132]
5” OD 54.9 [244] 41.2 [183] 27.4 [122] 104.5 [465] 78.3 [348] 52.2 [232]
6” OD 86.2 [383] 64.6 [287] 43.1 [192] 148.3 [660] 111.2 [495] 74.1 [330]
7” OD 126.8 [564] 95.1 [423] 63.4 [282] 208.4 [927] 156.3 [695] 104.2 [464]
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE SS175 GROUTED-SHAFT PILES
IN SOFT SOIL1,2,3
No grout 25.8 [115] 23.2 [103] 15.4 [69] 50.5 [225] 45.4 [202] 30.2 [134]
5” OD 66.6 [296] 49.9 [222] 33.3 [148] 127.2 [566] 95.4 [424] 63.6 [283]
6” OD 111.5 [496] 83.6 [372] 55.7 [248] 185.6 [826] 139.2 [619] 92.8 [413]
7” OD 158.3 [704] 118.7 [528] 79.1 [352] 236.2 [1051] 177.2 [788] 118.1 [525]
8” OD 209.2 [931] 156.9 [698] 104.6 [465] 290.4 [1292] 217.8 [969] 145.2 [646]
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE SS200 GROUTED-SHAFT
No grout 43.7 [194] 39.3 [175] 26.2 [117] 85.6 [381] 77.1 [343] 51.3 [228]
6” OD 128.7 [572] 96.6 [430] 64.4 [286] 233.9 [1040] 175.4 [780] 116.9 [520]
7” OD 201.9 [898] 151.4 [673] 101.0 [449] 312.9 [1392] 234.6 [1044] 156.4 [696]
8.5” OD 294.7 [1311] 221.0 [983] 147.4 [656] 407.6 [1813] 305.7 [1360] 203.8 [907]
10” OD 401.4 [1786] 301.1 [1339] 200.7 [893] 513.6 [2285] 385.2 [1713] 256.8 [1142]
Notes:
1 Refer to Section 4.1.3 of ESR-2794 for descriptions of fixed condition, pinned condition, and soft soil.
3 Column length to “fixity” of shaft in soil = 10 feet (3 meters).
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE SS225 GROUTED-SHAFT
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
No grout 70.9 [315] 63.8 [284] 42.5 [189] 139.0 [618] 125.1 [556] 83.2 [370]
6” OD 154.9 [689] 116.2 [517] 77.5 [345] 281.8 [1254] 211.4 [940] 140.9 [627]
7” OD 228.8 [1018] 171.6 [763] 114.4 [509] 363.2 [1171] 272.4 [1212] 181.6 [808]
8.5” OD 354.3 [1576] 265.7 [1182] 177.1 [788] 482.3 [2145] 361.7 [1609] 241.1 [1072]
10” OD 466.1 [2073] 349.6 [1555] 233.1 [1037] 591.3 [2630] 443.5 [1973] 295.7 [1315]
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE TYPE RS2875.203 GROUTED-
SHAFT PILES IN SOFT SOIL1,2,3
No grout 42.0 [187] 37.8 [168] 25.1 [112] 55.5 [247] 49.9 [222] 33.2 [148]
6” OD 95.7 [426] 71.8 [319] 47.8 [213] 125.7 [559] 94.3 [419] 62.8 [279]
8” OD 160.1 [712] 120.1 [534] 80.1 [356] 203.2 [904] 152.4 [678] 101.6 [452]
No grout 55.2 [246] 49.7 [221] 33.0 [147] 73.9 [329] 66.5 [296] 44.3 [197]
6” OD 114.3 [508] 85.7 [381] 57.1 [254] 147.7 [657] 110.8 [493] 73.9 [329]
8” OD 181.4 [807] 136.0 [605] 90.7 [403] 226.9 [1009] 170.2 [757] 113.5 [505]
No grout 90.7 [403] 81.6 [363] 54.3 [242] 110.0 [49] 99.0 [440] 65.9 [293]
6” OD 145.1 [645] 108.8 [484] 72.5 [322] 175.6 [781] 131.7 [586] 87.8 [391]
7” OD 179.3 [798] 134.4 [598] 89.6 [399] 214.1 [952] 160.6 [714] 107.0 [476]
8” OD 216.7 [964] 162.5 [723] 108.4 [482] 257.3 [1145] 193.0 [859] 128.6 [572]
10” OD 314.4 [1399] 235.8 [1049] 157.2 [699] 365.6 [1626] 274.2 [1220] 182.8 [813]
No grout 156.3 [695] 140.7 [626] 93.6 [416] 175.3 [780] 157.8 [702] 105.0 [467]
6” OD 195.3 [869] 146.5 [652] 97.6 [434] 220.6 [981] 165.5 [736] 110.3 [491]
7” OD 230.4 [1025] 172.8 [769] 115.2 [512] 259.6 [1155] 194.7 [866] 129.8 [577]
8” OD 274.2 [1220] 205.6 [915] 137.1 [610] 306.4 [1363] 229.8 [1022] 153.2 [681]
10” OD 372.8 [1658] 279.6 [1244] 186.4 [829] 415.0 [1846] 311.3 [1385] 207.5 [923]
Notes:
1 Refer to Section 4.1.3 of ESR-2794 for descriptions of fixed condition, pinned condition, and soft soil.
3 Column length to “fixity” of shaft in soil = 10 feet (3 meters).
REMEDIAL REPAIR BRACKETS FOR CHANCE HELICAL PILES
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CHANCE® HELICAL C1500121 STANDARD BRACKET AND T-PIPE SYSTEM
• Used with Chance Type SS5 & SS150 1-1/2” square shaft
helical piles and Type RS2875.203 and RS2875.276
2-7/8” OD round shaft helical piles
• Use for lifts up to 4” (10 cm)
• All C1500121 standard systems include:
• Foundation bracket
• T-pipe
• Hardware
ORDER SEPARATELY: Two 5/8” (16 mm) diameter concrete

anchor bolts per pile as required.
Standard finish is hot-dip galvanized per ASTM A153.

Ultimate mechanical strength of bracket body is 80,000 lb
(356 kN). Working mechanical strength of bracket body is
40,000 lb (178kN).
See table below for system (bracket/pile shaft) ratings.
CHANCE HELICAL C1500121 STANDARD BRACKET AND T-PIPE RATINGS
T-PIPE MAX WORKING

ULTIMATE
DESIGNATIONS CAPACITY 2,3
MECHANICAL PILE SIZE
FOR THE PRODUCT SERIES BASED ON FEATURES
STRENGTH1,3 (in) [mm]
C1500121 PRODUCT SERIES
(lb) [kN]
BRACKET (lb) [kN]
1-1/2 [38] SS5 20,000 [89] Lowest cost with

C1500486 40,000 [178]
square SS150 20,000 [89] square shaft
1-1/2 [38] SS5 20,000 [89] Higher capacity with

C1500487 80,000 [356]
square SS150 25,000 [111] SS150
2-7/8 [73] Lowest cost with

C2780001 40,000 [178] RS2875.203 20,000 [89]
round round shaft
2-7/8 [73] Higher capacity with

C2780002 80,000 [356] RS2875.203 25,000 [111]
round stronger T-pipe

C2788012 40,000 [178] RS2875.276 20,000 [89]
round RS2875.276

C2788011 80,000 [356] RS2875.276 30,000 [133]
round RS2875.276
Notes:
1 Ultimate mechanical strength is for the bracket body and T-pipe combination.
2 The capacity of Chance helical pile systems is a function of many individual elements including the capacity of the foundation, bracket, pile shaft,
helix plate, and bearing stratum; the strength of the foundation-to-bracket connection; and the quality of the helical pile installation. The fifth
column shows typical working capacities of the Chance helical pile system based upon maximum shaft exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a
minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N60) of 4. Actual capacities could be higher or lower depending on the above factors.
3 The ultimate capacity of the system, i.e., bracket, T-pipe, and pile shaft, can be increased to the pile shaft compression capacity limit as shown
on the product data pages provided the pile shaft is reinforced using a pipe sleeve or grout column. The maximum working capacity shall not be
greater than one half the ultimate mechanical strength of the bracket and T-pipe combination given above.
BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE PER ICC-ES ESR-2794
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
The following tables provide the nominal, LRFD design, and and soft. The pile head is assumed to be fixed within the
ASD allowable compression strengths of C1500121 foundation bracket assembly, and the piles are assumed to be braced.
repair brackets, T-pipes, and Type SS5, SS150, RS2875.203, and
RS2875.276 helical piles as evaluated per ICC-ES Acceptance
1808.2.9.2 & IBC 2021 Section 1810.2.1, piles can be considered
Criteria AC358. These strengths are published in ICC-ES ESR-
fixed and laterally supported at 5 feet below the ground surface
2794. The strengths listed are based on three different concrete
in firm soil and at 10 feet in soft soil.
foundation strengths and two different soils conditions—firm
NOMINAL STRENGTHS OF C1500121 REMEDIAL REPAIR BRACKETS & HELICAL PILES1,2,3,4,5
BRACKET T-PIPE NOMINAL STRENGTH IN AXIAL COMPRESSION (kip) [kN]

PILE
CATALOG CATALOG 2500 psi CONCRETE5 3000 psi CONCRETE5 4000 psi CONCRETE5
MODEL
NUMBER NUMBER FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
C1500121 C1500486 SS5/150 36.3 [161] 26.6 [118] 36.3 [161] 26.6 [118] 36.3 [161] 26.6 [118]
C1500121 C1500487 SS5 70.3 [313] 26.6 [118] 77.8 [346] 26.6 [118] 89.8 [399] 26.6 [118]
C1500121 C1500487 SS150 78.7 [350] 26.6 [118] 87.1 [387] 26.6 [118] 99.5 [443] 26.6 [118]
C1500121 C2780001 RS2875.203 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173]
C1050121 C2780002 RS2875.203 73.8 [328] 66.1 [294] 77.8 [346] 66.1 [294] 77.8 [346] 66.1 [294]
C1050121 C2780011 RS2875.276 75.1 [334] 70 [311] 83.4 [371] 73.9 [329] 83.4 [371] 73.9 [329]
C1050121 C2780012 RS2875.276 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173] 38.8 [173]
LRFD DESIGN STRENGTHS OF C1500121 REMEDIAL REPAIR BRACKETS & HELICAL PILES1,2,3,4,5
BRACKET T-PIPE LRFD DESIGN STRENGTH IN AXIAL COMPRESSION (kip) [kN]

PILE
MODEL
C1500121 C1500486 SS5/150 32.6 [145] 24.0 [107] 32.6 [145] 24.0 [107] 32.6 [145] 24.0 [107]
C1500121 C1500487 SS5 49.2 [219] 24.0 [107] 54.4 [242] 24.0 [107] 62.8 [279] 24.0 [107]
C1500121 C1500487 SS150 55.1 [245] 24.0 [107] 60.9 [271] 24.0 [107] 69.6 [310] 24.0 [107]
C1500121 C2780001 RS2875.203 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155]
C1050121 C2780002 RS2875.203 51.6 [229.5] 46.3 [206] 54.5 [242] 46.3 [206] 54.5 [242] 53.3 [237]
C1050121 C2780011 RS2875.276 52.6 [234] 49.0 [218] 58.4 [260] 51.7 [230] 58.4 [260] 53.3 [237]
C1050121 C2780012 RS2875.276 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155] 34.9 [155]
ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF C1500121 REMEDIAL REPAIR BRACKETS & HELICAL PILES1,2,3,4,5
BRACKET T-PIPE ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTH IN AXIAL COMPRESSION (kip) [kN]

PILE
MODEL
C1500121 C1500486 SS5/150 21.7 [97] 16.0 [71] 21.7 [97] 16.0 [71] 21.7 [97] 16.0 [71]
C1500121 C1500487 SS5 30.9 [137] 16.0 [71] 34.2 [152] 16.0 [71] 39.4 [175] 16.0 [71]
C1500121 C1500487 SS150 34.6 [154] 16.0 [71] 38.2 [170] 16.0 [71] 43.7 [194] 16.0 [71]
C1500121 C2780001 RS2875.203 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103]
C1050121 C2780002 RS2875.203 32.4 [144.1] 29.0 [129] 34.2 [152] 29.0 [129] 34.3 [152.5] 34.3 [152.5]
C1050121 C2788011 RS2875.276 33.0 [147] 30.8 [137] 36.6 [163] 32.5 [145] 36.6 [163] 34.3 [152.5]
C1050121 C2788012 RS2875.276 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103] 23.2 [103]
Notes:
1 Refer to Section 4.1.3 of ICC-ES ESR-2794 for descriptions of fixed condition, pinned condition, soft soil, and firm soil.
2 Strength ratings are based on a design corrosion level of 50 years and presume the supported structure is braced in accordance with Section
1810.2.2 of the 2021 IBC (Section 1808.2.5 of the 2006 IBC).

3 Strength ratings apply to the specific bracket, T-pipe, and pile/anchor models listed.
4 See Section 4.1.2 of ICC-ES ESR-2794 for applicable limit states that must be evaluated by a registered design professional.
5 Refer to the specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days.
CHANCE® HELICAL C1500299 STANDARD BRACKET AND T-PIPE SYSTEM
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• Used with Chance Type SS175 1-3/4” square shaft
helical piles
• T-pipe
• Hardware
ORDER SEPARATELY: Two 5/8” (16 mm) diameter concrete


40,000 lb (178kN).
T-PIPE MAX WORKING

ULTIMATE
DESIGNATIONS CAPACITY 2,3
MECHANICAL PILE SIZE
FOR THE PRODUCT SERIES BASED ON FEATURES
STRENGTH1,3 (in) [mm]
(lb) [kN]
BRACKET (lb) [kN]

C1500488 80,000 [356] SS175 30,000 [133]
square SS175
Notes:
helix plate, and bearing stratum; the strength of the foundation-to-bracket connection; and the quality of the helical pile installation. The fifth column
shows typical working capacities of the Chance helical pile system based upon maximum shaft exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N60) of 4. Actual capacities could be higher or lower depending on the above factors.
3 The ultimate capacity of the system, i.e., bracket, T-pipe, and pile shaft, can be increased to the pile shaft compression capacity limit as shown on
the product data pages provided the pile shaft is reinforced using a pipe sleeve or grout column. The maximum working capacity shall not be greater
than one half the ultimate mechanical strength of the bracket and T-pipe combination given above.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
The following tables provide the nominal, LRFD design, and Per the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 Section
ASD allowable compression strengths of C1500299 foundation 1808.2.9.2 & IBC 2021 Section 1810.2.1, piles can be considered
repair brackets, T-pipes, and Type SS175 helical piles as evalu- fixed and laterally supported at 5 feet below the ground sur-
ated per ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358. These strengths face in firm soil and at 10 feet in soft soil.
are published in ICC-ES ESR-2794. The strengths listed are
based on three different concrete foundation strengths and
two different soils conditions—firm and soft. The pile head is
assumed to be fixed within the bracket assembly, and the piles
are assumed to be braced.

PILE
MODEL
C1500299 C1500488 SS175 79.0 [351] 50.5 [225] 89.4 [398] 50.5 [225] 99.0 [440] 50.5 [225]

PILE
CATALOG CATALOG 2500 PSI CONCRETE5 3000 PSI CONCRETE5 4000 PSI CONCRETE5
MODEL
C1500299 C1500488 SS175 55.3 [246] 42.9 [191] 62.6 [278] 45.4 [202] 74.2 [330] 45.4 [202]

PILE
MODEL
C1500299 C1500488 SS175 34.7 [154] 27.7 [123] 39.3 [175] 27.7 [123] 47.9 [213] 30.2 [134]
Notes:

CHANCE® HELICAL C1500147 HEAVY DUTY BRACKET AND T-PIPE SYSTEM
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• Used with Chance Type SS175 1-3/4” square shaft
helical piles
• T-pipe
• Hardware
ORDER SEPARATELY: Four 5/8” (16 mm) diameter concrete


60,000 lb (267kN).
T-PIPE MAX WORKING

ULTIMATE
DESIGNATIONS CAPACITY2,3
MECHANICAL PILE SIZE PRODUCT
FOR THE BASED ON FEATURES
STRENGTH1,3 (in) [mm] SERIES
(lb) [kN]
BRACKET (lb) [kN]
1-3/4 [44] Lowest cost

C1500474 120,000 [534] SS175 40,000 [178]
square with square shaft

C1500475 120,000 [534] RS3500.300 50,000 [222]
round RS3500.300
2 [51] Highest capacity with

C1500508 120,000 [534] SS200 50,000 [222]
square square shaft
Notes:
helix plate, and bearing stratum; the strength of the foundation-to-bracket connection; and the quality of the helical pile installation. The fifth column
shows typical working capacities of the Chance helical pile system based upon maximum shaft exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N60) of 4. Actual capacities could be higher or lower depending on the above factors.
3 The ultimate capacity of the system, i.e., bracket, T-pipe, and pile shaft, can be increased to the pile shaft compression capacity limit as shown on
the product data pages provided the pile shaft is reinforced using a pipe sleeve or grout column. The maximum working capacity shall not be greater
than one half the ultimate mechanical strength of the bracket and T-pipe combination given above.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
The following tables provide the nominal, LRFD design, and Per the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 Section
ASD allowable compression strengths of C1500147 foundation 1808.2.9.2 & IBC 2021 Section 1810.2.1, piles can be considered
repair brackets, T-pipes, and both Type SS175 and RS3500.300 fixed and laterally supported at 5 feet below the ground sur-
helical piles as evaluated per ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria face in firm soil and at 10 feet in soft soil.
AC358. These strengths are published in ICC-ES ESR-2794. The
strengths listed are based on three different concrete founda-
tion strengths and two different soils conditions—firm and soft.
The pile head is assumed to be fixed within the bracket assem-
bly, and the piles are assumed to be braced.

PILE
MODEL
C1500147 C1500474 SS175 100 [445] 50.5 [225] 100 [445] 50.5 [225] 100 [445] 50.5 [225]
C1500147 C1500475 RS3500 100 [445] 100 [445] 100 [445] 100 [445] 100 [445] 100 [445]

PILE
MODEL
C1500147 C1500474 SS175 86.7 [386] 45.4 [202] 88.4 [393] 45.4 [202] 90 [400] 45.4 [202]
C1500147 C1500475 RS3500 71.8 [319] 71.8 [319] 77 [343] 77 [343] 77 [343] 77 [343]

PILE
MODEL
C1500147 C1500474 SS175 54.4 [242] 30.2 [134] 57.0 [254] 30.2 [134] 60.0 [267] 30.2 [134]
C1500147 C1500475 RS3500 45.1 [201] 45.1 [201] 51.3 [228] 51.3 [228] 51.3 [228] 51.3 [228]
Notes:

CHANCE® HELICAL PSAC1500499 LOW PROFILE BRACKET AND T-PIPE SYSTEM
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

• Used with Chance Type SS5 & SS150 1-1/2” square shaft
helical piles and Type RS2875.203 and RS2875.276
2-7/8” OD round shaft helical piles
• All PSAC1501500499 low profile systems include:
• T-pipe
• Hardware
ORDER SEPARATELY: Two 1/2” (13 mm) diameter concrete an-

chor bolts per pile as required.
15,000 lb (67 kN).
CHANCE HELICAL PSAC1500499 LOW PROFILE BRACKET AND T-PIPE RATINGS

MAX WORKING
T-PIPE
ULTIMATE CAPACITY 2,3
DESIGNATIONS
MECHANICAL PILE SIZE PRODUCT BASED
FOR THE FEATURES
STRENGTH1,3 (in) [mm] SERIES ON PRODUCT
PSA1500499
(lb) [kN] SERIES
BRACKET
(lb) [kN]
1-1/2 [38] SS5 Lowest cost with

PSAC1500503 30,000 [133] 15,000 [67]
square SS150 SS5

PSAC2780003 30,000 [133] RS2875.203 15,000 [67]
round RS2875.203
Notes:
2 The capacity of Chance helical pile systems is a function of many individual elements including the capacity of the foundation,
bracket, pile shaft, helix plate, and bearing stratum; the strength of the foundation-to-bracket connection; and the quality of the heli-
cal pile installation. The fifth column shows typical working capacities of the Chance helical pile system based upon maximum shaft
exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N60) of 4. Actual capacities
could be higher or lower depending on the above factors.
3 The ultimate capacity of the system, i.e., bracket, T-pipe, and pile shaft, can be increased to the pile shaft compression capacity limit
as shown on the product data pages provided the pile shaft is reinforced using a pipe sleeve or grout column. The maximum working
capacity shall not be greater than one half the ultimate mechanical strength of the bracket and T-pipe combination given above.
CHANCE® HELICAL DIRECT JACK UNDERPINNING BRACKETS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
• Used with Chance Type SS5 & SS150 1-1/2” and SS175
1-3/4” square shaft helical piles; and Type RS2875.276
2-7/8” OD and Type RS3500.300 3-1/2” OD round shaft
helical piles
• All direct jack underpinning brackets include:
• T-pipe
• Two thread bar nuts
ORDER SEPARATELY: Two 1/2” (13 mm) diameter concrete an-

chor bolts per pile as required.
The bracket body and T-pipe are packaged together.
CHANCE HELICAL DIRECT JACK UNDERPINNING BRACKETS

MAX WORKING
ULTIMATE CAPACITY 2,3
DIRECT JACK
MECHANICAL PILE SIZE PRODUCT BASED ON
CATALOG FEATURES
STRENGTH1,3 (in) [mm] SERIES PRODUCT
NUMBER
(lb) [kN] SERIES
(lb) [kN]
1-1/2 [38] SS5

C1500738 70,000 [311] 35,000 [156] Lowest cost
square SS150
1-3/4 [44]
C1500733 100,000 [445] SS175 50,000 [222] Highest capacity
square
2-7/8 [73]
C1500840 72,000 [320] RS2875.276 36,000 [160]
round
3-1/2 [89]
C1500841 91,000 [405] RS3500.300 45,500 [202]
round
Notes:
2 The capacity of Chance helical pile systems is a function of many individual elements including the capacity of the foundation,
bracket, pile shaft, helix plate, and bearing stratum; the strength of the foundation-to-bracket connection; and the quality of the helical
pile installation. The fifth column shows typical working capacities of the Chance helical pile system based upon maximum shaft
exposure of 2 feet and soil strength having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N60) of 4. Actual capacities could
be higher or lower depending on the above factors.
3 The ultimate capacity of the system, i.e., bracket, T-pipe, and pile shaft, can be increased to the pile shaft compression capacity limit
as shown on the product data pages provided the pile shaft is reinforced using a pipe sleeve or grout column. The maximum working
capacity shall not be greater than one half the ultimate mechanical strength of the bracket and T-pipe combination given above.
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

The following tables provide the nominal, LRFD design, and conditions—firm and soft. The pile head is assumed to be fixed
ASD allowable compression strengths of C1500738, C1500840, within the bracket assembly, and the piles are assumed to be
and C1500841 foundation repair brackets, T-pipes, and Type braced.
SS5, RS2875, and RS3500 helical piles as evaluated per ICC-
ES Acceptance Criteria AC358. These strengths are published
in ICC-ES ESR-2794. The strengths listed are based on three
fixed and laterally supported at 5 feet below the ground sur-
different concrete foundation strengths and two different soils
face in firm soil and at 10 feet in soft soil.

PILE
MODEL
C1500738 Incl. w/ bracket SS5 79.4 [353] 25.9 [115] 79.4 [353] 25.9 [115] 79.4 [353] 25.9 [115]
C1500840 Incl. w/ bracket RS2875.203 80.7 [359] 63.0 [280] 80.7 [359] 63.0 [280] 80.7 [359] 63.0 [280]
C1500841 Incl. w/ bracket RS3500 100 [445] 95.3 [424] 100 [445] 100 [445] 100 [445] 100 [445]

PILE
MODEL
C1500841 Incl. w/ bracket RS3500 85.8 [382] 85.8 [382] 90 [400] 90 [400] 90 [400] 90 [400]

PILE
MODEL
C1500840 Incl. w/ bracket RS2875.276 51 [227] 42 [187] 51 [227] 42 [187] 51 [227] 42 [187]
C1500841 Incl. w/ bracket RS3500 60 [267] 60 [267] 60 [267] 60 [267] 60 [267] 60 [267]
Notes:

NEW CONSTRUCTION PILE CAPS
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
The Chance® new construction pile caps are designed for use concrete pile caps. The rebar cap is designed to be used in
with the Chance Type SS square shaft and Type RS round grade beams and reinforced pile caps. The concrete foundation
shaft helical piles for embedment in cast-in-place concrete and the interaction of the pile shaft, new construction pile cap,
foundations. Each new construction pile cap consists of either and concrete footing for moment transfer, as applicable, must
one bearing plate and one steel tube sleeve that are factory- be designed and justified with due consideration to all appli-
welded together to form the cap, or one bearing plate, two cable limit states and the direction and eccentricity of applied
rebars and one steel tube sleeve that are factory-welded to- loads, including reactions provided by the brackets, acting on
gether. The plate-type pile caps are designed to be used in the concrete foundation. For preliminary design guidelines for
spread footings, grade beams, structural slabs, and reinforced reinforced pile caps refer to Section 4.
NEW CONSTRUCTION CAP FOR TYPE SS SHAFTS, NEW CONSTRUCTION CAP FOR TYPE SS SHAFTS,
COMPRESSION ONLY COMPRESSION AND UPLIFT
NEW CONSTRUCTION CAP FOR TYPE RS SHAFTS, NEW CONSTRUCTION CAP FOR TYPE SS SHAFTS,
COMPRESSION AND UPLIFT EQUAL COMPRESSION AND UPLIFT CAPACITY
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
CHANCE® HELICAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PILE CAPS, TABLE 7-7
PILE CAP DESIGN (WORKING) LOAD PLATE SIZE PIPE OD &

DESCRIPTION
DESIGNATION (kip) [kN] (SQUARE) LENGTH
Fits SS5/SS150 and RS2875.203; use for

C1500458 40 [178] compression 6” x 6” x 1/2” 2-1/2” x 6”
compression only
C1500459 60 [267] compression 6” x 6” x 3/4” 3” x 6” Fits SS175; use for compression only
40 [178] compression
C1500465 6” x 6” x 1/2” 2-1/2” x 6” Fits SS5/SS150; use for uplift and compression
20 [89] uplift
C1500467 6” x 6” x 3/4” 3” x 6” Fits SS175; use for uplift and compression
30 [133] uplift
C1500777 35 [156] compression 7” x 7” x 1/2” 2-1/2” x 6” Fits SS5/SS150; use for compression only
C1500778 52.5 [234] compression 8” x 8” x 1/2” 2-7/8” x 6” Fits SS175; use for compression only
C1500779 75 [334] compression 12” x 12” x 1/2” 3-1/2” x 6” Fits SS200; use for compression only
C1500780 100 [445] compression 12” x 12” x 1/2” 3-1/2” x 6” Fits SS225; use for compression only
C1500781 36 [160] compression 7” x 7” x 1/2” 3-1/2” x 6” Fits RS2875; use for compression only
(35) [156] compression

C1500793 7” x 7” x 1/2” 2-1/2” x 6” Fits SS5/SS150; use for uplift and compression
(23) [102] uplift
52.5 [234] compression

C1500794 8” x 8” x 1/2” 2-7/8” x 6” Fits SS175; use for uplift and compression
37 [165] uplift
45 [200] uplift

40 [178] uplift
C1500797 7” x 7” x 1/2” 3-1/2” x 7" Fits RS2875; use for uplift and compression
36 [160] uplift
50 [222] uplift
70 [311] uplift
C1502108 50 [222] compression 8” x 8” x 1/2” 3-1/2” x 7” Fits RS2875.276 HCP; use for compression only
140 [623] compression 6-5/8” x 10-

C1503165 12” x 12” x 1” Fits RS5500.361; use for uplift and compression
140 [623] uplift 1/2”
6-5/8” x 10-
C1503166 140 [623] compression 12” x 12” x 1” Fits RS5500.361; use for compression only
1/2”

C1073119 14” x 14” x 1-1/4” 6” x 9-1/4” Fits RS7000.362; use for uplift and compression
(130) [578] uplift

C1073431 20” x 20” x 1-1/2” 10-3/4” x 12” Fits RS9625.395; use for uplift and compression
235 [1045] tension
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
The following tables provide the nominal, LRFD design, and strengths listed are based on three different concrete founda-
ASD allowable compression strengths of new construction tion strengths and two different soils conditions—firm and soft.
pile caps used with Type SS5 and SS175 square shaft helical The pile head is assumed to be either pinned or fixed within
piles, and Type RS2875.203, RS2875.276, RS3500.300, and the concrete foundation depending on cover and reinforcing,
RS4500.337 round shaft helical piles as evaluated per ICC-ES and the piles are assumed to be braced. The helical pile must
Acceptance Criteria AC358. The last table on page 7-95 probe embedded at least 7.5 inches into the concrete foundation
vides the nominal, LRFD design, and ASD allowable tension when designed as fixed end condition.
strengths of new construction pile caps used with Type SS5
and SS175 square shaft helical piles, and Type RS2875.203,
RS2875.276, RS3500.300, and RS4500.337 round shaft heli-
fixed and laterally supported at 5 feet below the ground sur-
cal piles as evaluated per ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358.
face in firm soil and at 10 feet in soft soil.
These strengths are published in ICC-ES ESR-2794. The
NOMINAL STRENGTHS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION PILE CAPS LOADED IN COMPRESSION1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
NOMINAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH (kip) {kN}
2500 psi CONCRETE6 3000 psi CONCRETE6 4000 psi CONCRETE6

CATALOG PILE
NUMBER9 MODEL FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
PINNED FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED FIXED PINNED FIXED
54.4 60.0 13.6 26.6 54.4 62.3 13.6 26.6 54.4 66.9 13.6 26.6
C1500458(G) SS5
{242} {267} {60} {118} {242} {277} {60} {118} {242} {298} {60} {118}
100 100 25.8 50.5 100 100 25.8 50.5 100 100 25.8 50.5
C1500459(G) SS175
{445} {445} {115} {225} {445} {445} {115} {225} {445} {445} {115} {225}
54.4 60.0 13.6 26.6 54.4 62.3 13.6 26.6 54.4 66.9 13.6 26.6
C1500465(G) SS5
{242} {267} {60} {118} {242} {277} {60} {118} {242} {298} {60} {118}
100 100 25.8 50.5 100 100 25.8 50.5 100 100 25.8 50.5
C1500467(G) SS175
{445} {445} {115} {225} {445} {445} {115} {225} {445} {445} {115} {225}
71.5 71.5 55.2 71.5 80.1 80.1 55.2 73.9 86.3 92.9 55.2 73.9
C1500781(G) {318} {318} {245} {318} {356.3} {356.3} {245} {328} {383} {413} {245} {328}
RS2875.276
C1500797(G) [71.5 [71.5 [42.4 [64.6 [80.1 [80.1 [42.4 [64.6 [80.8 [89.8 [42.4 [64.6
{318}] {318}] {188.6}] {287.4}] {356.3}] {356.3}] {188.6}] {287.4}] {359.4}] {399.5}] {188.6}] {287.4}]
110
121.9 128.0 90.7 110 121.9 128.0 90.7 110 121.9 128 90.7
{489.3}
C1501356(G) {542.2} {569.4} {403} {489.3} {542.2} {569.4} {403} {489.3} {542.2} {569.4} {403}
RS3500.300 [100.7
C1501357(G) [116.7 [125.2 [76.2 [100.7 [116.7 [125.2 [76.2 [100.7 [116.7 [125.2 [76.2
{448}]
{519.1}] {557}] {339}] {448}] {519.1}] {557}] {339}] {448}] {519.1}] {557}] {339}]
71.5 71.5 45.2 66.1 80.1 80.1 45.1 66.1 80.1 87.1 45.2 66.1
C1500781(G) {318} {318} {201.0} {294.0} {356.3} {356.3} {201.0} {294.0} {356.3} {387.4} {201.0} {294.0}
RS2875.203
C1501977(G) [71.5 [71.5 [33.2 [56.0 [73.9 [80.1 [33.2 [56.0 [73.9 [84.2 [33.2 [56.0
{318}] {318}] {147.7}] {249.1}] {328.7}] {356.3}] {147.7}] {249.1}] {328.7}] {374.5}] {147.7}] {249.1}]
166.1 166.1 156.3 166.1 186.2 186.2 156.3 175.3 186.3 191.7 156.3 175.3
C1072726(G)
{739} {739} {695.3} {739} {828.3} {828.3} {695.3} {779.8} {828.7} {852.7} {695.3} {779.8}
C1072727(G) RS4500.337
[166.1 [166.1 [141.0 [166.1 [181.6 [186.2 [141.0 [166.3 [181.6 [189.2 [141.0 [166.3
{739}] {739}] {627.2}] {739}] {807.8}] {828.3}] {627.2}] {739.7}] {807.8}] {841.6}] {627.2}] {739.7}]
Notes:
For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 1 kip = 4.448 kN, 1 kip∙in = 113 N∙m.
2 Strength ratings include allowance for corrosion of zinc-coated new construction pile caps over a 50-year service life and presume the supported
structure is braced in accordance with IBC Section 1810.2.2.

3 Capacities apply to the specific pile cap and pile models listed.
4 The fixed end condition requires that the foundation itself be fixed and that the pile and pile cap be embedded in the foundation with adequate
concrete cover and reinforcing to resist 56.4 kip∙in, 116 kip∙in, 71.66 kip∙in, 138.3 kip∙in, 138.3 kip∙in, and 263.72 kip∙in nominal bending moment for
SS5, SS175, RS2875 (including RS2875.203 and RS2875.276), RS3500, RS3500/SS175 combo, and RS4500 pile models, respectively. The center of the
shaft must be at least 6 inches away from the end/corner of the concrete footing.
6 Refer to the specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days [minimum of 24 MPa is required under ADIBC Appendix L, Section 5.5.1].
8 The concrete footing design and reinforcement design, including the concrete thickness above the new construction pile cap, must be
determined by a registered design professional.

9 (G): The cap is available as galvanized and nongalvanized (bare steel). Catalog items with “G” suffix are galvanized and without “G” are bare steel.
LRFD DESIGN STRENGTHS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION PILE CAPS LOADED IN COMPRESSION1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
LRFD DESIGN COMPRESSION STRENGTH (kip) {kN}
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

CATALOG PILE 2500 psi CONCRETE6 3000 psi CONCRETE6 4000 psi CONCRETE6
48.9 50.6 12.2 24.0 48.9 52.0 12.2 24.0 48.9 54.7 12.2 24.0
C1500458(G) SS5
{218} {225} {54} {107} {218} {231} {54} {107} {218} {243} {54} {107}
79.2 79.2 23.2 45.4 90.0 90.0 23.2 45.4 90.0 90.0 23.2 45.4
C1500459(G) SS175
{352} {352} {103} {202} {400} {400} {103} {202} {400} {400} {103} {202}
48.9 50.6 12.2 24.0 48.9 52.0 12.2 24.0 48.9 54.7 12.2 24.0
C1500465(G) SS5
{218} {225} {54} {107} {218} {231} {54} {107} {218} {243} {54} {107}
79.2 79.2 23.2 45.4 90.0 90.0 23.2 45.4 90.0 90.0 23.2 45.4
C1500467(G) SS175
{352} {352} {103} {202} {400} {400} {103] {202} {400} {400} {103} {202}
58.9 58.9 49.7 58.9 65.0 65.0 49.7 65.0 76.3 76.3 49.7 66.5
C1500781(G) {262} {262} {221} {262} {289} {289} {221} {289} {339} {339} {221} {295}
RS2875.276
C1500797(G) [58.9 [58.9 [38.2 [58.2 [65.0 [65.0 [38.2 [58.2 [72.8 [76.3 [38.2 [58.2
{262}] {262}] {169.9}] {258.9}] {289.1}] {289.1}] {169.9}] {258.9}] {323.8}] {339}] {169.9}] {258.9}]
108.8 108.8 81.6 99.0 109.7 115.2 81.6 99.0 109.7 115.2 81.6 99.0
C1501356(G) {484} {484} {362} {440.4} {488} {512.4} {362} {440.4} {488} {512.4} {362} {440.4}
RS3500.300
C1501357(G) [105.1 [108.8 [68.6 [90.6 [105.1 [112.7 [68.6 [90.6 [105.1 [112.7 [68.6 [90.6
{467.5}] {484}] {305.1}] {403}] {467.5}] {501.3}] {305.1}] {403}] {467.5}] {501.3}] {305.1}] {403}]
58.9 58.9 41.4 58.9 65.0 65.0 41.4 59.5 65.3 65.3 41.4 59.5
C1500781(G) {262} {262.0} {184.2} {262.0} {289.1} {289.1} {184.2} {264.7} {290.5} {290.5} {184.2} {264.7}
RS2875.203
C1501977(G) [58.9 [58.9 [29.9 [50.4 [65.0 [65.0 [29.9 [50.4 [65.3 [65.3 [29.9 [50.4
{262}] {262}] {133}] {224.2}] {289.1}] {289.1}] {133}] {224.2}] {290.5}] {290.5}] {133}] {224.2}]
130.4 130.4 130.4 130.4 142.4 142.4 140.7 142.4 145.3 145.3 140.7 145.3
C1500726(G) {580} {580} {580} {580} {633.4} {633.4} {625.9) {633.4} {646.3} {646.3} {625.9) {646.3)
RS4500.337
C1500727(G) [130.4 [130.4 [126.9 [130.4 [142.4 [142.4 [126.9 [142.4 [145.3 [145.3 [126.9 [145.3
{580}] {580}] {564.5}] {580}] {633.4}] {633.4}] {564.5)] {633.4}] {646.3}] {646.3}] {564.5}] {646.3}]
Notes:

4 The fixed end condition requires that the foundation itself be fixed and that the pile and pile cap be embedded in the foundation with adequate
concrete cover and reinforcing to resist 56.4 kip∙in, 116 kip∙in, 71.66 kip∙in, 138.3 kip∙in, 138.3 kip∙in, and 263.72 kip∙in nominal bending moment for SS5,
SS175, RS2875 (including RS2875.203 and RS2875.276), RS3500, RS3500/SS175 combo, and RS4500 pile models, respectively. The center of the shaft
must be at least 6 inches away from the end/corner of the concrete footing.
8 The concrete footing design and reinforcement design, including the concrete thickness above the new construction pile cap, must be determined by a
registered design professional.

ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION PILE CAPS LOADED IN COMPRESSION1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTH (kip) {kN}
DRAWINGS & RATINGS
(32.6) (33.7) (8.1) (16.0) (32.6) (34.6) (8.1) (16.0) (32.6) (36.4) (8.1) (16.0)
C1500458(G) SS5
{145} {150} {36} {71} {145} {154} {36} {71} {145} {162} {36} {71}
(52.7) (52.7) (15.4) (30.2) (60.0) (60.0) (15.4) (30.2) (60.0) (60.0) (15.4) (30.2)
C1500459(G) SS175
{234} {234} {69} {134} {267} {267} {69} {134} {267} {267} {69} {134}
(32.6) (33.7) (8.1) (16.0) (32.6) (34.6) (8.1) (16.0) (32.6) (36.4) (8.1) (16.0)
C1500465(G) SS5
{145} {150} {36} {71} {145} {154} {36} {71} {145} {162} {36} {71}
(52.7) (52.7) (15.4) (30.2) (60.0) (60.0) (15.4) (30.2) (60.0) (60.0) (15.4) (30.2)
C1500467(G) SS175
{234} {234} {69} {134} {267} {267} {69} {134} {267} {267} {69} {134}
37.6 37.6 33.0 37.6 41.8 41.8 33.0 41.8 49.5 49.5 33.0 44.3
C1500781(G) {167} {167} {146} {167} {186} {186} {146} {186} {220} {220} {146} {197}
RS2875.276
C1500797(G) [37.6 [37.6 [25.4 [37.6 [41.8 [41.8 [25.4 [38.7 [48.4 [49.5 [25.4 [38.7
{167}] {167}] {113.0}] {167}] {186}] {186}] {113.0}] {172.1}] {215.3}] {220}] {113.0}] {172.1}]
68.7 68.7 54.3 65.9 73.0 75.9 54.3 65.9 73.0 76.6 54.3 65.9
C1501356(G) {305.6} {305.6} {241} {293.1} {324.7} {337.6} {241} {293.1} {324.7} {340.7} {241} {293.1}
RS3500.300
C1501357(G) [68.7 [68.7 [45.6 [60.3 [69.9 [75.0 [45.6 [60.3 [69.9 [75.0 [45.6 [60.3
{305.6}] {305.6}] {202.8}] {268.2}] {310.9}] {333.6}] {202.8}] {268.2}] {310.9}] {333.6}] {202.8}] {268.2}]
37.6 37.6 27.5 37.6 41.8 41.8 27.5 39.6 43.5 43.5 27.5 39.6
C1500781(G) {167.3} {167.3} {122.3} {167.3} {185.9} {185.9} {122.3} {176.1} {195.5} {195.5} {122.3} {176.1}
RS2875.203
C1501977(G) [37.6 [37.6 [19.9 [33.5 [41.8 [41.8 [19.9 [33.5 [43.5 [43.5 [19.9 [33.5
{167.3}] {167.3}] {88.5}] {149.0}] {185.9}] {185.9}] {88.5}] {149.0}] {195.5}] {195.5}] {88.5}] {149.0}]
88.7 88.7 88.7 88.7 96.9 96.9 93.6 96.9 96.9 96.9 93.6 96.9
{394.6} {394.6} {394.6} {394.6} {431} {431} {416.4} {431} {431} {431} {416.4} {431}
C1072726(G) RS4500.337
[88.7 [88.7 [84.4 [88.7 [96.9 [96.9 [84.4 [96.9 [96.9 [96.9 [84.4 [96.9
{394.6}] {394.6}] {375.4}] {394.6}] {431}] {431}] {375.4}] {431}] {431}] {431}] {375.4}] {431}]
Notes:

4 The fixed end condition requires that the foundation itself be fixed and that the pile and pile cap be embedded in the foundation with adequate concrete
cover and reinforcing to resist 56.4 kip∙in, 116 kip∙in, 71.66 kip∙in, 138.3 kip∙in, 138.3 kip∙in, and 263.72 kip∙in nominal bending moment for SS5, SS175, RS2875
(including RS2875.203 and RS2875.276), RS3500, RS3500/SS175 combo, and RS4500 pile models, respectively. The center of the shaft must be at least 6
inches away from the end/corner of the concrete footing.
8 The concrete footing design and reinforcement design, including the concrete thickness above the new construction pile cap, must be determined by a
registered design professional.

NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF NEW
CONSTRUCTION PILE CAPS LOADED IN TENSION1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
DRAWINGS & RATINGS

NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS IN TENSION (kip) [kN]
NUMBER8 MODEL NOMINAL DESIGN ALLOWABLE NOMINAL DESIGN ALLOWABLE NOMINAL DESIGN ALLOWABLE
STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH
56.2 42.1 28.1 56.2 42.1 28.1 56.2 42.1 28.1

C1500465(G) SS5
[250] [187] [125] [250] [187] [125] [250] [187] [125]
78.9 59.2 39.5 78.9 59.2 39.5 78.9 59.2 39.5
C1500467(G) SS175
[351] [263] [176] [351] [263] [176] [351] [263] [176]
95.0 70.4 47.5 95.0 71.3 47.5 95.0 71.3 47.5
C150797(G) RS2875.276
[422] [313] [211] [422] [317] [211] [422] [317] [211]
100 76.9 51.9 100 77.9 51.9 100 77.9 51.9
C1501357(G) RS3500.300
[444] [342] [231] [444] [346] [231] [444] [346] [231]
87 65.3 43.5 87 65.3 43.5 87 65.3 43.5
C1500797(G) RS2875.203
[387] [290.5] [193.5] [387] [290.5] [193.5] [387] [290.5] [193.5]
140.9 105.7 70.5 140.9 105.7 70.5 140.9 105.7 70.5
C1072727(G) RS4500.337
[626.8] [470.2] [313.6] [626.8] [470.2] [313.6] [626.8] [470.2] [313.6]
45.2 33.9 22.6 45.2 33.9 22.6 45.2 33.9 22.6
C1500793(G) SS5
[201.1] [150.8] [100.5] [201.1] [150.8] [100.5] [201.1] [150.8] [100.5]
60.8 45.6 30.4 60.8 45.6 30.4 60.8 45.6 30.4
C1500794(G) SS175
[270.5] [202.8] [135.2] [270.5] [202.8] [135.2] [270.5] [202.8] 135.2]
Notes:
For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
2 Strength ratings include allowance for corrosion of zinc-coated new construction pile caps over a 50-year service life.
4 See Sections 4.1.2 and 5.7 of ICC-ES ESR-2794 for applicable limit states that must be evaluated by a registered design professional.
5 The specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days must not be less than 2,500 psi (17.2 MPa) [minimum of 24 MPa is required under ADIBC
Appendix L, Section 5.5.1].

6 Anchorage design must comply with the requirements of Section 1810.3.11.2 of the IBC for Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F.
7 The concrete footing design, reinforcement design, and anchorage capacity between the bracket and concrete must be determined by a registered
design professional. The bracket anchorage with concrete may control the capacity.
SECTION 8: DESIGN EXAMPLES
CONTENTS
Design Example 1: Atlas Resistance Piers................................................................................................8-2
Design Example 2: Atlas Resistance Piers with Integrated Tieback..............................................8-3
Design Example 3: Helical Pile Foundation for New Construction............................................... 8-5
Design Example 4: Light Commercial Structure.................................................................................. 8-6
Design Example 5: Helical Pulldown Micropiles for New Construction.....................................8-10
Design Example 6: Helical Piles for Boardwalks.................................................................................8-14
Design Example 7: Helical Piles for Boardwalks with Lateral Support....................................... 8-15
Design Example 8: Helical Tieback Anchors In Clay......................................................................... 8-16
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Design Example 9: Helical Tieback Anchors In Sand........................................................................ 8-17
Design Example 10: Soil Screw Retention Wall System................................................................... 8-19
Design Example 11: Helical Piles/Anchors for Telecommunication Towers..............................8-24
Design Example 12: Helical Anchors for Pipeline Buoyancy Control.......................................... 8-31
Design Example 13: Type RS Helical Piles for Lateral Support..................................................... 8-35
Design Example 14: Instant Foundations for Street Light Supports..........................................8-36
Design Example 15: Foundation Earth Pressure Resistance..........................................................8-39
Design Example 16: Buckling Example Using the Davisson Method......................................... 8-40
Design Example 17: Buckling Example Using the Finite-Difference Method...........................8-41
Design Example 18: Buckling Example Using the Finite-Element Method..............................8-43
Design Example 19: Monopole Foundation with Steel Grillage & RS5500 Helical Piles.....8-44
DISCLAIMER
specifications.
and requirements.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 1: ATLAS also be attached to the concrete basement wall and used for
this application. Since there are suitable soils with N counts
RESISTANCE PIERS above four, there is no need to sleeve the pier pipe for added
stiffness.
TYPE OF STRUCTURE
PIER SPACING
The structure is a two-story, 20’ x 40’ frame residence with full
brick veneer siding located in the Midwest. The house sits on Using the information obtained about the stem wall and foot-
8” thick by 8’ high cast concrete basement walls with steel rein- ing to be supported and applying sound engineering judg-
forced concrete footings 1’-8” wide by 1’ thick. The roof is com- ment, the nominal pier spacing based on the foundation sys-
position shingles over 1/2” plywood decking and felt underlay- tem’s ability to span between piers is estimated at about eight
ment. There is six feet of peaty clay soil overburden present. feet. This results in a nominal working pier load (Pw) of:
DESIGN EXAMPLES
EQUATION 8-2
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Pw = xP
Settlement of up to 2-1/2” is evident in portions of the structure. = 8 ft x 4,987 lb/ft
Checking with local building officials reveals no special con- = 39,896 lb
trolling codes for underpinning existing structures that must where
be observed. Preliminary geotechnical information indicates
Pw = Pier working load
the footing is situated in peaty clay type soil with Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N) values of six and higher. x = Selected pier spacing = 8 ft
This soil extends to a depth of 15 feet where a dense glacial till P = Line load on footing = 4,987 lb/ft
exists. It is determined that the glacial till layer will serve as an
adequate bearing stratum for the Atlas Resistance® piers. FACTOR OF SAFETY
Hubbell recommends a minimum Factor of Safety (FS) for the
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF TOTAL LOAD ON FOOTING mechanical strength of the hardware of 2.0.
EQUATION 8-1 EQUATION 8-3
P = DL + LL + SL + W Rw ULT = Pw(FSh)
= (1,890 + 667 + 120 + 2,310)
= (39,896 lb) x 2
= 4,987 lb/ft
= 79,792 lb
where
where
P = Total live load on perimeter footing
Pw = Pier working load
DL = Dead load (1,890 lb/ft)
FSh = Hardware Factor of Safety = 2.0 (may be varied
LL = Live load (667 lb/ft) based on engineering judgment)
SL = Snow load Rw ULT = Minimum ultimate hardware strength
= SK(w)L / 2(w + L) requirement based on structural weight
where L and w are the building dimensions
= 18 lb/ft2 x (800 / 120) ft = 120 lb/ft Select a pier system with an adequate minimum ultimate
SK = Snow load requirement factor strength rating:
= 18 lb/ft2 (for this example) EQUATION 8-4
W = Soil load xMAX = (Rh ULT) / (FSh)P
= Wb1 + Wb2 = (330 + 1,980) lb/ft = 2,310 lb/ft = 86,000 lb / (2 x 4,987)
Wb1 = Soil load directly above footing (see Table 4-5) = 8.6 ft (Wall and footing are judged able to span this
Wb2 = Soil load from soil wedge (see Table 4-5) distance)
where
(See Tables 4-2, 4-4, and 4-5 in Section 4 for DL, LL, and W.)
FSh = Hardware Factor of Safety
ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER SELECTION Rh ULT = 86,000 lb - Choose AP-2-UFVL3500.165 [14'-0]
While the Atlas Resistance continuous lift pier could be used modified 2-piece pier system
for this application, the small lift required makes it unneces- xMAX = Maximum pier spacing based on hardware
sary. The Atlas Resistance predrilled pier is not a good choice capacity
here due to the absence of a hard, impenetrable layer above
the intended bearing stratum. Therefore, the Atlas Resistance PROOF LOAD
2-piece standard pier is selected for strength and economy.
Hubbell recommends a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5 at in-
The more expensive Atlas Resistance plate pier system could
stallation unless structural lift occurs first.
EQUATION 8-5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Rp = (FSP)Pw The result of the analysis provides the following design

specifications:
= (1.5)(8.6 x 4987)
= 64,332 lb • Underpinning product: Atlas Resistance® modified 2-piece
pier AP-2-UF-3500.165 [14’-0]
where
FSp = Proof load Factor of Safety1 = 1.5 • Pier spacing: 8.6’ on center
Rp = Installation force based on weight of structure to • Installation proof load: 64,332 lb ± (unless lift of the struc-
achieve proof load verification ture occurs first)
Rh MAX = Maximum installation force based on hardware • Working load is anticipated to be 42,900 lb ± (4,987 lb/
ultimate capacity2 ft x 8.6 ft)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
= (Rh ULT/2)
(1.65) = (86,000/2) (1.65) = 70,950 lb
• Anticipated pier depths: 15 ft ±
Rw MIN < Rh MAX = OK, where Rw MIN = Rp
1 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.
2 It is recommended that Rh MAX not exceed (Rh ULT / 2) x (1.65) during
installation without engineering approval.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 2: ATLAS RESISTANCE

PIERS WITH INTEGRATED TIEBACK
PROJECT INFORMATION UNDERPINNING SYSTEM SELECTION
An existing three-story commercial building located within The availability of a dense stratum with “N” values greater than
a hurricane prone region requires foundation retrofitting for 40 bpf allows the use of the Atlas Resistance pier. The addi-
potential scour activity and lateral load forces from hurricane tional lateral loading can be designed for using a helical tieback
force winds. The structure sits on a shallow foundation system anchor and the integrated Atlas Resistance pier bracket. Based
consisting of a 4’ high 10” thick stem wall and a 4’ wide 12” thick on the design compression loading (P) of 5 kip per lineal ft
spread footing with three #5 reinforcement bars (Grade 60). and the allowable pier spacing (x) of 8’ the required minimum
The structural Engineer of Record has requested a new founda- design capacity of the Atlas Resistance pier (Pw MIN) is (x) x (P)
tion system capable of withstanding 2 kip per lineal foot design = 8.0 x 5.0 or 40 kip.
lateral forces and temporary scour depths to 1’ below the exist-
The AP-2-UF-3500.165 system could be used since it has a
ing spread footing. The estimated design compression loading
maximum working (design) capacity of 42.5 kip. However, due
is 5 kip per lineal ft for the existing structure. The structural
to the possibility of scour and subsequent lack of soil support
engineer has determined that the existing foundation system
the modified pier with a working capacity of 45.5 kip is rec-
can handle underpinning support spans of 8’ or less.
ommended (AP-2-UF-3500.165M) with at least three modified
pier sections to increase the rotational stiffness of the bracket.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
A geotechnical investigation was performed to determine the HELICAL TIEBACK DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
soil types and strengths at the project location. The soil bor-
With a maximum spacing of 8’ and an estimated design lateral
ings advanced near the project location show medium dense
line load of 2 klf, the horizontal design load (DLh) at the tie-
silty sand with SPT “N” values ranging from 15 to 25 bpf to a
back anchor location is 16 kip. The tieback anchors are typically
depth of 20 ft below ground surface (bgs). This medium dense
installed between 15° to 25° from horizontal. An installation
silty sand layer is underlain by dense sand and weathered
angle of 20° was chosen after determining that there are no
limestone bedrock with SPT “N” values greater than 40 bpf.
underground structures/conduits that may interfere with the
Groundwater was observed at 18’ bgs during the investigation.
tieback installation. The tieback must be designed with a mini-
mum 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 EQUATION 8-8
“N” values of 20 bpf observed at 5 to 10 feet bgs. Based on the
SPT “N” values and soil descriptions, the following parameters Qt = 1.82 ft2 (8.6 ft)(115 pcf )(21)
are used in the design: = 37.8 kip
• Cohesion (c) = 0
Since the ultimate bearing capacity (37.8 kip) is greater than
• Friction angle (j) = 34°
the required ultimate capacity of 34 kip, the Type SS5 (12”-14”)
• Bearing capacity factor (Nq) = 21 tieback is acceptable. The average minimum installation torque
would be UCr/Kt or 34,000/10 = 3400 ft∙lb. This minimum in-
• Unit weight of soil (g) = 115 pcf
stallation torque is less than the torque rating of the SS5 and
Using a Factor of Safety (FS) = 2 on the design load and an SS125 bar; therefore, either shaft size would be acceptable. Kt
installation angle of 20°, the required ultimate tension capac- = empirical torque factor (default value = 10 for the SS series).
DESIGN EXAMPLES
ity of the tieback (UCr) is (FS x DLh) / cos(20°) = (2 x 16) /

The distance from the assumed “active” failure plane to the 14”
cos(20°)= 34 kip. The ultimate bearing capacity (Qt) of a heli-
helix must be at least 5 times its diameter or 6’-0. Both the
cal tieback can be determined from:
minimum length and estimated installation torque must be sat-
EQUATION 8-6 isfied prior to the termination of tieback installation.
Qt = An (cNc + qNq)
ATLAS RESISTANCE® PIER UNDERPINNING INSTALLATION
Try a Type SS5 series (12”-14” Lead) with a length of 15 ft: Given a design load of 40 kip and the potential for 1 ft
of temporary exposed pier section due to scour, use the
Check depth criteria based on: AP-2-UF-3500.165M:
• A starting depth of 4 ft below the ground surface • The AP-2-UF-3500.165M pier has a working (design) load
• Tieback length of 15 ft capacity of 45.5 kip. The estimated line load (P) is 5 klf,
therefore with a maximum pier c-to-c spacing (x) of 8
• An installation angle of 20°
ft, the piers will experience a design load (Pw) of 40 kip.
The length to the top of the lead helix is 15 ft - 3(12/12) - 4/12 The spacing may need to be decreased based upon field
= 11.7 ft. The depth of embedment would be 4 + 11.7sin(20°) = conditions.
4 ft + 4 ft = 8 ft which is greater than 5D (6 ft), so the depth
• Use a minimum 3 modified pier sections (10.5 ft) offset
criteria is met.
halfway from the inner sleeve sections
Check the ultimate capacity of the helical tieback (Tu) using:
• The depth to a suitable stratum for Atlas Resistance pier
Nq = 21
placement is approximately 20 ft bgs
EQUATION 8-7
• Install each pier to a minimum installing force, (Proof
d avg = 4 ft + [15 ft - 1 (3 (12 in) +4 in)]sin(20°) = 8.6 ft Load) Rp = 1.50 x Pw (estimated Factor of Safety (FSp) of
2 (12 in/ft) 1.5 on the design load) which makes the minimum install-
ing force Rw MIN = 60,000 lb (based on an 8 ft spacing)
or imminent lift, whichever occurs first. The maximum in-
g = 115 pcf
stallation force (Rh MAX) shall not exceed Rh ULT/2 x FSh or
SAh = A12 + A14 (91,000/2) x 1.65 = 75,000 lb (estimated Factor of Safety
= 0.77 ft2 + 1.05 ft2 (FSh) of 1.65 of the design load for hardware).
= 1.82 ft2
DESIGN EXAMPLE 3: HELICAL PILE FOUNDATION
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING TYPE
• Two story residence
• Slab on grade
• Masonry wall, wood frame
• Width = 30 ft, L/W = 1-1/2
DESIGN EXAMPLES
STRUCTURAL LOADS
EQUATION 8-9
P = DL + LL + SL
P = 1540 + 346 + 162 = 2,048 lb/ft
where
P = Total Load on perimeter footing
DL = Dead Load (1,540 lb/ft)
LL = Live Load (346 lb/ft)
SL = Snow Load (162 lb/ft)
(See Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Section 4 for DL and LL)
Factor of Safety (FS) = 2.0 (minimum)
PILE SPACING
EQUATION 8-10
Estimated working load = Pw = xP
Estimated pile spacing (x) = 6.0 ft
Pw = 6.0 x 2,048 = 12,288 lb
CHANCE® HELICAL PILE SELECTION

RS2875.203 with 8-10-12 helix configuration
ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY

EQUATION 8-11
Qt = ( A8 + A10 + A12 ) c Nc
where
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 5-41)
Nc = Bearing capacity = 9.0
HELICAL PILE FOUNDATION, FIGURE 8-1
Qt = (1.64) (2,000) (9.0)
Qt = 29,520 lb (installation depth is over 20 ft)
CHECK Qt
• Conduct Field Load Test (if required per specifications)
ESTIMATE INSTALLATION TORQUE FACTOR OF SAFETY
T = (Pw x FS)/Kt Theoretical Ultimate Capacity:
= (12,288 x 2)/9 FS = (Qt /Pw)
= 2,750 ft∙lb = 29,520/12,288
where = 2.4 (OK)
Kt = Empirical torque factor (default value = 9 for the Torque Correlation:
R2875 series) FS = (T x Kt)/Pw
The rated installation torque of the RS2875.203 series is 6,710 = (2,750 x 9) /12,288
ft∙lb, which is greater than the required estimated installation
= 2.01 (OK)
torque of 2,750 ft∙lb. (OK)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
NOTE: If during installation T = 2,750 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”)
DESIGN EXAMPLE 4: LIGHT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE

PROBLEM if helical piles are feasible, and if so, which product series
to use.
Build a new (lightly loaded single story) commercial building
on a typical clay soil profile as given on a single boring. The • Qualified Installers – Local Certified Chance Installers are
profile consists of the upper 10’-0 of highly plastic clay (CH), available and can get competitive bids from a second cer-
Plasticity Index (PI) = 35; cohesion (c) = 2000 psf; unit weight tified installer 20 miles away.
(g) of 105 pcf. The swell potential of this layer is estimated to
• Codes – Local building codes allow both shallow and deep
be 2”. The top 10’-0 layer is underlain by 20’ of stiff to very stiff
foundations.
low plasticity clay (CL) that has a Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) blow count “N” = 20. The boring was terminated at 30 Cost-bid must be competitive with other systems. Owner
feet without encountering the water table. No further soil pa- may pay a small premium to “protect” the investment in the
rameters or lab data given. structure.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION STEP 2: SOIL MECHANICS

Support the structure on a grade beam and structural slab, See Problem section above.
which is in turn supported by helical piles. Isolate the foun-
dation and slab from the expansive subgrade by forming a 2”
void, using a cardboard void form. Assume the water table is at
STEP 3: LOADS
the soil boring termination depth. This is typically a conserva- • Exterior Grade Beam – The dead and live loads result in
tive design assumption when the water table is not encoun- a total load (P) of 3 kip per lineal foot on the perimeter
tered. The stiff to very stiff clay soil in the 20-foot thick layer grade beam (12” wide x 18” deep). The grade beam is de-
is probably at or near 100% saturation (volume of water is the signed to span between piles on 8’-0 centers. Therefore,
same as the volume of the voids). 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 exte-
STEP 1: FEASIBILITY rior pile is 24 x 2 = 48 kip compression.
• Site Access – The site is road accessible, with no overhead
• Interior Columns – The dead load results in 9 kip per col-
or underground obstructions, but the owner is concerned
umn. The live load results in 20 kip per column. The total
about potential damage to neighboring sites due to vibra-
dead and live load per column is 9 + 20 = 29 kip/column
tion and noise.
design or working load. A Factor of Safety of 2 is recom-
• Working Loads – The structure is single story, so the work- mended. Therefore, the required ultimate capacity per in-
ing loads are probably considerably less than 100 kip per terior pile is 29 x 2 = 58 kip compression. The required
pile. ultimate loads for both the exterior grade beam and inte-
• Soils – Boulders, large cobbles, or other major obstructions rior columns are well within the load ratings of the Hubbell
are not present in the bearing stratum. The clay soil does Power Systems, Inc., Chance® product series.
not appear to be too hard to penetrate with helical piles. • Lateral Loads – The piles are not required to resist any lat-
See Table 3-1 (Helical Shaft Series Selection) or Figure eral loads.
3-1 (Product Selection Guide) in Section 3 to determine
STEP 4: BEARING CAPACITY construction” bracket from Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. This
will allow the foundation to rise up, should the swell ever ex-
Find the ultimate bearing capacity in the stiff to very stiff clay ceed the 2” void allowance, but to shrink back and rest on the
using hand calculations.
pile tops.
EQUATION 8-14
Bearing Capacity: Qult = Ah (cNc + q’Nq + 0.5g’BNg) CHECKING BEARING CAPACITY USING
For saturated clay soils, the second term of Equation 8-14 be- HELICAP® ENGINEERING SOFTWARE
comes zero since the angle of internal friction (j) is assumed A sample tabular data printout is shown in Figure 8-2, where
to be zero for saturated clays, thus Nq = 0. The third term (base the twin helix (10”-12”) Qult = 29.2 kip @ 29.3 kip, OK; and the
term) may be dropped because B is relatively small. The simpli- triple helix (10”-12”-14”) Qult = 52.8 kip @ 52.93 kip, OK
fied equation becomes:
DESIGN EXAMPLES
EQUATION 8-15 STEPS 5 AND 6: LATERAL
Qult = AhcNc = Ahc9 CAPACITY AND BUCKLING
• Lateral Capacity – None is required in the statement of
EQUATION 8-16 the problem. In reality, horizontal loads due to wind will
be resisted by net earth pressure (passive-active) on the
c (ksf) = N/8 grade beam and/or caps. See Section 5 for an explanation
of earth pressure resistance.
From Equation 5-41, c (ksf) = 20/8 = 2.5 ksf. At this point, an
iterative process is required. Select a helix configuration that • Buckling Concerns – The soil density and shear strength
can develop the required ultimate capacity. Try a 10”-12” twin is sufficient to provide lateral confinement to the central
helix with a minimum of 5’-0 embedded into the bearing stra- steel shaft. This is supported by the fact that the SPT blow
tum which is the stiff low plasticity clay starting 10 ft below count is greater than four for the top clay layer. Should
grade. From Table 8-1, the helix area of a 10” helix is 76.4 in2 or analysis be required, the Davisson method described in
0.531 ft2; the helix area of a 12” helix is 111 in2 or 0.771 ft2. Section 5 may be used to determine the critical load.
Substituting:
EQUATION 8-17
STEP 7: CORROSION
No electrochemical properties were given for the clay soil.
Q10 = 0.531 ft2 x 2.5 ksf x 9 = 11.95 kip
Generally, undisturbed, i.e., non-fill, material tends to be benign
Q12 = 0.771 ft2 x 2.5 ksf x 9 = 17.35 kip
as little oxygen is present and the ions that are present in solu-
Qt = SQh = 11.95 + 17.35 = 29.3 kip tion are not washed away due to flowing water or fluctuating
water level. In the absence of soil data, a useful guide is to
STANDARD HELIX SIZES, TABLE 8-1 observe the use of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) by the local
DIAMETER in (cm) AREA ft2 (m2) Department of Transportation (DOT). If the DOT uses CMP, the
6 (15) 0.185 (0.0172) likelihood is that the local soils are not very aggressive.
8 (20) 0.336 (0.0312)

10 (25) 0.531 (0.0493) STEP 8: PRODUCT SELECTION
12 (30) 0.771 (0.0716) Ultimate capacity for a 10”-12” configuration per Step 4 above
14 (35) 1.049 (0.0974) was 29 kip, and the ultimate capacity for a 10”-12”-14” config-
uration was 53 kip. Table 8-2 shows that both Chance® Type
Another trial is required because the total ultimate capacity (Qt SS5 and Type RS2875.276 product series can be used, since
= 29.3 kip) is less than required. Try a three-helix configuration 53 kip is within their allowable load range. Note that Table 8-2
(10”-12”-14”) with a minimum of 5’-0 embedded in the bearing assumes a Kt of 10 ft-1 for the Type SS product series and Kt of
stratum. From Table 8-1, the helix area of a 14” helix is 151 in2 9 ft-1 for the Type RS2875 product series. In this case, use the
or 1.05 ft2. Type SS5 product series because shaft buckling is not a practi-
EQUATION 8-18 cal concern and the required capacity can be achieved with
less installation torque.
Q14 = 1.05 ft2 x 2.5 ksf x 9 = 23.63 kip
Qt = SQh = 11.95 + 17.35 + 23.63 = 52.93 kip
To achieve the necessary Factor of Safety of 2, two helical piles
with a 10”-12” helical configuration can be used under the inte-
rior columns (29.3 x 2 = 58.6 @ 59 kip 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
HeliCAP SUMMARY REPORT
Job Name: Design Manual for New Construction
Job Number: Example 4
Boring No: B-1
Anchor Use: Compression Water Table Depth: None
Capacity Summary
DESIGN EXAMPLES
HELICAP® SOFTWARE SUMMARY REPORT

FIGURE 8-2
PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR FOUNDATION should have the right to load test the helical pile to determine
SELECTION, TABLE 8-2 if Kt is greater than 10 ft-1. Verification testing is often done in
ULTIMATE tension since it’s simpler and less costly to do than compres-
DESIGN LOAD2 HELICAL PILE
INSTALLATION LOAD1 sion testing, and the compressive capacity is generally higher
PRODUCT
TORQUE than tension capacity, which results in a conservative site-spe-
kip kN kip kN SERIES
cific Kt value.
5,500 55 244 27.5 110 SS5
Estimate installing torque for field production control and
5,500 49.5 202 24.75 110 RS2875.203
specifying the minimum allowable without testing.
7,000 70 312 35 156 SS150
EQUATION 8-19
8,000 72 320 36 160 RS2875.276
1 Based on a torque factor K = 10 for SS series and K = 9 for RS2875
t t Qult = KtT, or T = Qult/Kt
series.
2 Based on a Factor of Safety of 2. where
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Qult = UCr in this example
Interior columns: T = Qult/Kt = (58,000 lb/2 piles)/10 ft-1 =
For the 10”-12” configuration, the minimum depth of 18’-0 can
2,900 ft∙lb ≅ 3,000 ft∙lb for the minimum average torque tak-
be achieved by using a lead section, which is the first pile seg-
en over the last three readings.
ment installed and includes the helix plates, followed by two
or three plain extensions. For the 10”-12”-14” configuration, the Perimeter grade beam: T = Qult/Kt = 48,000 lb/10 ft-1 =
minimum depth of 21’-0 can be achieved by using a lead sec- 4,800 ft∙lb for the minimum average torque taken over the
tion followed by three or four plain extensions. The exact cata- last three readings.
log items to use for a specific project are usually the domain of
Note that the torque rating for the Chance Type SS5 product
the contractor. Your Certified Chance Installer is familiar with
series is 5,700 ft∙lb – OK.
the standard catalog items and is best able to determine which
ones to use based on availability and project constraints. For
your reference, helical piles with product descriptions are pro- STEP 10: PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
vided in Section 7 of this manual. See Section 7, Product Drawings and Ratings and Appendix C
The head of the helical pile is to be approximately 1’-0 below for Hubbell model specifications.
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
STEP 11: LOAD TEST
three-helix pile tip 21’-0. These are minimum depths, required
to locate the helix plates at least 5’-0 into the bearing stratum. Since this is a small project with low loads in “normal” soils, it is
On large projects, it is advisable to add 3% to 5% extra ex- acceptable to use the torque correlation method as the driving
tensions in case the soil borings vary considerably or if widely criteria and omit the “optional” load test.
spaced borings fail to indicate differences in bearing depths.
STEP 9: FIELD PRODUCTION CONTROL

Use Kt = 10 ft-1 for Chance® Type SS material if verification test-
ing 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
DESIGN EXAMPLE 5: HELICAL PULLDOWN
MICROPILES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
PROBLEM REVIEW OF COMPRESSION TEST
Determine the capacity of the following Chance® Helical Figure 8-3 is a load deflection plot from the actual compression
Pulldown® micropile (HPM) installed into the soil described in test on the HPM installed into the soil described in Figure 8-4.
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
SS5 1-1/2” x 1-1/2” square shaft
of 66.8 kip. This calculated value provides a conservative ap-
Helix configuration: 8”-10”-12”
proach to determining the ultimate capacity of an HPM.
Total depth: 40 ft
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Grout column: 5” dia x 31 ft
CALCULATIONS
End bearing calculations from the HeliCAP® engineering soft-
ware. See Table 8-3 below for the ultimate end bearing capac-
ity 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
HELICAP SOFTWARE SUMMARY REPORT, TABLE 8-3
FRICTION CALCULATION (SEE SOIL BORING LOG IN FIGURE
8-4), TABLE 8-4
ESTIMATED EFFECTIVE
AVERAGE ADHESION/ SIDE
DEPTH UNIT
SOIL “N” COHESION OVERBURDEN FRICTION FRICTION
(ft)
(lb/ft2) j WEIGHT
(lb/ft3)
(lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) (lb)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
0 -9 Clay 6 750 - 92 - 682 8040
9 - 15 Clay 2 250 - 84 - 250 1965
15 - 18 Clay 1 125 - 20 - 125 491
18 - 22 Sand 5 - 29 23 1438 798 3192
22 - 28 Clay 7 875 - 32 - 682 5364
28 - 31 Sand 8 - 30 38 1733 1001 3003
TOTAL 22055
Notes: (1) j = 0.28N + 27.4 (2) c = (N x 1000) / 8 (3) Area/ft of pile = p x d = p (5/12) = 1.31ft2/ft
HELICAL PULLDOWN® MICROPILE COMPRESSION TEST

FIGURE 8-3
DESIGN EXAMPLES
SOIL BORING LOG

FIGURE 8-4
(SHEET 1 OF 2)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
SOIL BORING LOG

FIGURE 8-4
(SHEET 2 OF 2)
DESIGN EXAMPLE 6: HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS
SOILS STRUCTURAL LOADS
A helical pile foundation is proposed to support a pedestrian • The dead and live vertical load is 100 lb/ft2 (4.8 kN/m2).
walkway. The soil profile consists of 7’-0 (2.1 m) of very soft clay Lateral loads are negligible.
with a reported Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count
• The required compression load per helical pile (Pw) is 100
“N” equal to weight of hammer (WOH) and a unit weight of
lb/ft2 x 7’-0 x 10’-0 = 7000 lb/2 helical piles = 3500 lb (15.6
65 lb/ft3 (10.2 kN/m3). Below the very soft clay is a thick layer
kN) per pile.
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 • Using a Factor of Safety (FS) of 2, the required ultimate
(16.8 kN/m3). The water table is located at the surface. The pro- capacity (UCr) per helical pile is 3500 lb x 2 = 7000 lb
DESIGN EXAMPLES
posed helical pile is connected to the walkway with a Chance® (31.1 kN).
Walkway Support Bracket. The helical piles must be checked
for lateral stability in the very soft clay. CHANCE HELICAL PILE SELECTION
• Try a twin-helix configuration with 10” (254 mm) and 12”
WALKWAY (305 mm) diameters.
• The helical piles are spaced 5 ft (1.5 m) apart and are ex- • Try either Type SS5 1-1/2” (38 mm) Square Shaft or Type
posed 2 ft (0.61 m) above grade as shown in Figure 8-5. RS2875.203 2-7/8” (73 mm) Round Shaft material.
• The walkway is 7 ft (2.1 m) wide; each pile group or “bent”
is spaced 10’-0 apart. 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-
7 ft (2.1 m) dense sand starting 7 ft (2.1 m) below grade. The spacing be-
tween 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)
100 lb/ft2 (4.8 kN/m)
+ 2.5 ft + 0.5 ft = 13 ft (4 m). The effective unit weight is the
Dead load and Live load
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 = ADg’Nq
2 ft
(0.61 m)
Above where
Grade
Qh = Ultimate capacity of helix plate
A = Projected area of helix plate
Very Soft Clay 0-7 ft (2.1m)
SPT N=WOH
D = Vertical depth to helix plate
Cohesion = 0 g’ = Effective unit weight of soil = 2.6 lb/ft3 (0.4 kN/
Unit weight = 65 pcf
m3) for the very soft clay and 44.6 lb/ft3 (7.1 kN/
(10.2 kN/m3)
m3) for the medium-dense sand
15.5 ft
(4.7 m) Nq = Bearing capacity factor for cohesionless soils =
5 ft (1.5 m) Spacing
Below 17 for 32° sand
Grade Medium-Dense Sand 7+ ft (2.1+m)
SPT N=17
Friction Angle = 32° For a 10”-12” configuration, the bearing capacity equation is:
Unit weight = 107 pcf (17 kN/m3)
EQUATION 8-21
SQh = A10D10g’Nq + A12D12g’Nq
SQh = 0.531 ft2[(7 ft x 2.6 lb/ft3) + (5.5 ft x 44.6 lb/
ft3)]17 + 0.771 ft2[(7 ft x 2.6 lb/ft3) + (3 ft x 44.6
HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS lb/ft3)]17
FIGURE 8-5 SQh = 4371 lb (19.4 kN)
4371 lb is less than the required ultimate capacity (7000 lb) Pcrit = p2 [30 x 106 lb/in2 ][.396 in4]/[2 x 108 in]2
needed for the vertical piles. Greater capacity can be obtained Pcrit = 2513 lb (11.2 kN)
by extending the helix plates deeper into the medium-dense
The critical load for the Type SS5 series is less than the required
sand. Try extending the pile length 3 ft (0.9 m) deeper so that
7000 lb (31.1 kN) ultimate capacity, so a shaft with greater stiff-
the tip is 16 ft (4.9 m).
ness is required.
EQUATION 8-22
SQh = 0.531 ft2[(7 ft x 2.6lb/ft3) + (8.5 ft x 44.6 lb/ft3)]17 FOR TYPE RS2875.203 PIPE SHAFT MATERIAL:
+ 0.771 ft [(7 ft x 2.6 lb/ft ) + (6 ft x 44.6 lb/ft3)]17
2 3
EQUATION 8-24
SQh = 7332 lb (32.6 kN)
Pcrit = p2[30x106 lb/in2 ][1.53 in4]/[2 x 108 in]2
7332 lb is greater than the required ultimate capacity needed
for the vertical piles, so 16 ft (4.9 m) pile length will work. Pcrit = 9710 lb (42.2 kN)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
The critical load for Type RS2875.203 pipe shaft is greater
BUCKLING 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).
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
TORQUE
with 2 ft (0.61 m) of exposed shaft above grade. Assume a free-
fixed (K = 2) end-condition. Assume the very soft clay provides EQUATION 8-25
no lateral support, i.e., the pile shaft is unsupported above the
Torque required = Required ultimate capacity/Kt
sand, so the unsupported (effective) length (Lu) of the “col-
where
umn” is 2 ft + 7 ft = 9 ft (2.7 m).
Kt = 9 (26) for RS2875 round shaft
FOR TYPE SS5 SQUARE SHAFT MATERIAL: Torque required = 7000 lb / 9
Torque required = 778 ft∙lb (1186 N∙m)
EQUATION 8-23
The torque strength rating for building code evaluated
Euler’s Equation: Pcrit = p2EI/[KLu]2
RS2875.203 material is 6,710 ft∙lb (9,100 N∙m) - OK.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 7: HELICAL PILES FOR

BOARDWALKS WITH LATERAL SUPPORT
A Chance® Type SS5 helical pile is proposed as the foundation CHANCE HELICAL PILE SELECTION:
for a pedestrian walkway. The pile is connected to the walkway
• Try a Type SS5 square shaft with a 12” (305 mm) diameter
with a Chance Walkway Support Bracket with lateral support.
helix.
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
ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY:
unit weight of 92 lb/ft3 (14 kN/m3). The ground water table
(GWT) is 15 ft (4.5 m) below grade. The pile depth needs to be at least 5 diameters into the soft to
medium clay layer. Therefore the vertical pile length should be
WALKWAY: at least 5 ft (1.5 m) below grade.
• The piles are spaced 5 ft (1.5 m) apart and are exposed 2 ft EQUATION 8-26
(0.61 m) above grade. Qt = AcNc
• The walkway is 7 ft (2.1 m) wide and pier sets are 5 ft (1.5 Qt = [.771 ft2][750 psf][9]
m) apart. = 5,204 lb (23 kN)
• The battered pile is at an angle of 22°. where
A = Projected area of helical plates
STRUCTURAL LOADS: c = Cohesion of soil
• Using a Factor of Safety (FS) of 2, the required ultimate Nc = Bearing capacity
capacity (UCr) per vertical pile is 4550 lb (20 kN). 5,204 lb is greater than UCr for the vertical pile. The battered
• Using a Factor of Safety of 2, the required ultimate capac- pile depth needs to be at least 5 diameters below grade.
ity (UCr) per battered pile is 2646 lb (12 kN). Therefore the battered pile length should be 6 ft (1.8 m) below
grade.
BUCKLING:
7 ft (2.1 m)
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.
EULER’S EQUATION:
EQUATION 8-27
60 psf (143 Pa)
Dead load and Live load Pcrit = p2EI/[KLu]2
Pcrit = p [30x106][.396]/[1 x 24] 2
2
Pcrit = 203,354 lb (904 kN)

DESIGN EXAMPLES
500 lb The critical load is greater than the ultimate vertical load so
(2.22 kN)
Wind load buckling is not a concern.
2 ft
(0.61 m)
Above TORQUE:
Grade
22° EQUATION 8-28
Torque required = Required load/Kt
Soft to Medium Clay
SPT N=6
where
Cohesion = 750 psf Kt = 10 (33) for square shaft
15 ft (36 kN/m2)
(4.5 m) Unit weight = 92 pcf Torque required = 5,204 lb / 10
(14 kN/m3)
Torque required = 520 ft∙lb (705 N∙m)
5 ft (1.5 m) Spacing This does not exceed the SS5 torque rating of 5,700 ft∙lb (7,730
N∙m).
HELICAL PILES FOR BOARDWALKS WITH

LATERAL SUPPORT, FIGURE 8-6
DESIGN EXAMPLE 8: HELICAL TIEBACK ANCHORS IN CLAY

STRUCTURE TYPE
FP
• Cast concrete retaining wall A
• Height (H) = 18 ft, thickness = 2’-0 nH
• nH = 0.25H = 4.5 ft, mH = 0.63H = 11.3 ft TIA

mH 5(TH
D) TH
D
• Residual soils: stiff clay with N = 28. No ground water ta-
ble (GWT) present. H DLN
5(TH
D)
• Tieback installation angle = 15°
Structural Design Loads (See Figure 4-6 in Section 4) AFPA
• DLN/ft = (12 x H2) / cos(15°)
• DLN/ft = (12 x 182)/ cos(15°) TH DLM
D
• DLN/ft = 4,025 lb/lin ft

Tieback Installation Angle (TIA)
• DLM/ft = (18 x H2) / cos(15°) Top Helix Diameter (THD)
Assumed Failure Plane (AFP)
• DLM/ft = (18 x 182)/ cos(15°) Assumed Failure Plane Angle (AFPA)
• DLM/ft = 6,040 lb/lin ft

HELICAL TIEBACK ANCHOR
FIGURE 8-7
CHANCE® HELICAL ANCHOR SELECTION TIEBACK SPACING
• Wall height ≥ 15 ft; use two rows of tiebacks SpacingN = (QtN / FS) / DLN = (51,600 / 2) / (4,025) = 6.4 ft
• Try Type SS150 series, C1500169 (8”-10”-12” lead) for DLN. SpacingM = (QtM / FS) / DLM = (84,640 / 2) / (6,040) = 7.0 ft
(use 6’-6” center to center spacing for both rows of tiebacks)
• Try Type SS175 series, C1100247 (8”-10”-12”-14” lead) for
DLM. where FS = 2.0
ESTIMATE INSTALLATION TORQUE

ULTIMATE TENSION CAPACITY (USING BEARING CAPACITY
APPROACH) EQUATION 8-31
EQUATION 8-29 T = (DL x Spacing x FS) / Kt
QtN = ( A8 + A10 + A12 ) x (c Nc) TN = (DLN x SpacingN x FS) / Kt
DESIGN EXAMPLES
QtN = (0.336 + 0.531 + 0.771) x 3,500 x 9 = (4,025 x 6.5 x 2) / 10 = 5,300 ft∙lb
QtN = 51,600 lb TM = (DLM x SpacingM x FS) / Kt
where = (6,040 x 6.5 x 2) / 10 = 7,850 ft∙lb
A8, A10, A12 = Projected area of helical plates (8”,10”, and 12”) where
Nc = Bearing capacity factor related to the residual Kt = Empirical torque factor (default value = 10 for
soil, clay Type SS series)
A8 = 0.336 ft2
CHECK INSTALLATION TORQUE RATINGS
A10 = 0.531 ft2
The rated installation torque of the Type SS150 series is 7,000
A12 = 0.771 ft2
ft∙lb, which is greater than the required installation torque (TN)
Nc = 9
of 5,300 ft∙lb.
c = N / 8 = 28 / 8 = 3.5 ksf or 3,500 psf
(see Equation 5-41)
ft∙lb, which is greater than the required installation torque (TM)

of 7,850 ft∙lb.
EQUATION 8-30
QtM = ( A8 + A10 + A12 + A14 ) x (cNc)
MINIMUM TIEBACK LENGTH
QtM = (0.336 + 0.531 + 0.771+ 1.049) x 3,500 x 9
QtM = 84,640 lb
helix must be at least 5 x its diameter or 5’-0. The distance
where
from the assumed “active” failure plane to the 14” helix must
A8, A10, A12, A14 = Projected area of helical plates (8”,10”,12”, be at least 5 x its diameter or 6’-0. Both the minimum length
and 14”) and estimated installation torque must be satisfied prior to the
A14 = 1.049 ft2 termination of tieback installation.
CHECK ULTIMATE ANCHOR CAPACITY (TU)

Compare QtN and QtM to field load tension tests if required by
specifications.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 9: HELICAL TIEBACK ANCHORS IN SAND

STRUCTURE TYPE • Ka = (1 - sin(j)) / (1 + sin(j)) = 0.27
• Cast concrete retaining wall • DL/ft = (1/2 g H2 Ka) / cos(25°)
• Granular backfill for wall j = 35° g = 120 pcf • = [1/2 (120) (15)2 (0.27)] / cos(25°)
• Height = 15 ft, thickness =1-1/2 ft • = 4,000 lb/lin ft
• Anchor Height = H/3 = 5 ft • Assume tieback carries 80%; therefore,
DLt /ft = 0.80 x 4,000 = 3,200 lb/lin ft
• Residual soils: silty coarse sand; medium to dense j = 31°
g = 118 pcf. No ground water table present.
CHANCE HELICAL ANCHOR SELECTION
• Tieback installation angle = 25°
• Wall height ≤ 15 ft; use single row of tiebacks
STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADS • Try Type SS5 series, C1500007 (8”-10”-12” Lead)
• Use backfill j = 35°
ULTIMATE TENSION CAPACITY (USING BEARING CAPACITY
APPROACH) 1 ½’
EQUATION 8-32
Qt = ( A8 x q8 + A10 x q10 + A12 x q12) x (Nq)
⅓ H = 5’
A8, A10, A12 = Projected area of helical plates (8”, 10” and 12”)
Nq = Bearing capacity factor related to j of residual soil
(31°) 25°
10’ Dia
A8 = 0.336 ft2 H = 15’ 8’ Dia
A10 = 0.531 ft2

12’ Dia
A12 = 0.771 ft2
L = 25’
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Nq = 15 (from Equation 5-20)

qh = g x Dh (depth of helix below ground line, ft)
q8 = 118 pcf (5’ + 25’ sin(25°)) = 1836 psf
q10 = 118 pcf (5’ + 23’ sin(25°)) = 1736 psf D = 2’
q12 = 118 pcf (5’ + 20.5’ sin(25°)) = 1612 psf
6’
Qt = [(0.336 x 1836) + (0.531 x 1736) + (0.771 x 1612)] x 15
Qt = 41,725 lb HELICAL TIEBACK ANCHOR
FIGURE 8-8
CHECK ULTIMATE ANCHOR CAPACITY (TU)
Compare Qt to field load tension tests if required by SOIL BORING LOG
specifications. USCS SPT - N
Graphic Log Soil Classification Depth
Symbol Blows/ft
TIEBACK SPACING
Topsoil OH
EQUATION 8-33
SpacingN = (Qt / FS) / DLt 5 17
= (41,725 / 2) / (3,200) = 6.5 ft Silty Sand SM

(use 6’-6 center to center spacing)
where FS = 2.0
10 30
ESTIMATE INSTALLATION TORQUE

EQUATION 8-34
Silty Coarse Sand
T = (DLt x Spacing x FS) / Kt g = 118 pcf 15 SM 32
ϕ = 31°
= (3,200 x 6.5 x 2.0) / 10
= 4,200 ft∙lb
where
20 34
Kt = Empirical torque factor (default value = 10 for
Type SS series) SOIL BORING LOG
FIGURE 8-9
CHECK INSTALLATION TORQUE RATINGS
ft∙lb, which is greater than the required installation torque (T)
of 4,200 ft∙lb.
MINIMUM TIEBACK LENGTH

helix must be at least 5 times its diameter or 5’-0. Both the
minimum length and estimated installation torque must be sat-
isfied prior to the termination of tieback installation.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 10: SOIL SCREW RETENTION WALL SYSTEM
PROBLEM
Determine the Soil Screw anchor spacing (SV, SH), Soil Screw® q = 100 psf
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
φ = 30°
is 1.5, and for global stability is 1.3. γ = 120 pcf
c=0
STEP 1 - DEFINE DESIGN PARAMETERS Allowable bearing capacity = 4000 psf
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Given: The unit weight (g) and friction angle (j) of the silty
sand is 120 pcf and 30° respectively. The allowable bearing ca-
pacity of the silty sand at the bottom of the excavation is 4000
psf. The electrochemical properties of the silty sand are listed
EXCAVATION PROFILE
below:
FIGURE 8-10
Resistivity 4000 W-cm
pH 7
Chlorides 50 ppm
Sulfates 100 ppm 30
SVSH = 36
A design live surcharge load of 100 psf is considered to be ap- Anchor Length, L (ft) 25
plied uniformly across the ground surface at the top of the wall. ϕ=30˚ SVSH = 25
20
The wall face is vertical. Groundwater is located 60 feet below
the ground surface. 15 SVSH = 16
Chance® Type SS5 Helical Soil Screw anchors, for which lead 10
sections and extensions are available in 5’ and 7’ lengths, are
to be used for the Soil Screw anchors. The design life of the 5
structure is one year. Design Soil Screw anchor lengths will be 0

governed by the lead and extension pieces and thus will be 10’, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
12’, 14’, 15’, 17’, 19’, etc. Wall Height, H (ft)
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CHART

STEP 2 - CHECK THE PRELIMINARY FIGURE 8-11
FEASIBILITY OF THE SOIL SCREW
RETENTION WALL SYSTEM
The medium dense, silty sands at this site are well suited for EQUATION 8-35
the Soil Screw retention wall system (i.e., good stand up time).
The ground water table (GWT) is well below the bottom of the Ka = tan2[45 - (j/2)]
excavation. The conditions at the site are therefore favorable Ka = tan2[45 - (30/2)]
for the Soil Screw retention wall system. = 0.33
Design charts are used to determine preliminary Soil Screw
anchor spacing and lengths for the given wall geometry, load- STEP 4 - CHECK PRELIMINARY
ing and soil conditions. For the soil conditions, j = 30°, enter SOIL SCREW ANCHOR LENGTH
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
WITH RESPECT TO SLIDING
soils with “good” stand up time is 5 ft x 5 ft Therefore, use the Available Soil Screw anchor lengths for Chance Type SS5 an-
SVSH = 25 curve to determine the preliminary Soil Screw anchor chors are 10’, 12’, 14’, 15’, 17’, 19’, etc. The 16 foot preliminary
length (L) = 16 ft. 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 pre-
STEP 3 - DETERMINE EXTERNAL liminary designs for walls with the given soil and loading condi-
EARTH PRESSURES tions, a length to height ratio of 0.8 to 1.0 is a starting point for
Use Equation 8-35 to determine the active earth pressure (Ka) the analysis and appears to be conservative.
at the back of the reinforced soil mass. The horizontal force from the retained soil (F1) is determined
using Equation 8-36.
EQUATION 8-36 STEP 6 - DETERMINE THE ALLOWABLE
F1 = 1/2 Ka g H2 HELICAL ANCHOR STRENGTH
F1 = 1/2 (0.33) (120) 232 = 10474 lb/lf of wall
The horizontal force from the surcharge load (F2) is deter- ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRENGTH OF TYPE SS5 HELICAL
mined using Equation 8-37. ANCHOR (SERVICE LIFE = 75 YEARS), TABLE 8-5
EQUATION 8-37 ALLOWABLE

ALLOWABLE
DESIGN
F2 = Ka qH Ta V
STRENGTH
DESIGN
75 yrs 75 yrs STRENGTH
= 0.33 (100) 23 = 759 lb/lf of wall (TEMPORARY
(kip) (kip) 75 yrs
STRUCTURES)
Using 19’ Soil Screw® anchors installed at a 15° angle, the hori- (kip)
(kip)
zontal length (LX) of the Soil Screw anchor is determined using
DESIGN EXAMPLES
50 37 45 37
Equation 8-38.
EQUATION 8-38
Lx = L cos(15°) The Soil Screw Anchor wall is a temporary structure with a
design life of one year. From Table 8-5, the allowable design
Lx = 19 cos(15°) = 18.4 ft
strength of the Chance® SS5 anchor is 45 kip. This table is
The Factor of Safety against sliding is determined using based on the following electrochemical properties of soil:
Equation 8-39.
Resistivity: >3000 W-cm
EQUATION 8-39
pH: >5 <10
g HLx tan(j)
FS = Chlorides: 100 ppm
F1 + F2
Sulfates: 200 ppm
120 (23) 18.4 tan(30)
= Organic content: 1% max
10474 + 759
FS = 2.61
STEP 5 - CHECK REQUIRED BEARING

100
CAPACITY AT THE BASE OF THE WALL
Determine the eccentricity (e) of the resultant vertical force 90
80
EQUATION 8-40
70
e = [F1 (H/3)] + [F2 (H/2)]
gHLx
60
Nq Values
= [10474 (23/3)] + [759 (23/2)] 50

120 (23) 18.4
40
= 1.75 < (Lx/6) = (18.4/6) = 3.06
The vertical stress (sv) of the bottom of the wall is determined 30
EQUATION 8-41 20
sv = gHLx + qLx 10
Lx - 2e
= 120 (23) 18.4 + 100 (18.4) 0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
18.4 - 2 (1.75)
Angle of Internal Friction φ
= 3532 psf
BEARING CAPACITY FACTOR Nq VS
Given the allowable bearing capacity (Qallow) is 4000 psf:
SOIL FRICTION ANGLE φ
EQUATION 8-42 FIGURE 8-12
Qallow = 4000 psf > sv = 3532 psf
EQUATION 8-45
3’ Helical
Anchor y = L sin(q)
Level
= 19 sin(15°)
1
5’ = 4.9 ft
2 where
5’
23’ L = Length of Soil Screw anchor
3 q = Installation angle (from horizontal)
5’
Average Overburden Depth = 3 + (y/2) = 5.5 ft at Level 1
4 PLEVEL1 = 8 (0.34) 5.5 (120) 14 = 25 kip
5’
PLEVEL2 = 8 (0.34) 10.5 (120) 14 = 48 kip
DESIGN EXAMPLES
PLEVEL3 = 8 (0.34) 15.5 (120) 14 = 71 kip
HELICAL ANCHOR LEVELS PLEVEL4 = 8 (0.34) 20.5 (120) 14 = 94 kip
FIGURE 8-13
STEP 8 - DEFINE A TRIAL
FACING SYSTEM
STEP 7 - ESTIMATE THE Try a 4” thick, 4000 psi shotcrete face with 6 x 6, W2.9 x W2.9
TENSION CAPACITY OF THE welded wire mesh reinforcing and two #4 vertical rebars at the
SOIL SCREW® ANCHORS helical anchor locations. Try a helical anchor spacing of 5 feet
vertically and horizontally and an 8” square by 3/4” thick bear-
Determine the bearing capacity factor (Nq) for helical anchors ing plate with a steel yield stress of 36 ksi.
for a sand with an effective friction angle, j = 30°. From Figure
8-12, Nq = 14. Assumed vertical spacing is 5 feet (see Figure
8-13). Nail pattern is as shown in Figure 8-13. There are eight STEP 9 - DETERMINE THE ALLOWABLE
helices per anchor, as shown in Figure 8-14. FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF THE FACING
The ultimate tension capacity (P) of the helical Soil Screw an- For typical helical anchor wall construction practice, the facing
chor at Level 1 is determined using Equation 8-43. is analyzed using vertical strips of width equal to the horizon-
tal anchor spacing. For facing systems involving horizontal nail
EQUATION 8-43
spacings that are larger than the vertical spacing or unit hori-
8 zontal moment capacities that are less than the vertical unit
P = ∑ A iq iN q moment capacities, horizontal strips of width equal to the ver-
i = 1 tical anchor spacing should be used.
The area of steel (As) for a vertical beam of width 5 feet (SH =
Helical anchors have 8” diameter helixes. The helix area (A) can 5 feet) with the anchor on the beam’s centerline is determined
be calculated using Equation 8-44. using Equation 8-46. Diameter (d) of the welded fabric wire is
EQUATION 8-44 0.192”. Diameter (D) of the rebar is 0.500”. For a 5 foot wide
vertical beam centered between the anchors, the rebars are
A= p(0.33)2
located at the beam edges and should be ignored. As is calcu-
= 0.336 ft2 (use 0.34 ft2) lated using Equation 8-47. The corresponding average nominal
The ultimate tension capacities for the helical anchors at the unit moment resistances are determined using Equation 8-48.
various levels are determined using Equation 8-45.
HELICAL ANCHOR HELIX SPACING

FIGURE 8-14
6” 6” 6” STEP 10 - DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM
HELICAL ANCHOR HEAD LOAD
W2.9 x W2.9 Determine the maximum helical anchor head load that will
Welded Wire
produce the allowable moments determined in Step 9 using
Mesh 6”
Equation 8-49. Using Table 8-6, determine the facing pressure
factor (CF) for temporary shotcrete facing 4” thick.
6” EQUATION 8-49
TFN, flexure = CF (mv,neg + mv,pos) 8 (SH/SV)
TFN, flexure = 2.0 (1.30 + 0.57) 8 (5 ft/5 ft) = 29.8 kip
6”
FACING PRESSURE FACTOR, TABLE 8-6
DESIGN EXAMPLES
NOMINAL FACING TEMPORARY

PERMANENT FACING
THICKNESS FACING
CF
12” (in) CF
4 2.0 1.0
WELDED WIRE MESH
FIGURE 8-15 6 1.5 1.0
8 1.0 1.0
EQUATION 8-46
STEP 11 - DETERMINE THE
πd2 πD2 ALLOWABLE PUNCHING SHEAR
STRENGTH OF THE FACING
π π
The punching shear strength (VN) is determined using Equation
8-50.
EQUATION 8-50
EQUATION 8-47
VN = 0.125 √f’c (p)(D’c)(hc)
πd2 VN = 0.125 √4(p)(12)(4) = 38 kip

where
f’c = 4,000 psi = 4 ksi
hc = 4 in
D’c = 8 + 4 = 12 in
STEP 12 - DETERMINE CRITICAL

EQUATION 8-48 HELICAL ANCHOR HEAD
LOAD FOR PUNCHING
Determine the critical helical anchor head load (TFN) for punch-
ing using Equation 8-51.
EQUATION 8-51
TFN, punching = VN = 38 kip
STEP 13 - CONSTRUCT SOIL SCREW®

= 1.30k in/in
ANCHOR STRENGTH ENVELOPE
= 1.30k ft/ft
Construct the strength envelope at each anchor level as
shown in Figure 8-16. At the wall face, the anchor head flex-
ural 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
= 566 ft/ft
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
45 Allowable Nail Strength 45 Allowable Nail Strength
40 Punching Limit 40 Punching Limit
35 35
Nail Strength (kip)
Nail Strength (kip)

30 Flexural Limit 30 Flexural Limit
25 25
20 20
15 15 Anchor 2
10 Anchor 1 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Distance Along Nail Behind Wall Face (ft) Distance Along Nail Behind Wall Face (ft)
Level 1
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Level 2
Allowable Nail Strength Allowable Nail Strength

45 45
40 Punching Limit 40 Punching Limit
35
Nail Strength (kip)
35
Nail Strength (kip)

Flexural Limit Flexural Limit
30 30
25 25
20 Anchor 3 20 Anchor 4
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Distance Along Nail Behind Wall Face (ft) Distance Along Nail Behind Wall Face (ft)
Level 3 Level 4
ANCHOR PULLOUT LIMITS

FIGURE 8-16
look like that shown for Anchor 1. If the pullout envelope work- STEP 15 - CHECK GLOBAL STABILITY
ing from the back of the nail exceeds the flexural limit, then
construct a pullout envelope working from the flexural limit at Analysis was performed for the given slope geometry by
the head of the nail. 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
STEP 14 - EVALUATE INTERNAL Global Factor of Safety (FSglobal) = 1.93. Refer to Attachment
AND COMPOUND STABILITY EX2 in the Chance Soil Screw Retention Wall System Design
Manual for printout results of this global stability analysis.
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. STEP 16 - CHECK CANTILEVER
Refer to Attachment EX1 in the Chance® Soil Screw® Retention AT TOP OF WALL
Wall System Design Manual for printout result of this stability
analysis. The following discussion is based on these results. 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 mo-
The anchor strength envelope developed in Step 13 needs to be ment (Mc) using Equation 8-52.
modified for GoldNail. The increase in pullout capacity along
the length of the nail is estimated for GoldNail as straight lines, EQUATION 8-52
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.
= 326.7 ft∙lb/ft
Allowable Nail Strength
45
40 Punching Limit
35
Flexural Limit
30
25
Anchor 2
20 Pullout Limit
DESIGN EXAMPLES
15
10
GoldNail Strength Envelope
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Distance Along Nail Behind Wall Face (ft)
GOLDNAIL STRENGTH ENVELOPE

FIGURE 8-17
Maximum allowable moment at midspan (Step 9) is Determine allowable shear using Equation 8-55
566 ft∙lb/ft, therefore:
EQUATION 8-55
EQUATION 8-53
VN = 0.125 √f’c hc
FSMc = (566 / 327) = 1.73 OK
= 0.125 √4 (4) = 1000 lb/lf
Check shear force at cantilever (Sc) using Equation 8-54.
Sc 2
= Ka [g (H1 / 2) + qH1] FSshear = (1000 / 277) = 3.6 OK
= 0.33 [ 120 (32 / 2) + 100 (3) ]
= 277 lb/ft
DESIGN EXAMPLE 11: HELICAL PILES/ANCHORS

FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS
PURPOSE mast. These loads will generally be composed of a vertical load
and a lateral load at the base of the mast or pole.
This Design Example provides an aid in the selection of appro-
priate helical guywire anchors and center mast helical piles for If the structure is a self supporting tower (SST), the loads from
telecommunication towers. each leg of the tower must be resisted. These generally consist
of vertical uplift and compression loads and a horizontal shear
The guywire loads are to be resisted by a helical tension anchor.
load at the ground line. These three loads can be dealt with in a
When the vertical and horizontal components are provided the
number of ways. Typically one or more helical piles are used for
resultant must be determined as well as the angle between the
each leg of the tower and may be installed at a batter to better
resultant load and the horizontal, (this is the angle the heli-
resist the horizontal shear loads. Steel grillages and reinforced
cal anchor should be installed at to properly resist the guywire
concrete caps have been used to facilitate load transfer from
load(s)). There may be one or more guywires that come to the
the structure to the helical piles. This type design will not be
ground to be restrained by one or more helical anchors de-
covered in this design example since the intent is to focus on
pending on the magnitude of the load and/or the soil strength.
the guyed mast tower structure.
Helical piles can be used to resist the loads from the 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
DESIGN EXAMPLES
• Vertical load component = 16.6 kip
• Horizontal load component = 17.9 kip
• Tension in the upper guywire anchor =
Tug = (16.62 + 17.92)0.5 = 24.4 kip
• Helical guywire anchor installation angle =
IAug = tan-1 (16.6/17.9) = 43°
LOWER GUYWIRE LOADS

• Vertical load component: 7.9 kip PLAN
• Horizontal load component: 9.7 kip

• Tension in the lower guywire anchor =
Tlg = (7.92 + 9.72)0.5 = 12.5 kip
• Helical guywire anchor installation angle =
IAlg = tan-1 (7.9/9.7) = 39°
TOWER GUY ANCHOR AND FOUNDATION

MAST FOUNDATION LOADS FIGURE 8-18
• Compression (C) = 68.0 kip
• Horizontal shear (V) = 0.3 kip • Length: 45 ft (along the shaft at the 43° installation
angle)
SELECTING HELICAL • Recommended Ultimate Capacity (Ruc): 50.2 kip
GUYWIRE ANCHORS (tension)
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. HeliCAP® engineering software The Factor of Safety for this tension anchor is Ruc /Tug = 50.2
will be utilized to determine the appropriate helical anchor/pile / 24.4 = 2.05 > 2 (OK). Use this helical anchor at each of three
sizes for this tower. Soil conditions are shown in the Sample upper guywire anchor locations per tower.
Boring Log in Figure 8-19. The soil data and guywire anchor The required average minimum installation torque (T) is:
data was input into the HeliCAP engineering software to get an
EQUATION 8-57
appropriate output. The minimum acceptable Factor of Safety
(FS) = 2. T = (Tug x FS) / Kt
= (24,400 x 2.0) / 10
UPPER GUYWIRE HELICAL ANCHOR = 4,900 ft∙lb
The HeliCAP summary report for the upper guywire helical an- where
chor is shown in Figure 8-20. This report provides the following Kt = Empirical torque factor = 10 (default value for
information: Type SS5 series)
• Helical Anchor: SS5 (1.5” square shaft, 5,700 ft∙lb torque T = 4,900 ft∙lb is less than the rated torque (5,700
rating, 70 kip ultimate tension rating) ft∙lb) of the Type SS5 series. (OK).
• Lead Section: 4 helix (8”-10”-12”-14”)

• Installation Angle: 43°
• Datum Depth (depth below grade where installation
starts): 0 ft
LOWER GUYWIRE HELICAL ANCHOR 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
The HeliCAP® summary report for the lower guywire helical an-
base. The three helical piles must be captured in a “pile cap.”
chor is shown in Figure 8-21. This report provides the following
This may be a reinforced concrete cap, the design of which is
information:
beyond the scope of this design example. The design of this
• Helical Anchor: SS5 (1.5” square shaft, 5,700 ft∙lb torque concrete pile cap is left to the structural engineer.
rating, 70 kip ultimate tension rating)
EQUATION 8-59
T = (DL x FS) / Kt
• Installation Angle: 39°
= (22,700 x 2.0) / 10
• Datum Depth (depth below grade where installation = 4,500 ft∙lb
starts): 0 ft where
DESIGN EXAMPLES
• Length: 25 ft (along the shaft at the 39° installation Kt = Empirical torque factor = 10 (default value for
angle) Type SS175 series)
• Recommended Ultimate Capacity (Ruc): 26.6 kip T = 4,500 ft∙lb is less than the rated torque (10,500
(tension) ft∙lb) of the Type SS175 series. (OK).
The Factor of Safety for this tension anchor is Ruc / Tlg = 26.6
/ 12.5 = 2.12 > 2 (OK) Use this helical anchor at each of three
lower guywire anchor locations per tower.
EQUATION 8-58
T = (Tlg x FS) / Kt
= (12,500 x 2.0) / 10
= 2,500 ft∙lb
where
Kt = Empirical torque factor = 10 (default value for
Type SS5 series)
T = 2,500 ft∙lb is less than the rated torque (5,700
ft∙lb) of the Type SS5 series. (OK).
HELICAL PILE
Given:
• Compression Load = 68.0 kip
• Shear Load = 0.3 kip
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 = 22.67 kip ultimate/pile element.
Assume entire shear (0.3 kip) is taken by one battered pile.
Therefore, the resultant axial load (DL) to a battered pile is:
DL = (22.672 + 0.32)0.5 = 22.7 kip
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, 10,500 ft∙lb torque
rating, 100 kip ultimate tension rating)
• 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): 50.7 kip
(compression)
SAMPLE BORING LOG DESIGN EXAMPLES
FIGURE 8-19
DESIGN EXAMPLES
HELICAP® SOFTWARE SUMMARY REPORT FOR UPPER GUYWIRES

FIGURE 8-20
DESIGN EXAMPLES
HELICAP® SOFTWARE SUMMARY REPORT FOR LOWER GUYWIRES

FIGURE 8-21
DESIGN EXAMPLES
HELICAP® SOFTWARE SUMMARY REPORT FOR FOUNDATIONS
FIGURE 8-22
DESIGN EXAMPLE 12: HELICAL ANCHORS
FOR PIPELINE BUOYANCY CONTROL
PURPOSE
Sample Problem - Natural Gas Pipeline
This Design Example provides an aid in the selection of appro- Borehole BH-1
priate helical anchors for pipeline buoyancy control.
HeliCAP® Software Input Values
Depth Clay Cohesion Sand N-Value
ASSUMPTIONS Soil
(ft) (psf) (SPT)
• Pipe contents: Natural gas 0 7 Sand
DESIGN EXAMPLES
• Pipe Outside Diameter (OD): 42” 3 7 Sand
• Pipe Wall Thickness (TW): 0.938” 5 28 Sand

7 21 Sand
• Grade of Pipe: API 5L, Grade X65
10 30 Sand
• Minimum Yield Strength Of Pipe (Fy): 65,000 psi
12 21 Sand
• Pipe design pressure (Pd): 1,440 psi
13 60 Clay
• Maximum Operating Pressure (Pm): 1,440 psi 15 60 Clay
• Maximum Operating Temperature (Tm): 85° F 20 380 Clay
• Construction type design factor (F): 0.50 25 500 Clay
• Longitudinal joint factor (E): 1.0 30 250 Clay

35 460 Clay
• Temperature Factor (T): 1.0 (Tm < 250°F)
40 1250 Clay
• Coating: Fusion Bonded Epoxy
45 2000 Clay
• Density of coating (Dc): 70.0 pcf
50 1560 Clay
• Coating thickness (Tc): 16 mils 55 1250 Clay
• Pipeline placement: Land Based in Trench with 4’-0 of 60 2250 Clay
Cover above Top of Pipe
65 1320 Clay
• Backfill material: Loose, Poorly Graded Silty Sand 70 750 Clay
• Specific Gravity of Backfill Material: 1.44 75 750 Clay
• Density of backfill material (Db) = 1.44 x 62.4 pcf = 89.9

pcf (use 90.0 pcf) BOREHOLE BH-1 SAMPLE DATA
• Span between anchor sets: Simple Span with Pin-Pin Ends FIGURE 8-23
• Maximum vertical displacement at Mid-Span between

Anchor Sets = Ld/360
Allowable Span Length Required Ultimate
• Minimum Factor of Safety (FS) for Mechanical Strength Of Capacity
(per Anchor Set)
Hardware/Anchors = 2.0
• Minimum Factor of Safety (FS) for Anchor Soil Capacity
= 2.0 Net Buoyancy, Wn, is a uniformly distributed load.
• Soil data: As shown in Figure 8-23
SOLUTION
NET BUOYANCY (Wn)

Properties of pipe:
• Weight per linear foot (Wp):
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
FIGURE 8-24
Wp = [Ds x p x (42.02 - 40.1242)] / (4 x 144) Fb = Mmax/S
= [490.0 x p x (1764.0 - 1609.935)] / (576) where
= 411.74 plf Mmax = Maximum moment at mid-span between
• Moment of inertia (I) = 25515.8 in4 pipeline anchor sets
= (Wn x Lb2)/8
• Section modulus (S) = 0.7032 ft3
Lb = [(8 x S x Fb)/Wn]1/2
Properties of coating:
= [(8 x 0.7032 x 8255.6 x 144)/453.0]1/2
• Weight per linear foot (Wc): = 121.5 ft
EQUATION 8-61 Allowable Span Length (Ld) Based on Mid-Span Deflection
Wc = [Dc x p x (42.0322 - 42.02)] / (4 x 144)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
• Mid-span vertical displacement (Y) at center of span:

= [70.0 x p x (42.0322 - 42.02)] / (4 x 144) EQUATION 8-69
= 1.03 plf
Y = Ld/360
Buoyancy:
Ld/360 = (5 x Wn x Ld4) / (384 x E x I)
• Gross buoyancy (Wg): Ld = [(384 x E x I) / (360 x 5 x Wn)]1/3
EQUATION 8-62 Ld = [(384 x 29,000,000 x 25525.8/144) /
Wg = [Db x p x (42.0322/122)] /4 (360 x 5 x 453.0)]1/3
= [90.0 x p x (42.0322/122 / 4 Ld = 134.2 ft
= 865.8 plf Y = (134.2/360) x 12 = 4.5 in
• Net buoyancy (Wn):

ALLOWABLE SPAN LENGTH (LP) BASED ON THE
EQUATION 8-63 MECHANICAL STRENGTH OF PIPELINE BRACKET
Wn = Wg - Wp - Wc • Rated ultimate mechanical strength (UCp) of pipeline
= 865.8 - 411.74 - 1.03 bracket = 80,000 lb
= 453.03 plf (use 453.0 plf) • Rated mechanical working capacity (WCp) of pipeline
Allowable Span Length (Lb) Based on Bending Stress bracket (using FSm of 2.0):
• Maximum design pressure (P): EQUATION 8-70
EQUATION 8-64 WCp = UCp/FSm
P = [(2 x Fy x Tw)/OD] x F x E x T = 80,000/2
= [(2 x 65,000 x 0.938)/42.0] x 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 40,000 lb
= 1451.7 psi (use given Pd of 1440.0 psi) EQUATION 8-71
• Hoop stress (Fh): WCp = (Wn x Lp/2) x 2
EQUATION 8-65 Lp = WCp/Wn
= 40,000/453.0
Fh = (Pd x OD)/(2 x Tw)
= 88.3 ft
= (1440.0 x 42.0)/(2 x 0.938)
= 32,238.8 psi ALLOWABLE SPAN LENGTH (La) BASED ON THE UPLIFT
• Longitudinal stress (Fl): CAPACITY OF ANCHORS IN SOIL (BORING B-1)
EQUATION 8-66 • Ultimate uplift capacity (UCa) ranges from 45,900 to
Fl = (0.25 x Pd x OD)/Tw 41,700 lb with overall anchor depths below ground line of
51’-0 to 60’-0. See Figure 8-25. Use UCa = 40,000 lb.
= (0.25 x 1440.0 x 42.0)/0.938
= 16,119.4 psi • Working uplift capacity (WCa) (using FSs of 2.0):
Allowable longitudinal bending stress (Fb): EQUATION 8-72
EQUATION 8-67 WCa = UCa/FSs
Fb + Fl = 0.75 x (F x E x T) x Fy = 40,000/2
Fb = [0.75 x (0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0) x 65,000] - 16,119.4 = 20,000 lb
= 8,255.6 psi • There are two anchors located at each anchor support lo-
cation along the pipeline, therefore, the total working up-
lift capacity (WCs) per anchor set = WCa x 2 anchors =
20,000 x 2 = 40,000 lb.
EQUATION 8-73 SPAN REDUCTION SCHEDULE, TABLE 8-8
La = WCs/Wn REQUIRED UCs REQUIRED MINIMUM
SPAN
PER ANCHOR UCa PER INSTALLATION
= 40,000/453.0 LENGTH (ft)
SET (lb) ANCHOR (lb) TORQUE (ft∙lb)
= 88.3 ft 88 80,000 40,000 4,000
SUMMARY
77 70,000 35,000 3,500
The uplift capacity plot data was obtained from the soil
66 60,000 30,000 3,000
strength parameters shown in Figure 8-23 and capacities gen-
55 50,000 25,000 2,500
erated by HeliCAP® engineering software. The maximum span
length between anchor sets is limited to 88 ft based on the 44 40,000 20,000 2,000
ultimate mechanical strength of the pipeline brackets and the
ultimate uplift capacity of the anchors in the soil boring shown
DESIGN EXAMPLES
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 loca-
tions and the required average installation torque of 4,000 ft∙lb
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.
Hubbell manufactures two band types for use with pipeline
buoyancy control systems. See Figure 8-26. Each system has
advantages depending on the application and local accep-
tance. Both systems will provide adequate buoyancy control
with industry accepted Factors of Safety.
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA, TABLE 8-7

MAXIMUM
ALLOW- REQUIRED REQUIRED MINIMUM IN-
ABLE UCs PER UCa PER STALLATION
SPAN ANCHOR ANCHOR TORQUE
LENGTH SET (lb)2 SET (lb)2 (ft∙lb)1,2
(ft)
Longitudi-
121.5 110,080 55,040 5,500
nal Bending
Mid-Span
134.2 121,585 60,793 6,100
Deflection
Mechanical
Strength of 88.3 80,000 40,000 4,000
Bracket
Anchor
88.3 80,000 40,000 4,000
Capacity
Notes:
1. The required average minimum installation torque is based on using
the published installation torque to ultimate capacity ratio (Kt) of 10:1 for
the Type SS series anchor material. Torque = UCa/Kt.
2. These values include a minimum acceptable industry standard Factor
of Safety of 2 for helical anchors/piles when used in permanent applica-
tions. These pipeline anchors are considered by Hubbell Power Systems,
Inc. to be a permanent application. If the client or their representative
opts to use a lower Factor of Safety these values will have to be reduced
accordingly. For example, at a span length of 88.3 ft, the working capac-
ity per anchor set is 453.0 plf x 88.3 ft = 40,000 lb. Applying an FS of
only 1.5, the required UCs is 1.5 x 40,000 = 60,000 lb. The required UCa
is 60,000 lb/2 anchors = 30,000 lb. The required minimum installation
torque is 30,000/10 = 3,000 ft∙lb.
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Ultimate Uplift Capacity (kip)
ULTIMATE UPLIFT CAPACITY

FIGURE 8-25
BAND SYSTEMS
FIGURE 8-26
DESIGN EXAMPLE 13: TYPE RS HELICAL
PILES FOR LATERAL SUPPORT
PROBLEM EQUATION 8-74
A Chance® Type SS175 1-3/4” square shaft helical anchor/pile is f = P/9 (Cu) d
proposed for a pedestrian bridge abutment. The top section of = 8800 lb/9 (1000 psf) (6.625 in/12)
the shaft is to be encased in a 6” nominal steel pipe and grout
= 1.771 ft
to provide lateral resistance. The top ten feet of the soil pro-
EQUATION 8-75
file is medium-stiff clay with a cohesion factor (c) of 1000 psf.
Determine what length of 6” diameter steel case is required to MPOS MAX = P [e + 1.5(d) + 0.5(f)]
DESIGN EXAMPLES
resist 4400 lb of lateral load using the Broms’ Method. = 8800 lb [1 ft + 1.5 (6.625 in/12) + 0.5 (1.771 ft)]
= 23,880 ft∙lb
ASSUMPTIONS EQUATION 8-76
• The 1-3/4” square shaft below the 6” cased section pro- MPOS = 2.25 (d) g2 (Cu)
MAX
vides no lateral resistance.
23,880 ft∙lb = 2.25 (6.625 in/12) g2 (1000 psf)
• The solution method used is shown in Figure 8-27. g2 = 19.22 ft2
• Eccentricity is assumed to be 1 ft g = √ 19.22
= 4.38 ft
SOLUTION EQUATION 8-77
P = Applied horizontal shear load: Use 4400 lb. Include
a Factor of Safety of 2 in the calculations, thus L = 1.5d + f + g
doubling the horizontal shear load; P = 2 x 4400 = 1.5 (6.625 in/12) + 1.771 ft + 4.38 ft
= 8800 lb = 6.98 ft
Cu = Cohesion of clay: Use Cu = 1000 psf
d = Diameter of foundation: Use d = 6.625” (6” nominal SUMMARY
pipe size) The 6” nominal steel case should be at least 7’-0 long to resist
e = Eccentricity; distance above grade to resolved load: the 4400 lb lateral load.
Use e = 1 ft
L = Minimum length of foundation based on above criteria.
Recommended Units
d = Pile Diameter (ft)
Cu = Soil Cohesion (ksf)
P = Lateral Load
f = ft
g = ft
MMAX = Maximum Pile Bending
Moment (ft·kip)
FBMAX = Maximum Pile Bending
Stress (ksi)
Soil Pile Pile

Reaction Shear Moment
(kip/ft) (kip) (ft·kip)
BROMS’ METHOD FOR LATERALLY LOADED SHORT PILES

FIGURE 8-27
DESIGN EXAMPLE 14: INSTANT FOUNDATIONS
FOR STREET LIGHT SUPPORTS
PURPOSE The design or selection of a foundation size to resist light pole
loads in a given soil may be determined by various methods.
This Design Example provides example solutions to aid in the
Numerical methods using finite-element and finite-difference
selection of appropriate Chance® Instant Foundation® prod-
techniques may be used but have proven to be somewhat so-
ucts, also known as street light foundations (SLF), for different
phisticated for the rather simple SLF application. The Fourth
job parameters.
Edition of the AASHTO specification lists a number of pre-
liminary design methods that can be employed in the design
SLF LOADS process. Among those listed and discussed are the methods
DESIGN EXAMPLES
The resulting pole loads to be resisted by a street light founda- developed by Bengt B. Broms for embedment lengths in co-
tion are dead or vertical down loads (DL), horizontal, lateral or hesive and cohesionless soils and a graphical method dealing
shear loads (V) due to wind on the pole and luminaire (light with the embedment of lightly loaded poles and posts. The
fixture), and overturning moment loads (M) resulting from the Broms’ Method will be used for this design example as experi-
tendency to bend at or near the ground line as the wind causes ence has shown these methods to both usable and appropri-
the pole to displace and the foundation restrains the pole base ate. Calculations are provided for both cohesive soil (clay) and
at one location (see Figure 8-28). cohesionless soil (sand).
The DL for an SLF application is so small that a foundation

sized to resist V and M will typically be much more than ade- wp = Wind Pressure SLF REACTIONS
quate to resist DL. Therefore, DL will not control the SLF design EPAlf = Effective Projected Area of a Vlf = [EPAlf x wp]
and will not be considered here. If DL is large enough to be of Light Fixture Vp = [EPAp x wp]
EPAp = Effective Projected Area of a V = Vlf +Vp
concern for an application where an SLF will be used, it may Light Pole M = [Vlf x Hlf] + [Vp x Hp]
be evaluated based on bearing capacity equations applied to Hlf = Moment Arm to EPAlf Centroid
the soil around the helical bearing plate and friction along the Hp= Moment Arm to EPAp Centroid
shaft. These evaluations are beyond the scope of this design
example, which will only deal with SLF applications.
EPAlf
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 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 diam- Hlf EPAp
eter 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 Hp
should be familiar to engineers engaged in design work, so a
sample of this process will not be given here. DL
The foundation shaft diameter will often be as large as or larger

than the base diameter of the pole to be supported. Allowable
moment capacities for Chance Instant Foundation products M
are provided in Table 10-2 in Section 10 of this manual. These
capacities, when compared to the ground line reactions of the V
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:
POLE LOAD DIAGRAM
The starting size may change as the given soil conditions for a
FIGURE 8-28
job may dictate the final SLF size required.)
H = Moment / Shear = M/V = VM / VF = 17200 ft∙lb /
920 lb = 18.69565 ft
L = Calculated Foundation Length to Provide a SF
of 2 Against Soil Failure.
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:
EQUATION 8-81
MMAX = V ( H + 1.5D + 0.5q)
= 460 (18.69565 + (1.5 x 6.625/12) + (0.5 x
DESIGN EXAMPLES
0.185157)
= 9023.5 ft∙lb
Maximum moment can be compared with the allowable mo-
ment capacity of the foundation shaft to determine adequacy.
For this example the allowable moment in the 6” pipe shaft is
FOUNDATION IN COHESIVE SOIL given as 10,860 ft∙lb, which is greater than the applied moment.
FIGURE 8-29 Therefore, the 6” diameter by 5’ long SLF is adequate for the
applied loads in the clay soil.
COHESIVE SOIL (SEE FIGURE 8-29)
Assumed values:
• Applied shear load at the groundline (V) = 460 lb
• Applied moment at the groundline (M) = 8600 ft∙lb
• 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 open-
ing is 10,860 ft∙lb
• The required length (L) will be determined using the
Broms’ method.
• Cohesion (c) = 1000 psf
• Factor of Safety = 2
EQUATION 8-78
VF = V (FS) 3γKpDL
= 460 (2) FOUNDATION IN COHESIONLESS SOIL

FIGURE 8-30
= 920 lb
EQUATION 8-79
COHESIONLESS SOIL (SEE FIGURE 8-30)
VM = M (FS)
Assumed values:
= 8600 (2)
• Applied shear load at the groundline (V) = 460 lb
= 17,200 ft∙lb
EQUATION 8-80 • Applied moment at the groundline (M) = 8600 ft∙lb
L = 1.5D+q [1+{ 2 + (4H+6D)/q} 0.5] • Foundation diameter is 6” nominal Schedule 40. Use
6.625” as the actual pipe size in calculations. Cableway
= 1.5 (6.625/12) + 0.185157 x [1 + { 2+ ( 4 x 18.69565 + 6
openings are 2.5” wide by 12” high. The allowable moment
x (6.625/12)) / (0.185157)} 0.5]
capacity of this foundation shaft size and cableway open-
= 4.82 ft
ing is 10,860 ft∙lb.
where
• The required length (L) will be determined using the
D = Diameter of foundation = 6.625 inches
Broms’ method.
q = VF/9cD = 920 / (9 x 1000 x 6.625/12) = 0.185157
• j = 30°
ft
c = Shear strength of cohesive soil = 1000 psf • g = 100 lb/ft3
• Factor of Safety = 2.
EQUATION 8-78
VF = V (FS)
= 460 (2)
= 920 lb
EQUATION 8-79
VM = M (FS)
= 8600 (2)
= 17,200 ft∙lb
Broms’ equation for cohesionless soil requires a trial and error
solution. For the trial and error solution, start by assuming the
DESIGN EXAMPLES
foundation diameter (D) is 6.625” and the length (L) is 6 feet:

EQUATION 8-82
0 ≤ L3 - ( 2VFL / KPgD ) – ( 2VM / KPgD )
= 63 - [ 2 x 920 x 6) / (3 x 100 {6.625/12})] - [(2 x
17200) / (3 x 100 x {6.625/12})]
= - 58.35
where
0 > - 58.35
KP = tan2 (45 + j/2 ) = 3.0
g = Effective unit weight of soil = 100 lb/ft3
The 6 foot length is too short so we will try a 7 foot length and
repeat the calculation:
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
0 < 57.53
A 7 foot long SLF will be adequate. The maximum moment
in the foundation shaft can be determined with the following
equation:
EQUATION 8-83
MMAX = V ( H + 0.54 x ( V / gDKP ) 0.5 )
= 460 (18.69565 + 0.54 x ( 460/100 x (6.625/12) x 3) 0.5)
= 9013.968 ft∙lb
This is less than the allowable moment capacity of 10,860 ft∙lb,
therefore a 6” diameter by 7’ long SLF is adequate for the ap-
plied load in the sandy soil.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 15: FOUNDATION
EARTH PRESSURE RESISTANCE
PROJECT SOLUTION
A Chance® Type SS5 1-1/2” square shaft helical anchor is pro- EQUATION 8-84
posed as part of a pier and beam foundation for a residen-
Pa = 0.5Ka gH2
tial structure (see Figure 8-31). The top of the helical anchor is
= 0.5 x 0.2 x 95 x 42
fixed in a concrete grade beam that extends 4’-0 below grade.
The surface soils are loose sands. Determine the lateral capaci- = 152 lb/ft
ty of the grade beam using the Rankine earth pressure method. Pp = 0.5KpgH2
DESIGN EXAMPLES
= 0.5 x 3 x 95 x 42
ASSUMPTIONS = 2280 lb/ft
• The lateral capacity of the 1-1/2” square shaft helical Pp - Pa = 2280 - 152
anchor is limited based on shaft size. It is generally = 2128 lb/ft
not assigned any contribution to the lateral capacity Total lateral resistance = 2128 x 25’-0 = 53,200 lb
of a foundation
• The effective length of the grade beam for lateral NOTE: In this example, more than 1” of movement will prob-
resistance is 25’-0 ably be required to fully mobilize the total lateral resistance.
• Assume a unit weight of 95 pcf Partial mobilization requires less deflection.
• The water table is well below the bottom of the grade

beam COEFFICIENTS OF EARTH PRESSURE (DAS, 1987), TABLE 8-9
K0'
• There are no surcharge loads SOIL K0' TOTAL Ka' TOTAL Kp' TOTAL
DRAINED
• From Table 8-9, Ka = 0.2, Kp = 3 Clay, soft 1 0.6 1 1 1
Clay, hard 1 0.5 0.8 1 1
Sand, loose 0.6 0.53 0.2 3
Sand, dense 0.4 0.35 0.3 4.6
Note:
1Assume saturated clays.
Grade Beam
Pp Pa
4'-0"
Soil: Loose Sand
EARTH PRESSURE ON A GRADE BEAM

FIGURE 8-31
DESIGN EXAMPLE 16: BUCKLING EXAMPLE
USING THE DAVISSON METHOD
PROJECT EQUATION 8-85
A three-helix Chance® Type SS150 1-1/2” square shaft helical
pile is to be installed into the soil profile as shown in Figure 4√(30 x 106 x 0.396) / (15 x 1.5) = 26.96
R =
8-33. The top three feet is uncontrolled fill and is assumed to be lmax = (15 x 12) / 26.96
soft clay. The majority of the shaft length (12 feet) is confined
= 6.7
by soft clay with a kh = 15 pci. The helix plates will be located in
Pcr = (2 x 30 x 106 x 0.396) / 26.962
stiff clay below 15 feet. The buckling model assumes a pinned-
DESIGN EXAMPLES
pinned end condition for the helical pile head and tip. Determine = 32.69 kip
the critical buckling load using the Davisson method.
CHANCE TYPE SS150 SQUARE SHAFT FOUNDATIONS
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, TABLE 8-10
ASSUMPTIONS
MODULUS of MOMENT of SHAFT DIAMETER
• kh is constant, i.e., it does not vary with depth. This is a ELASTICITY (Ep) INERTIA (Ip) (D)
conservative assumption because kh usually varies with
30 x 106 psi 0.396 in4 1.5 in
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 re-
sults are generally conservative.
• From Figure 8-32, Ucr ≈ 2
Model as
Foundation
Soft
Clay
N=3
Kh = 15 pci
Kh = 15 pci
Stiff
Clay
N≥5
FOUNDATION DETAILS
FIGURE 8-33
POULOS AND DAVIS (1980)

FIGURE 8-32
USING THE FINITE-DIFFERENCE METHOD
A four-helix Chance® helical pile is to be installed into the soil If couplings are completely rigid, i.e., exhibit some flexural stiff-
profile as shown in Figure 8-34. The top five feet is compact- ness even at zero joint rotation, axial load is transferred without
ed granular fill and is considered adequate to support light- the effects of a pin connection, and the finite-difference meth-
ly loaded slabs and shallow foundations. The majority of the od can be used. An easy way to accomplish rigid couplings
shaft length (50 feet) is confined by very soft clay described by with round shaft piles is to pour concrete or grout down the
the borings as “weight of hammer” (WOH) or “weight of rod” ID of the pipe after installation. Another method is to install
(WOR) material. WOH or WOR material means the weight of a grout column around the square or round shaft of the foun-
the 130 lb drop hammer or the weight of the drill rod used to ex- dation using the Chance Helical Pulldown® micropile (HPM)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
tend the sampler down the borehole during the standard pen- method. The HPM is an installation method initially developed
etration test is enough to push the sampler down 18+ inches. to install helical anchor foundations in very weak soils where
As a result, a low cohesion value (15 psf) is assumed. The helix buckling may be anticipated.
plates will be located in dense sand below 55 feet. Determine
the critical buckling load of a Type SS175 1-3/4” square shaft
and Type RS3500.300 round shaft piles using LPILE Plus 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 criti-
cal 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 LPILE
Plus 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 buck-
ling 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 criti-
cal 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 significantly in-
crease 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 con-
tact 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 ro-
tational 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 FOUNDATION DETAILS
other means, such as finite-element analysis, or other methods FIGURE 8-34
based on empirical experience as mentioned earlier.
DESIGN EXAMPLES
LPILE PLUS OUTPUT PLOT OF DEFLECTION VS DEPTH LPILE PLUS OUTPUT PLOT OF DEFLECTION VS DEPTH
USING THE FINITE-DIFFERENCE METHOD
A three-helix Chance® Type SS5 1-1/2” square shaft helical pile Output indicates the Type SS5 1-1/2” square shaft buckled at
is to be used to underpin an existing townhouse structure that around 28 kip. Figure 8-38 shows the displaced shape of the
has experienced settlement (see Figure 8-37 for soil profile shaft (exaggerated for clarity). The “K0” in Figure 8-38 are the
details). The top 12 feet is loose sand fill, which probably con- locations of the shaft couplings. Note that the deflection re-
tributed to the settlement problem. The majority of the shaft sponse is controlled by the couplings, as would be expected.
length (30 feet) is confined by very soft clay with an SPT blow Also note that the shaft deflection occurs in the very soft clay
count “N” of 2. As a result, a cohesion value (250 psf) is as- above the medium-dense bearing stratum. Since the 28 kip
sumed. The helix plates will be located in medium-dense sand buckling load is considerably less than the bearing capacity
DESIGN EXAMPLES
below 42 feet. Determine the critical buckling load using the (55+ kip) it is recommended to install a grout column around
finite-element application with integrated FEA software from the 1-1/2” square shaft using the Chance Helical Pulldown® mi-
ANSYS, Inc. cropile (HPM) method.
Pcr
Loose Sand
N=5
Soft Clay
N=2
FEA APPLICATION OUTPUT—

DISPLACED SHAPE OF SHAFT
FIGURE 8-38
Medium Sand
N = 25
FOUNDATION DETAILS
FIGURE 8-37
DESIGN EXAMPLE 19: MONOPOLE FOUNDATION WITH
STEEL GRILLAGE AND RS5500 HELICAL PILES
Provided Design Loads (on entire grillage) that the helices behave independently. The 5-degree angle
also provides a better response to shear load. The first stage
Fx = 34.06 kip (axial)
is an iterative solution using the design loads from the mono-
Fy = 49.41 kip (shear) pole with the quantity and coordinates of helical piles with
Mz = -35574 kip∙in (moment) Ensoft’s GROUP software. Experience provides best practices
to determine the number and coordinates of the helical piles.
Reveal Height: 5.33 feet
With these inputs, GROUP software will determine the actual
DESIGN EXAMPLES
loads on each pile. A model of the grillage can then be devel-

oped and analyzed with finite-element analysis (FEA) software
These loads require a moment foundation that incorporates
to help size structural members within the grillage. With the
multiple helical piles into a steel grillage. Grillages that are
loads applied to each pile obtained from the GROUP software,
mostly moment foundations will be limited in size by what
Chance® HeliCAP® software is used to design the helical piles.
can be transported to the job site. Moment foundations will
The following information is by no means a complete tutorial
also have helical piles installed at 5 degrees from vertical. This
on the use of GROUP or HeliCAP software but is provided as an
angle allows the piles to be spaced far enough apart at depth
example of this type of solution.
GROUP SOFTWARE INPUTS
DESIGN EXAMPLES
GROUP SOFTWARE OUTPUTS
DESIGN EXAMPLES
OUTPUT FROM GROUP SOFTWARE, MAXIMUM DESIGN LOADS:

Compression: 128.32 kip Tension: 122.21 kip Moment: 112.00 kip∙in
Therefore, with Factor of Safety (FS) = 2

Required ultimate capacities:
Qult = 256.64 kip (compression), 244.41 kip (tension)
DESIGN EXAMPLES
DESIGN EXAMPLES
SOLUTION
(12) helical piles, installed at 5 degrees from vertical with steel
grillage
RS5500.361 w/14, 16, 18 & 18-inch diameter helices, installed 58
feet deep
Minimum Torque: T = Qult/Kt
Where Qult = 256 kip and Kt = 5 (RS5500)
= 256/5 = 51 ft∙kip
SECTION 9: SOIL SCREW® RETENTION WALL SYSTEM
CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 9-2
Soil Screw® Retention Wall System........................................................................................................... 9-2
Preliminary Design Considerations........................................................................................................... 9-4
Geotechnical And Structural Engineering.............................................................................................. 9-5
Limiting Load Capacities...............................................................................................................................9-7
General Construction Considerations of Underpinning/Shoring Systems.................................9-7
Concepts And Applications Of Underpinning/Shoring Systems.................................................. 9-8
Case Study 1 - High Foundation Line Load With Shallow Cut........................................................ 9-9
Case Study 2 - Low Foundation Line With Deep Cut....................................................................... 9-12
RETENTION WALLS
DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
INTRODUCTION SOIL SCREW® RETENTION
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. provides the Soil Screw® Retention WALL SYSTEM
Wall System as an efficient and economical system to retain
soil during excavation and construction of structures below
grade. The following are some of the advantages of this system PRODUCT BENEFITS
over other soil retention methods: Chance Soil Screw® Retention Wall Systems offer the following
• Fast installation without specialized equipment; benefits:
• Immediate support without curing time; • Low installed cost
• Reduced installation time - post-tensioning not required; • No vibration
• No need for H-piles, walers and heavy reinforced walls; • Shorter installation lengths
• Immediate on-site capacity verification; and • Ease of installation in limited access areas
• Excavations adjacent to existing structures are possible • Minimum disturbance to site

when used with Atlas Resistance® Piers or Chance® Helical • Immediate loading
Piles;
• On-site load test capability
The Chance® Underpinning/Shoring system provides for under-
• Reusable in temporary stabilization applications
pinning existing shallow footings, permitting excavation adja-
cent to the existing structure to a depth that would otherwise
undermine the existing footing. The system allows excavation SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
RETENTION WALLS
to proceed directly adjacent to an existing building without

The Chance Soil Screw® Retention Wall System creates an in-
fear of vibration or structural damage to the building.
ternally reinforced soil mass when closely spaced in a regu-
Commercial property owners often want to construct buildings lar geometric pattern and protected by a reinforced facing of
with maximum possible footprints and a basement to maximize shotcrete. It differs from helical tieback anchors even though
the potential of the site. If there is an existing building with the appearance of the products is similar.
a shallow footing adjacent to the proposed construction site,
A tieback restrained wall is generally constructed by installing
that building will need to be protected against damage from
a structural wall facing system that is anchored to the earth by
settlement due to removal of the soil that is laterally support-
means of high strength helical anchors that are installed to a
ing the existing footing. Similar protection is required when a
stratum of soil of sufficient strength to resist the forces placed
sloping excavation is cut next to an existing shallow footing in
upon the wall by the retained earth. The helical tieback anchor
order to construct a building, parking lot, or roadway adjacent
experiences a tension load equal to the retained earth forces.
and down-slope of this footing.
The structural retaining wall must be designed with sufficient
The Soil Screw® Retention Wall System is designed to pro- strength to be able to support the soil load between tiebacks
vide protection to the existing structure by using a combina- without excessive deformation.
tion of foundation support products. Atlas Resistance® Piers
Chance® Helical Soil Screw® Anchors are designed and installed
or Chance® Helical Piles are used to underpin the foundation
differently than helical tieback anchors. They are generally
of the existing structure. The structural load from the shal-
seated at a shallower depth than helical tieback anchors when
low footing is transferred down to a suitable bearing stratum
installed to retain similar soil masses. Most importantly, the
below the depth of the intended excavation. The Soil Screw®
Helical Soil Screw® Anchors are not tensioned after installation;
Retention Wall System, combined with a reinforced shotcrete
they are passive elements. When the Soil Screw® Retention
retaining wall is then used to maintain stability of the cut slope
Wall System is installed it holds the soil as a single mass of suf-
and the underpinning system as the excavation proceeds. For
ficient internal stability to provide a suitable Factor of Safety
some conditions Chance® Helical Tieback Anchors can be used
(FS) against failure. The load on the Helical Soil Screw® Anchors
at the underpinning bracket to further ensure against lateral
is created across the movement plane as the soil mass moves
footing movement of existing buildings.
slightly downward due to gravity.
Other methods require the use of impact driven “soldier” piles.
Many projects require that excavations be extremely close to ex-
The major disadvantages to this system are the equipment size,
isting structures. By combining Atlas Resistance® Modified Piers,
noise and vibrations caused by the installation of the piles. This
or Chance® Helical Piles, Chance® Helical Tieback Anchors, and
can be bothersome, annoying and stressful to the occupants
the Chance Soil Screw® Retention Wall System together, the de-
of surrounding buildings, could damage sensitive electron-
signer can safely support an existing structure and the underly-
ics and/or could cause settlement of the building being pro-
ing soil mass during adjacent excavations. Atlas Resistance® Piers
tected. Because the Chance® Foundation Stabilization System
or Chance® Helical Piles support the structural load of the perim-
and support uses hydraulic power for driving the underpinning,
eter of the building, thus dramatically reducing the surcharge
helical tieback anchors, and Helical Soil Screw® Anchors, it is
on the soil mass that must be retained. Chance® Helical Tieback
extremely quiet and practically vibration free, thus allowing full
Anchors are used for lateral support of the building’s footing in
use of neighboring buildings during the construction process.
projects where deep, adjacent excavations are required and/or
for buildings with perimeter weights exceeding 4,000 pounds CHANCE SOIL SCREW® RETENTION WALL SYSTEM
per linear foot. With the surcharge loads properly transferred (TYPE SS5 AND SS175 SERIES) LEAD SECTIONS
away from the soil mass under the building, the design for soil
retention using Chance® Helical Soil Screw® Anchors is greatly CONFIGURATION TABLE (Leads and Extensions)
simplified and requires fewer Helical Soil Screw® Anchors. In Bar Size
Plate
Length
Dim Dim Dim No.
many instances, this method is the only economical way to ac- Size A B C Plates
complish this task. This method of structure/soil mass support 1-1/2" Square 4'-11 6" 29" 24" 2
prevents structure distress that may manifest itself during po- Soil Screw® 8" Dia.
Lead Section 7'-0 6" 29" 20" 3
tential settlement as the soil mass loads the Chance Soil Screw®
Retention Wall System. 1-1/2" Square Soil 4'-9 5" 29" 23" 2
8" Dia.
Screw® Extension 6'-9 6" 29" 17" 3
SELECTION GUIDELINES 1-3/4" Square 6" Dia. 5'-2 8" 30" 24" 2
Soil Screw®
The Chance Soil Screw® Retention Wall System is available Lead Section 8" Dia. 6'-9 6" 30" 15" 3
in two shaft sizes and two helix diameters. A variety of shaft 6" Dia. 6'-11 6" 30" 17" 3
1-3/4" Square Soil
lengths are offered to provide a designer an adequate selec- Screw® Extension 8” Dia. 6'-10 9" 29" 15" 3
tion for any application and load requirements. Design and
installation requires input and supervision by a professional en-
gineer and adequate site specific soil information. NOTES – SOIL SCREW® ANCHOR PRODUCTS
(TYPE SS5 AND SS175 SERIES):
CHANCE SOIL SCREW® RETENTION WALL SYSTEM (TYPE • Refer to the schematic drawings at the bottom of page
SS5 AND SS175 SERIES) LEAD SECTIONS 9-4 and below for Dimensions A, B and C.
RETENTION WALLS
• All extensions include integrally forged couplings, ma-
chine bolts and hex nuts
• All helical plates are welded to the shaft in conformance to
the American Welding Society (AWS) Structural Welding
Code AWS D1.1” and applicable revisions.
• Available Finish: Hot Dip Galvanized (HDG)
CONFIGURATIONS - SQUARE SHAFT LEAD SECTIONS

Product Product No. Plate Weight
Length
Designation Series Plates Size lb.
C1100692 SS5 4’-11 2 8” Dia. 49
C1100691 SS5 7'-0 3 8” Dia. 69
C11002350301 SS175 5'-2 2 8” Dia. 62
T11006740302 SS175 6'-9 3 6” Dia. 75
CHANCE SOIL SCREW® RETENTION WALL SYSTEM

(TYPE SS5 AND SS175 SERIES) EXTENSION SECTIONS
LENGTH
Product Product No. Plate Weight

Length
Designation Series Plates Size lb.
C1100690 SS5 4'-9 2 8” Dia. 42
C1100689 SS5 6'-9 3 8” Dia. 50
C11004500301 SS175 6'-11 2 6” Dia. 70 TYPE SS5 AND SS175 SERIES
C11004500302 SS175 6'-10 3 8” Dia. 75
CONFIGRATIONS- SQUARE SHAFT EXTENSION SECTIONS a structure located at the top of the proposed cut. It is
CONFIGURATIONS - SQUARE SHAFT EXTENSION SECTIONS
therefore required that either Atlas Resistance® Piers or
Chance® Helical Piles underpin the existing structure. It is
6'-9" TO 6'-11"
recommended to use Chance® Helical Tieback Anchors at
each underpinning placement location whenever the cut
exceeds 12 feet and/or the existing structural line load is
greater than 4,000 lb/ft.
• Surcharge loads due to slabs, column footings, overbur-
den soils, vehicular traffic, or other structures behind the
C B B A wall must be considered when calculating the soil loads to
be retained by the Helical Soil Screw® Anchors.
4'-9" • The Chance® Soil Screw® Retention Wall System is best

suited to cemented or medium-dense to dense sand and
to low plasticity clay soils with Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) N values ≥ 8. Use caution in highly plastic clays and
silts.
• The Chance® Soil Screw® Retention Wall System is poorly
suited for jointed weathered rock material that dips into
C B A the excavation, loose sand with SPT N values ≤ 7 and in
TYPE SS5 AND SS175 SERIES those cohesive soils with SPT N values of ≤ 6 (clays with
TYPE SS5 AND SS175 SERIES cohesion < 850 psf or an allowable bearing stress < 2,000
RETENTION WALLS
psf) anywhere in the depth profile of soil that is to be

excavated.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN • Clean to relatively clean cohesionless soils with poor

stand-up time typically require a 1” (±) flash shotcrete
CONSIDERATIONS coating to be placed simultaneously with the excavation.
The maximum recommended incremental face cut height
The following requirements must be considered:
is four feet or less. Use Chance® Helical Tieback Anchors
1. An evaluation of: (a) the foundation soil strata (below when underpinning/shoring next to an existing structure.
the reinforced soil mass), (b) the soil stratum into which
• Use of the underpinning/shoring system is permissible for
the helix plates will be located, and (c) the soil behind
excavations of up to 20 feet and under extremely favor-
the reinforced soil mass to be retained by the Soil Screw®
able conditions shall not exceed 25 feet.
Retention Wall System.
• The underpinning/shoring system is a temporary support
2. A selection of the appropriate Helical Soil Screw® Anchor
system. Creep is generally not a problem, however, the
including shaft size, helix plate diameter and length of
system is not recommended when the Liquidity Index (LI)
embedment.
is >0.2.
3. A determination of the ultimate tension capacity of the
• Soil Screw® Anchors must have helix plates of the same
Helical Soil Screw® Anchors with a suitable Factor of Safety.
diameter continuously along the installed length.
The following preliminary design guide for Helical Soil • Soil Screw® Anchors must be installed at a minimum
Screw® Anchors is intended to provide a basic understand- downward angle of 5° from horizontal and typically do not
ing of Soil Screw® Retaining Wall theory. exceed 15° downward angle.
• Engineering design shall include verification of several lev-
Soil Screw® Anchor wall design requires professional els of design analysis:
geotechnical and engineering input. Specific information
involving the structures, soil characteristics and Internal stability: The soil mass acts as a coherent mass
foundation conditions must be used for the final design. External stability: The ability to resist lateral sliding
Global stability: The ability to resist massive rotational fail-
PRELIMINARY DESIGN ure outside the “internally stabilized soil” mass
RECOMMENDATIONS
• The top of the Helical Soil Screw® Anchor wall typically IMPORTANT NOTICE
moves in the range of 0.1% to 0.3% of the wall height.
Vertical and lateral movements are expected to be ap- A Registered Professional Engineer shall design the Chance
proximately 1/4” for a ten-foot cut and 1/2” for a 20-foot Soil Screw® Retention Wall System. The installation shall be
cut. This lateral movement is of concern when there is performed by trained and certified installing contractors/
dealers.
GEOTECHNICAL AND
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
For an introduction and guidance on how to design retention
walls using the Chance Soil Screw® Retention Wall System,
refer to the Soil Screw® Retention Wall System Design Manual.
For a copy of this manual, please contact your area Chance®
Distributor or visit the Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. website at
www.chancefoundationsolutions.com.
Design Example 10 in Section 8 provides a detailed wall

design using the Chance Soil Screw® Retention Wall System.
Chance Helical Soil Screw® Anchors look similar to helical tie-
back anchors, but they are different and they act differently
to stabilize a slope. To understand how Helical Soil Screw®
Anchors act and the differences between the two products,
we must examine a cut slope that is unable to stand for an ex-
tended time on its own (see Figure 9-1).
A simple method to improve stability of the slope would be to
stack railroad ties against the cut face so that the soil would CUT SLOPE WITH TIMBER WALL
RETENTION WALLS
have to push the ties over in the process of failing (see Figure FIGURE 9-2
9-2). If this proves insufficient, driving “soldier” piles in front of
the railroad ties (now termed “lagging”) enhances the stability.
Now the soil must push the lagging and the soldier piles over
before failure can occur (see Figure 9-3).
If this is still insufficient to stabilize the soil, a beam can be in-
stalled along the wall connecting the soldier piles. This beam is
called a “waler” and it is anchored by helical tieback anchors to
a stable portion of the soil mass behind the failure plane (see
Figure 9-4). Now as the slope attempts to fail, the sliding soil
pushes against the lagging, the lagging pushes against the sol-
dier piles, the soldier piles push against the waler, and the wal-
er pulls on the tiebacks. If the helical tieback anchors provide
CUT SLOPE WITH SOLDER PILE AND LAGGING

FIGURE 9-3
TYPICAL FAILURE MODE OF AN UNSTABLE EXCAVATION CUT SLOPE WITH TIEBACK WALL
enough resistance, the whole system is stable. The design of damage in some structures, the Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
the wall system (the lagging, soldier piles and the waler) brings Underpinning/Shoring System includes helical tieback anchors
the distributed soil force against the lagging toward, and con- at the underpinning bracket whenever excavation depths ex-
centrates the load at, the helical tieback anchors. After the ceed 12 feet or structural footing loads exceed 4,000 lb/ft.
tiebacks are installed, they are usually post-tensioned. When Post-tensioning these tieback anchors prior to excavation al-
helical tiebacks are used for this type of application, they are lows the deflections at the footing to be controlled to an ac-
typically concentrated in a few tiers, and are designed so that ceptable level.
all tension resistance is attained within the stable soil mass be-
Because of the potential severity of a structural failure involv-
hind the potential movement plane.
ing one of these systems, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. recom-
Helical Soil Screw® Anchors differ from helical tieback an- mends that a staff application engineer, or an engineer from an
chors because they are designed to attain pullout resistance authorized Chance® Distributor perform a preliminary design
within the sliding soil mass as well as the stable mass behind and make a final wall design review. The preliminary design will
the movement plane. For Helical Soil Screw® Anchors to be ef- give recommendations for the Helical Soil Screw® Anchors and,
fective, they must have helices along the whole length of the if the project requires, specific underpinning piers/piles and/
shaft. When the unstable soil mass begins to slide, it moves or helical tieback anchors to be used on the specific project.
against the helices buried within this unstable mass (see Figure Details for the placement of the products, the required embed-
9-5). The resistance generated on the helices within the un- ment depths and minimum installation resistances and torques
stable mass secures the soil directly and reduces the result- will be recommended. These preliminary recommendations,
ing soil pressure against the wall. The net effect is that Helical estimates of installation depths and wall thickness will aid in
Soil Screw® Anchors reduce the structural requirements for the preparing cost estimates. Both the installing contractor/dealer
wall system. In most cases the Helical Soil Screw® Anchors are and the Engineer of Record shall review these recommenda-
connected directly to the wall without the use of soldier piles tions. The Chance® Distributor or Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
RETENTION WALLS
or walers. The retaining wall is therefore thinner than a wall Engineer will work with the Engineer of Record as required
required when using tieback anchors. to resolve any issues regarding the preliminary design. The
Engineer of Record must accept and approve the final design
before construction can begin.
0.001H>=d>=0.003H 0.001H>=d>=0.003H
CUT SLOPE STABILIZED WITH

HELICAL SOIL SCREW® ANCHORS
FIGURE 9-5
Helical Soil Screw® Anchors are more evenly distributed on

the wall and therefore carry lighter loads than helical tieback TYPICAL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
anchors. Helical Soil Screw® Anchors should not be post-ten- OF A SOIL SCREW® WALL, FIGURE 9-6
sioned as post-tensioning puts bearing stresses on the wrong
side of the helices that are embedded in the unstable soil mass.
Some engineers require that a small load (1000 pounds or less) SHOTCRETE
be applied to newly installed Helical Soil Screw® Anchors to Shotcrete is portland cement concrete or mortar propelled at
remove any slack in the connections. high velocity (typically by air pressure) onto a surface. With
Because Helical Soil Screw® Anchors are not post-tensioned, wet process shotcrete, the dry materials are mixed with wa-
the unstable soil mass has to slump slightly before the Soil ter and pumped to a nozzle, where air is added to project the
Screw® System can develop resistance. Soil Screw® Retaining material onto the surface. Dry process shotcrete, also known
Walls deflect both vertically downward and laterally outward as “gunite”, delivers the dry material to the nozzle by air pres-
during this slumping process. The magnitudes of both deflec- sure where water is added at the point of discharge. The water
tions typically vary from 0.1% to 0.3% of the wall height (see and dry materials mix during deposition. Each process has its
Figure 9-6). For example, the top of a 12-foot high wall will own advantages and disadvantages, but either, or both, may
typically deflect from 1/8” to 3/8” downward and outward. be used to construct the wall facing for the Chance Soil Screw®
Because 3/8” settlement approaches the level that can cause Retention Wall System.
The wet process allows for high deposition rates up to three increases beyond these limits. In obstruction-laden soils, the
times the rate attainable with gunite with less rebound (5% vs. maximum torques that should be applied during installation
15% for gunite). In addition, the nozzleman need not be as are 80% of the table limits due to the increased risk of tor-
highly skilled for this process. The major disadvantages to the sional fracture posed by impact loading. The designer must
shotcrete wet process are the extensive cleanup required and consider these torque ratings in evaluating whether the Helical
the difficulty scheduling ready-mix deliveries. The gunite (dry) Soil Screw® Anchors can be installed to the required depths. In
process has the advantage of easy clean up and the ability addition, these torque ratings pose practical limits to the ulti-
to mix materials on site. Gunite has more disadvantages than mate tension capacities that can be developed by limiting the
shotcrete. Gunite has a relatively low deposition rate (slower strengths of soils into which the Helical Soil Screw® Anchors
application), has more rebound and requires highly skilled can be installed. The practical limit to the ultimate tension ca-
operators. pacities that can be achieved (in lbs) is about ten times the
installation torques (in ft-lbs) that may be applied during in-
The functions of shotcrete in the Chance Soil Screw® Retention
stallation using a torque factor (Kt) of 10. See Section 6 for a
Wall System are:
detailed discussion of the correlation of installation torque of a
• To prevent sloughing and spalling of the excavated soil helical anchor to its ultimate tension capacity.
face.
• To prevent buckling of the underpinning pier/pile, if re- ULTIMATE TENSION STRENGTHS AND TORQUE RATINGS
quired on the project. FOR CHANCE® HELICAL SOIL SCREW® ANCHORS, TABLE 9-1
• To transfer the earth pressures to the Helical Soil Screw® Ultimate
Anchors instead of the inner wall face. Torque
Chance® Soil Screw® Product Tension
Rating
Strength
In some instances, the system is exposed only temporarily. The
RETENTION WALLS
excavation is usually filled in after the basement wall is con- SS5 Series 1-1/2” (38 mm)
70,000 lbs 5,700 ft-lbs*
Round Corner Sq.
structed or permanent facing is built in front of the system’s
wall. In some cases, however, the system wall will be perma- SS175 Series 1-3/4” (45 mm)
100,000 lbs 10,500 ft-lbs*
Round Corner Sq.
nently exposed and must also perform cosmetic functions.
* Refer to Ultimate Tension Strength and Torque Rating in the text.
Flexural strength, shear strength and ductility are the important Practical load limits in the field may be limited due to the factors dis-
characteristics of the wall in this application. The wall must re- cussed above.
sist the movement of the retained soil and restrain the under-
pinning pier/pile (if used on the project) from buckling, both of
which require flexural strength. The wall must also transfer load
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
to the Soil Screw® Anchor head, which requires both shear and CONSIDERATIONS
flexural strength. Because deformation is necessary to gener-
ate the resistance that makes the system stable, the wall must OF UNDERPINNING/
tolerate some deformation without losing its strength. The
properties of the shotcrete that contribute to these wall char-
SHORING SYSTEMS
acteristics are compressive strength and bond strength. The Chance Soil Screw® Retention Wall System for underpin-
ning/shoring next to an existing structure is a specialized con-
A structural engineer employed by the owner will typically pre-
struction process and must be installed by Certified Chance®
pare the final shotcrete wall design. Hubbell Power Systems,
Installer. Listed below are some general items regarding the
Inc. suggests that the wall design be reviewed by one of their
construction procedures:
staff application engineers or authorized Distributors.
WARNING! DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION,

LIMITING LOAD CAPACITIES THE FOOTING AND FACE OF THE SHORING SHOULD BE
CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED FOR ANY MOVEMENTS. IF
MOVEMENTS ARE NOTED, THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
ULTIMATE TENSION STRENGTH
SHOULD BE STOPPED, TEMPORARY BRACING INSTALLED
The ultimate tension strengths indicated in Table 9-1 represent AND THE ENGINEER AND/OR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
the net tension strengths of the Helical Soil Screw® Anchor SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED FOR FURTHER
shaft/coupling systems. The designer must use an adequate DIRECTION.
Factor of Safety in the design to preclude Helical Soil Screw®
1. As is the case in conventional underpinning of buildings
Anchor failure in tension. A Factor of Safety of 2:1 is often used.
using Atlas Resistance® Modified Piers or Chance® Helical
Piles, the footing must be properly prepared so that the
TORQUE STRENGTH RATING
pier/pile bracket can be positioned under the footing with
The torque ratings indicated in Table 9-1 represent the maxi- a minimum of eccentricity with the wall load. This process
mum torque that should be applied to the Helical Soil Screw® may involve chipping the concrete to provide a proper
Anchor during installation in homogeneous soils. The risk of bearing surface and creating a notch in the spread footing
torsional fracture increases significantly as the applied torque to reduce pier/pile eccentricity.
2. For those projects requiring underpinning and Chance® 11. Welded rebar assemblies with bearing plates are posi-
Helical Tieback Anchors at the pier/pile bracket, the tie- tioned over each Helical Soil Screw® Anchor and secured
back must be installed to the required length and torque against the welded wire mesh reinforcement and (still) wet
prior to installing the underpinning system. shotcrete face.
3. If Atlas Resistance® Modified Piers are used as the under- 12. The remaining shotcrete is installed to provide the total
pinning system, the process requires the use of pier sleev- thickness specified.
ing to prevent buckling at the joints of the pier pipe. Every
13. Steps 7 through 12 above are repeated after each incre-
sleeve joint must be at least 18” away from a pier pipe joint.
mental excavation. Stabilization continues until all of the
In some cases grouting of the pier pipe along with the in-
Helical Soil Screw® Anchors are installed and the rein-
sertion of a steel reinforcement bar may be specified.
forced shotcrete wall is completed to the design depth.
4. The pier sleeving must be installed to a minimum of 2 feet
below the deepest excavation (cut).
5. If using Atlas Resistance® Modified Piers, the piers shall
CONCEPTS AND
be driven to the required depth and load tested to 150% APPLICATIONS OF
UNDERPINNING/
of the design load. Then each pier shall be preloaded to
at least 95% of the design load and locked off. If using
Chance® Helical Piles as the underpinning system, the heli-
cal piles shall be installed to the required minimum depths
SHORING SYSTEMS
and minimum average installation torques.
BACKGROUND
6. When the Atlas Resistance® Pier or Chance® Helical Pile
The construction of additions to office and commercial build-
underpinning system installation is complete, the helical
RETENTION WALLS
ings or new construction adjacent to existing buildings requires

tieback anchor shall be attached to the pier/pile bracket
earth excavation much deeper than the footing elevation of the
and preloaded. Normally the tieback is preloaded to the
immediately adjacent building(s). The use of sheet pile and/or
design load.
H-piles with wood lagging to prevent adjacent footing subsid-
7. Upon completion of all of the underpinning and tieback ence requires the use of dynamic pile driving equipment with
operations, the wall face excavation can commence. If the the attendant vibrations and noise levels. There are decided
soils are generally cohesionless (sands, etc.) or there is any disadvantages to these traditional approaches since the vibra-
danger of the soil face sloughing off, a 1” thick flash coat tions may cause movement of the existing building foundation
of shotcrete shall be immediately placed against the face and subsequent structural damage. Additionally, the vibration
of the cut as the excavation proceeds. If the cut soil is ca- levels can often lead to a shutdown of business operations if
pable of standing by itself, then the first layer of shotcrete conducted during normal working hours.
can be applied after the initial cut is complete. The same
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. offers an underpinning/shoring
procedure shall be followed for subsequent incremental
system that not only avoids the vibrations and noise level is-
excavations. Under no circumstances should a cut of any
sues, but also permits the shoring and excavation to proceed
height be left open at the face for more than two hours.
at a more rapid pace. In many cases this results in an overall
8. The depth of cut on the first excavation, as well as on sub- cost savings to the prime contractor and owner. The examples
sequent incremental excavations shall be at least one foot covered below are intended to illustrate some of the design
deeper than the depth of the row of Helical Soil Screw® concepts and applications of this system.
Anchors. See Figure 9-13, which shows a 6-foot cut and
In conducting preliminary designs for projects using the un-
5-foot deep row of Helical Soil Screw® Anchors.
derpinning/shoring system and in the development of the case
9. When the first excavation is complete (with or without studies that follow, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. uses certain
shotcrete flash coating), the first row of Chance® Helical guidelines. These guidelines are briefly summarized below:
Soil Screw® Anchors is installed to the requirements in-
1. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. does not currently recom-
dicated in the design specifications (length of installa-
mend using the underpinning/shoring system for excava-
tion, minimum torque, installation angle, etc.). A Helical
tions exceeding 25 feet.
Soil Screw® Anchor shall be positioned immediately ad-
jacent to each underpinning pier/pile. Shotcrete is placed 2. Although Atlas Resistance® Piers or Chance® Helical
onto the cut face to 1/2 of the total specified shotcrete Foundation Piles can be used for the underpinning stage;
thickness. it is preferred to use the Atlas Resistance® Pier if “hard
stratum” is within a reasonable depth at the proposed
10. The welded wire mesh reinforcement is set against the
construction site.
face of the wet shotcrete along the cut face of the wall
with excess reinforcement turned outward at the bottom 3. The Atlas Resistance® Piers used for underpinning the ex-
of the cut to allow for overlap of reinforcement on succes- isting building foundation must be sleeved with the joints
sive stages. of the sleeves offset from the joints of the underpinning
pier pipe.
4. It is recommended in cases where the line load equals or Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count, “N” for this soil
exceeds 4,000 pounds per lineal foot and/or the depth of was consistently in the 9 to 10 range through the 18 feet. Both
cut exceeds 12 feet to use a Chance® Helical Tieback inte- by correlation with the “N” values and from the results of hand
grated at the pier bracket level. This requirement uses the held penetrometer tests on the soil, this silty to sandy clay was
pier and tieback combination as illustrated in Figure 9-11. determined to have a cohesion, “c” of 1,000 pounds per square
This helical product is used as a tieback anchor and not a foot and a friction angle, “φ” of 10°. Below the 18 feet of silty to
Soil Screw® Anchor. sandy clay a stratum of weathered sandstone was encountered
to the bottom of the borings at 20 feet at which the driller
5. Helical Soil Screw® Anchors must be installed at a mini-
experienced auger refusal. No ground water was encountered
mum downward angle of 5° and generally not to exceed
during the soil borings.
15°.
6. All Helical Soil Screw® Anchors have the same size helix
UNDERPINNING SYSTEM - ATLAS
plates continuously along the installed length of the shaft.
RESISTANCE® MODIFIED PIERS
7. The bottom cantilever of shotcrete wall should be limited
As noted above, a stratum of sandstone exists at the site be-
to 2/3 of the typical spacing for the Helical Soil Screw®
ginning at a depth of 18 feet. Auger refusal was experienced
Anchor row, but should not exceed 3 feet.
at a depth of 20 feet. Allowing for four feet from the ground
8. If the foundation soils to be excavated contain cohesion- elevation of the boring log to the bottom of the footing to be
less soils (sands, sands and gravels and gravel and silty underpinned indicates that the length of the underpinning pier
sands) a “flash coat” of shotcrete should be applied im- pipe will be 16 feet. The existing footing line load is:
mediately as the cut is made.
EQUATION 9-1
9. Chance® Installers must receive formal training in the “con-
p = 13,000 lb/ft
RETENTION WALLS
cept” and “field installation technique” prior to using the
underpinning/shoring system on an actual project.
NOTE: The designs and data shown in the following examples
are not intended for use in actual design situations. Each proj-
ect and application is different as to soils, structure and related
factors.
EXISTING
8” SLAB
CASE STUDY 1 - HIGH ORIGINAL

ELEVATION
FOUNDATION LINE LOAD

WITH SHALLOW CUT STEMWALL
(HEIGHT=2’6”)
4’
Northern Excellence University is planning to construct an ad- FOOTING
(3’0”X1’6”) 13,000 FT-LB
dition to the existing Book Science Building. The existing build-
ing has a continuous perimeter footing as shown in Figure 9-7.
The building is a 3-story structure and has a foundation line
load of 13,000 pounds per lineal foot. This reinforced concrete
footing is seated about 4 feet below the existing ground line
as noted in Figure 9-7. There are no column footings at the ex-
terior wall of the existing building immediately adjacent to the 7’
proposed addition.
NEW SLAB
The proposed building addition will be placed immediately ad-
ON GRADE
jacent to a 100-foot section of one wall of the existing building
as shown in Figure 9-10. The foundation for the new building
will also be a reinforced concrete continuous footing, but it
will be set eight feet below the bottom of the existing building 10,000 FT-LB
footing as shown in Figure 9-7. The estimated footing load for ENGINEERED
the new addition is 10,000 pounds per lineal foot. As noted in FILL
Figure 9-7, a surcharge load will exist arising from the Live Load
on the floor slab (100 lb/ft2), the weight of the concrete slab CHANCE® HELICAL
and the overburden pressure from approximately 3-1/2 feet of NEW CONSTRUCTION
soil cover over the top of the existing footing. FOUNDATION PILE
A geotechnical investigation was conducted at the site and

CROSS SECTION OF EXISTING FOOTING AND
the results showed that below the first foot of topsoil, a stra-
PLANNED EXCAVATION, FIGURE 9-7
tum of silty to sandy clay existed to a depth of 18 feet. The
If we assume a pier spacing of 4 ft, center to center, the load Also shown in Figure 9-8 is the resistance to movements
per pier becomes: that occur along the movement plane arising from the shear
strength of the soil. This shear strength is made up of both the
EQUATION 9-2
cohesion and friction acting along that plane.
pdes = 13,000 lb (4 ft)
In Figure 9-9 the same body mass of soil is shown, but now
= 52,000 lbs
the single Helical Soil Screw® Anchor shown provides addi-
Based on a requirement of installing an Atlas Resistance® Pier
tional resistance to sliding that develops along the movement
to a tested load resistance of at least 50% higher than the de-
plane. If the installation angle of the Helical Soil Screw® Anchor
sign load leads to:
is 10°, the new driving force and new resisting force may be
EQUATION 9-3 calculated.
DS = 52,000 (1.5) Generally, the Factor of Safety is illustrated by the following
= 78,000 lbs equation:
EQUATION 9-4
An Atlas Resistance® 2-Piece Modified Pier part number AP-
FS = RF / (DF - SSCF)
2-4000.219[M] is selected. This pier is designed with a 4” di-
where
ameter pier pipe and has an ultimate capacity of 98,000 lbs.
The “M” indicates the use of 4-1/2“ diameter sleeving over the FS = Factor of Safety
pier pipe. The sleeved portion of the pier shall extend down to RF = Resisting force
a depth of 10’-6“ (three lengths of sleeve pipe). Since this is DF = Driving force
temporary construction, corrosion protection is unnecessary.
SSCF = Soil Screw® Anchor component force
Details of the underpinning and tieback anchorage are shown
RETENTION WALLS
in Figure 9-11.
Resisting Force (RF) arises from the shear strength of the
INTEGRATED TIEBACK SYSTEM - CHANCE® HELICAL soil (c and φ) along the movement plane and the Helical Soil
TIEBACK ANCHORS Screw® Anchor component parallel to the movement plane.
Driving Force (DF) is the component of the soil body mass
Following the recommendation of using an integrated tie- (weight) in the direction of the movement plane. Helical Soil
back whenever the line load exceeds 4,000 lbs/ft, a Chance® Screw® Anchor Component Force (SSCF) is the component of
Helical Tieback Anchor must be selected for used with each the total Helical Soil Screw® Anchor holding capacity (ultimate
Atlas Resistance® 2-Piece Modified Pier placement. For this capacity) in the direction of the movement plane. Internal sta-
situation, the C1500006 Tieback Anchor Lead Section and bility analysis as described herein is typically done with com-
C1500048 Tieback Extension with coupling and hardware is mercially available software such as SNAILZ (Caltrans) or Gold
recommended. Nail (Golder Associates); see the Chance® Soil Screw® Retention
The installed length is estimated to be 15 feet. The installed Wall System Design Manual for an example. Helical Soil Screw®
angle is 15° down from horizontal. The lead section consists of Anchor tension capacity is calculated with HeliCAP® Helical
one 8-inch and one 10-inch diameter plate welded to a 1-1/2” Capacity Design Software and input into the stability analysis
square solid steel shaft. Installed torque is estimated to be software.
2,000 ft-lbs, minimum. No corrosion protection is required be- For the specific conditions defined above, the Chance® Helical
cause the construction is temporary. Soil Screw® Anchor Lead Section C1100692 and C1100690
Extension is selected. The Helical Soil Screw® Anchor lead
SOIL SCREW® RETENTION WALL SYSTEM section consists of 8” diameter plates welded along the en-
The body mass of soil that would slide along the movement tire length of a 1-1/2” square shaft. Minimum installed length
plane if failure were to occur as excavation takes place is illus- is 10 feet. Installed angle is 10° down from horizontal. Installed
trated in Figure 9-8. If one uses the soil properties previously torque is estimated to be 1,500 ft-lb minimum. The single row
listed with an assumed failure plane angle (φ) of 51°, the driving of Helical Soil Screw® Anchors is set immediately adjacent to
force and resisting force may be calculated. In order to provide each underpinning pier pipe at a depth of 5 feet below the
a Factor of Safety against failure of the body mass, a single line integrated tieback anchor (this will maintain the 3 foot maxi-
of Chance® Helical Soil Screw® Anchors will be used. A minimum mum allowable bottom cantilever). No corrosion protection is
Factor of Safety of 2.0 is required against such a failure. (Note required.
that the typical design Factor of Safety for Helical Soil Screw®
Anchors ranges from 1.3 to 2.0.) A Factor of Safety of 2.0 was SHOTCRETE WALL
selected because of the very high foundation line load of the The shotcrete wall is a temporary facing for the excavation.
existing footing above the excavation. In conducting the Soil Since there is a Chance® Helical Tieback Anchor at the top, the
Screw® Anchor analysis, it assumed that the Chance® Helical wall will be laterally anchored at the pier brackets to allow lon-
tieback anchors did not contribute to the holding capacity of ger spacing for the single row of Helical Soil Screw® Anchors.
the body mass of soil even though the tieback prevents canti- The bottom cantilever should be 3 feet.
lever at the top of the wall.
ANALYSIS OF SOIL MASS FORCES ANALYSIS OF STABILIZED MASS FORCES
RETENTION WALLS
PLAN VIEW OF JOB SITE

FIGURE 9-10
EXISTING STRUCTURE UNDERPINNING WITH INTEGRAL

TIEBACK ANCHOR
FIGURE 9-11
The vertical bearing bars are extended from the welded rebar grade, has a line load of 3,000 lbs per lineal foot. The general
head assembly to the dowels and waler at the top of the wall configuration of the footing along with installed underpinning
in order to augment the welded wire fabric reinforcing (see and tieback is shown in Figure 9-16.
Figures 9-13 and 9-14).
A geotechnical investigation conducted at the site found a
The top wall segment is checked for flexure and shear using 30-foot thick stratum of silty sand below approximately two
the distributed Soil Screw® Anchor head forces and one-way feet of topsoil and fill material that consisted of silt, sand and
beam action. Two #4 reinforcing bar walers shall be placed cinders. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count “N”
continuously along the Soil Screw® Anchor row. The selected in this silty sand increased with depth from N=13 to N=18.
wall thickness is 4”. Reinforcing is a welded wire fabric (WWF Sufficient silt is present in the sand to hold a shallow vertical
6x6 W.14 or equivalent) spaced midway in the shotcrete wall at cut for a short period of time. Below the silty sand stratum at
a 2” nominal depth. a depth of 32 feet the borings encountered a hard glacial till of
clayey sand and gravel. The SPT value recorded were N=50+.
SOIL SCREW® ANCHOR HEAD DESIGN By correlating the N values, the friction angle of the silty sand
(φ) was estimated to be 30°. The ground water table (GWT)
The shotcrete wall design is critical to the punching shear of was located at 15 feet which means dewatering will be required
the Soil Screw® Anchor heads and flexural strength of the all prior to excavation.
face between the Soil Screw® Anchor heads. The Soil Screw®
Anchor head forces are expected to be approximately 1/2 of Based on discussion with the designer and contractor, a de-
the total Soil Screw® Anchor tension load. The shotcrete facing cision was made to use the Chance® Helical underpinning/
is checked for flexure and punching shear using two-way slab shoring technique in the immediate vicinity of the city market
action. This information is used in the internal stability analysis. building. The Helical Soil Screw® Anchors will continue for an
A welded rebar head assembly can be used at each placement additional 50 feet on each side of the market building as the
RETENTION WALLS
to provide local reinforcement. It is spliced to the horizontal slope is cut in a benched pattern. Beyond this zone, adequate
walers and the vertical bearing bars previously described. To clear distance exists to back-slope the cut side without provid-
accomplish the proper positioning of the welded rebar head ing any wall retaining system.
assembly and rebar, the welded wire fabric must be pushed
into the initial 2” face coat of shotcrete approximately 1/2” at UNDERPINNING SYSTEM - ATLAS
each Soil Screw® Anchor head. The 4” wall thickness and rein- RESISTANCE® MODIFIED PIERS
forcement selected above are adequate.
As noted above, a hard glacial till exists at a depth of 29 feet
The first 6 feet of soil is excavated and the soil body mass is sta- below the bottom of the market building footing. The estimat-
bilized. Figure 9-13 shows the installation of a Chance® Helical ed length of the underpinning pier pipe is 32 feet. The existing
Soil Screw® Anchor, welded wire reinforcement, welded rebar line load is 3,000 lb/ft. Although the footing line load is rela-
head assembly and shotcrete. Note that the shotcrete stops tively light, the fact that the 24” thick footing is not reinforced
short of the bottom of the excavation to allow for splicing the will limit the spacing of the piers to five feet on center. Based
welded wire mesh reinforcement and a suitable shotcrete joint. on this spacing, the design load per pier becomes:
Figure 9-14 show excavation to the final elevation along with
EQUATION 9-5
continued stabilization of the soil mass. Construction of the
new foundation begins with the installation of Chance® New Pdes = 3,000 lb (5 ft)
Construction Helical Piles. = 15,000 lbs
Based on the requirement of installing Atlas Resistance®

CASE STUDY 2 - LOW Modified Piers to a tested load resistance of at least 50%
higher than the design load leads to:
FOUNDATION LINE EQUATION 9-6
WITH DEEP CUT DS = 15,000 (1.5)
The City of High Hope is planning to build a new multi-purpose = 22,500 lbs
arena that will seat 8,000 people. The arena will be located For this requirement, the Atlas Resistance® AP-2-3500.165[PA]
within the downtown district. A 20-foot deep cut will be re- M 2-Piece Modified Pier is selected. The modified pier has a
quired for the new construction to provide sufficient elevation 3-1/2” diameter pier pipe and has an ultimate capacity of
for the arena seating yet maintain a low ground level building 91,000 lbs. “M” indicates the use of 4” diameter sleeving over
profile. A portion of the arena wall will be immediately adjacent the pier pipe. The sleeved portion of the pier shall extend down
to the existing historic city market building (see Figure 9-15). to a depth of 21 feet (six lengths of sleeve pipe). “PA” indicates
The city market building is a single story warehouse that mea- the product is manufactured of mill finish steel (plain) with flow
sures 60 by 120 feet. The back wall of the market building will coated corrosion protection of the pier pipe. Since this is tem-
abut the new arena wall. The market building was construct- porary construction, the corrosion protection is unnecessary;
ed in the early 1900s and has an unreinforced concrete grade however this product is supplied with corrosion protected pipe
beam foundation that measures three feet wide by two feet as standard. Details of the underpinning and tieback anchor-
deep. The grade beam, seated three feet below the existing age are shown in Figure 9-16.
#4 DOWEL - 2 REQ’D
ATLAS RESISTANCE®
AT EACH BRACKET
2-PIECE MODIFIED PIER
#4 REBAR TO
TOP DOWEL
#4 CONTINUOUS WALER 2 REQ’D AT EACH
HEAD FROM WELDED
REBAR ASSY
(LAP 12 IN)
SOIL SCREW®
CHANCE® HELICAL
ANCHOR HEAD
TIEBACK ANCHOR
S-SQ1500(P)8-10(5’-0)
#4 REBAR - 2 VERTICAL E-SQ1500(P)(10’-0)
BEARING BARS AT EACH LENGTH = 15 FT
SOIL SCREW® ANCHOR MESH WWF
BEARING PLATE 6x6 21.4
WELDED REBAR
LAP 8 IN
HEAD ASSY
MESH WWF
6x6 W1.4
LAP 1 IN MIN.
TOP REINFORCEMENT DETAIL SOIL SCREW® HEAD

REINFORCEMENT DETAIL
RETENTION WALLS
REINFORCEMENT DETAILS FOR CASE STUDY #1, FIGURE 9-12
SOIL SCREW® ANCHOR CONFIGURATION EXCAVATION TO THE FINAL ELEVATION

FOR CASE STUDY #1, FIGURE 9-13 FIGURE 9-14
INTEGRATED TIEBACK SYSTEM - CHANCE®
HELICAL TIEBACK ANCHORS
Although the footing line load is less than the 4,000 lb/ft cri-
teria, the depth of the cut to be shored is 20 feet. This exceeds
the recommended 12 foot limitation and as such a Chance®
Helical Tieback Anchor must be selected for use with each
modified pier placement. For this situation Type SS5 1-1/2”
square shaft Lead Section and Extension are the recommend-
ed components.
The lead section consists of one 8” and one 10” diameter plate
welded to a 1-1/2” square shaft. Minimum installed length is es-
timated to be 15 feet. Installed angle is 12° down from hori-
zontal. Installed torque is estimated to be 1,800 ft-lb minimum.
PLAN VIEW OF JOB SITE No corrosion protection is required since the construction is
FIGURE 9-15 temporary.
SOIL SCREW® SHORING SYSTEM - CHANCE® HELICAL SOIL

SCREW® ANCHORS
Because the depth of cut is 20 feet from grade (17 feet be-
low the bottom of the footing of the market building), three
Helical Soil Screw® Anchors are required. In this case a Factor
RETENTION WALLS
of Safety of 1.5 was used because the existing market build-

ing is relatively light. In conducting the soil analysis, it was as-
sumed that the Chance® Helical Tieback Anchor does not con-
tribute to the holding capacity of the body mass of soil. As in
Case Study 1, internal stability analysis is typically done with
commercially available software such as SNAILZ (Caltrans) or
GoldNail (Golder Associates), and Soil Screw® Anchor tension
capacity is calculated with HeliCAP® Helical Capacity Design
Software and input into the stability analysis software. In this
project, the shear strength is from the frictional nature of the
cohesionless soil (silty sand) and its magnitude is related to the
friction angle (φ = 30° in this case).
As described in the Chance® Soil Screw® Retention Wall System
Design Manual, Soil Screw® Anchors add to the resisting force
along the movement plane. In this case, however, the indicated
force (T) is the resultant of all three rows of Helical Soil Screw®
Anchors. Placement of the three rows of Helical Soil Screw®
Anchors is shown in Figure 9-18. The value for the ultimate
holding capacity required (including the Factor of Safety) is:
EQUATION 9-7
T = T1 + T2 + T3
The results of extensive testing of soil nail walls indicate that
the top row of soil nails or screws is most heavily loaded with
SOIL SCREW CONFIGURATION FOR CASE STUDY #2
the successively lower rows having lesser holding capacity
FIGURE 9-16
requirements. The following are the recommended Chance®
Helical Soil Screw® Systems for this project:
• Soil Screw® Anchor Row #1 (T1): C2200691 Lead and two
C1100689 Extensions. The Soil Screw® Anchor has continu-
ously spaced 8” diameter plates along the entire length of
a 1-1/2” solid square steel shaft. The Soil Screw® Anchor
will be installed to a minimum length of 19 feet, 10° down
from horizontal and to an estimated torque of 2,500 ft-lbs.
• Soil Screw® Anchor Row #2 (T2): C2200691 Lead and
one C1100689 Extension. The Soil Screw® Anchor has
REINFORCEMENT DETAILS FOR CASE STUDY #2, FIGURE 9-17
continuously spaced 8” diameter plates
RETENTION WALLS
along the entire length of a 1-1/2” solid
square steel shaft. The Soil Screw® Anchor
will be installed to a minimum length of 14
feet, 10° down from horizontal and to an es-
timated torque of 1,800 ft-lbs.
• Soil Screw® Anchor Row #3 (T3): C1100692
Lead and C1100690 Extension. The Soil
Screw® Anchor has continuously spaced
8” diameter plates along the entire length
of a 1-1/2” solid square steel shaft. The Soil
Screw® Anchor will be installed to a mini-
mum length of 10 feet, 10° down from hori-
zontal and to an estimated torque of 1,000
ft-lbs.
SHOTCRETE WALL
The shotcrete wall is a temporary facing for the
excavation. Since the soil analysis assumed that
the Chance® Helical Tieback Anchors do not
contribute to the holding capacity of the body
mass of soil (see Figure 9-8), the Chance® Helical
Soil Screw® Anchors were designed to hold the
total body mass. The bottom cantilever should
be limited to 2/3 of the typical spacing for the
Soil Screw® Anchor row, but should not exceed 3
feet. In this case the cantilever is 3 feet.
Vertical bearing bars are extended from the
welded rebar head assemblies at the upper row
of Soil Screw® Anchors to the dowels and waler
at the top of the wall in order to augment the
selected shotcrete wall thickness (5”). Welded
wire fabric reinforcing (WWF 6x6 W2.9 or
equivalent) is spaced midway within the shot-
crete wall at a 2-1/2” nominal depth. The top wall
EXCAVATION AND STABILIZATION segment is checked for flexure and shear using
FIGURE 9-18 the distributed Soil Screw® Anchor head forces
and one-way beam action. Two #4 reinforcing bar walers are
placed continuously along each Soil Screw® Anchor row (see
Figures 9-17 and 9-18).
SOIL SCREW® ANCHOR HEAD DESIGN

The Soil Screw® Anchor head forces are expected to be ap-
proximately 1/2 of the Soil Screw® Anchor tension load. The
shotcrete facing is checked for flexure and punching shear
using two-way slab action. This information is used in the in-
ternal stability analysis. A wall plate could have been placed
at the wall face to maximize punching shear resistance, but
in this example a welded rebar head assembly that includes a
wall plate is placed on each Helical Soil Screw® Anchor at the
middle of the shotcrete wall as shown in Figure 9-18 (refer to
Soil Screw® Anchor Wall Accessories for details of the welded
rebar head assembly). The welded rebar head assembly shall
be spliced to the horizontal walers at each row of Helical Soil
Screw® Anchors and to the vertical bearing bars between the
upper row of Helical Soil Screw® Anchors and the dowels at
the pier brackets. To properly position and embed the welded
rebar head assembly and rebar, the welded wire fabric must
be pushed into the initial 2-1/2” face coat of shotcrete approxi-
RETENTION WALLS
mately 1/2” at each Soil Screw® Anchor head. The 5” wall thick-
ness and reinforcement described above are adequate.
REFERENCES:
1. AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures,

Manual on Foundation Investigations, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 1978.
2. Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-SA93-026,
Recommendations Clouterre, English Translation, 1993.
3. Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-SA-96-069,
Manual for Design and Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls,
1996.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Design and Construction Guidelines, 1996.
Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcement for Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, 1996.
SECTION 10: POLE BASE FOUNDATIONS
CONTENTS
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................10-2
Design..................................................................................................................................................................10-2
Laterally Loaded Foundations...................................................................................................................10-6
Instant Foundations® System Specifications........................................................................................10-7
Product Specifications..................................................................................................................................10-7
Pole Load Determination Data Sheet.....................................................................................................10-9
POLE BASE FOUNDATIONS

DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
INTRODUCTION DESIGN
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. manufactures pole base founda-
tions to provide resistance to lateral loads and moment loads RECOMMENDED FACTORS
due to wind and other load conditions. The versatility and
OF SAFETY FOR DESIGN
ease of construction of these pole base foundations, known
as Chance® Instant Foundations®, permits great flexibility in a The variability of soil conditions that may exist at a project site,
number of applications. Typical uses for these products are plus the varied nature of loading on structures and how these
foundations for equipment pads, foundation supports for signs, loads are transferred through foundation elements, requires
supports for light standards and decorative poles, EV charging the consulting engineer and/or dealer/ installing contractor to
station foundations, 5G pole foundations, and other eccentric use an appropriate factor of safety (FS) in design for use with
load applications. the Chance® Instant Foundations® system. Generally this factor
of safety is a minimum of 2:1 on all permanent loading condi-
tions and a minimum of 1.5:1 For any temporary load situation.
PRODUCT BENEFITS National and local building code regulations may require more
Instant Foundations offer the following benefits: stringent factors of safety on certain projects.
• Fast installation.
• No vibration.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Instant Foundations provide manufactured single helix fixed
• Ease of installation in limited access areas.
length products for use as foundations for varied applications
• Minimum disturbance to site. such as light poles, signs and equipment supports. There are
• No excavation required. many applications for these tubular helical specialty products.
Each application will require:
• All steel foundation.
1. An evaluation of the soil strata and soil characteristics of
• Immediate structure installation. that stratum in which the product will be installed.
• Ready for immediate wiring. 2. A selection of the appropriate Instant Foundation product
• All weather installation. shaft diameter, shaft length, base plate size, bolt diameter
and bolt circle diameter.
• On-site load test capability.
3. A determination of the ultimate bearing capacity and suit-
This section describes the Chance Instant Foundations system

able Factor of Safety.
products for overturning moment loads and lateral support
that are typically maintained in stock to provide quick delivery NOTE: The design should involve professional geotechnical
to the project site. Table 10-1 and Figure 10-1 illustrate just a few and engineering input. Specific information involving the struc-
of the Instant Foundations products that are available in each tures, soil characteristics and foundation conditions must be
of the product series. Our manufacturing facility is capable of used for the final design.
rapidly fabricating products to suit the application. For pole The following preliminary design guide information is intended
bases that require bumper/impact protection, a pre-cast collar to assist dealers, installing contractors, and consulting engi-
option is available (see Figure 10-2) neers to select the appropriate Chance pole base foundation
to resist overturning moment and lateral load.
INSTANT FOUNDATIONS SYSTEM
The Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. Pole Load Determination Data
PRODUCT SELECTION, TABLE 10-1
Sheet is provided in this section. This can be used to gather
DETAIL CATALOG NO PILE DIA LENGTH and record the information required to determine the loads to
be applied to a light pole foundation. The loads and given soil
A T1120143 3-1/2” 5’ - 0”
conditions are then used to determine the appropriate Instant
B T1120338 4” 4’ - 8”
Foundation product size required for the job. The Select-a-
C C11232JG4VL 6-5/8” 5’ - 0” Base™ Lighting Base Program is an on-line program used for
D C11242NG4VP 8-5/8” 5’ - 0” preliminary foundation selection. The program incorporates a
database of Chance pole bases. The program inputs include
E T1120592 10-3/4” 5’ - 0”
loading conditions (wind, moment, and/or lateral), pole/pole
Notes:
arm details and soil data. The software is free and easy to use
1. Manufacturer to have in effect industry recognized written quality on-line at www.hpsapps.com.
control for all materials and manufacturing processes.
2. All material to be new, unused and mill traceable meeting specifica-
tions found on product drawing.
3. Additional lengths and configurations are available as standard cata-
log numbers.
3.6" DIA.
CENTER HOLE
DECORATIVE LIGHTING
FOUNDATION CAT NO T112-0338
LIGHTING FOUNDATION MOUNTING HARDWARE
CAT. NO. T1120143 ORDER T1120393
FIGURE 10-1A
T112-0143 FIGURE 10-1B
T112-0338
LIGHTING FOUNDATION LIGHTING FOUNDATION

CAT NO C11232JG4VL CAT NO C11242NG4VP
FIGURE 10-1C FIGURE 10-1D
C11232JG4VL
HELIX MUST BE FORMED BY
MATCHING METAL DIE
T112-0338
SIDE VIEW OF TRUE LIGHTING FOUNDATION
HELICAL SHAPE CAT NO T112-0592
FIGURE 10-1E
INSTANT FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN STEPS
CHECK WITH LOCAL BUILDING CODE AGENCY. SELECT INSTANT FOUNDATION PRODUCT
Determine general geotechnical soil • Diameter
conditions (see Section 2) • Shaft Length
• Soil Profile
• Soil Classification
• Standard Penetration Test Results PERFORM ULTIMATE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
• Other Test Results
• Hult - Lateral Load Capacity
• Mult - Overturning Moment Capacity
(See design guidelines on following pages)
DEFINE THE LIGHT STANDARD OR COLUMN
• Type
• Size and Height APPLY FACTOR OF SAFETY TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY
Hult or Mult
Compare results to selected Instant Foundation
DETERMINE STRUCTURAL LOADS
product design capacity or project requirements.
• Dead Load (DL)
• Lateral Load (Hd)
• Overturning Moment (Md)
• Factor of Safety (FS) COMPLETE DESIGN DETAILS
LIGHT POLE STANDARDS PRODUCTS
Chance® Instant Foundation® products for light pole standards
are designed to resist both the lateral forces and overturning
moments from wind loads. Controlling design standards for
wind loads can be determined either by consulting local or
national building codes or conformance to standards set by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). These standards will provide the required
design wind load based on geographic region and the factors
associated with the shape and type of structure in order to de-
termine the resulting wind pressure. This wind pressure is then
applied to the effective projected area (EPA) of the light pole,
arm and fixture. These lateral forces can be used to determine
the resultant lateral force and overturning moment applied to
the foundation as shown in Figure 10-4. The luminaire or fixture
supplier may be consulted to determine the actual effective
INSTALLED LIGHT STANDARD
projected area for the specific light assembly.
FIGURE 10-2
Table 10-2 provides the suggested shaft diameter and installa-
tion requirements for various lateral load-overturning moment
ranges. Table 10-3 provides the minimum recommended de-
sign life based on the structure type. This has been reproduced
from AASHTO Specification, 4th edition, 2001. The designer
can make a site-specific analysis, or an analysis can be obtained
by completing the Pole Load Determination Data Sheet on
page 10-9 and submitting it to Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. to
determine the most appropriate Instant Foundation® Product.
CHANCE® INSTANT FOUNDATION® PRODUCTS, TABLE 10-2
Design Lateral Design Recommended Product Part

Load2 Overturning Helical Number
Moment2 Foundation2
150 – 500 lb. ≤ 2,800 ft-lb. 3.5” Dia x 5’ Long T1120143
150 – 500 lb. ≤ 3,500 ft-lb. 4” Dia x 4’-8” Long T1120338
500 – 1,000 lb. ≤ 10,500 ft-lb. 6-5/8” Dia x 5’ Long C11232JG4VL
1,000 – 1,200 lb. ≤ 21,000 ft-lb. 8-5/8” Dia x 5’ Long C11242NG4VP
1,200 – 1,500 lb. ≤ 37,000 ft-lb. 10-3/4” Dia x 5’ Long T1120592
Notes:
1. The above lateral loads and overturning moments are mechanical rat-
ings of the indicated foundation. Project soil conditions must be evalu-
ated during preliminary design.
2. These design loads are based on allowable bending in the pipe shaft
with cableway widths of 1.25” in 3.5” dia, 1.5” in 4” dia and 2.5” in all
other foundations.
INSTANT FOUNDATIONS ARE INSTALLED USING

COMMON CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
FIGURE 10-3
wp = Wind Pressure FOUNDATION REACTIONS
EPAlf = Effective Projected Area of Vlf = [EPAlf x wp]
a Light Fixture Vp = [EPAp x wp]
EPAp = Effective Projected Area of V = Vlf +Vp
a Light Pole M = [Vlf x Hlf] + [Vp x Hp]
Hlf = Moment Arm to EPAlf
Centroid
Hp = Moment Arm to EPAp
Centroid
EPAlf
Hlf
EPAp
DL
Hp
LIGHT STANDARD CONNECTION DETAILS

FIGURE 10-5
M
V
RESULTANT PILE FOUNDATION LOADS LATERALLY LOADED

FIGURE 10-4
FOUNDATIONS
Certain projects require a rapidly installed foundation that must
resist lateral loads. Examples of these projects include:
3. 5” dia, 1.5” in 4” dia and 2.5” in all other foundations. • Equipment platforms for communication towers or mechani-
cal systems.
• Seaside structures subjected to wave action.
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DESIGN LIFE, TABLE 10-3
• Temporary classroom/mobile building foundations.
Design Life Structure Type
• Solar Panels
50 Years • Luminaire support structures ex-
ceeding 15m (49.2 ft) in height. Each project must be evaluated and designed and should in-
• Overhead sign structures. clude geotechnical and professional engineering input. Hubbell
Power Systems, Inc. offers a “Preliminary Design Service” for
25 Years • Luminaire support structures less
than 15m (49.2 ft) in height. evaluating the feasibility of using Instant Foundation® products
on such specific projects.
• Traffic signal structures.
10 Years • Roadside sign structures.
(Reproduced from AASHTO Specification, 4th edition, 2001)
INSTANT FOUNDATIONS® 1.3 DELIVERY, STORAGE AND HANDLING
All foundation products shall be handled and transported care-
SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS fully to prevent any deformation or damage. Care should be taken
The Specification at the end of this section provides a typical to prevent the accumulation of dirt, mud or other foreign matter
specification for a Chance® Instant Foundation. on the steel materials. Such accumulation shall be completely re-
moved prior to installation.
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Specification, 6th Edition, 2013.
PART 2 - MATERIAL
2. Uniform Building Code, Volume 2 - Division 3, 1997.
2.1 HYDRAULIC GEAR MOTOR
The torque rating of the hydraulic gear motor used to install the
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Instant Foundations® product shall be adequate to install the re-
quired foundation. It is suggested that the torque rating be 25
CHANCE® INSTANT FOUNDATION® PRODUCTS percent higher than the planned installation torque. Depending
upon the soil conditions and pile configuration, different hydraulic
• 3-½” Dia x 0.300” Wall • 4” Dia x 0.226” Wall
gear motors may be required.
• 6-5⁄8” Dia x 0.280 Wall • 8-5⁄8” Dia x 0.250” Wall
2.2 3-1/2” AND 4” DIAMETER HELICAL INSTANT FOUNDATIONS®
• 10-3⁄4” Dia x 0.250” Wall SERIES
2.2.1 Foundation Shaft Section
The usual application for this foundation is where loads are mod- The shaft section consists of a tubular hot rolled steel pile
erate and the project requires greater column stiffness than is section 3-1/2” in diameter with a 0.300” wall thickness, or 4”
possible with the typical square shaft helical pile. Examples of ap- diameter with a wall thickness of 0.226” conforming to ASTM
plications are: Light Standards, Curbside Business Sign Support, A-53, A-252 and A-500. The length of the foundation shall be
electrical/Mechanical equipment Pad Support, Cantilevered as specified: 4’, 4’-8”, 5’, etc. The lead end of the 3.5” and 4”
Loads, etc. foundations shall have a single or double bevel cut to aid in
starting the foundation installation. Welded to the shaft shall
PART 1 – GENERAL be one ASTM A-635 steel helical plate with a thickness of
3/8” and a 3” pitch.
1.1 SCOPE OF WORK
2.2.2 Foundation System Base Mounting Plates
This work consists of furnishing labor, tools, equipment and ma-
Foundation base plates may be round or square, of various

terials associated with the preparation and installation of the
Chance® Instant Foundations® for structural foundation support sizes in plan view and may vary in thickness from 1/2” to 1-1/2”
according to the specifications contained herein. The work in- depending on job requirements.
cludes, but is not limited to, the following: 2.3 6-5/8”, 8-5/8” AND 10-3/4” DIAMETER HELICAL INSTANT
1. Diligent investigation of the possible existence and loca- FOUNDATIONS® SERIES
tion of underground utilities situated at or near the area 2.3.1 Foundation Shaft Section
of work;
The shaft section consists of 6” diameter (6-5/8” outside di-
2. Excavation and preparation of foundation soil to grade ameter with 0.280” wall), 8” diameter
for foundation installation;
(8-5/8” outside diameter with 0.250” wall) or 10” (10-3/4” out-
3. Mounting of the hydraulic gear motor on a backhoe unit side diameter with 0.250” wall) steel pipe conforming to
or similar auxiliary powered equipment, and the installa- ASTM A-53, A-252 or A-500. The length of the foundation
tion of the Instant Foundations® product to the required may be 4’, 5’, 7’, 8’ or 10’ long as required by the application.
torque resistance at the required depth (if torque resis- The pile section shall have two wire access slots located 180°
tance measurement is required). from each other. The integral foundation cap plate shall have
4. Removal of the hydraulic gear motor. an alignment notch located
5. Conducting an optional Field Load Test on one or more Directly above one of the wire access slots. Welded to the
Instant Foundations® products. lead end of the foundation shaft shall be a steel helical plate
with a 3” pitch. To aid in starting the pile, a 1-1/4” diameter
6. Clean Up.
steel rod shall extend beyond the center of the helix to pro-
1.2 REFERENCES vide a pilot.
1. Building Officials and Code administrators International, 2.3.2 FOUNDATION SYSTEM BASE MOUNTING PLATES
Inc. (BOCA) Basic National Building Code.
Foundation base plates may be round or square, of various
2. American Association of State Highway and sizes in plan view and may vary in thickness from 3/4” to 1-1/2”
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard depending on job requirements.
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires and Traffic Signals.
2.4 WELDMENTS Depending on the project specifications, a Working Load Test
may be required. Normally, the first installed foundation is se-
All welded connections shall conform to the requirements of the lected for this test; however, some specifications require ultimate
American Welding Society Structural Welding Code, AWS D1.1 loading of the foundation. If an Ultimate Load Test is required, a
and applicable revisions. test foundation must be installed in an alternate location on the
site in addition to the pile locations marked. After the Ultimate
PART 3 - EXECUTION Load Test is completed, the test foundation may be removed
from the soil and used on the project, provided it is not damaged.
The following is intended to provide the controlling specification
for the major steps undertaken in the installation of the Chance® 3.5 CLEAN UP
Instant Foundation® systems. Variations in the installation proce-
Upon completion of the installation of the Chance® Instant
dure may occur depending on the application and the structural
Foundations® product, all equipment shall be removed from the
support required.
site. Any disturbed soils in the area of the foundation shall be re-
WARNING! THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBLE stored to the dimensions and condition specified by the engineer.
EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES SITUATED AT OR NEAR THE AREA OF WORK
BEFORE PROCEEDING. SERIOUS INJURY MAY RESULT FROM END OF SPECIFICATION
FAILURE TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
3.1 PREPARATION
The soil shall be excavated to the proper grade for placement of
the Chance® Instant Foundations® product. Stakes should be set
at each foundation location prior to commencement of work. The
foundation layout and staking should be under the supervision
of the responsible structural engineer and be accomplished us-
ing fully qualified and trained technicians familiar with foundation
layout.
3.2 INSTALLATION OF THE INSTANT
FOUNDATIONS® PRODUCT
The hydraulic gear motor shall be installed on a backhoe or oth-
er suitable pile installation unit. Mount the Instant Foundations®

Product to the hydraulic gear motor via the appropriate Kelly bar
adapter and installing tool using two structural grade bolts and
nuts. The foundation is positioned vertically over a marked pile lo-
cation and driven into the soil by means of the hydraulic gear mo-
tor. Rotary installation continues until the required design torque
is achieved at or below the predetermined depth. The baseplate
is typically installed to grade or slightly above to allow clearance
for bolt mounting of the pole base. It is important that the instal-
lation torque remain at or above the predetermined value during
this process. Details of the installation shall be provided to the
supervising engineer for review.
3.3 DOCUMENTATION
When required, the dealer/installing contractor shall monitor the
torque applied to the foundation during installation. It is suggest-
ed, but not mandatory that the installation torque be recorded
at one-foot intervals throughout the installation. The installation
torque may be measured with a calibrated torque indicator. At
the conclusion of the installation, a copy of the foundation instal-
lation record shall be provided to the engineer for review.
3.4 LOAD TEST (OPTIONAL)
A detailed description on the requirements and procedures for
conducting a Load Test may be found in Appendix B (Load Tests).
The results of the Field Load Test provide guidance for determin-
ing the ultimate and allowable foundation loads.
Load testing should be conducted under the supervision of the
responsible engineer.
Need by: ________________________
Pole Load Determination Data Sheet
Contact Name: Phone: Date:
Job Name: Job Location:
*Select Appropriate Unit of Measure
1. Luminaire Mounting Height: m ft

2. Height of Pole: m ft
3. Outside Diameter of Pole Top: cm in
4. Outside Diameter of Pole Bottom: cm in
5. Arm Length: m ft
6. Arm Tip Outside Diameter: cm in
7. Arm Bottom outside Diameter: cm in
8. Luminaire Weight: kg lb
9. Luminaire EPA (Projected Area x Cd): m2 ft2
10. Basic Wind Speed: kph mph
11. Minimum Design Life (Select Choice): 10 25 50
Design life default is 25 years. See Table 3-3, below
12. Number of Arms:

13. Number of Luminaires:
14. Pole Shape (Select choice from list below)
Cylinder Hecdecagonal (16 Sides) Octagonal (8 Sides)
Flat Dodecagonal (12 Sides) Square (4 Side) Diamond
15. Arm Shape (Select choice from list below)
Flat Dodecagonal (12 Sides) Square (4 Side) Diamond
16. Anchor Bolt Diameter: cm in
17. Number of Bolts (in base plate):
18. Bolt Circle Diameter: cm in
19. Special Cableway Requirements:
20. Site Soil Conditions (if available):
21. CHANCE Precast Concrete Collar: No Yes - height: 12" H 24" H Other: ______
22. Solar Panel/Banner: Qty ________ Dimension ____"H x ____"W Distance from ground? ________
Location on Pole (one side or both) ____________
Table 3-3. Recommended Minimum Design Life

Reproduced from AASHTO Specification, 4th Edition, 2001

-Luminaire support structures exceeding 15m (49.2 ft.)
50 Years
-Overhead sign structures
-Luminaire support structures less than 15m (49.2 ft.) in height
25 Years
-Traffic signal structures
10 Years -Roadside sign structures
Email to [email protected] www.chancefoundationsolutions.com

TD_04_196E
CORROSION - AN OVERVIEW
APPENDIX A
CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ A-2
Corrosion Theory............................................................................................................................................. A-2
Soil Environments............................................................................................................................................ A-3
Predicting Corrosion Loss............................................................................................................................ A-5
Corrosion Loss Rates......................................................................................................................................A-6
Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity...................................................................................................... A-7
Corrosion Control Techniques.....................................................................................................................A-8
Design Examples.............................................................................................................................................A-13
CORROSION
DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | Page A-1
INTRODUCTION Corrosion of steel is an electrochemical process. Romanoff
(1957) stated:
Corrosion is defined as the degradation of a material or its prop-
“For electrochemical corrosion to occur there must be a po-
erties due to a reaction with the environment. Corrosion exists
tential difference between two points that are electrically
in virtually all materials but is most often associated with met-
connected and immersed in an electrolyte. Whenever these
als. Metallic corrosion is a naturally occurring process in which
conditions are fulfilled, a small current flows from the anode
the surface of a metallic structure is oxidized or reduced to a
area through the electrolyte to the cathode area and then
corrosion product such as rust by chemical or electrochemical
through the metal to complete the circuit, and the anode
reaction with the environment. The surface of metallic struc-
area is the one that has the most negative potential, and is
tures is attacked through the migration of ions away from the
the area that becomes corroded through loss of metal ions
surface, resulting in material loss over time. Given enough time,
to the electrolyte. The cathode area, to which the current
the material loss can result in significant reduction of area,
flows through the electrolyte, is protected from corrosion
which in turn leads to a reduction in the structural capacity of
because of the deposition of hydrogen or other ions that
a given metallic element. When corrosion eventually destroys
carry the current.
a sufficient amount of the structure’s strength, a failure will
occur. “The electrochemical theory of corrosion is simple, i.e., cor-
CORROSION
rosion occurs through the loss of metal ions at anode points

The corrosion mechanisms involved with buried metallic struc-
or areas. However, correlation of this theory with actual or
tures are generally understood, but accurate prediction of met-
potential corrosion of metals underground is complicated
al loss rates in soil is not always easily determined. This appen-
and difficult because of the many factors that singly or in
dix provides an introduction to the concepts of underground
combination affect the course of the electrochemical reac-
corrosion and the factors that influence this corrosion in dis-
tion. These factors not only determine the amount or rate at
turbed and undisturbed soils. A few design examples are pro-
which corrosion occurs but also the kind of corrosion.”
vided to give the reader a better understanding as to whether
corrosion is a critical factor in a Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor or Depending on the many factors that affect the electrochemical
Atlas Resistance® Pier applications. This section is not intended reaction, corrosion can affect a metal in several different ways.
to be a rigorous design guide, but rather a “first check” to see Some of these types are listed below:
if corrosion is a practical concern given the specific project site
conditions. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted CORROSION TYPES, TABLE A-1
for a site specific recommendation if steel foundation products TYPE CHARACTERISTICS
are to be used in a known corrosive soil. Corrosion takes place at all area of the
Uniform or Near Uniform
Experience over the past 60 years has shown the vast major- metal at the same or a similar rate.
ity of square shaft and round shaft helical anchors/ piles have Some areas of the metal corrode at
a calculated service life well in excess of the design life of the different rates than other areas due
Localized to heterogeneities in the metal or
structure (typically 50 to 75 years in the North America). In
environment. This type of attack can
highly corrosive soils and areas of stray currents (e.g., under- approach pitting.
ground transmission pipelines, DC railroads) additional mea-
Very highly localized attack at specific
sures must be taken to protect steel foundation products. In Pitting areas resulting in small pits that may
these cases, active protective measures such as sacrificial an- penetrate to perforation.
odes are employed.
Considerations need to be applied as to the types and rates of
corrosion anticipated. Current theory does not permit accurate
CORROSION THEORY prediction of the extent of expected corrosion unless complete
information is available regarding all factors. Therefore, uni-
To understand why metallic corrosion occurs, it is necessary
form corrosion will be the corrosion type discussed herein.
to understand how a metal, such as carbon steel, is formed.
During the steel making process, natural low energy iron ore Romanoff states there are several conditions that must be met
is refined into metal. This process adds a great deal of energy before the corrosion mechanism takes place. These are:
to the metal. When the steel is placed into a corrosive environ-
ment, it will by natural processes, return to its low energy state ELECTRICAL FACTORS
over time. To make the return trip, the steel must give up the Two points (anode and cathode) on a metallic struc-
energy gained at the mill. This is the essence of the reduction ture must differ in electrical potential. The anode is
process that we call corrosion. defined as the electrode of an electrochemical cell at
Mechanical strength, physical size and shape, and chemical which oxidation occurs, i.e., the negative terminal of a
composition of the steel are all properties that must be con- galvanic cell. The cathode is defined as the electrode
sidered when designing Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor or Atlas of an electrochemical cell at which reduction occurs,
Resistance® Piers. Mechanical and physical properties are well i.e., the positive terminal of a galvanic cell. An elec-
defined and controlled during the manufacturing process. This trical potential can be caused by differences in grain
is also true of the chemical composition, primarily due to the orientation within the steel structure, i.e., different ori-
superior process controls used by the steel mills. Of the three entations of the steel grain structure can cause some
properties, chemical composition is the primary factor with re- grains to act as anodes while others act as cathodes,
spect to corrosion. while the rest of the steel material exhibits excellent
Page A-2 | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023
electrical conductivity. In addition, chemical anisot-
ropy, non-metallic inclusions, strained and unstrained
areas, and other imperfections on the surface of a
metal can create potential differences that drive the
corrosion process.
METALLIC PATH
The anode and the cathode must be electrically
bonded or connected to complete the circuit.
ELECTROLYTE
The principle function of soil moisture is to furnish the
electrolyte for carrying current. The ions in the elec-
trolyte may be hydrogen and hydroxyl ions from the
water itself and a variety of cations and anions, which
depend upon the number and amount of soluble salts
CORROSION
dissolved in the water. The presence of these ions de-
termines the electrical conductivity, expressed as resis-
tivity (measured in ohm-m or ohm-cm), of the electro-
lyte, as well as chemical properties such as acidity or
alkalinity, and the development of chemical reactions
between the primary products of corrosion and the
electrolyte. For example, ferrous material is corroded
by electrolytes that contain sulfates or chlorides from
the soil because the corrosion products formed at the
anode and the cathode are both soluble.
EFFECT OF MOISTURE ON SOIL RESISTIVITY
AERATION (ROMANOFF, 1957)
FIGURE A-1
Aeration affects the access of oxygen and moisture to
the metal. Oxygen, either from atmospheric sources
or from oxidizing salts or compounds, stimulates cor-
rosion by combining with metal ions to form oxides,
hydroxides, or metal salts. If corrosion products are
soluble or are otherwise removed from the anodic ar-
eas, corrosion proceeds; but if the products accumu-
late, they may reduce corrosion by providing a bar-
rier that is more noble (cathodic) than the bare metal.
The aeration characteristics of a soil are dependent
upon physical characteristics such as the particle size,
particle size distribution, and unit weight. In volume
change soils such as clay, a reduction in moisture con-
tent results in cracks that provide effective channels
for the oxygen of the air to reach buried metal. Dis-
turbed soils such as fill result in oxygen being more
readily available. In some instances, atmospheric oxy-
gen can become trapped in isolated pockets or cells
creating the potential for localized anodic regions.
SOIL ENVIRONMENTS
SOIL TYPE
Soils constitute the most complex environment known to
metallic corrosion. Corrosion of metals in soil can vary from
relatively rapid material loss to negligible effects. Obviously,
some soil types are more corrosive than others. The origin of
soils, along with climate, geologic location, plant and animal
life, and the effects of man all influence the corrosive poten-
tial of a given soil. Chemical analysis of soils is usually limited EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON EARTH RESISTANCE
to determinations of the constituents that are soluble in water (ROMANOFF, 1957)
under standardized conditions. The elements that are usually FIGURE A-2
determined are the base-forming elements, such as sodium,
potassium, calcium, and magnesium; and the acid-forming ele- soils (above pH 9.1) have significantly high corrosion loss rates
ments, such as carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, nitrate, and when compared to other soils (see Figure A-3). Soil pH is best
sulfate. The nature and amount of soluble salts, together with measured in the field using a pH meter and following the meth-
the moisture content of the soil, largely determine the abil- ods defined in ASTM G 51 – 77.
ity of the soil to conduct an electric current. Therefore, fine-
SOIL RESISTIVITY
grained soils such as clays and some silts are considered to
have a greater corrosion potential because they typically have Soil resistivity (the reciprocal of conductivity) is the one vari-
lower hydraulic conductivity resulting in the accumulation of able that has the greatest influence on corrosion rate. However,
acid and base forming materials, which cannot be leached out other factors such as hydrogen-ion concentration, soluble salts
very quickly. However, granular soils such as sands and gravels and total acidity are interrelated, and it is difficult to control
are considered to have a reduced corrosion potential because conditions so that there is only one variable. In general, the
they typically have increased hydraulic conductivity, resulting lower the resistivity the higher the corrosion rate. Metals buried
in the leaching of accumulated salts. in low resistivity soils will generally be anodic, whereas met-
als buried in adjacent high resistivity soils will generally be ca-
CORROSION
GROUND WATER thodic.

Moisture content in soil will probably have the most profound As shown in Figure A-1, moisture content has a profound effect
effect when considering corrosion potential than any other on resistivity. Soil that is completely free of water has extremely
variable. No corrosion will occur in environments that are com- high resistivity. For example, sandy soils that easily drain water
pletely dry. The effect of moisture content on the resistivity of away are typically non-corrosive; clayey soils that hold water
a clay soil is shown in Figure A-1. When the soil is nearly dry, have low resistivity and are typically corrosive. Backfill material
its resistivity is very high (i.e., no corrosion potential). However, will generally be more corrosive than native earth because the
the resistivity decreases rapidly with increases in moisture con- backfill soil has a higher moisture and oxygen content. In ad-
tent until the saturation point is reached, after which further dition, backfill material typically never reconsolidates back to
additions of moisture have little or no effect on the resistivity. the same degree as native soil, allowing more penetration and
Figure A-2 shows the effect of temperature on the resistivity retention of water.
of a soil. As the temperature decreases down to the freezing
point (32°F or 0°C), the resistivity increases gradually. At tem- Soil resistivity is typically measured using one or both of two
peratures below the freezing point, the soil resistivity increases methods: (1) testing onsite with the Wenner four-pin method,
very rapidly. and/or (2) taking a soil sample to a laboratory for a soil box re-
sistivity test. The recommended practice is the on-site Wenner
SOIL pH four-pin method per AsTM G57-78. The four-pin method is rec-
Soil pH can be used as an indicator of corrosion loss potential ommended because it measures the average resistivity of a
for metals in soil. The term “pH” is defined as the acidity or large volume of earth with relative ease. As Figure A-4 shows,
alkalinity of a solution that is assigned a number on a scale this method places four pins at equal distances from each oth-
from 0 to 14. A value of 7 represents neutrality; lower numer. A current is then sent through the two outer pins. By mea-
bers indicate increasing acidity and higher numbers increasing suring the voltage across the two inner pins, the soil resistance
alkalinity. Each unit of change represents a ten-fold change can be calculated using Ohm’s law (V=IR). Soil resistivity can
in acidity or alkalinity which is the negative logarithm of the be determined using Equation A-1.
effective hydrogen-ion concentration or hydrogen-ion activity
in gram equivalents per liter of solution. The development of
acidity in soils is a result of the natural processes of weathering
under humid conditions. Acidic soils are those that have had
soluble salts and other materials removed, usually by moderate
to high rainfall. In general, the soils of the Midwest and Eastern
United states are acid to a considerable depth, whereas the
soils whose development has been retarded by poor drainage
or other conditions are alkaline. Most soils fall within a pH range
that is strongly acid to mildly alkaline.
Extremely acid soils (below pH 4.5) and very strongly alkaline
CORROSION OF METAL IN SOIL VS PH WENNER 4-PIN METHOD FOR MEASURING SOIL

FIGURE A-3 RESISTIVITY FIGURE A-4
EQUATION A-1 this information be used to determine the service life of non-
galvanized steel in disturbed soil. The service life for most
Resistivity = 191.5 (R) (L) (ohm-cm)
structures in the United States is 50 to 75 years. Assuming a
where
corrosion allowance for steel piles/piers, Romanoff’s metal loss
R = Resistance measured with a soil resistivity rate data for specific soil types and locations can be used to
meter determine if the required service life can be achieved.
L = Pin spacing (ft)
Romanoff’s data can also be arranged in easy-to-use graphs
The soil box resistivity test is not recommended because it re- or tables. Figure A-5 provides a preliminary estimate for metal
quires taking large number of samples for an accurate map of corrosion loss of bare steel if specific information is available
soil resistivities in a given area. The soil box test is also much on the soil (soil type, pH and resistivity). Figure A-5 provides
more time-consuming than the four-pin method. Table A-2 is a technique for quickly assessing those situations for which
offered as a guide in predicting the corrosion potential of a soil concern and design consideration for corrosion must be ac-
with respect to resistivity alone. counted for when metallic structures are placed below ground.
For example, a clay soil with resistivity of 2000 ohm-cm and a
CORROSION
SOIL RESISTIVITY AND POTENTIAL CORROSION RATE,
pH of 6 will have an average metal loss rate of approximately
TABLE A-2
5 oz/ft2/10yrs, or 0.5 oz/ft2/yr. This figure was developed from
RESISTANCE SOIL RESISTIVITY (ohm- CORROSION the results of the NBS studies in addition to similar field ex-
CLASSIFICATION cm) POTENTIAL perimentation results as presented in the Proceedings, Eighth
Low 0 - 2000 Severe International Ash Utilization Symposium, Volume 2, American
Medium 2000 - 10,000 Moderate Coal Ash Association, Washington, DC, 1987.
High 10,000 - 30,000 Mild The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has proposed
Very High Above 30,000 Unlikely uniform corrosion loss rates based on a simple assessment of
the electrochemical index properties. Per FHWA-RD-89-198,
the ground is considered aggressive if any one of the critical
indicators in Table A-3 shows critical values.
PREDICTING CORROSION LOSS
BARE STEEL
The National Bureau of standards (NBS) performed exten-
sive studies on underground corrosion between 1910 and
1955. More than 36,500 metal samples were exposed at 128
test locations throughout the United States. In 1957, Romanoff
presented the results of these investigations in Underground
Corrosion (1957). The studies showed that most underground
corrosion was a complex electrochemical process dependent
on the various properties discussed previously. The NBS stud-
ies were primarily concerned with buried pipeline corrosion.
Since pipes are installed in backfilled trenches, the NBS work
was performed on specimens placed in trenches ranging from
18 in (0.46 m) to 6 ft (1.8 m) deep. The following conclusions
can be drawn from these studies:
• The metal loss rates reported were from samples
placed in backfilled, i.e., disturbed soils.
• Atmospheric oxygen or oxidizing salts stimulate
corrosion by combining with metal ions to form oxides,
hydroxides, or metallic salts. This is particularly true in
disturbed soils at or near the soil surface.
• The least corrosive soils had resistivities above 3,000
ohm-cm and low soluble salt concentrations.
• Metal loss rates in disturbed soils can be determined
by assuming they will be similar to the loss rates found
at test sites with similar pH and resistivity levels as
provided in NBS Circular 579, Tables 6, 8 and 13
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. bulletin 01-9204, Anchor Corrosion
Reference and Examples, contains extensive metal loss rate STEEL LOSS DUE TO CORROSION, FIGURE A-5
data derived from Romanoff’s work. It is recommended that
ELECTROMECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF MILDLY
CORROSIVE SOILS, TABLE A-3
PROPERTY TEST DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Resistivity AASHTO T-288-91 > 3000 ohm-cm
pH AASHTO T-289-91 >5 < 10
Sulfates AASHTO T-290-91 200 ppm
Chlorides AASHTO T-291-91 100 ppm
Organic Content AASHTO T-267-86 1% maximum
The design corrosion rates, per FHWA-SA-96-072, suitable for

use in mildly corrosive soils having the electrochemical proper-
CORROSION
ties listed in Table A-3 are:

For zinc: 15 µm/year (0.385oz/ft2/yr) for the
first two years; 4 µm/year (0.103 oz/
ft2/yr) thereafter
For carbon steel: 12 µm/year (0.308 oz/ft2/yr)
Examples (Using Figure A-6):
• For pH of 6.5 and resistivity of 200 ohm-cm weight loss NOMOGRAPH FOR ESTIMATING THE CORROSION
is approximately 1.3 oz/ft2/yr and expected life (for 1/8” RATE OF PILE/ANCHOR SHAFTS
shaft loss) is approximately 65 years. FIGURE A-6
• For pH of 7.5 and resistivity of 200 ohm-cm weight loss
is approximately 2.3 oz/ft2/yr and expected life (for 1/8” CORROSION OF ZINC IN VARIOUS WATERS (CORROSION
shaft loss) is approximately 38 years. HANDBOOK, VOLUME 13 CORROSION, ASM
Other methods are available to predict corrosion loss rates. INTERNATIONAL), TABLE A-4
Figure A-6 is a nomograph for estimating the corrosion rate WATER TYPE µ m/yr mils/yr oz/ft2/yr
of helical anchor/pile/pier shafts. It is a corrosion nomograph Seawater
adapted from the British Corrosion Journal (King, 1977).
Global oceans,
Its appeal is its ease of use. If the resistivity and soil pH are average
15 - 25 0.6 - 1.0 0.385 - 0.642
known, an estimate of the service life (defined as 1/8” material
North Sea 12 0.5 0.308
loss, for example) of a Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor or Atlas
Resistance® Pier shaft can be obtained for either an acidic or Baltic Sea and
10 0.4 0.257
Gulf of Bothnia
alkaline soil.
Freshwater
CORROSION LOSS RATES Hard 2.5 - 5 0.1 - 0.2
WATER/MARINE ENVIRONMENT Soft river water 20 0.8 0.513
Factors other than resistivity and pH can have a strong influence Soft tap water 5 - 10 0.2 - 0.4 0.128 - 0.257
on corrosion loss rates. It is well known that marine environ- Distilled water 50 - 200 2.0 - 8.0 1.284 - 5.130
ments can be severely corrosive to unprotected steel, particular-
ly in tidal and splash zones. Corrosion loss rates in these environ-
ments can be quite high, averaging 6.9 oz/ft.2 (Uhlig, Corrosion
CORROSION IN UNDISTURBED SOIL
Handbook, 2000). Salt spray, sea breezes, topography, and
proximity all affect corrosion rate. Studies have shown that the In NBS Monograph 127, (Underground Corrosion of Steel Pil-
corrosion rate for zinc exposed 80 ft (24.4 m) from shore was ings) (Romanoff, 1972), it was reported that driven steel piles
three times that for zinc exposed 800 ft (244 m) from shore. did not experience appreciable corrosion when driven into un-
disturbed soils. These findings were obtained during NBS stud-
Seawater immersion is less corrosive than tidal or splash zones.
ies of steel pile corrosion. Romanoff also stated that the NBS
This is because seawater deposits protective scales on zinc and
corrosion data for steel exposed in disturbed soils was not ap-
is less corrosive than soft water. Hard water is usually less corro-
plicable to steel piles driven in undisturbed soil. He concluded:
sive than soft water toward zinc because it also deposits protec-
tive scales on the metallic surface. Table A-4 provides corrosion “. . . soil environments which are severely corrosive
loss rates of zinc in various waters. In most situations, zinc coat- to iron and steel buried under disturbed conditions in
ings would not be used alone when applied to steel immersed in excavated trenches were not corrosive to steel piling
seawater, but would form the first layer of a more elaborate pro- driven in the undisturbed soil. The difference in cor-
tective system, such as active protection using sacrificial anodes. rosion is attributed to the differences in oxygen con-
centration. The data indicates that undisturbed soils
are so deficient in oxygen at levels a few feet below
the ground line or below the water table zone that
steel pilings are not appreciably affected by corro- Disturbed
sion, regardless of the soil types or the soil properties. Soil
Properties of soils such as type, drainage, resistivity, Corrosion
pH, or chemical composition are of no practical value
in determining the corrosiveness of soils toward steel
pilings driven underground.”
The following conclusions can be drawn from these studies: Extension

Section Undisturbed
Soil
• Oxygen is required at cathodic sites to support under-
ground corrosion of a steel foundation product.
Helical
• Disturbed soils (fill) contain an adequate supply of
CORROSION
Screw
oxygen to support underground corrosion, at least Foundation Lead
Section
at shallow depths. Thus, the top-most extension(s) of
the Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor or Atlas Resistance®
Pier central steel shaft merits corrosion protection,
either using passive protection like zinc, epoxy paint
or Teflon® coatings or active protection like sacrificial
anodes.
CORROSION OF HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR IN
• The aggressiveness of disturbed soils can be mea-
DISTURBED SOIL
sured, and they can be classified as aggressive and
FIGURE A-7
non-aggressive (see Table A-2).
• Undisturbed soils were deficient in oxygen a few
feet below the ground surface, or below the water
table. It is recommended to install the helical bearing
FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL RE-
plates of a helical pile/anchor into de-aerated soil. SISTIVITY
The role of oxygen in an undisturbed soil overrides the effects Field measurement of soil resistivity is not a difficult or time
of soil resistivity, pH, etc. In those situations where a steel foun- consuming process and results in the most accurate assess-
dation product is installed into a soil profile where a disturbed ment of corrosion potential for the site. Hubbell Power Sys-
soil layer overlies undisturbed soil, the section of the central tems, Inc. recommends the use of the Nillson Model 400 Soil
shaft in the disturbed soil is cathodic to the rest of the founda- Resistance Meter System. The depth of the soil resistivity mea-
tion in the undisturbed region as illustrated in Figure A-7. As a surement is directly related to the pin spacing on the surface.
result, the most severe corrosion occurs on the section of the The most accurate assessment is obtained by performing the
central shaft just below the disturbed layer. test using a pin spacing of 5-20 foot intervals. In addition, the
test should be repeated at a right angle to the original test to
Similarly, a steel foundation product located in undisturbed soil
ensure that stray currents are not influencing the readings.
with a high water table can suffer some corrosion attack at the
waterline as illustrated in Figure A-8. This combination does A. Equipment Set-Up
not result in serious attack, but it is believed that the situa- 1. Insert the four sensor pins into the soil in a straight
tion is aggravated by a continuously changing ground water line leading away from the Resistivity Meter at a center-to-
table, which would draw in oxygen as the waterline dropped. center distance of five feet (see Figure A-10).
The section of the central shaft above the waterline acts as a
weak cathode to the anode below the waterline. 2. Connect one wire to each pin and to the appropriate
terminal on the Nillson meter.
Helical piles are commonly terminated in concrete cap or grade
beams. The area of steel in the concrete forms a passive oxide B. Resistivity Measurement
film generated by the action of the highly alkaline environment, 1. Adjust the OHMS resistivity dial and the MULTIPLIER
and this area is cathodic to the rest of the helical pile in the dial to the maximum setting (turned fully to the right) (see
soil. However, the high resistivity of the concrete limits the ef- Figure A-11).
fectiveness of the cathode, thereby limiting the small amount
2. Place the SENSITIVITY switch in the LOW position
of corrosion attack to the region of the helical pile immediately
and rotate the MULTIPLIER dial to the left until the me-
outside the concrete as illustrated in Figure A-9.
ter needle goes past the NEUTRAL point, then rotate the
MULTIPLIER one position to the right. Note the MULTIPLI-
ER (M) amount on the field notes.
3. Move the OHMS dial to the left until the meter needle
is at NEUTRAL.
C. Calculation of Soil Resistivity
EQUATION A-2
R = Rmeter (M) (WSF)

where
Water Rmeter = Meter resistance reading (ohms)
Table
Corrosion Soil M = Meter MULTIPLIER reading
WSF = Wenner spacing factor = 191.5L (ft) = 628L (m)
Extension
Section L = Pin spacing
R = Soil resistivity (ohm-cm)
Helical D. Additional Resistivity Measurements

Screw
CORROSION
Foundation 1. The soil resistivity (R) is the average value over the
depth of soil equal to the spacing of the pins. Therefore,
to get a profile of the soil resistivity one must repeat the
procedures in paragraph B above with the pins spaced at
10, 15 and 20 feet on center.
2. Repeat the entire test at right angles to the original alignment.
E. Documentation
CORROSION OF HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR
AT THE WATERLINE Record the field data and the calculations onto the Soil
FIGURE A-8 Resistivity Log. A sample log is presented below (See Fig-
ure A-12).
F. Evaluate Results
When the Soil Resistivity (R) has been determined, refer to
Concrete Figure A-5 to determine an estimate of the loss of weight
Soil
by corrosion over a 10-year period for underground bare
Cathode steel structures.
Anode
Corrosion CORROSION CONTROL
Extension
TECHNIQUES
Section The amount and type of corrosion control is a function of
structure type, service life, and the overall aggressiveness of
the project soils. The following requirements are typical. The
Helical
Screw specifier should review and edit as appropriate for the project.
Foundation
• Structure Type: Temporary structures generally do not
require corrosion protection. A temporary structure
Lead is defined within a specified time frame (i.e., months
Section rather than years). In general, permanent structures
have a service life greater than 24 months.
• Service Life: A typical service life of 50 to 75 years
should be used unless otherwise specified. If the
CORROSION OF HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR FOUNDATION service life of a temporary CHANCE® Helical Pile/
WITH A CONCRETE CAP Anchor or Atlas Resistance® Pier is likely to be
FIGURE A-9 extended due to construction delays, it should be
considered permanent. For a service life of less than 20
4. Adjust the SENSITIVITY switch to HIGH position and years in non-aggressive soil, corrosion protection is not
adjust the OHMS dial to refine the reading. recommended.
5. Record the reading (Rmeter) • Soil: Soil can be classified as aggressive or non-
aggressive. See Guide to Model Specification-Helical
6. Return the OHMS and MULTIPLIER to the maximum
Piles for Structural Support and Model Specification
settings and repeat the test.
- Helical Tieback Anchors for Earth Retention found
7. Repeat the test with the pins spaced at 10-feet on under the Resources tab on chancefoundationsolutions.
center, then at 15-feet and 20-feet on center. Record the
readings
com for examples of aggressiveness classifications. It is
recommended that steel foundation elements installed
into soils classified as aggressive be provided with
some type of corrosion protection.
Several alternatives are available to protect steel foundation
products against corrosion and can be roughly categorized in
terms of cost. Because of the added cost, the need for corro-
sion protection must be carefully determined and specified as
necessary. Depending upon the classification as to the corro-
sion potential for a soil environment, several alternatives are
available to deter the corrosion cycle and extend the perfor-
mance life of the underground steel element. These control
measures can be split into categories:
CORROSION
• Passive Control: For use in soils classified as mild to
moderate corrosion potential. It typically consists of a
metal loss allowance (i.e., 1/8”) and/or coatings – such
as galvanization or epoxy paint. Passive control is
relatively inexpensive.
• Active Control: For use in soils classified as moderate
to severe corrosion potential. It typically consists of
cathodic protection via the use of sacrificial anodes.
Active control is relatively expensive and is used in
permanent applications. SENSOR PIN INSTALLATION
FIGURE A-10
PASSIVE CONTROL
ALLOWABLE METAL LOSS RATE

As mentioned previously, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. bulletin
01-9204, Anchor Corrosion Reference and Examples, contains
extensive metal loss rate data derived from Romanoff’s work.
Other metal loss rate data is presented on pages A-5 through
A-7. The design examples at the end of this section demon-
strate passive control calculations that estimate the service life
of helical pile shafts in soil using these metal loss rates. Design
Example 1 uses the metal loss rates from Romanoff (Bulletin
01-9204). The service life is defined as the estimated length
of time required for 1/8” of material loss to occur on the he-
lical pile/anchor shaft. Design Example 2 uses the metal loss
rates from Figure A-5 in conjunction with Equation A-3. The
service life in this example is defined as the estimated length
of time required for a 10% material loss to occur on the helical
pile shaft. Design Example 3 uses the design corrosion rates
per FHWA-SA-96-072 (as quoted here on page A-6) and an
assumed service life of 85 years.
The amount of loss in these design examples is strictly arbi- NILLSON RESISTIVITY METER
trary, but the assumed material loss of 1/8” in Design Example FIGURE A-11
1 is common for pile evaluation.
of guaranteed isolation of the steel surface from the electro-

GALVANIZATION (PASSIVE CONTROL)
lyte (soil), all corrosion concerns would be solved. However, a
Aggressive soils, and the conditions illustrated in Figures A-7, coating capable of 100% guaranteed isolation has yet to be
A-8, and A-9 demonstrate the need to coat the section of developed. Epoxy paint coatings provide excellent electrical
the steel foundation product above the waterline in the dis- isolation, but can chip and abrade easily during handling and
turbed soil and, in particular, the area of the central shaft in installation. The same holds true for porcelain, teflon, and poly-
the concrete cap or grade beam. Thus, by removing the cath- urethane coatings. A small chip or crack in the protective coat-
ode, the anode/cathode system is disrupted resulting in re- ing can cause corrosion activity to be highly localized, possibly
duced corrosion. If it were possible to apply a coating capable
COMBINED WENNER 4-PIN SOIL RESISTIVITY LOG
Location: Job No.
Date: Weather Conditions: Orientation of Pins:
WENNER METHOD OF SOIL RESISTIVITY

PIN SPACING METER RESISTANCE (RMe- METER WENNER SPACING FACTOR SOIL RESISTIVITY
(Depth in Feet) ter) (ohms) MULTIPLIER (WSF) R = (RMeter) x M x WSF
(M) (191.5* x Pin Spacing)
* IF PIN SPACING IS MEASURED IN METERS, USE WENNER SPACING FACTOR (WSF) OF 628 INSTEAD OF 191.5
CORROSION
SAMPLE RESISTIVITY LOG, FIGURE A-12
leading to severe damage. The single best coating for steel their relative chemical performance (anode or cathode) can be
foundation products is hot dip galvanizing. judged by examining a galvanic series as shown in Table A-5.
The materials at the top of the list are most active (anodic)
The first step in the galvanizing process is pickling the steel in compared to the noble (cathodic) materials at the bottom of
dilute acid. This removes any rust, scale, oil or other surface the list. Steel is more noble than zinc, thus the more active zinc
contaminants. The clean steel is then dipped in a vat of molten coating will act as an anode and corrode while the more noble
zinc for time periods ranging up to several minutes depending steel will be the cathode and be protected.
on the size and thickness of the steel foundations. After the
hold period, the zinc-coated steel is withdrawn from the vat SERVICE LIFE INCREASE THROUGH GALVANIZATION
at a controlled rate, which allows the coating to quickly cool
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. bulletin 01-9204, Anchor Corrosion
and harden. The result is a tough, combined zinc and zinc-iron
Reference and Examples, contains extensive metal loss rate
coating metallurgically bonded to the steel. Other galvaniza-
data on galvanized steel derived from Romanoff’s work. It is
tion processes, such as mechanical galvanizing and electro-
recommended that this information be used to determine the
plating, do not form a coating that is metallurgically bonded
service life of the hot dipped galvanized coating in disturbed
to the steel.
soil. When hot-dip galvanized steel is used, the total service life
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. galvanizes to the latest ASTM should be increased by the time it takes the zinc coating to be
standards – either ASTM A153 class B or ASTM A123. ASTM lost due to corrosion. Another method for estimating service
A153 Class B requires an average weight of zinc coating to be life increase is presented in the following paragraphs.
2.0 oz./ft2 (3.4 mils) and any individual specimen to be no less
The results of the studies conducted by the National Bureau
than 1.8 oz./ft2 (3.1 mils). ASTM A123 can be used to specify
of Standards and by Porter indicated that a galvanized coat-
thicker zinc coatings – up to 2.3 oz./ft2 (3.9 mils) depending
ing (zinc) was effective in delaying the onset of corrosion in
on the coating thickness grade used. For example, Grade 75
the buried steel structures. Typical conclusions drawn from this
is 1.9 oz./ft2 (3.0 mils). Regardless of which ASTM galvanizing
study for 5 mil (3 oz/ft2) galvanized coatings include:
specification is used, typical zinc coating thickness for hot-dip
galvanized CHANCE® Helical Pile/Anchor or Atlas Resistance® • It is adequate for more than 10 years corrosion
Piers ranges between 4 and 6 mils. protection for inorganic oxidizing soils.
Figure A-13 illustrates how zinc and steel react to form zinc-iron • It is adequate for more than 10 years corrosion
alloy layers. The bottom of the picture shows the base steel, protection for inorganic reducing soils.
then a series of alloy layers and, on the outside, the relatively • It is insufficient for corrosion protection in highly
pure outer zinc layer. The underlying zinc-iron alloy layers are reducing organic soils (pH<4), inorganic reducing
actually harder than the base steel. Therefore, below the rela- alkaline soils and cinders, typically offering 3 to 5 years
tively soft pure zinc layer, the zinc-alloy layers provide protec- of protection in such cases.
tion in abrasive conditions such as dense sands and gravels.
It was also noted, however, that the use of a galvanized coat-
Hot dip galvanized coatings protect the carbon steel shaft in
ing significantly reduces the rate of corrosion of the underlying
two ways. First, the zinc coating provides a protective layer
steel structure once the zinc coating was destroyed.
between the foundation’s central shaft and the environment.
Second, if the zinc coating is scratched and the steel surface The observed rates of corrosion for the galvanized coat-
exposed, the zinc, not the steel, will corrode. This is because ing were different (less) than that for bare steel in the NBS
zinc is a dissimilar metal in electrical contact with the steel, study. For galvanized coatings (zinc) of 5 mils, Equa-
thus the difference in potential between the two metals and tion A-3 can be used to estimate the corrosion (weight
loss) rate. environment and the thickness of the coating. For the vast
majority of Chance® Helical Piles/Anchors and Atlas Resistance®
EQUATION A-3 Pier applications, the use of coating techniques (galvanized
CL1 = 0.25 - 0.12 log10 (R/150) and/or bituminous) will provide a sufficiently long-term
where solution for corrosion protection.
CL1 = Weight loss (oz/ft2/yr)

R = Soil resistivity (ohm-cm) ACTIVE CONTROL
NOTE: For thinner galvanized coatings, the rate of galvanized
coating loss is two to three times the rate determined from CATHODIC PROTECTION (ACTIVE CONTROL)
Equation A-3. As indicated previously, corrosion is an electrochemical pro-
cess that involves a flow of direct electrical current from the
corroding (anodic) areas of the underground metallic structure
MANUFACTURED METALLIC COATING (PASSIVE CONTROL)
into the electrolyte and back onto the metallic structure at
CORROSION
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. provides triple coat corrosion pro- the non-corroding (cathodic) areas. In situations where metal-
tection as a standard feature on the 3-1/2” diameter by 0.165” lic structures such as Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. foundation
wall (3500.165 series) Atlas Resistance® Pier pipe and as an op- products are to be placed in a severe corrosive soil environ-
tional feature on the 2-7/8” diameter 0.165 wall (2875.165 series) ment, an active corrosion control technique should be used.
Atlas Resistance® Pier pipe. The triple coating consists of: This active control technique is termed cathodic protection.
Cathodic protection is a method of eliminating corrosion dam-
• Hot-dipped uniform zinc galvanizing
age to buried steel structures by the application of DC current.
• Chromate conversion coating The effect of the DC current is to force the metallic surface to
• Clear organic polymer coating become cathodic (i.e., collecting current). If the current is of
sufficient magnitude, all metallic surfaces will become cathodic
The triple coating can significantly reduce the corrosion pro-
to the external anode.
cess by mechanically preventing access of oxygen to the steel
surface of the pipe. Data from the manufacturer indicates that Both sacrificial anode and impressed current (rectifier and
this corrosion protection is equivalent to 3 mil (1.8 oz/ft2) of ground bed) cathodic protection systems are used to provide
hot dip galvanizing. Because of the thinness of this film and the required current. If the current source is derived from a sac-
possible scratching of the coating, this corrosion protection rificial metal (magnesium and zinc are the two most common
technique should not be used in soils classified as severe. galvanic anodes used in soils), the effectiveness will depend on
the soil properties in which it is placed. More available current
BITUMINOUS AND OTHER COATINGS (PASSIVE CONTROL)
is generated from a sacrificial anode in low resistance soils than
Bituminous coatings as well as other materials have been used high resistance soils. It is also best to place impressed current
as coatings on buried steel elements for years as a corrosion anode beds in lower resistant soils. However, since the available
protection technique. The primary requirements of a bituminous driving potential is greater (rectifier control), the soil resistivity
coating are good adherence (permanence), continuous coating is less significant.
and resistance to water absorption. The bituminous coating can
Current requirements needed to protect a steel structure from
either be heat baked onto the shaft or field applied just prior to
corrosion will vary due to physical and environmental factors.
installation. As is the case for the manufactured coatings, this
These requirements could range from 0.01ma/ft2 of metal sur-
coating technique prevents oxygen and water from contacting
face for a well-applied, high-dielectric-strength plastic coat-
the metal surface, thus preventing or retarding the corrosion
ing to 150 ma/ft2 for bare steel immersed in a turbulent, high
process.
Bituminous or asphaltic coatings or paints only provide
physical protection from the environment. They will wear off
quickly due to the abrasive action during installation of Chance®
Helical Piles/Anchors and Atlas Resistance® Piers. Extension
sections are typically hot-dip galvanized, but other coatings
can be specified. Practical application of asphaltic coatings is
generally limited to the extension sections located at or near
the surface where the coating will provide the greatest benefit.
Bituminous and other coatings are best applied in severely
corrosive conditions where part of the helical anchor/pile is
exposed above grade. Examples are steel foundations used in
tidal marshes, coastal regions, and contaminated soils.
A limited amount of available data indicates that bituminous
coatings can extend the performance life of underground PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF ZINC LAYER SECTION
steel piles and piers by 5 to 15 years, depending on the soil FIGURE A-13
velocity, salt-water environment. In soil, 1 to 3 ma/ft2 is typically and 3 to 7 feet from the Chance® Helical Piles/Anchors and
used as the required current to protect carbon steel. Atlas Resistance® Pier.
The basic principle in cathodic protection is to apply a direct In designing and using sacrificial anode systems, the soil pro-
current of higher electromotive potential than that generated file conditions as to the type of soil, resistivities, soil pH and
by the corroding metallic structure, thus effectively eliminating location of the ground water table (GWT), if present, must be
the corrosion process. determined. Among the design considerations for the system:
• Use of wire type or canister type anode
SACRIFICIAL ANODES (ACTIVE CONTROL)
• Selection of the appropriate anode material
In the case of Chance® Helical Piles/Anchors and Atlas (magnesium, zinc, etc.)
Resistance® Piers, sacrificial anodes are the most common
• Designing the ground bed (location, dimensions,
method of cathodic protection used. This is done by electri-
horizontal vs. vertical, depth of placement, type of
cally connecting the steel to a properly selected anode of a less
backfill, etc.)
noble metal such as zinc or magnesium. The dissimilar met-
CORROSION
als buried in a common electrolyte (soil) form a galvanic cell. • Determining the number of piles/piers per anode
The cell works much like the battery in the family car; the less
• Type, size and connections between pile(s) and the
noble anode corrodes or sacrifices itself while the more noble
sacrificial anode.
cathode is protected. For steel to be cathodically protected, it
is generally recognized that at least one of the following condi- The application of cathodic protection using galvanic sacrificial
tions must be met: anode bags to underground metallic structures offers the fol-
lowing advantages:
• The potential of the steel must be at -0.85 volts or
more negative with respect to a saturated copper- • No external power supply required
copper sulfate half-cell in contact with the electrolyte, • Low system cost (bags and installation)
or
• Minimum maintenance costs
• A potential shift of -0.3 volts or more negative upon
connection of the cathodic protection.
CATHODIC PROTECTION PRODUCTS
Magnesium, zinc and aluminum are the most commonly used
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. recommends a selection of
galvanic sacrificial anodes. The sacrificial anode (galvanic) is
magnesium anodes (9, 17, 32, and 48-pound bag sizes) for
attached to each underground metallic structure by a metallic
cathodic protection of foundation support systems. Cathodic
conductor (cable) and placed within the common electrolyte
protection is generally used to extend the life of a steel product
(soil medium). The sacrificial anode works best when a small
in corrosive soil beyond the added life available by hot dip
amount of current is needed and/or when the soil resistivities
galvanizing the components. While it is possible to protect
are low. Anodes are installed normally 3 feet below the surface
mill finish steel, the engineer usually calls for the cathodic
protection in addition to zinc galvanizing.
GALVANIC SERIES IN SEAWATER, TABLE A-5
ACTIVE Magnesium FACTORS INFLUENCING ANODE OUTPUT:
Zinc • Soil Resistivity: Current output from the magnesium

anode increases as the soil resistivity decreases.
Beryllium
Therefore, magnesium anodes are usually specified in
Aluminum Alloys
applications where the soil resistivity is 5,000 ohm-
Cadmium cm or less. The effectiveness of this type of cathodic
Mild Steel, Cast Iron protection decreases as the resistivity increases above
300 Series Stainless Steel (Active)
5,000 ohm-cm. Above 10,000 ohm-cm resistivity,
magnesium anodes are not effective.
Aluminum Bronze
• Anode Surface Area: The amount of current output
Naval Brass
generated by an anode is directly proportional to the
Tin
surface area of the anode. Different manufacturers of
Copper cathodic protection produce anodes with different
Lead-Tin Solder (50/50) surface areas. Just because magnesium anodes from
90-10 Copper Nickel
different manufacturers weigh the same is not to be
assumed that the current output will be the same. The
Lead
data presented here is representative for the products
Silver identified here.
300 Series Stainless Steel (Passive)
• Alloy Potential: H-1 magnesium alloy has an open
Titanium circuit potential of -1.53 to -1.55 volts, which works well
Platinum with vertically installed foundation support systems.
PASSIVE Graphite
and Examples.
IMPRESSED CURRENT (ACTIVE CONTROL)

In areas of the most severe corrosion potential, where a larger
current is required and/or in high resistance electrolytes,
an impressed current system is generally recommended
which requires a power source, rectifier and a ground bed of
impressed current anodes. These systems require a continuous
external power source.
The majority of applications where Hubbell Power Systems,
Inc. foundation products may be specified will not require
an active corrosion protection system. In those cases where
the combination of soil and electrolyte conditions requires an
CORROSION
active system, the sacrificial anode protection system will likely
be the most economical approach.
SACRIFICIAL ANODE PROTECTION SYSTEM Active cathodic protection systems must be individually
FIGURE A-14 designed to the specific application. The major variables are
soil moisture content, resistivity of soil and pH. Each of these
items influences the final selection of the cathodic protection
High potential anodes are available from other sources. system. Typical design life for the cathodic protection is 10 to
These high cost, high potential anodes are generally 20 years, depending upon the size and length of the anode
used along horizontal pipelines where the higher canister.
potential produced by the anode translates to fewer
anodes being required. Table A-6 provides estimates
of current output from a single, standard potential H-1 DESIGN EXAMPLES
magnesium alloy anode as related to soil resistivity.
DESIGN EXAMPLE 1:
MAGNESIUM ANODES, TABLE A-6
PROJECT: Santa Rosa, CA Residence

MAGNESIUM ANODES
TYPE H-1 STANDARD POTENTIAL MAGNESIUM The purpose of the calculations is to estimate the service life of
Magnesium Unit Type SS Helical Pile Shafts on the subject project. Service life
Item No Package Size
Weight Weight is defined as the estimated length of time required for 1/8” of
6” Dia. x 17” material loss to occur on the helical pile shaft. This amount of
PSA4438 9 lb. 27
Tall loss is strictly arbitrary, but is common for pile evaluation.
6-1/2” Dia. x
PSA4439 17 lb. 45
24” Tall GIVEN:
8” Dia. x 28”
PSA5106 32 lb. 72 • Helical piles galvanized to ASTM A153 (Minimum Zinc
Tall
Coating = 1.8 oz/ft2)
8” Dia. x 38”
PSA4440 48 lb. 100
Tall • Soil resistivity is 760 ohm-cm minimum
• Soil pH - 7.70
MAGNESIUM ANODE CURRENT OUTPUT – mA • Water soluble chloride – 11 ppm
Resistivity – ohm-cm 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
• Water soluble sulfate – 417 ppm
9# Anode 106.5 53.3 35.5 26.6 21.3
17# Anode 150 75 50 37.5 30 ASSUMPTIONS:
32# Anode 159 79.5 53 39.8 31.8
It is assumed that the material loss rates will be similar to
48# Anode 163.5 81.8 54.5 40.9 32.7 the loss rates found at test sites with similar pH and resistiv-
ity levels as given in Romanoff’s Underground Corrosion, NBS
Circular #579 (1957), Tables 6, 8 and 13.
Design Example 4 at the end of this section provides a method
for estimating the service life of a sacrificial magnesium anode. In Circular #579, Site #5 is indicated as having a resistivity of
For additional information on anode selection, refer to Hubbell 1,315 ohm-cm and a pH of 7.0. This soil is Dublin Clay Adobe
Power Systems, Inc. bulletin 2-8307, Cathodic Protection of and is located around Oakland, California. In addition, Site #2
Anchors – A Basic Guide to Anode Selection and Hubbell Power is indicated as having a resistivity of 684 ohm-cm and a pH of
Systems, Inc. bulletin 01-9204, Anchor Corrosion Reference 7.3. This soil is Bell Clay and is located around Dallas, Texas. The
corrosion rates for these two sites will be used to estimate the
EXPOSURE WEIGHT LOSS PER
life of the Type SS helical pile shaft material. DURATION (years) LOSS (oz/ft2) YEAR (oz/ft2)
2.1 2.4 1.143
ALLOWABLE STEEL LOSS:
4.0 3.0 0.750
Based on the loss of 1/8” thickness of the helical pile shaft, cal- 5.9 3.4 0.576
culate the allowable steel loss (ASL) in terms of weight per
7.9 3.6 0.456
unit area:
12.0 5.9 0.492
ASL = (0.125 in) (0.283 lb/in3) (16 oz/lb) 17.6 8.1 0.460
= (0.566 oz/in2) (144 in2/ft2)
The average loss per year is 0.65 oz/ft2.
Note that as the dura-
= 81.5 oz/ft2 tion of exposure increases, the material loss per year generally
decreases.
AVERAGE METAL LOSS PER YEAR:
CORROSION
From Site #5: (Dublin Clay Adobe) HELICAL PILE SHAFT LIFE:
To determine the helical pile shaft’s service life (SL), the allow-
EXPOSURE WEIGHT LOSS LOSS PER YEAR
able steel loss is divided by the average loss per year.
DURATION (years) (oz/ft2) (oz/ft2)
1.9 1.4 0.737 SL = (81.5 oz/ft2) / (0.65 oz/ft2)
4.1 2.2 0.585 = 125.4 years
6.2 4.8 0.774
8.1 5.2 0.642 TOTAL ZINC COATING LOSS:
12.1 5.4 0.446 Chance® Civil Construction helical anchors/piles are already
17.5 8.3 0.474 provided hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153. The coating thick-
ness for ASTM A153 class B = 1.8 oz/ft2. From Romanoff, NBS
The average metal loss per year is 0.61 oz/ft2. Note that as the
Circular #579, Page 110, Table 65 gives the following average
duration of exposure increases, the material loss per year gen-
loss rates for site #2 soils.
erally decreases.
EXPOSURE WEIGHT LOSS PER
DURATION (years) LOSS (oz/ft2) YEAR (oz/ft2)
PILE SHAFT LIFE:
9.92 0.44 0.044
To determine the pile shaft service life (SL), the allowable steel
loss is divided by the average loss per year:
ESTIMATED LIFE OF ZINC: 1.8 oz/ft2 / 0.044 oz/ft2 = 40.9
SL = (81.5 oz/ft2) / (0.61 oz/ft2) years
= 133.6 years Total Estimated Service Life of Helical Pile Shaft: 125.4 + 40.9
= 166.3 years
TOTAL ZINC COATING LOSS:
Chance® Helical Piles/Anchors are typically provided already SUMMARY:
hot dip galvanized per ASTM A153. The coating thickness for Total estimated service life of helical pile shaft in Site #5 soils
ASTM A153 class B = 1.8 oz/ft2. From Romanoff, NBS Circular = 140.5 years
#579, Page 110, Table 65 gives the following average loss rates
Total estimated service life of helical pile shaft in Site #2 soils
for Site #5 soils:
= 166.3 years
EXPOSURE WEIGHT LOSS PER These calculations are an estimate of the service life only (1/8”
DURATION (years) LOSS (oz/ft2) YEAR (oz/ft2)
material loss from shaft) and are based upon loss rates ob-
10.17 2.66 0.262 tained from Romanoff’s disturbed soil sites. It is generally ac-
cepted that the majority of any corrosion will occur at or near
Estimated Life of Zinc: 1.8 oz/ft2 / 0.262 oz/ft2 = 6.9 years the surface. Therefore, it is very likely that helical pile shaft
metal loss will control the design. In the event the estimated
Total Estimated Service Life of Helical Pile Shaft: 133.6 + 6.9 =
service life does not meet the design requirements, one option
140.5 years
is to use a larger sized helical pile shaft.
From Romanoff Site #2 (Bell Clay):
DESIGN EXAMPLE 2:
PROJECT: An access bridge designed to cross a wetland area. thickness is given in Equation A-5:
The purpose of the calculations is to estimate the service life of
Type RS3500.300 Helical Piles on this project. The service life EQUATION A-5
is defined as the estimated length of time required for a 10%
metal loss to occur to the helical pile shaft.
L2 = Ws/K2
where
GIVEN:
L2 = Life expectancy (yrs)
1. Helical Piles will receive a hot dipped galvanized coating
Ws = Weight of steel pile (oz/ft2)
(G) of 5-mil thick (3-oz/ft2)
K2 = Loss in weight by corrosion (oz/ft2/yr) as
2. Soil Resistivity (R) – 1,000 ohm-cm
determined from Figure A-5
3. Soil pH – 6.0
4. Soil type – organic silt in top 10’ with SPT blow counts of 2 Reference to Figure A-5 indicates a corrosion weight loss range
CORROSION
to 4 blows per foot. for bare steel of approximately 3 to 10 oz/ft2 for a 10-year
period. In this case (also checking the NBS data) an estimate
ASSUMPTIONS: was used of 8 oz/ft2 for 10 years. Therefore K2 = 8.0 oz/ft2 per
10 years or 0.8 oz/ft2/year.
1. The metal loss rates will be based on the values given
in Figure A-5 with a pH of 6.0 and a resistivity of 1,000 A 10% weight loss of the wall thickness of the steel for the
ohm-cm. These values place the organic silt in the severe RS3500.300 pile results in:
corrosion environment region. Ws = 0.1 (0.300 in/12 in/ft) (489.6 lb/ft3) (16 oz/lb)
2. The galvanized coating loss rates will be based on Equation = 20 oz/ft2
A-3 as shown on page A-12. The estimated additional life becomes:
L2 = Ws / K2
ESTIMATED LIFE OF GALVANIZED COATING: = (20 oz/ft2) / (0.8 oz/ft2/yr)
To estimate average life for galvanized coating in a location = 25 yrs
with a soil resistivity of 1000 ohm-cm, Equation A-3 is used:
CL1 = 0.25 - 0.12 log10 (R/150) LIFE ESTIMATE SUMMARY (GALVANIZED STEEL ROUND
SHAFT):
= 0.25 - 0.12 log10 (1000/150)
= 0.25 - 0.12 (0.824) Based upon the assumptions, the results of this analysis indicate
that the Chance® Type RS3500.300 helical pile as specified for
= 0.15 oz/ft2/yr
the bridge foundation will experience an average 40 to 45 year
where: CL1 = Weight loss per year estimated life.

The estimated life of the galvanized coat is: DESIGN EXAMPLE 3:
EQUATION A-4 Extendable helical piles/anchors consist of segmented
elements that are coupled together with structural bolts. It is
L1 = G/CL1
possible for coupling bolts to be located near the surface in
= (3 oz/ft2) / (0.15 oz/ft2) disturbed soils. Therefore, it is recommended that the coupling
= 20 years bolt service life be calculated based on corrosion loss rates.
where This can be accomplished using methods similar to those
G = Amount of galvanized coating = 3.0 oz/ft2 for shown in Design Example 1.
typical hot dipped galvanized coating (5 mil) Determine the diameter reduction of Type SS5/150 coupling
L1 = Life expectancy (yrs) bolts using corrosion loss rates per FHWA-SA-96-072. for
mildly corrosive soils. Type SS5/150 Helical Piles/Anchors use
ESTIMATED LIFE OF OF STEEL: 3/4” diameter bolts per ASTM A325. Assume a service life of
85 years.
The formula for estimating average life for loss in steel wall
TOTAL ZINC COAT LOSS:

Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. provided fasteners are hot dip
galvanized per ASTM A153. The coating thickness for ASTM
A153 class B = 1.8 oz/ft2.
Zinc loss the first two years: = 0.385 oz/ft2/year x 2 years =
0.77 oz/ft2
Estimated life of zinc coating = [1.8 oz/ft2 - 0.77 oz/ft2 = 1.03 Anode:
oz/ft2/0.103 oz/ft2 = 10 years] + 2 years = 12 years
The formula for estimating average life for sacrificial
magnesium anode life is given in Equation A-6:
TOTAL STEEL LOSS:
Coupling bolt steel loss will occur after the zinc coating is lost. EQUATION A-6
The exposure time to corrosion for the bolt steel is: 85 years –
L3 = [57.08 (K3) (Wa)] / I
12 years = 73 years.
where
Bolt steel loss over 73 years: = 0.308 oz/ft2/year x 73 years =
L3 = Life expectancy of magnesium or zinc anode
22.5 oz/ft2
(yrs)
22.5 oz/ft2/144 in2/ft2 x 16 oz/lb x 0.283 lb/in3 = 0.035” (0.9 K3 = Efficiency of anode bag (60%-70%)
mm)
Wa = Weight of anode (lbs)
Diameter reduction after 85 years is 0.75”– 2 x 0.035” = 0.68” I = Current output of anode (mA). Available
CORROSION
(17.3 mm) from Table A-5 for Chance® Civil Construction

Determine the tensile load capacity reduction of Type SS5/150 supplied anodes or from the vendor when using
Coupling Bolts: The minimum ultimate tensile strength for other anodes.
Chance® Type SS5/150 Helical Piles/Anchors is 70 kip. The NOTE: Equation A-6 is not unit consistent.
failure mechanism is double shear of the coupling bolt.
Assume that in the previous Design Example 2, the pile perfor-
Assuming a linear relationship between diameter and shear
mance life is to be further extended (beyond 40 to 45 years) by
capacity, the bolt diameter reduction from an 85-year exposure
use of a 48-pound magnesium sacrificial anode for each pile.
per FHWA-SA-96-072 corrosion loss rates suitable for use
For this size bar and soil resistivity condition (R = 1000 ohm-
in mildly corrosive soils will result in a reduced tension load
cm), the vendor indicates I = 163.5 mA and K = 65%. Therefore,
capacity, i.e., 0.68 x 70/0.75 = 63.5 kips.
Equation A-6 becomes:
L3 = [57.08 (0.65) (48)] / 163.5
DESIGN EXAMPLE 4:
= 11 yrs
1. Estimated Average Life of Sacrificial Magnesium Type
REFERENCES:
1. A.B. Chance Company, Anchor Corrosion Reference and Examples, 12. Romanoff, Melvin, Corrosion of Steel Pilings in Soil, part of National
Bulletin 01-9204, A.B. Chance Company, Centralia, MO, 1992. Bureau of Standards Monograph 127, NBS Papers on Underground
Corrosion of Steel Piling 1962-71, published March, 1972.
2. A.B. Chance Company, Chance Anchor Corrosion Report, Bulletin
31-9403, reprinted with permission from the Texas Department of 13. Romanoff, Melvin, Underground Corrosion, National Association of
Transportation, A.B. Chance Company, Centralia, MO, 1994. Corrosion Engineers, Houston, TX, 1989. (Republished from National
Bureau of Standards Circular 579, 1957)
3. Corrosion and Its Control: An Introduction to the Subject, Second
Edition, NACE International, 1995. 14. Suzuki, Ichero, Corrosion-Resistant Coatings Technology, Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, 1989.
4. Corrosion Tests and Standards - Application and Interpretation,
ASTM Manual Series, MNL 20, 1995. 15. Tefankjian, D.A., Application of Cathodic Protection, Proceedings of
the 19th Annual Underground Corrosion Short Course.
5. Escalante, Edward, Concepts of Underground Corrosion, part of
ASTM STP 1013, Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion, Edited 16. Uhlig’s Corrosion Handbook, Second Edition, Edited by R. Winston
by V. Chaker and J.D. Palmer, American Society for Testing and Revie, Electrochemical Society Series, 2000.
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1989. 17. West, Edward L., Cathodic Protection of Anchors - A Basic Guide
6. Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-SA-96-072, to Anode Selection, A.B. Chance Bulletin 2-8307, A.B. Chance
Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcement for Mechanically Company, Centralia, MO, 1983.
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Slopes. 18. Winterkorn, Hans F., and Hsai-Yang Fang, Foundation Engineering
7. King, R.A., Corrosion Nomograph, TRRC Supplementary Report, Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, 1962.
British Corrosion Journal, 1977. 19. Various Cathodic Protection System Vendors.
8. Metals Handbook, Volume 13, Ninth Edition, Corrosion, ASM
International, Metals Park, Ohio, 1987.
9. Porter, Frank, Corrosion Resistance of Zinc and Zinc Alloys, Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
10. Proceedings, Eighth International Ash Utilization Symposium,
Volume 2, American Coal Ash Association, Washington, DC, 1987.
11. Rabeler, R.C., Soil Corrosion Evaluation of Screw Anchors, ASTM
STP 1013, Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion, Edited by V.
Chaker and J.D. Palmer, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, 1989.
APPENDIX B: LOAD TESTS
CONTENTS
Static Load Tests (Tiebacks)........................................................................................................................ B-2
Static Axial Load Tests (Compression/Tension)..................................................................................B-4
Static Load Tests (Lateral)........................................................................................................................... B-6
Acceptance Criteria........................................................................................................................................ B-8
LOAD TESTS
DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | Page B-1
STATIC LOAD TESTS (TIEBACKS)
It is recommended that the Field Load Tieback

Test be conducted under the supervision of a
Registered Professional Engineer. The engineer
will specify the test and measurement proce-
dure, load increments, time intervals and accept-
able ultimate deflection consistent with specific
project and load conditions. If the required
ultimate load and test ultimate load results
are close, the engineer may choose to adjust
the tieback spacing, the length of installation
to achieve greater installation torques, and/or
the helical plate configuration on each tieback
LOAD TESTS
to achieve the desired Factor of Safety (FS).
HARDWARE CONFIGURATION FOR PERFORMING A LOAD TEST ON A RETAINING

WALL OR TO PRETENSION A WALL WITH SOIL OVERBURDEN.
FIGURE B-1
TEST PROCEDURE
The load application system, i.e., center hole ram and pump,
WARNING! DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO STAND BEHIND OR shall be calibrated by an independent testing agency prior
IN LINE WITH THE THREADED BAR AND JACK DURING THIS to the load testing of any tiebacks. For additional details,
TEST. SERIOUS INJURY MAY OCCUR IF A COMPONENT FAILS refer to the Model Specification - Helical Tieback Anchors for
DURING TESTING. Earth Retention at www.chancefoundationsolutions.com.
1. Determine the required length of the helical tieback anchor An Alignment Load (AL), usually 5% to 10% of the Design
to locate the helix plates into the target soil stratum as (Working) Load (DL), should be applied to the helical
determined from the project boring logs. Use this data to tieback anchor prior to the start of field load tests. The initial
select the tieback design and ultimate tension capacity and alignment load helps to remove any looseness in the tieback
the estimated installation torque. Install the helical tieback shaft couplings and thread bar transition system.
anchor to the determined length and torque requirements. 3. Pre-Production Tests (Optional):
2. If the soil overburden has not been excavated from behind the Load tests shall be performed to verify the suitability and
wall, connect the thread bar adapter/transition to the helical capacity of the proposed helical tieback anchor, and the
tieback by reaching through the hole in the wall. Install the proposed installation procedures prior to the installation of
continuously threaded bar, reaction channel, hydraulic ram production tiebacks. The owner shall determine the number
(loading device), pretension frame (if required), dial indicator of pre-production tests, their location and acceptable
(or other measuring device such as Total Station Unit), load, and movement criteria. Such tests shall be based, as
hydraulic pump and gauge (see Figure B-1). The magnitude a minimum, on the principles of the performance test as
of the test pressure is determined as follows: described below. If pre-production tiebacks are to be tested
PT = DL x FS to their ultimate capacity, then an additional purpose of the
A pre-production tests is to empirically verify the ultimate
where capacity to average installing torque relationship of the helical
PT = Test pressure (psi) tiebacks for the project site. Testing above the performance
test maximum applied load of 125% x DL should follow the
DL = Design Load (lb)
loading procedures and increments as given in the Static
FS = Factor of Safety = 1.25 to 2.5 Axial Load Tests (Compression/Tension) section to follow.
A = Effective cylinder area (in2)
4. Performance Tests:
NOTE: The effective cylinder areas (A) are available from The number of tiebacks that require performance testing
the manufacturers of center hole rams (i.e., Enerpac, Power shall be defined in the project specifications. The minimum
Team, Simplex, etc).
Page B-2 | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023
number of tiebacks for performance testing shall be two PERFORMANCE TEST SCHEDULE, TABLE B-1
(2). Helical tieback anchors shall be performance tested PERFORMANCE TEST SCHEDULE
by incrementally loading and unloading the tieback in
CYCLICAL LOAD INCREMENTS (%DL/100)
accordance with the Performance Test Schedule (see Table
B-1). The applied load shall be increased from one increment AL AL AL AL AL
to the next immediately after recording the anchor
0.25DL* 0.25DL 0.25DL 0.25DL 0.25DL
movement. The load shall be held long enough to obtain and
record the movement reading at all load increments other 0.25DL 0.50DL 0.50DL 0.50DL
than the maximum test load. The maximum test load (1.25 0.75DL* 0.75DL 0.75DL
x DL) shall be held for a minimum of 10 minutes. Anchor
1.00DL* 1.00DL
movements shall be recorded at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10
1.25DL*
minutes. Refer to Acceptance Criteria on later in section
B for additional hold periods, if required, and acceptable Reduce to
lock-off
movement criteria.
LOAD TESTS
load#
5. Proof Testing: AL = Alignment Load, usually 10 to 15% of DL.
All anchors which are not performance tested shall be proof DL = Design (Working) Load
* The dealer/installing contractor shall plot the helical anchor
tested. The proof test shall be performed by incrementally movement for each load increment marked with an asterisk (*) in
loading the helical anchor in accordance with the Proof Test the performance schedule and plot the residual displacement at
Schedule (see Table B-2). The load shall be raised from one each alignment load versus the highest previously applied load.
increment to another after an observation period. At load # Helical tieback anchors which are performance tested may be
completely unloaded prior to the lock-off load procedure. Final
increments other than the maximum test load, the load
adjusting to the lock-off load does not require further movement
shall be held for a period not to exceed two (2) minutes. readings. Lock-off load magnitude is typically 70% - 80% of the
The two minute observation period shall begin when the Design Load (DL).
pump begins to load the anchor to the next load increment. See the Performance Testing Procedures in the Model
Movement readings shall be taken at the end of the two Specification - Helical Tieback Anchors for Earth Retention at www.
chancefoundationsolutions.com for further information regarding load
minute observation period.
test equipment, load test set-up, dial gauges for monitoring anchor
The dealer/installing contractor or engineer shall plot the displacement, etc.
helical anchor displacement vs. load for each load increment
in the proof test. The 1.25DL test load shall be maintained PROOF TEST SCHEDULE, TABLE B-2
for five (5) minutes. This five minute observation period PROOF TEST SCHEDULE
shall commence as soon as 1.25DL is applied to the anchor.
LOAD TEST SCHEDULE
Displacement readings shall be recorded at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, (%DL/100)
OBSERVATION PERIOD (MIN.)
and 5 minutes. Refer to Acceptance Criteria later in section
B for additional hold periods, if required, and acceptable AL AL
displacement criteria.
0.25DL 2.0
0.50DL 2.0
0.75DL 2.0
1.00DL 2.0
1.25DL 5.0
Reduce to lock-off load#
AL = Alignment Load, usually 10 to 15% of DL.
DL = Design (Working) Load
# Helical tieback anchors which are proof tested may be completely
unloaded prior to the lock-off load procedure. Final adjusting to
the lock-off load does not require further displacement readings.
Lock-off load magnitude is typically 70% - 80% of the Design Load
(DL).
See the Proof Testing Procedures in the Model Specification
- Helical Tieback Anchors for Earth Retention at www.
chancefoundationsolutions.com for further information regarding
load test equipment, load test set-up, dial gauges for monitoring
anchor displacement, etc.
ANCHOR TENSION LOAD TEST IN MINNEAPOLIS, MN

FIGURE B-2
STATIC AXIAL LOAD TESTS PRE-PRODUCTION LOAD TESTS
(COMPRESSION/TENSION) 1. Determine the depth to the target stratum of soil from
the geotechnical site investigation report that includes
boring logs. Use these data to select an pile/anchor design
PRE-PRODUCTION LOAD TESTS capacity, ultimate capacity and estimate the installation
torque at the target stratum and depth.
Load tests shall be performed to verify the suitability and ca-
pacity of the proposed helical anchor/pile, and the proposed 2. Set the spacing and install the four reaction anchors at
installation procedures prior to installation of production he- the test site (see Figure B-3). The recommended spacing
lical anchors/piles. These load tests shall be performed prior between the test pile and the reaction anchors is at least
to the installation of the production helical anchors/piles. The 5D, where D = diameter of the largest helical plate. For
Owner shall determine the number of pre-production load tension only tests, the reaction anchors are not required.
tests, their location, acceptable load and displacement criteria,
3. Install the test helical pile at the centroid of the reaction
and the type(s) of load direction (i.e., tension, compression, or
anchors to the target depth and torque resistance. For
LOAD TESTS
both). An additional purpose of pre-production tests is to em-

tension tests, install the test anchor at the desired location
pirically verify the ultimate capacity to the average installing
to the target depth and torque resistance.
torque relationship of the helical pile/anchor for the project site
with the torque measurement equipment used for the project. 4. Mount the two anchor beams on the four reaction
Pre-production helical pile/anchor installation methods, proce- anchors/piles and the reaction beam between the anchor
dures, equipment, and overall length shall be identical to the beams (see Figure B-3). For tension tests, center the
production helical anchors/piles to the extent practical except reaction beam over the anchor and support each end of
where approved otherwise by the Owner. the beam on cribbing or dunnage. The helical reaction
piles are not required if the surface soils have sufficient
It is recommended that any field load test for compression or
bearing strength to support the cribbing/dunnage under
tension be conducted under the supervision of a Registered
the applied loading without excessive deflections.
Professional Engineer. The engineer will specify the test and
measurement procedure, load increments, time intervals, and 5. Install a load cell, hydraulic load jack, actuator and pressure
acceptable ultimate displacement consistent with specific gauge. The center hole load jack will be mounted below
project and load conditions. Test procedures shall conform to the reaction beam for a bearing (compression) test (see
ASTM D-1143-07, Standard Test Method for Pile under Static Figure B-3) and above the reaction beam for an anchor
Axial Compressive Load and/or ASTM D3689-07, Standard Test (tension) test. A solid core hydraulic jack can be used for
Method for Pile under Static Axial Tension Load unless other- compression tests.
wise specified by the engineer. These ASTM specifications do 6. Set the displacement measuring devices. Deflection
not specify a particular method to be used, but rather provide measuring devices can include analog dial or electronic
several slow-testing and quick-testing optional methods. digital gauges (must be accurate to .001”) mounted on
Citing the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 2007: an independent reference beam, a transit level surveying
system, or other types of devices as may be specified by
“The slow-testing methods . . . (outlined by the ASTM D1143-07.
the engineer.
. . are very time-consuming. When the objective of the test is
to determine the bearing capacity of the pile, these methods 7. Apply and record a small alignment or seating load, usually
can actually make the data difficult to evaluate and disguise 5% to 10% of the design load. Unless otherwise defined,
the pile true load movement behavior, thereby counteracting the maximum test load shall be assumed equal to 200%
the objective of the test. The benefit of the (slow) test methods of the design load. Hold the seating load constant for 10
lies in the additional soil-pile behavior information, occasion- minutes or until no further displacement is measured.
ally obtained, which the interpreting engineer can use, when 8. Set the displacement measuring device(s) to zero.
required, in an overall evaluation of the piles.
9. Axial compression or tension load tests shall be conducted
“. . . For routine testing and proof testing purposes, the quick by loading the helical anchor/pile in step-wise fashion as
methods . . . are sufficient. Where the objective is to determine shown in Table B-3 to the extent practical. Pile/anchor
the bearing capacity of the pile . . . the quick test is technically head displacement shall be recorded at the beginning of
preferable to the slow methods.” each step and after the end of the hold time. The beginning
Therefore, the following test procedure is based on the “Quick of the hold time shall be defined as the moment when the
Load Test Method for Individual Piles”. This test procedure shall load equipment achieves the required load step. There is
be considered to meet the minimum requirements for load test- a generalized form for recording the applied load, hold
ing. It is not intended to preclude local building codes, which periods, and pile/anchor head deflections provided at the
may require the use of other testing methods as described in end of this Section.
the ASTM specifications.
LOAD TESTS
BASIC COMPRESSION FIELD TEST SET-UP
FIGURE B-3
10. Test loads shall be applied until continuous jacking is PRE-PRODUCTION TEST SCHEDULE, TABLE B-3
required to maintain the load step or until the test load PRE-PRODUCTION TEST SCHEDULE
increment equals 200% of the design load (i.e., 2.0 x DL),
CYCLICAL LOAD INCREMENTS (%DL/100)
whichever occurs first. The observation period for this
last load increment shall be 10 minutes or as otherwise Hold Period Hold Period
Load Increment Load Increment
(Min.) (Min.)
specified. Displacement readings shall be recorded at 1, 2,
3, 4, 5 and 10 minutes (load increment maxima only). AL 1.0 AL 1.0
11. The applied test load shall be removed in four approximately 0.20DL 4.0 0.50DL 4.0
equal decrements per the schedule in Table B-3. The hold
0.40DL 4.0 1.00DL 4.0
time for these load decrements shall be 1 minute, except
for the last decrement, which shall be held for 5 minutes. 0.60DL 4.0 1.20DL 4.0
Refer to Acceptance Criteria on later in section B for 0.80DL 4.0 1.40DL 4.0
acceptable movement criteria. 1.00DL 4.0 1.60DL 4.0
0.75DL 4.0 1.80DL 4.0
NOTE: Refer to Helical Pile Load Tests in the Model 0.50DL 4.0 2.00DL 10.0
Specification - Helical Piles for Structural Support at www. 0.25DL 4.0 1.50DL 4.0
chancefoundationsolutions.com for further information re-
1.00DL 4.0
garding load test equipment, load test setup, dial gauges for
0.50DL 4.0
monitoring anchor displacement, etc..
AL 5.0
AL = Alignment Load, usually 10% of DL; DL = Design (Working) Load
PRODUCTION LOAD TEST PROCEDURES STATIC LOAD TESTS
(OPTIONAL - AS SPECIFIED)
(LATERAL)
1. Follow the test setup procedures listed under Pre-
Production Load Test Procedures (Items 1 through 7), Helical pile/anchor offer maximum benefits structurally when
except the maximum test load to be applied to the pile/ loaded axially (concentrically) either in tension or compression.
anchor is the Design Load (DL). (This may be the only type In certain design situations, the anchors/piles may be subject-
of load test conducted depending on the conditions.) ed to lateral loads and it is important to establish their lateral
load capacity. Such applications may include support for com-
2. The Contractor shall perform axial load tests on the munication equipment platforms, foundations for light poles,
number and location of helical piles as specified by the and sign standards or use as foundation systems for modular
Owner. At the Contractor’s suggestion, but with the homes. It is recommended that the Field Lateral Load Test on
Owner’s permission, tension tests may be performed in pile/anchor be conducted under the supervision of a Registered
lieu of compression tests up to 1.00 DL for helical piles with Professional Engineer. The engineer will specify the test and
sufficient structural tension capacity. The requirements
LOAD TESTS
measurement procedure, load increments, time intervals, and

of Table B-4 may be regarded as a minimum, however, acceptable ultimate deflection consistent with specific project
it is not recommended to test production helical piles to and load conditions. If the desired ultimate lateral load capac-
values of up to 2.0 DL unless the helical pile’s failure load is ity and test lateral load capacity results are close, the engineer
significantly higher than 2.0 DL. The maximum production may choose to increase the diameter of the anchor/pile shaft
helical pile test load shall be determined by the Owner. For and/or use a concrete collar on the anchor/pile head in order to
example, ASTM D1143 stipulates testing to 2.0 DL. achieve the desired Factor of Safety. Lateral load tests shall be
3. Axial compression or tension load tests shall be conducted conducted in accordance with ASTM D-3966-07, Standard Test
by loading the helical pile/anchor in the load sequence as Method for Piles under Lateral Load.
shown in Table B-4. Anchor/pile head displacement shall be
recorded at the beginning of each step and after the end TEST PROCEDURE
of the hold time. The beginning of the hold time shall be
defined as the moment when the load equipment achieves 1 . In order to conduct a lateral load test on an installed pile/
the required load step. The observation period for this last anchor, it is necessary to install a reaction anchor system.
load increment shall be 5 minutes or as otherwise specified. The reaction anchor system consists of helical pile/anchor
Displacement readings shall be recorded at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and installed at a battered angle, and using a test apparatus
5 minutes (load increment maxima only). setup such as shown in Figure B-5. Once the reaction anchor
system is installed, the test pile/anchor is installed to the
4. The applied test load shall be removed in four approximately specified estimated depth and design torque.
equal decrements per the schedule in Table B-4. The hold
time for these load decrements shall be 1 minute, except for 2. Threaded steel bar or cable shall be used to connect the
the last decrement, which shall be held for 5 minutes. Refer test pile to the reaction anchor frame. A hydraulic ram and
to Acceptance Criteria on later in section B for acceptable pressure gauge is installed to apply the test load(s) and to
displacement criteria. measure the applied force.
3. Set the displacement measuring devices. Displacement
PRODUCTION TEST SCHEDULE (OPTIONAL measuring devices can include analog dial or electronic
- AS SPECIFIED), TABLE B-4 digital gauges (must be accurate to 0.001”) mounted on a
reference beam, a transit surveying system, or other type of
PRODUCTION TEST SCHEDULE
device as specified by the engineer.
LOAD INCREMENT HOLD PERIOD (MIN.)
4. For the Load Capacity Tests, follow steps 7 through 11 in
AL 0 the Static Axial Load Tests on the preceeding pages.
0.20 DL 4.0 5. A failure criterion is often established by the project
engineer and will reflect project specific conditions. The
0.40 DL 4.0
load versus lateral deflection is plotted. Interpretation of
0.60 DL 4.0 these results to determine the ultimate and working lateral
0.80 DL 4.0 load capacities often requires engineering judgment. Refer
to Acceptance Criteria later in this section for acceptable
1.00 DL 5.0
displacement criteria.
0.60 DL 1.0
0.40 DL 1.0 CAPACITY VERIFICATION FOR

0.20 DL 1.0 ATLAS® RESISTANCE PIERS
AL 5.0 On occasion, a building owner or engineer may want confir-
mation that existing Atlas Resistance® pier underpinning is
AL = Alignment Load, usually 10 of DL.
DL = Design (Working) Load
allow the pier to return to the desired elevation. Schedule
another inspection after the remedial work is complete
and the soil has stabilized.
b. If the pier pins are tight but the floor slopes toward
the perimeter:
• The interior floor may be heaving. If an evaluation
of the structural elements and elevations reveal
interior heaving, a plumbing test, an evaluation of
the surface drainage, and subsurface soil conditions
should be performed and the deficiencies must be
corrected before any attempt to adjust the perimeter
is performed.
• The bearing stratum may be receding or compressing
LOAD TESTS
under the pier load as the structure continues to
INDOOR COMPRESSION TEST
settle. Load test the pier.
FIGURE B-4
3. Load testing procedure for Atlas Resistance® piers:
a. Install a lift head onto the pier bracket and place a 25
supporting the load as initially designed. Many times this re- ton hydraulic ram with hose, gauge, and hand pump on the
quest comes as a result of a client seeing tension cracks in the top pier platform.
drywall or masonry. Many such requests are generated as a re-
b. Slowly advance the ram while monitoring the top pier
sult of the owner failing to improve a poor drainage situation,
platform for creep.
from a failure to maintain the soil moisture around the perim-
eter of the structure or from leaks in the plumbing system. It c. If little or no movement is observed, then the end
is possible that the stratum upon which the pier is founded of the pier is probably still founded upon competent
is receding. Changes can also occur that increase subsurface material. Continue to increase the force on the ram until
water near the structure such as a drainage system becoming the structure begins to lift. (If the pier advances into the
clogged or an inoperative sump pump. In partial underpinning soil more than the stroke of the ram, skip to step f below.)
situations, additional loads may be imposed from adjacent ar- d. Record the load test force that was required to begin
eas experiencing further settlement resulting in a much greater to lift the structure. The formula for this force is: Gauge
load from the time of the previous installation. In these condi- Pressure x 5.15 = Verification or Test Force (verify effective
tions, additional piers will be required along with adjustment of area of ram).
affected earlier installed piers.
e. Compare this force to the force indicated on the
The following gives the dealer/installing contractor and engi- original pier log. (Variation of ±15% is acceptable.) (Skip to
neer guidance for answering these concerns and the engineer step i below.)
assistance with specifications for pier bearing verification.
f. Remove lift head assembly and top pier platform and
install the pier driving equipment, drive stand, hydraulic
TEST AND ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE drive cylinder, gauge, and gasoline or electric pump. Drive
1. Excavate and expose the top half of the pier bracket at the pier pipe as if this was a new installation until suitable
each location to be tested and adjusted. bearing is obtained. Record the driving force. The formula
for this force is: Gauge Pressure x 8.29 = Driving Force
2. Check the pier pins to see if they are tight by tapping the
(verify effective area of drive cylinder).
heads of the pier pins with a hammer and then attempting
to remove the pins using pliers. g. Cut the added pier pipe to proper length and record
the added length required at this pier.
a. If the pier pins are loose:
h. Install the top pier platform and lift head.
• The pier may be bearing on a stratum that is receding
or that has deteriorated. Load test the pier. i. Repeat steps a through e for each pier that requires
load bearing verification.
• The pier pipe or pier bracket component may have
failed. If inspection of the components reveals a failure, 4. Procedure for Adjusting Piers:
replace the failed component and return it to Hubbell a. Prepare a system of hydraulic rams and manifold(s)
Power Systems, Inc. for evaluation. Load test the pier. that are connected to all of the piers that need to be

• The footing may have heaved from expansion adjusted. Follow the normal elevation recovery procedure
of the underlying soil if the floor slopes toward the as described in the Typical Specification for the Atlas
interior. If evaluation of the structural elements, elevation Resistance® pier system being tested. Typical Specifications
measurements, drainage, and soil moisture content reveals are available on the Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. website,
heaving, then correcting the drainage or plumbing may www.chancefoundationsolutions.com.
• The amount of downward movement required before
reaching this force,
• The lifting force, and
• The amount of lift that was required to restore the
foundation to the target elevation.
b. Report to the engineer or owner any surface or
subsurface drainage conditions observed and any
suspected plumbing problems (such as water seeping
into all or only several excavations). It is important that
the Owner understand that any plumbing leaks or
drainage deficiencies that are observed at the time of the
adjustment be corrected immediately, otherwise stability
issues may continue.
LOAD TESTS
LATERAL LOAD TEST EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION

FIGURE B-5
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
STATIC LOAD TESTS (TIEBACKS)
PRE-PRODUCTION AND PERFORMANCE TESTS

The net displacement shall not exceed 0.05” during the first
log cycle of time, i.e., 1 min to 10 min. If the anchor movement
between the one (1) minute and ten (10) minute readings ex-
ceeds 0.05”, then the 1.25 DL test load shall be maintained for
an additional 20 minutes. Displacements shall be recorded
at 15, 20, 25, and 30 minutes. Net displacement is the differ-
ence between the movement recorded at the initial time in-
LATERAL LOAD TEST APPARATUS crement and the final time increment of the log cycle of time.
FIGURE B-6 The initial time increment is 1 min and the final time increment
is 10 min for the first log cycle of time for Pre-Production and
Performance Tests.
b. Carefully apply pressure using the hand pump to
restore the lost elevation. Valve off each ram as the The net displacement shall not exceed 0.10” during the final log
foundation elevation reaches the target. Record the cycle of time (examples, 3 min to 30 min, 6 min to 60 min, etc).
lifting force and the amount of lift at each placement. The If the acceptance criteria is not satisfied, then the anchor test
formula is: Gauge Pressure x 5.15 = Lifting Force. shall be continued for an additional 30 minutes. Displacements
shall be recorded at 45 and 60 minutes. If the acceptance crite-
c. Once the structure has reached the target elevation,
ria is not satisfied after this extended observation period, then
install pier shims and pier pins as described in the Typical
the contractor shall exercise one of the options as provided
Specification for the Atlas Resistance® pier system
in Section 6.5, Acceptance Criteria, in the Model Specification
being tested. The Typical Specifications are available
- Helical Tieback Anchors for Earth Retention found on www.
on the Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. website, www.
chancefoundationsolutions.com.
chancefoundationsolutions.com.
d. Carefully reduce the hydraulic pressure at each ram, PROOF TESTS
remove the rams and lift heads
The net movement shall not exceed 0.05” during the first log
e. Replace and compact the excavated soil and leave the cycle of time, i.e., 0.5 min to 5 min. If the anchor movement
area clean and neat. between the one-half (1/2) minute and five (5) minute readings
5. Report the results: exceeds 0.05”, then the 1.25 DL test load shall be maintained
for an additional 5 minutes. Displacements shall be recorded at
a. A Pier Installation Report shall be prepared that
6 and 10 minutes.
includes:
The net displacement shall not exceed 0.10” during the final log
• A pier layout of the area of work with each pier
cycle of time (examples, 1 min to 10 min, 3 min to 30 min, etc).
location indicated,
If the acceptance criteria is not satisfied, then the anchor test
• The verification or test force, shall be continued for an additional 20 minutes. Displacements
shall be recorded at 15, 20, 25, and 30 minutes. If the accep-
tance criteria is not satisfied after this extended observation
period, then the contractor shall exercise one of the options
as provided in Section 6.5, Acceptance Criteria, in the Model
Specification - Helical Tieback Anchors for Earth Retention
found on www.chancefoundationsolutions.com.
STATIC AXIAL LOAD TESTS

(COMPRESSION/TENSION)
PRE-PRODUCTION LOAD TESTS

Acceptance of the load test results is generally governed by
the building code for that jurisdiction and is subject to review
LOAD TESTS
by the structural designer. The structural designer determines SAMPLE COMPRESSION TEST LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE
the maximum displacement the structure can withstand with- FIGURE B-7
out undue loss of function or distress. The acceptance criteria
must be defined prior to conducting the load test.
The load displacement data may be plotted for a quick over-
view of the results. Figure B-7 shows a sample test plot. Various
building codes have their own acceptance criteria, which is
generally a limit on deflection at the factored load. A fast way
to determine the ultimate geotechnical capacity is by use of a
technique called the “intersection of tangents.” This is accom-
plished by graphically constructing two tangent lines. One line
is drawn tangent to the second “straight line” portion of the
load curve, which is beyond the curved or non-linear portion
of the load deflection curve. The other line is drawn tangent
to the initial “straight line” portion of the load deflection curve.
The point where the two tangents intersect identifies an esti-
mate of the ultimate capacity.
An example of a Code-based acceptance criteria for the allow-
able capacity is the Chicago and New York City Code, which
calls for the design load to be the lesser of:
DAVISSON METHOD FOR DETERMINING
1. 50% of the applied load causing a net displacement (total NET DISPLACEMENT
displacement less rebound) of the pile of 0.01” per ton of ap- FIGURE B-8
plied load, or
2. 50% of the applied load causing a net displacement of the Some jurisdictions such as the New York City Building Code,
pile of 1/2”. Net displacement is defined as the gross displace- limit the allowable capacity of helical piles to 30 tons. The
ment at the test load less the elastic compression. Chicago Building Code limits the allowable capacity of helical
Other allowable capacity acceptance criteria include: piles to 10 tons without a load test.
• Maximum total displacement under a specified load. Figure B-9 is a plot of results from a compression “quick test”
per ASTM D1143-07 of a 12 ft long, 1-1/2” square shaft helical pile
• Maximum net displacement after the test load.
having 10” and 12” helix plates. It was installed in the residual
• Maximum displacement under the design load, fine grained soils of Roanoke, Virginia and tested immediately
or various techniques such as that defined by the after installation. The load-displacement curve is completely
Davisson Method (1973) and shown in Figure B-8. below the elastic compression line, indicating no skin friction
The recommended acceptance criteria for the allowable geo- was acting on the shaft during the test. The load-displacement
technical capacity for helical piles/anchors is 1/2 of the applied curve does not cross the PL/AE + 0.10Dave, which indicates the
test load causing a net displacement (gross displacement less maximum test load is less than the ultimate geotechnical ca-
the elastic compression/tension) not to exceed 0.10 times the pacity of the helical pile.
average diameter of the helix plate(s). This is the acceptance Figure B-10 is a plot of results from a tension “quick test” per
criteria used in ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358 for Helical ASTM D3689-07 of a 16 foot long, 1-1/2” square shaft helical
Systems and Devices, per Section 4.4.1.2. It is often referred to anchor having 8”, 10” and 12” helix plates. It was installed in
as the “modified Davisson” method. the residual fine grained soils of Centralia, MO and tested im-
mediately after installation. The load-displacement curve is
completely above the elastic tension line (red line), indicating the start of testing. The Owner or structural engineer usually
no skin friction was acting on the shaft during the test. The determines what the allowable displacement is, and it must be
load-displacement curve crosses the PL/AE + 0.10Dave line at defined prior to conducting the Production Load Test. Limiting
approximately 41 kip. The average installation torque over the axial net deflections of 1” to 1-1/2” at the ultimate geotechnical
last three readings was 3,450 ft-lb. The torque correlation capacity are typical.
method (Kt) of capacity prediction says the ultimate geotech-
nical capacity is 3,450 x 10 = 34,500 lb (34.5 kip), using a Kt STATIC LOAD TESTS (LATERAL)
of 10 ft-1 as outlined in Section 6. The tested ultimate geo-
technical capacity based on 10% average helix diameter net Acceptance Criteria for Helical Systems and Devices AC358
displacement is 41 kip. Therefore, the Kt based on the load test states the allowable load capacity shall be equal to half the
is 41,000/3450 = 11.9 approximately 12. load required to cause 1 inch (25 mm) of lateral deflection as
measured from the ground surface. The acceptance criteria
must be defined prior to conducting the Lateral Load Test. The
PRODUCTION LOAD TESTS (OPTIONAL)
acceptance criteria must be realistic in its magnitude so as not
LOAD TESTS
Some projects are large enough in size to justify the expense to potentially damage the structure. Limiting lateral deflections
of several production tests. Production tests are useful to ver- of 1”+ at the ultimate load capacity have been used on some
ify helical anchor/pile capacity at multiple locations across the projects. It is suggested that large lateral loads be resisted
project site, especially with varying soil conditions. The net dis- through some other means (such as helical anchors, battered
placement of helical anchor/piles at the allowable load (1/2 the helical piles, or enlarged concrete pile caps/grade beams).
geotechnical capacity) typically ranges between 0.25 inches
(25 mm) and 0.5 inches (51 mm) total vertical movement as
measured relative to the top of the helical anchor/pile prior to
Axial Compression Load (kip)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
0.2
0.4
Axial Deflection (in)
0.6
0.8
Type SS5 1-1/2" Square Shaft Screw Pile

1.2 10"-12" Lead Section
12'-0 Overall Length
Installed Torque - 4,000 ft-lb
1.4
ASTM D1143 “QUICK TEST” COMPRESSION PLOT, FIGURE B-9
REFERENCES
1. AC358 Acceptance Criteria for Helical Systems and Devices,
ICC-Evaluation Services, June 2013 Revision.
2. ASTM D1143-07, Static Load Test Method for Piles under Static
Axial Compressive Load, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
3. ASTM D3689-07, Standard Test Method for Pile under

Static Axial Tension Load, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
4. ASTM D-3966-07, Standard Test Method for Piles under

Lateral Load, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
5. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, Canadian

Geotechnical Society, 1985.
LOAD TESTS
6. Crowther, Carroll L., Load Testing of Deep Foundations, John
Wiley and Sons, 1988.
7. Davisson, M.T., High Capacity Piles, Department of Civil

Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, 1973.
3.0
2.5
2.0
Deflection (inches)
1.5
Elastic Tension + 0.10Dave

1.0
0.5
Elastic Tension
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Axial Tension Load (kip)
ASTM D3689 “QUICK TEST” TENSION PLOT, FIGURE B-10
Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor Axial Test
Project: Date: Sheet of
Pile/Anchor Number: Product Series: o SS o RS
Helix Configuration: Total Depth:
Time: Start Finish Recorded by:
DISPLACEMENT
PRESS LOAD TIME
(psi) (kip) (min) GAUGE A GAUGE B GAUGE C
(in) (in) (in)
LOAD TESTS
APPENDIX C: HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL -
HELICAL PILES & ANCHORS

DESIGN OF HELICAL PILES & ANCHORS
A BASIC GUIDELINE FOR DESIGNERS
Contributors:
Cary Hannon, PE – Vice President of Engineering Foundation Technologies, Inc.
Gary L. Seider, PE – Engineering Manager, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
CONTENTS
I. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... C-2
II. Helical Pile Capacity................................................................................................................................... C-2
III. Design Process............................................................................................................................................ C-2
A. Data Gathering................................................................................................................................... C-3
B. Feasibility.............................................................................................................................................. C-3
C. P1, P2, P3 & P4.................................................................................................................................... C-3
IV. P4 - Geotechnical Capacity................................................................................................................... C-3
V. P1, P2 And P3 - Structural Strength.....................................................................................................C-6
VI. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................C-11
VII. Reliability.....................................................................................................................................................C-11
VIII. Other Topics Related To Design........................................................................................................C-11
IX. How To Specify Helical Piles.................................................................................................................C-13
X. Construction Documents........................................................................................................................C-13
DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | Page C-1
I. INTRODUCTION • Method 4: Resistance of the pile’s structural elements
(shaft, helix, couplings, connection to structure). Struc-

This Technical Design Manual (TDM) is a comprehensive col- tural strength is described in Sections 5 & 7 of the TDM.
lection of information for the express purpose to educate the
Of the four methods above, the only one that is unique to heli-
practicing engineer in the art of helical pile design. The amount
cal piles is Method 2, commonly referred to as torque correla-
of information is extensive, and we recognize the need to pro-
tion.
vide a short length “primer” for the busy professional who
does not have the time to read and learn all the comprehensive B. According to IBC Section 1810.3.3.1.9, the geotechnical ca-
methods used to design helical piles. The goal of this “How pacity (Methods 1, 2, or 3 above) shall not exceed the strength
To” is to bring the design and selection of helical piles and an- of the pile’s structural elements (Method 4); including the pile
chors into a short easy-to-follow Guideline. This Guideline will connection to structure, pile shaft, pile shaft couplings, and the
provide the design method used every day by the Application helix bearing plates. The structural strength of Chance brand
Engineering Staffs at Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. and its au- helical piles is described in Section 7 of the TDM.
thorized Civil Construction Distributors. Citations throughout
C. Therefore, both the geotechnical capacity and the structural
will direct the designer where to find the required information
strength of the helical pile must be determined; and whichever
in the Technical Design Manual. The result is a simple step-by-
limit state is the lesser, will control the capacity. This is the ulti-
step process culminating in a helical pile design that can then
mate resistance of the helical pile. In most cases, the geotech-
be correctly written into a project specification.
nical capacity will be the limit state, but the structural strength
can sometimes control.
II. HELICAL PILE CAPACITY D. Allowable Strength Design (ASD) or Limits States Design
The design method for helical pile capacity is simple. It consists (LRFD). ASD has been used for many years for the geotechni-
of two limit states criteria; namely the Ultimate Resistance and cal capacity of deep foundations. It is sometimes referred to
the Serviceability Limit. Serviceability is the behavior of a heli- as deterministic design since the factor of safety is determined
cal pile at a particular load that is less than the ultimate resis- based on standard practice. LRFD is sometimes referred to as
tance. For helical pile design, the Serviceability Limit primarily probabilistic design. It uses load factors and resistance factors
deals with limiting the deflection or displacement of the pile at based on statistically based probabilities of uncertainty. In the
a specified service load. Ultimate Resistance is the limit state United States, most geotechnical design is deterministic based
based on the structural strength or the geotechnical capacity (global factor of safety); whereas in Canada most geotechni-
of the helical pile, defined as the point at which no additional cal design is probabilistic (limit states – ULS, SLS). The TDM
load can be applied without failure. For helical pile design, ul- includes both LRFD design and ASD allowable strength values,
timate resistance typically consists of two elements – the geo- so the design can use either design method.
technical capacity and the structural capacity, or strength. It is E. The Serviceability Limit may also control. Serviceability is the
more descriptive to refer to structural “strength” of the helical load/deflection response of a helical pile at a particular load of
pile components, which is the approach taken in the TDM. interest, i.e. a factored load well below the ultimate resistance
A. According to the International Building Code (IBC) Section limit state. There may be strict deflection limits required based
1810.3.3.1.9, there are four ways to determine the ultimate resis- on the application; the structure may be sensitive to overall
tance of helical piles. settlement or differential settlement, which may require the
helical pile ultimate resistance to be increased. For example, a
• Method 1: Base resistance plus shaft resistance of the heli- deflection limit may be specified at the working/design load.
cal pile, where the base resistance is equal to the sum of Cherry and Perko (2012) reviewed hundreds of tension and
the areas of the helical bearing plates times the ultimate compression load tests. They suggested that for end-bearing
bearing resistance of the soil or rock comprising the bear- helical anchors/piles, the net displacement of the helix plates
ing stratum, and shaft resistance is equal to the frictional at the working loads averaged about 0.25 in (6.4mm). The
resistance of the soil times the shaft area above the helix working load is based on the geotechnical capacity divided by
bearing plates. This is commonly referred to as the theo- a factor of safety of 2 (deterministic design). Chance applica-
retical geotechnical limit state method. It is described in tion engineers have either conducted or reviewed the results
great detail in Section 5 of the TDM. of several hundred load tests, which support the findings of
• Method 2: Ultimate capacity determined from well docu- Cherry and Perko. Serviceability limits should also take into ac-
mented correlations with installation torque. This is com- count the elastic response of the helical pile material, which
monly referred to as the empirical geotechnical limit state can be significant for deep piles with slender shafts.
method. The key words are “well documented” which will
be discussed later. Torque correlation is described in Sec-
tion 6 of the TDM.
III. DESIGN PROCESS
The designer has a specific task to perform, or problem to solve
• Method 3: Ultimate capacity determined from load tests.
to which helical piles can offer a solution. At the beginning of
This is the most direct method to determine the geotech-
the design process, it is best to keep all options on the table
nical capacity of any pile, not just helical piles. Load test-
until circumstances dictate one foundation option(s) as being
ing of helical anchors and pile is described in Appendix B
the better choice for the client. The designer should always
of the TDM.
Page C-2 | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023
keep in mind the client is best served with a good solution at a shaft should be large enough to transfer the axial and lat-

reasonable price, both of which are not always intuitively obvi- eral loads to the soil. However, it is detrimental to oversize
ous. As with any deep foundation, helical pile design has sev- the helical pile shaft. This is because of torque correlation
eral steps. The steps can be summarized as: – the relationship between the amount of torque energy
required to install a helical pile and its load capacity. Small-
A. Data Gathering:
er diameter helical piles more easily advance like a screw,
The loads applied to the foundation. Section 4 of the TDM is which minimizes soil disturbance and increases capacity
a brief review of structural loads and provides several tables efficiency. More information about shaft type and size will
that can be used to estimate dead and live loads for various be presented later.
residential & commercial structures. If applicable, lateral loads
• Project site factors such as equipment access, overhead
must be included.
clearance, right-of-way restrictions, spoils disposal, noise
• The description and strength characteristics of the project restrictions, etc. must be considered. This is often where
soils. See Section 2 of the TDM for a brief review of soil helical piles turn out to be the most cost effective deep
mechanics and the procedures used for site investigations, foundation. Small equipment results in low mobilization
which are typically summarized in the geotechnical report. cost and easy access.
Information needed in the geotechnical report includes:
• Manageable schedule must be considered as well. Helical
soil profile, Nspt values per ASTM D1586, depth to ground
piles and anchors can be loaded immediately after instal-
water, the presence of fill, debris, or cobbles, and bedrock.
lation, which can save time compared to waiting for con-
• The designer must determine load resistance require- crete or grout to cure.
ments and serviceability based on the application. This in-
C. It is convenient to break down the geotechnical capacity and
cludes choosing either ASD with a deterministic factor of
the structural strength into subcategories or groups. For helical
safety, or LRFD with probabilistic load and resistance fac-
piles and anchors the groups are:
tors. Section 5 for the TDM provides guidelines to evaluate
soil properties for foundation design, and also gives esti- • P1 – bracket or connection to structure
mates of helical pile displacement at working loads. Sec-
• P2 – shaft, including couplings
tion 5 also provides the design methodology used with
HeliCAP®, which is the design software most often used to • P3 – Helix(s)
determine the axial capacity of helical piles. • P4 – Soil (geotechnical) capacity, including resistance to
• The applicability of local, regional, or national building both axial and lateral loads
codes. The designer must comply with code requirements We recommend the design sequence be inverted – start with
depending on the jurisdiction. For example, some codes P4 – soil (geotechnical) capacity because it usually will control
require helical piles to be tested for every project. Others the ultimate resistance.
only require load tests if the pile capacity is above a cer-
tain limit. Codes often dictate acceptance criteria in terms
of allowable displacement for deep foundations, such as IV. P4 – GEOTECHNICAL CAPACITY
the City of Chicago and New York building codes. The axial and lateral capacity is determined per the meth-
• Location tolerances. The helical pile designer must under- ods detailed in Section 2 and Section 5 of the TDM. Installa-
stand the location tolerances for the piles. For example, tion torque requirements can be estimated at this point. If a
most Chance helical piles can be installed to a location tol- geotechnical report is available, use HeliCAP® Helical Capacity
erance of 1 inch or less, and an elevation tolerance of 1/8 Design Software to determine the axial capacity (tension, com-
inch. Angular tolerances are typically less than 2°. pression, or both) via bearing capacity on the helix plates and
side resistance on the shaft [Method 1]. HeliCAP® will help de-
B. Feasibility:
termine the shaft type (square shaft, pipe shaft, Combo Pile, or
• Helical piles are designed to transfer load to soil or bed- grouted Pulldown Pile), shaft size (diameter), pile depth, helix
rock with a reasonable displacement. However, they are configuration (number and size of helix plates), and estimate
not designed to drill into solid rock. Table 7-4 is a quick ref- the torque required to install the pile.
erence guide for feasibility. It lists helical pile type based
If a geotechnical report is not available, then axial capacity
on the upper limit Nspt range of soils that pile type can
must be determined by other methods. Helical piles have the
be installed into, along with the typical upper limit of ul-
advantage of being installed (screwed) into the ground and
timate resistance. It’s a good place to start for helical pile
then removed (unscrewed) quickly. A “probe” helical pile can
feasibility. For example, Type RS2875.276 2-7/8” OD pipe
be installed to assess the relative shear strength of the soil pro-
shaft helical piles can be installed into soils with Nspt blow
file using torque correlation relationships per TDM Section 6.
counts up to 35 bpf.
Well documented correlations with torque are used to estimate
• The size (diameter) of the helical pile shaft should be helical pile capacity based on the torque measured with the
closely tied to its application. Chance offers small dis- probe pile [Method 2]. The shaft type, shaft size (diameter),
placement (up to 4 in.), medium displacement (4 in., to 8 pile depth, helix configuration can be determined based on the
in.), and large displacement (> 8 in) helical piles. The pile probe pile.
The axial capacity can also be determined from full-scale load either a pipe shaft or Helical Pulldown Micropile as described
tests per Appendix B of the TDM [Method 3]. Full-scale tests in the following sections.
are often used to verify Method 1 capacity and Method 2 torque
The designer is encouraged to use square shaft helical piles as
correlation.
much as possible due to their advantages with torque correla-
If a geotechnical report is available, the lateral capacity of a tion efficiency and better penetration in dense soil.
vertical shaft can be determined with various methods includ-
• Type 2 – Pipe Shaft: Pipe shaft piles are foundation el-
ing the Finite Difference method (LPILE & GROUP by Ensoft®)
ements that range in size from 2-7/8” OD pipe shaft to
and the Broms’ Method (1964a) and (1964b) as detailed in Sec-
10-3/4” OD pipe shaft with various wall thicknesses and
tion 5 of the TDM [Method 1]. Each of these methods may be
material strengths. Pipe shaft piles have larger section
applied to Round Shaft helical piles or Pulldown® Micropiles.
properties compared to square shaft, so they are used to
Lateral resistance can also be provided by passive earth pres-
resist lateral load, or to provide stability when columnar
sure against the structural elements of the foundation. The re-
buckling or potential unsupported length is a concern.
sisting elements of the structure include the pile cap, grade
The designer may ask why not use pipe shaft helical piles
beams and stem walls. The passive earth pressure against the
exclusively? The answer is square shaft helical piles offer
structural elements can be calculated using the Rankine Meth-
greater axial capacity for a given amount of installation
od. Battered or inclined piles can be used to resist lateral loads
energy due to their greater efficiency (see the torque cor-
by components of the axial capacity on the battered pile. The
relation in Table C-1). In addition, pipe shaft helical piles
induced shear and moment in battered piles often dictates the
do not penetrate dense material as effectively as square
shaft size and batter angle.
shaft. Therefore, the designer must size the helical pile
If a geotechnical report is not available, the lateral capacity of shaft large enough to transfer/resist all loads, but no larger
a vertical shaft must be determined from load tests per Appen- than necessary. Helical piles evaluated per ICC-ES AC358
dix B of the TDM [Method 3]. comply with the requirement of International Building
Code (IBC) Section 1810.3.3.1.9 for the use of “well docu-
P4 SHAFT TYPE AND SIZE: mented” correlations with installation torque.
The shaft type/size is critical to both the axial and lateral ca- Helical piles, whether they are square shaft or pipe shaft,
pacity – especially for compression in soft/loose overburden are generally considered to be slender members. The lateral
soils where lateral stability of the shaft must be considered. capacity is dependent on the effective projected area of the
The following is a brief summary of the 4 different shaft types pile shaft, the flexural stiffness of the pile, and the resistance
for helical piles. of the soil as the pile deflects laterally under load. Due to
their slender size, helical pile shafts have relatively small ef-
fective projected area for the soil to bear against. Therefore,
• Type 1 - Square Shaft: Square shaft piles are foundation helical piles with shaft diameter ≤ 4” have about 4 kip lateral
elements that range in size from 1-1/2” solid round-cor- resistance; shaft diameters ≤ 8” have about 10 kip lateral
nered-square (RCS) to 2-1/4” solid RCS. They are compact resistance; and shaft diameters ≤ 10” have about 20 kip lat-
sections, meaning they have relatively low section prop- eral resistance at typical allowable lateral displacements of
erties, but relatively large cross-sectional area since they 1” or less. As mentioned previously, square shaft helical piles
are solid bars. They are more efficient than pipe shaft heli- don’t have any significant lateral capacity.
cal piles in regards to axial capacity derived from installa-
tion energy. A square shaft helical pile will have more axial TABLE C-1
capacity than a pipe shaft helical pile installed with the Product Evaluated Per
Description Kt
same amount of torsional energy into the same soil profile. Series Ac358
Therefore, square shaft helical piles are better at penetrat- SS125 1.25” Round Cornered Square Bar 10
ing dense material than pipe shaft helical piles. SS5 1.50” Round Cornered Square Bar Yes 10
Square shaft piles have slender cross sections. Therefore, they SS150 1.50” Round Cornered Square Bar 10
do not have a large cross section to resist much lateral load SS175 1.75” Round Cornered Square Bar Yes 10
via passive earth pressure along the side of the shaft. In addi-
SS200 2.00” Round Cornered Square Bar 10
tion, they do not have much section modulus/stiffness to resist
SS225 2.25” Round Cornered Square Bar 10
buckling under compressive loads without support from the
surrounding soil. As long as there is sufficient soil confinement RS2875.203 2.875” OD, 0.203 Wall Pipe Yes 9
around the pile to prevent buckling, square shaft piles are suit- RS2875.276 2.875” OD, 0.276 Wall Pipe Yes 9
able for compressive loads. As a general rule, if the soil profile RS3500.300 3.500” OD, 0.300 Wall Pipe Yes 7
has ASTM D1586 SPT N60 value of 5 or greater, there is suffi- RS4500.237 4.500” OD, 0.237 Wall Pipe 6
cient lateral support to prevent the square shafts from buckling
RS4500.337 4.500” OD, 0.337 Wall Pipe Yes 5.6
at the compressive loads that they are rated for. If SPT N60 val-
RS6625 6.625” OD, Varying Wall Pipe 5
ues are 4 or less, then square shaft buckling may be a practical
concern. A rigorous analysis can be done if enough reliable soil RS8625 8.625” OD, Varying Wall Pipe 4
data is available, but the problem is best solved by selecting RS1075 10.750” OD, Varying Wall Pipe 2-3
• Type 3 - Combo Pile: A combo pile (Combination Pile) is a ten the most important aspect of specifying a helical pile and

compression helical pile that has the advantages of both too often receives the least amount of attention prior to instal-
square shaft and pipe shaft. A combo pile has a square shaft lation.
lead section that is better at penetrating dense material
1. Is the shaft section sufficient to carry the intended axial
and generating bearing capacity; and is then transitioned
load? This will have a great deal to do with the selection
to a pipe shaft for the plain extensions where overburden
of the shaft type. Refer to Table 7-4 of the TDM as a good
soils are softer/less dense and a larger section modulus is
place to start. It lists torque correlated capacities for shaft
desired for lateral stability and/or buckling resistance, or
diameters up to 4.5” OD [Method 2]. Large diameter pipe
when lateral load resistance is required. Another advan-
shaft (≥ 6”) and Pulldown Piles can achieve higher capaci-
tage provided by combo piles is the torque correlation
ties than those listed in Table 7-4. Allowable load upper
factor (Kt) is increased compared to the straight pipe shaft
limit for Chance helical piles up to 10” nominal diameter
pile per Table C-2 and Table C-3. Note as the overall shaft
is 100 ton. Tension capacity is controlled by the structural
length increases, the Kt factor decreases.
strength of the couplings as detailed in P2 below.
2. The helix plates must generate the downward thrust re-
TABLE C-2 - COMBO PILE LENGTH LESS THAN 30’-0
quired to advance the shaft through the soil. Helical piles
COMBO PILE TYPE Kt, SAND Kt, CLAY Kt, COMBINED (i.e. screw piles) are displacement piles that have the ad-
SS5/150/RS2875 10 9.5 10 vantage of no spoils. The soil that is displaced by the shaft
SS175/RS3500 9.5 9 9 during installation is displaced to the side. The smaller
SS200/RS3500 9.5 9 9 the shaft size relative to the diameter of the helical plates
SS200/225/RS4500 7.5 7 7 (higher aspect ratio), the more efficient the pile will be in
SS175/RS2875 9.5 9.5 9.5 regards to capacity derived from the same installation en-
ergy. A helical pile that has a smaller shaft size relative to
TABLE C-3 - COMBO PILE LENGTH GREATER THAN 30’-0 the size of the helical plates will be better at penetrating
dense soil than one with a larger shaft size relative to the
COMBO PILE TYPE Kt, SAND Kt, CLAY Kt, COMBINED size of the helical plates (lower aspect ratio). Displacing
SS5/150/RS2875 9.5 9.5 9.5 more soil will require more installation energy, i.e. addition-
SS175/RS3500 9 8.5 8.5 al installation torque and down pressure. The greater the
SS200/RS3500 8.5 8 8 installation energy, the larger the required equipment to
SS200/225/RS4500 7 7 7 install the pile. For example, a 25 ton allowable load square
SS175/RS2875 9.5 9.5 9.5 shaft helical pile can be installed with a mini-excavator or
skid-steer. However, an 8” diameter pipe shaft helical pile
• Type 4 - A Helical Pulldown Micropile is a helical pile that requires a 20 to 25 ton track-hoe excavator.
has the shaft section encased in a small diameter grout 3. If a soil stratum is too dense, or the shaft too large rela-
column, typically 5” – 7” in diameter. Both square shaft tive to the size of the helix plates, the pile could “spin-
and pipe shaft helical piles can be encased in a grout col- out”. “Spin-out” means that the pile is still being rotated
umn, but square shaft is much more common. It has the but is not advancing, and installation torque drops dra-
advantage of the square shaft lead section to penetrate matically. This is similar to “stripping” a screw. The capac-
dense material for end-bearing. The added grout column ity-to-torque correlation is no longer valid for spun-out
provides greater section properties for shaft stability and piles. (Note: see Section 6 – Installation Methodology of
lateral resistance in soft soils. Lateral load resistance with the TDM for a complete explanation of torque correlation
grouted shafts requires a steel case – typically extending for helical anchors and piles). A spun-out pile is just an
5’-0 to 10’-0 from the pile head. The grout in contact with end bearing pile that was advanced to depth via a screw
the soil will develop side resistance via a bond zone in suit- mechanism. This does not mean that the pile has no ca-
able soil stratum. This can greatly increase the total axial pacity, but rather that the capacity cannot be estimated
capacity of the pile (end-bearing and side resistance) as by torque correlation as is normally done for a normally
well as stiffen the axial load response of the pile. The grout installed helical pile. The pile’s capacity will depend on the
column also provides additional corrosion protection to type of material the helical plate(s) are in, how much the
the steel shaft. soil was disturbed, and whether or not the shaft tip, or pi-
Grouted shaft Helical Pulldown Micropiles are recommended lot point, contributes to the capacity in end bearing. High
for square shaft piles in soft soils, when additional capacity via capacities can be possible if the shaft tip is sitting on rock.
side resistance is needed, or when working loads exceed about 4. Lateral resistance requires either pipe shaft or Helical Pull-
60 kip. To-date, Helical Pulldown Micropiles have achieved 450 down Micropiles. A Helical Pulldown Micropile with a steel
kip ultimate resistance. casing at the top of the pile will offer the stiffest pile sec-
tion and the most resistance to lateral loads. Lateral ca-
P4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: pacity ranges from 2 to 4 kip for 3” to 4” diameter piles, 10
kip for 6” to 8” diameter helical piles, and up to 20 kip for
There are several design considerations that should be taken
10” diameter piles at allowable lateral displacements of 1”
into account when choosing the required shaft type. This is of-
or less. The use of battered (inclined) piles can be utilized nections before it can resist the reversed load. This may
to resist lateral loads if needed and are discussed in Sec- or may not be of concern to the designer and is depen-
tion 5 of the TDM. dent on the type of structure that is being supported with
the piles. The grout column of Helical Pulldown Micropiles
5. For tension only foundation elements, square shaft is
fills the connections, thereby removing the bolt tolerance
always the logical choice. As noted above, square shaft
as well as stiffening the axial load response. That is why
helical anchors are more efficient in regards to load ca-
grouted shafts are often utilized for piles with reversing
pacity versus installation energy (torque correlation), are
load conditions. Grouting the ID of pipe shaft helical piles
better at penetrating dense soils, and have less surface
will also stiffen the coupling for reversing load conditions.
area for corrosion potential. The size and strength of the
Pipe shaft piles with couplings above grade should be
square shaft section is governed by the required installa-
grout filled to stiffen the connection.
tion torque, not the tension capacity. There is more steel
section available than is required to carry the rated axial
tension load. The reason for this is because the steel in the V. P1, P2 AND P3 – STRUCTURAL
shaft is subjected to more stress during installation than
it will ever see while in service. Once the helical anchor STRENGTH
is installed, the tension strength is governed by the shear The axial and lateral strength of the helical pile components
strength of the coupling bolt – see Section 7 of the TDM. (shaft, helix and connection to structure) is determined per the
6. For piles required to resist compression and tension loads, methods detailed in AISC 360-10 Steel Construction Manual
the designer must recognize that helical piles are a pre- and Chapter 18 of the International Building Code (IBC). The
manufactured product with bolted connections. There is structural strength of Chance helical piles is detailed in Section
manufacturing tolerance in each connection. For example, 7 of the TDM [Method 4]. The factors required for structural
most helical piles have up to 1/8” axial tolerance in each design are soil strength (firm, soft, fluid), the strength of the
connection. The tolerance is required to ensure the con- concrete, end condition (pinned, fixed, free), Application (new
nections fit together in the field. If the load reverses, the construction, remedial repair, tiebacks), coupling strength, and
top of the pile will displace (up or down) a distance equal- load direction (tension, compression, or both).
ing the sum of the bolt tolerance in all of the bolted con- Soil strength is an important factor because it affects buckling
& bracing of helical piles. It is important to categorize the proj-
TABLE C-C2.2 - APPROXIMATE VALUES OF EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTOR K, FROM AISC 360-05
ect soils as either “fluid” (N60=0), “soft” (0<N60<5) or “firm” Section 7 is broken down by specific helical pile product fami-

(N60≥5) as detailed in Section 5 of the TDM. If the soil is “flu- lies. Each family sub-section lists the tension and compression
id”, then buckling is possible and the shaft size is determined strengths in various tables, in addition to specifications and
based on the critical buckling load. Examples are provided in available configurations. For example, the P2 (shaft) strength
Section 8 of the TDM (Examples 16, 17 & 18). If the soil is “soft” and P4 (geotechnical) tension capacity for Type SS175 helical
or “firm” buckling is not the concern, but depth to fixity and piles are shown in Table C-4.
lateral support is. The term “fully braced” is used by some in
The pre-qualified and verified torque correlation factor (Kt) is
the industry to describe a pile shaft with complete soil con-
10 for Type SS175. The torque rating for SS175 is 10,500 ft-lb.
finement all the way from the pile head to the tip. However,
Therefore, per P4 [Method 2], the torque correlated capac-
Hubbell Power Systems Inc. application engineers believe the
ity limit for SS175 is 105 kip (see Section 6 TDM). The nominal
term “fully braced” is unachievable from a practical standpoint.
strength of Type SS175 shaft (P2) is limited to 100 kip by the
A “fully braced” condition is not listed as an option in Section
shear strength of the coupling bolt. Comparing the two, 105
7 of the TDM since it is considered unrealistic and ensures the
capacity of the helical pile will better match long term per-
formance. Therefore, Section 7 details the nominal, LRFD de- TABLE C-4 - SS175 - P2 TENSION STRENGTH AND P4
sign and ASD allowable compression strength of helical piles in TORQUE CORRELATED CAPACITY
terms of “firm soil” [5’-0 depth to fixity] and ”soft soil” [10’-0 TORQUE PROPERTIES
depth to fixity].
Torque Correlation
10 ft-1 33 m-1
Once the soil strength is determined, the designer must now Factor
P4
consider the end condition (K) at the pile head and how it
Torque Rating 10,500 ft-lb 14,240 N-m
affects the effective length of the pile shaft. The connection
to the structure (and the effective length) greatly affects the STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
structural capacity of the pile. A pinned condition means the Nominal LRFD Design
pile head is restricted against lateral translation (side to side Tension Strength
100 kip 445 kN 75 kip 334 kN
movement) but is free to rotate as shown in Table C-C2.2 (b) P2
from AISC 360-05. A pinned condition uses a K of 0.7. A fixed Allowable Tension
50 kip 222 kN
condition mean the pile head is restricted against both lateral Strength
translation and rotation as shown in Table C-C2.2 (a). A fixed TORQUE CORRELATED CAPACITY
condition uses a K of 0.5. To achieve a fixed end condition, the Capacity Limit Ultimate Allowable
pile head has to be embedded at least 7.5” from the bottom of Based on Torque
P4
a concrete pile cap/footing/grade beam. Anything less than Correlation, Tension/ 105 kip 467 kN 52.5 kip 234 kN
Compression
that is typically considered pinned. A pile with a fixed end con-
dition has a shorter effective length, thereby having a greater
stability and higher axial compressive strength. The compres- kip > 100 kip, therefore P2 tension strength controls at max
sive strength of a “free” headed helical pile (Table C-C2.2 (e) is torque. If the installation torque is less than 10,000 ft-lb, then
not provided in the TDM. It can be provided as needed using a P4 [Method 2] will control. The allowable geotechnical capac-
K factor of 2.0. ity of 52.5 kip is based on a deterministic factor of safety of 2.
The strength of the concrete will also factor into the axial com- It is convenient to tabulate axial compression strength in terms
pressive strength of helical piles. Higher strength concrete of either P2 (shaft) & P3 (helix), or P1 (bracket) & P2 (shaft).
results in higher bearing pressure with both embedded new Table C-5, from Section 7 of this manual, lists the P2 (shaft) and
construction pile caps (P1) and foundation repair brackets (P1). P3 (helix) ASD allowable strengths for Type SS175 square shaft
Helical piles can be one-piece foundation elements, but are helical piles. It is used to easily determine P2 and P3, which can
more commonly produced in sections that are coupled togeth- then be compared to P4 to see which will control the design.
er during installation. Therefore, the strength of the coupling The table is broken down by soil type, end condition, and num-
must be considered in the design as part of the shaft (P2). ber/diameter of the helix plates.
Chance helical pile couplings are designed to meet or exceed For example, a Type SS175 helical pile in firm soil & fixed end
the torque correlated geotechnical capacity [Method 2]. They condition with multi-helix plates (3 or more plates) has ASD
are also designed to meet or exceed the bending strength of allowable compression strength of 98.3 kip. However, that ex-
the shaft itself. Structurally, the couplings limit both the tension ceeds the P4 geotechnical allowable capacity of 52.5 kip. But
and compression strength. For Chance Type SS helical piles, if the soil is soft with the same fixed end condition, the ASD
the coupling bolt is the limiting factor for tension strength. allowable compression strength is 30.2 kip; which is less than
Load direction is an important consideration and strongly af- the P4 geotechnical allowable capacity of 52.5 kip. The differ-
fects the shaft type and size required. This was discussed previ- ence is the depth to fixity, which is 5’-0 in firm soils and 10’-0
ously under P4. The Application (new construction, foundation in soft soils.
repair, earth retention, etc.) also affects the shaft type and size Table C-6, reprinted from Section 7 of the TDM lists the P1 (new
required. For example, it is not practical to use large diameter construction bracket) and P2 (shaft) ASD allowable strengths
shaft helical piles for underpinning existing building structures. for Type SS175 helical piles. It is used to easily determine P1 and
P2, which can then be compared to P4 to see which will control strength; which is less than the P4 geotechnical allowable ca-
the design. The table is broken down by concrete strength, soil pacity of 52.5 kip. Again, the difference is the depth to fixity,
type and end condition. which is 5’-0 in firm soils and 10’-0 in soft soils.
For example, a Type SS175 helical pile in firm soil & fixed end Table C-7, repeated from Section 7 of the TDM, lists the P1 (re-
condition with a new construction cap embedded in 2500 psi medial repair bracket) and P2 (shaft) ASD allowable strengths
concrete has an ASD allowable compression strength of 52.7 for Type SS175 helical piles. It is used to easily determine P1 and
kip based on the strength of the cap (P1). The P4 geotechni- P2, which can then be compared to P4 to see which will control
cal allowable capacity of 52.5 kip is basically the same. But if the design. The table is broken down by concrete strength and
the soil is soft with the same fixed end condition, the ASD al- soil type. Chance Remedial Repair Brackets provide fixed end
lowable compression strength is 30.2 kip based on the shaft condition at the bracket-shaft connection.
TABLE C-5 - SS175 - P2 SHAFT COMPRESSION STRENGTH

AND P3 HELIX STRENGTH IN FIRM OR SOFT SOIL
ASD Allowable Axial Compression Strength, kip (kN)

Section Type & Helix
Firm Soil Soft Soil
Count
Fixed Pinned Fixed Pinned
Lead, Single Helix See Helix See Helix 30.2 (134.3)
Lead, Single 12” Helix Strength Strength 28.7 (127.7) 15.4 (68.5)
Lead, Single 14” Helix Table Above Table Above 25.9 (115.2)
Lead, 2-Helix 8”-10” 94.7 (421.2) 61.7 (274.5)
Lead, 2-Helix 10”-12” 61.8 (274.9) 61.7 (274.5)
30.2 (134.3) 15.4 (68.5)
Lead, 2-Helix 12”-14” 54.6 (242.9) 54.6 (242.9)
Lead, 2-Helix 14”-14” 51.8 (230.4) 51.8 (230.4)
Lead, Multi-Helix 98.4 (437.7) 61.7 (274.5) 30.2 (134.3) 15.4 (68.5)
Extension 98.4 (437.7) 61.7 (274.5) 30.2 (134.3) 15.4 (68.5)
TABLE C-6 - SS175 – P1 PILE CAP COMPRESSION STRENGTH AND P2 SHAFT COMPRESSION STRENGTH IN FIRM AND SOFT
SOILS
ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION PILE CAPS LOADED IN COMPRESSION1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
ASD Allowable Compression Strength kip (kN)

Catalog 2500 psi Concrete6 3000 psi Concrete6 4000 psi Concrete6
Pile Model
Number Firm Soil Soft Soil Firm Soil Soft Soil Firm Soil Soft Soil
Pinned Fixed Pinned Fixed Pinned Fixed Pinned Fixed Pinned Fixed Pinned Fixed
32.6 33.7 32.6 34.6 32.6 36.4
C1500458(G) SS5 8.1 (36) 16.0 (71) 8.1 (36) 16.0 (71) 8.1 (36) 16.0 (71)
(145) (150) (145) (154) (145) (162)
52.7 52.7 15.4 30.2 60.0 60.0 15.4 30.2 60.0 60.0 15.4 30.2
C1500459(G) SS175
(234) (234) (69) (134) (267) (267) (69) (134) (267) (267) (69) (134)
32.6 33.7 32.6 34.6 32.6 36.4
C1500465(G) SS5 8.1 (36) 16.0 (71) 8.1 (36) 16.0 (71) 8.1 (36) 16.0 (71)
(145) (150) (145) (154) (145) (162)
52.7 52.7 15.4 30.2 60.0 60.0 15.4 30.2 60.0 60.0 15.4 30.2
C1500467(G) SS175
(234) (234) (69) (134) (267) (267) (69) (134) (267) (267) (69) (134)
TABLE C-7 - SS175 – P1 REPAIR BRACKET COMPRESSION STRENGTH AND P2 SHAFT COMPRESSION STRENGTH IN FIRM
AND SOFT SOILS
Bracket T-Pipe ASD Allowable Strength in Axial Compression kip (kN)

Pile
Catalog Catalog 2500 psi Concrete5 3000 psi Concrete5 4000 psi Concrete5
Model
Number Number Firm Soil Soft Soil Firm Soil Soft Soil Firm Soil Soft Soil
C1500299 C1500488 SS175 34.7 (154) 27.7 (123) 39.3 (175) 27.7 (123) 47.9 (213) 30.2 (134)
For example, a Type SS175 helical pile in firm soil with a reme- dition, and number/diameter of the helix plates. For example,

dial repair bracket connected to an existing 2500 psi concrete a Type RS3500 helical pile in firm soil & fixed end condition
footing has an ASD allowable compression strength of 36.8 kip with multi-helix plates (3 or more plates) has ASD allowable
based on the strength of the repair bracket (P1). The P4 geo- compression strength of 76.6 kip. But the ASD allowable com-
technical allowable capacity of 52.5 kip is greater, which means pression strength in soft soil is either 65.9 kip with a fixed end
the bracket strength controls the design. This is also true if the condition, or 54.3 with a pinned end condition. These ASD al-
soil is soft; the ASD allowable compression strength is 27.7 kip lowable strengths are much higher than for SS175 in soft soil,
based on the bracket strength. The allowable load for remedial which are 30.2 kip and 15.4 kip with fixed and pinned end con-
repair brackets is less because of the eccentric compressive ditions respectively. The P4 torque based geotechnical allow-
load. Note from Tables C-6 and C-7 the allowable strength can able capacity for RS3500 is 45.5 kip, which is less than the
increase with stronger concrete. structural strength of RS3500 for any combination of soil type
and end condition and thus controls the design. This is why
Note from Table C-5 that the allowable shaft (P2) compres-
SS/RS Combo piles are a good choice in soft overburden soil
sive strength for SS175 in soft soils is significantly less than the
conditions.
torque correlated (P4) capacity. That is one reason why pipe
shaft or grouted shaft helical piles are used. Another way to increase structural strength is with grouted
shaft Helical Pulldown Micropiles per Table C-9. The grout col-
Table C-8, from Section 7 of the TDM, lists the P2 (shaft) and
umn increases the section modulus, which in turn increases the
P3 (helix) ASD allowable strengths for Type RS3500 3-1/2” OD
axial compression strength. Another benefit of the grout col-
pipe shaft helical piles. It is used to easily determine P2 and P3,
umn is increased axial capacity (P4) base and shaft resistance,
which can then be compared to P4 to see which will control
due to the soil-grout bond [Method 1].
the design. The table is broken down by soil type, end con-
TABLE C-8 – RS3500 - P2 SHAFT COMPRESSION STRENGTH AND P3 HELIX STRENGTH IN FIRM OR SOFT SOIL
ASD ALLOWABLE AXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH KIPS (KN)

Section Type & Helix Count FIRM SOIL SOFT SOIL
For Single 8” – 76.6 (340.7) For Single 8” – 73.0 (324.7) 65.9 (293.1) 54.3 (241.5)
Lead, Single Helix See Helix Strength Table Above See Helix Strength Table Above For Single 12” – 49.2 For Single 12” – 49.2
for 10”, 12” & 14” for 10”, 12” & 14” (218.9) (218.9)
76.6 (340.7) 73.0 (324.7) 65.9 (293.1) 54.3 (241.5)
Lead, Multi-Helix 76.6 (340.7) 73.0 (324.7) 65.9 (293.1) 54.3 (241.5)
Extension 76.6 (340.7) 73.0 (324.7) 65.9 (293.1) 54.3 (241.5)
TABLE C-9 – SS175 GROUTED SHAFT IN SOFT SOILS P2 SHAFT COMPRESSION STRENGTH
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN, AND ASD ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION STRENGTHS OF CHANCE® TYPE SS175 GROUTED SHAFT
Nominal, LRFD Design, and ASD Allowable Compression Strengths kip (kN)
Grout Column Soft Soil
Diameter Pinned Fixed
Nominal Design Allowable Nominal Design Allowable
No Grout 25.8 (115) 23.2 (103) 15.4 (69) 50.5 (225) 45.4 (202) 30.2 (134)
5” OD 66.6 (296) 49.9 (222) 33.3 (148) 127.2 (566) 95.4 (424) 63.6 (283)
6” OD 111.5 (496) 83.6 (372) 55.7 (248) 185.6 (826) 139.2 (619) 92.8 (413)
7” OD 158.3 (704) 118.7 (528) 79.1 (352) 236.2 (1051) 177.2 (788) 118.1 (525)
8” OD 209.2 (931) 156.9 (698) 104.6 (465) 290.4 (1292) 217.8 (969) 145.2 (646)
For example, an SS175 helical pile with a 5” diameter grout The photos in Figures C-1 and C-2 (courtesy of CTL | Thomp-
column more than doubles the ASD allowable compres- son) show how the helix strength can be determined. The load
sion strength of the P2 shaft. Larger grout columns increase is applied through the shaft and resisted by the helix shaped
the structural strength even higher. This is an example where fixture. The line of bearing is located at the average helix ra-
torque correlation [Method 2] does not limit the (P4) geotech- dius. The load is applied until the helix plate closes or the welds
nical capacity. Base and side resistance [Method 1] calculated fail due to bending and shear. The test is stopped when the
with HeliCAP® Helical Capacity Design Software is often great- applied load begins to drop off. The maximum test load is con-
er than strictly torque relationships. sidered the ultimate strength of the helix.
The helix strength (P3) is best determined directly by testing.
FIG. C-1 – P3 HELIX STRENGTH SET-UP FIG. C-2 – RS2875 14” DIA. HELIX – TEST RESULTS
TABLE C-10 – SS175 P3 HELIX STRENGTH
NOMINAL, LRFD DESIGN & ASD ALLOWABLE STRENGTHS OF SS175 HELIX

PLATES FOR SHAFT AXIAL TENSION & COMPRESSION1
ASD
Helix Nominal LRFD Design
Thickness Allowable
Diameter Strength, kip Strength, kip
in (mm) Strength, kip
in (mm) (kN) (kN)
(kN)
6 (150) 0.5 (13) 123.3 (548.5) 92.5 (411.4) 61.6 (274)
8 (200) 0.375 (9.5) 84.5 (375.9) 63.4 (282) 42.3 (188.2)
10 (250) 0.375 (9.5) 66.1 (294) 49.6 (220.5) 33.1 (147.2)
12 (300) 0.375 (9.5) 57.5 (255.8) 43.1 (191.9) 28.7 (127.7)
14 (350) 0.375 (9.5) 51.8 (230.4) 38.9 (172.8) 25.9 (115.2)
The allowable helix strength (P3) must equal or exceed the ever one is the lesser will control the design. In most cases, the

end-bearing capacity (P4) of the of the helix plates. It is pos- geotechnical resistance (P4) will be the controlling factor. The
sible for the bearing capacity of a helix plate to exceed the designer is encouraged to design helical piles so that the geo-
structural strength of the helix plate For example, an SS175 10” technical resistance (P4) controls to make the most efficient
diameter helix plate has an allowable strength of 33.1 kip per use of the soil’s ability to bear load. This often means choosing
Table C-10. If the maximum allowable torque based capacity of the right shaft type/size, end condition, and helix configuration
an SS175 helical pile (52.5 kip) is needed, then more than one to maximize capacity.
10” helix is required to meet structural strength requirements
since 33.1 kip is less than 52.5 kip. A twin-helix or triple-helix
configuration will work. This is an example where the designer VII. RELIABILITY
may want to specify a minimum number of helix plates in the Reliability is an important aspect of helical pile design. Reli-
project plans. ability is defined as the probability of long-term satisfactory
As helix plate diameter increases, the helix strength (P3) gener- performance. The better the capacity prediction method(s)
ally decreases. This is because the line of bearing (average ra- used, the greater the reliability. Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
dius) increases with increasing diameter, which in turn increas- recommends using base plus shaft resistance [Method 1] and
es the moment arm distance. The increased distance increases torque correlation [Method 2] to determine capacity whenever
the bending forces at the helix/shaft welded connection. possible. Perko 2009 did a statistical analysis of helical pile
capacity in order to check the reliability of this approach. He
Load tests [Method 3] are used to verify the feasibility and caused a database of several hundred load tests in the analysis
pacity of helical piles/anchors and are described in detail in and used a factor of safety of 2 to determine a safe allowable
Appendix B of the TDM. They can be part of a pre-production load (deterministic approach). Using bearing capacity theory,
test program where at least one helical pile is installed and the load test data suggests that 1 out of 10 helical piles will
tested to determine the ultimate resistance and the load/de- exhibit unsatisfactory performance. That is a 90% success rate,
flection response. Project requirements may also require pro- but still means 10% will have unacceptable performance. Us-
duction tests on a specified number of helical piles/anchors to ing torque correlation, load test data suggests that 0.3 out of
ensure capacity and performance requirements are being met. 10 will exhibit unsatisfactory performance. That’s a 97% suc-
It is VERY IMPORTANT that the performance requirements be cess rate which is much better, but still means that 3% will have
clearly specified BEFORE the start of work. It should be part unacceptable performance. Methods 1 and 2 are independent
of the data gathering process and feasibility assessment for methods used to determine helical pile capacity. When two
helical piles. Helical piles are primarily end-bearing founda- independent methods are statistically combined, the result of
tion elements, meaning they derive most of their resistance poor helical pile performance drops to only 3 piles out of 1000,
with the helix plates transferring load to the soil at the pile tip. or 0.3%. That is a 99.7% success rate, which most engineers
Therefore, the load/deflection response of a helical pile at a agree is acceptable reliability. Loads tests [Method 3] is an-
particular load (serviceability) must take into account the sec- other independent method of capacity prediction which can
tion modulus and length of the shaft. The designer must under- be used when soil data is lacking or uncertain, or when soil
stand that long end-bearing piles will displace more than short conditions change.
end-bearing piles because of the pile length.
The recommended acceptance criteria for the allowable ca-
pacity of helical piles/anchors is 50% of the applied test load
VIII. OTHER TOPICS RELATED TO
causing a net displacement equal to 10% of the average helix DESIGN
diameter (Dave). This means that total displacement of the pile/
CORROSION POTENTIAL: Underground corrosion is discussed
anchor may exceed 1 inch in order to fully mobilize the bearing
in detail in Appendix A of the TDM. In most ground conditions,
capacity of the helix plates. This is the acceptance criteria used
corrosion is not a practical concern for deep foundations, in-
in ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358 for Helical Systems and
cluding helical piles. There is typically little to no oxygen in un-
Devices, per Section 4.4.1.2. It can be expressed mathemati-
disturbed soils, especially below the ground water table. Driven
cally as PL/AE + 0.10Dave, where “PL/AE” is the elastic shorten-
steel piles have been installed with pile hammers for more than
ing or lengthening of the pile shaft under load. As mentioned
a century and are still commonly used today. The vast major-
previously, the net displacement of the helix plates at allowable
ity of interstate highway bridges in the Piedmont regions of
loads will average 0.25 in (6.4mm) ± 0.12 in when using a geo-
the southeast United States are bearing on driven steel H-piles.
technical factor of safety of two.
If the geotechnical report declares the corrosion potential is
moderate to severe for a given project, then a square shaft heli-
VI. SUMMARY cal pile is a good choice because of its solid cross section and
low perimeter surface area compared to a pipe shaft; which
In summary, helical pile design determines the geotechnical re- is hollow and has more perimeter surface area relative to the
sistance (P4) and structural capacity (P1, P2, & P3), typically cross-sectional area of steel. Hot-dip galvanization adds a thick
in that order. Probe helical piles and load tests are often done coating of zinc to the steel pile. It provides a durable coating
before start of work when a geotechnical report is not available that increases service life. Service life calculations based on
or when verification of capacity is required. The geotechnical metal loss rates can be done when corrosion potential data is
and structural resistance are separate limit states and which-
available. Appendix A of the TDM contains 4 design examples Helical piles with multiple helix plates will drive straighter, and
for corrosion design. are more likely to advance properly than single helix configura-
tions, and perform better. If too few helical plates are used, the
A Helical Pulldown® Micropile with its solid square shaft en-
most likely installation problem is “spinning out”. This can be
cased in a very dense grout mixture provides the most resis-
solved by adding more helix plates, larger helix plates, and/or
tance to corrosion since the grout acts as an additional layer of
more crowd pressure (downward force from installing equip-
protection. Cathodic protection, or adding a corrosion allow-
ment). Increasing crowd pressure may require a larger piece of
ance (additional thickness of sacrificial steel) are also options
equipment (excavator, backhoe etc.). Generally, adding more
in aggressive environments.
helical plates is more economical compared to upsizing to
HELIX STRENGTH: The structural strength of an individual he- larger equipment. If too many helical plates are used, the likely
lix is dependent on the plate thickness, grade of steel, diameter, installation problem is that the torque capacity of the shaft is
and strength of the weld that connects it to the pile/anchor reached prior to reaching the required depth. Helical exten-
shaft. There must be enough helix plates so that the sum of sions can be removed by unscrewing the pile/anchor, taking
their individual strengths can share the load that is required them off and reinstalling the pile/anchor. If helix plates on the
of the pile/anchor. The product family sub-sections in Section lead section need to be removed, it will require the installation
7 of the TDM provide the P3 helix strengths. A performance- contractor to supply a different configuration lead section or
based specification requires a minimum number of helix plates remove helical plates in the field with a torch or saw. Removal
required to share the load. The size of each helix plate is left up of helix plates in the field is done quite often, but for cost/time
to the installation contractor as long as the minimum number reasons the installing contractor would prefer not having to re-
plates is provided, and that other requirements are met, such move helical plates regardless of the method.
as minimum depth and installation torque. For example, if 60
MINIMUM LENGTH (DEPTH): The minimum length (depth) for
kip capacity is required, and the individual helix strength is 40
helical piles to behave as a deep foundation is controlled by
kip, then a minimum of two helix plates are required to share
the depth to the top-most helix plate. The plate closest to the
the 60 kip load. A prescriptive-based specification would be
ground surface should be a minimum vertical depth of 5 diam-
explicit on the exact number and size of the helix plates.
eters (5D) where D is the diameter of the largest helix. If the
HELIX SIZE AND CONFIGURATION: The size (diameter) of he- helix plate is not installed to this depth, the failure mode will be
lix plates have a significant influence on the installation and similar to a shallow foundation, i.e. a rupture of soil at the sur-
performance of a helical pile/anchor. The helical configuration face if there is not enough confining pressure. For example, if
(number and size of helix plates) can change from pile to pile. a site has loose overburden sand that trends to medium-dense
The designer can choose between a performance based design sand with increasing depth, the minimum length requirement
and a prescriptive based design. A performance based design may be “the uppermost helix must be 5D below sub-grade”.
means the helical pile contractor is responsible for some de- Most specifications simplify this to 5 feet below subgrade.
sign and construction procedures. A prescriptive based design
Helical piles are required to be a minimum length to ensure that
means the owner or designer has the sole responsibility for all
the pile is deep enough to provide reliable, long term capac-
aspects of helical pile design and installation. Hubbell recom-
ity. Minimum depth ensures the helix plate(s) are located in a
mends using a performance based design in most situations.
soil stratum that will bear load over the long term with rea-
An example of a performance based design for helical piles is sonable settlement. Geotechnical reasons can override the 5D
minimum number of helix plates, minimum installation torque, requirement. Geotechnical reasons that affect minimum length
and minimum depth. The contractor can then decide the actual are frost depth, seasonal change in moisture content, depth
number and size of helix plates, depths and torque required of fill, organic soils, volume change (shrink-swell) soils, expan-
to achieve the required resistance; so long as the specified sive soils, liquefiable soils, and ground water fluctuations. For
minimums are met. A prescriptive based design is the actual example, if it is known that a compressible peat layer exists
number and size of helix plates, actual installation torque, and between 15’ and 20’ depth, then it is important for the pile to
actual depth. A prescriptive design may be required for com- bear in soil stratum below the peat layer. Therefore, a minimum
parative bid reasons and is fine as long as a payment mecha- depth should be required that locates the helix plates in a bear-
nism for adjustment is provided. Typically, the denser the soil, ing soil below the peat layer, thereby ensuring the pile will not
the helix plates must be smaller. Alternately, the softer or less settle over time as the peat consolidates.
dense the bearing soil strata, the helix plates must be larger to
TENSION PILES/ANCHORS: The 5D requirement over the up-
generate the required torque/capacity.
permost helix for tension elements is very important. If this re-
It is important that the smallest helix plate be the bottom-most quirement is not met, there is not enough confining pressure
helix. A multi-helix pile will then have subsequent helices in- and a wedge or plug of soil can erupt to the surface as the
creasing in size. Generally, the same size helix is not repeated anchor fails. ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC358 has specified a
until the largest size available is reached. For example, a typical minimum depth for helical tension anchors. AC358 states that
three-helix configuration would be an 8”/10”/12” or 10”/12”/14”. for tension applications, as a minimum, the helical anchor must
The larger the shaft size, the larger the smallest helix diameter. be installed such that the minimum depth from the ground sur-
For example, the smallest helix plate on pipe shaft is typically face to the uppermost helix is 12D, where D is the diameter of
10 in or larger. the largest helix.
For helical tieback anchors, the 5D requirement is 5D beyond lower the factor of safety/resistance applied. For ASD design,

the active failure plane, which is dependent on the friction an- the industry standard for helical piles is a factor of safety of 2
gle of the soil and the wall height. It is important that the helical for permanent applications. For LRFD design, the resistance
plates are not stressing soil in the active failure wedge. If this factor (Ø) recommended for helical piles used in compression
happens, the wall could experience a global type failure. Again, range from 0.65 to 0.75. The resistance factor (Ø) recommend-
most specifications simplify this dimension to 5 feet beyond ed for helical piles used in tension range from 0.55 to 0.65.
the active failure plane. Therefore, the minimum length require-
For tieback anchors that are going to be individually post-
ment for helical tiebacks should be “the uppermost helix must
tensioned and tested, a factor of safety of 1.5 is used. A lower
be 5 feet beyond the active failure plane”. There should be a
factor of safety is justified since there is less uncertainty (the
schedule, table, or formula for determining this in the field to
tieback is tested).
ensure that the minimum length is achieved.
One problem with construction documents regarding helical
COST: The total installed length has a direct impact on the
piles/anchors is clearly identifying the capacity required. The
cost of the helical pile/anchor in both material cost and instal-
best method is to clearly define the ultimate resistance re-
lation time. The designer must always keep this in mind. The
quired. If the designer chooses to specify the un-factored load,
length defined (or undefined) by the bidding documents has
then the loads should be clearly identified as (service/ design/
enormous ramifications on the cost. Well written bidding docu-
working/SLS/un-factored loads) and clearly state what the re-
ments should define the piles well enough to obtain the pile/
quired factor of safety/resistance is.
anchor performance that the owner requires, as well as obtain
competitive pricing from the installing contractor. If the heli- A.2: INSTALLATION TORQUE: Installation torque can also be
cal piles are not well defined, the installation contractor that specified as the minimum requirement as it relates to the pile/
leaves the most out of his bid will likely get the job. This is anchor capacity required. This should only be done for piles/
not good for the owner as it increases the likelihood that the anchors that will not receive a proof test. Installation torque
owner is not going to get the performance from the piles that is should not be used to specify minimum capacity for helical tie-
needed; or be presented with an expensive change order after back anchors when each anchor will be post tensioned and
construction has begun. Bidding should be based upon a mini- proof tested. In that case, passing the proof test is the only
mum estimated bid length with some method for adjustment criteria that matters and obtaining a minimum torque is really
for differing lengths. This approach better utilizes the flexibility a convenience for the contractor to ensure the anchorage does
of helical piles, which is one of their advantages. A thorough not fail the proof test.
discussion of bidding and construction documents and strate- If the installation torque approach is utilized, the designer
gies is discussed in Section X of this Guide, titled “Construction should be aware that torque capacity correlations only apply
Documents” to helical piles with advancement rate that equals or exceeds
85% of the helix pitch per revolution at the time of final torque
IX. HOW TO SPECIFY HELICAL

.
measurement. Refer to Section 6 of the TDM for a full discus-
sion of torque correlation (Kt) relationships. On-site testing can
PILES be used to obtain a site specific Kt, otherwise use the default
A. MINIMUM CAPACITY OR INSTALLATION TORQUE: Wheth- values listed in Table C-1.
er using a performance or prescriptive specification, the helical Also, tension and multi-helix compression capacity should be
pile/anchor capacity (ultimate resistance) should be specified determined based on the average torque measured over the
in order to ensure that the required pile/anchor resistance is last three helix diameters of installed length. Most specifica-
achieved. This can be done by specifying the minimum capac- tions simplify this to 3 feet. The reason this is done is to better
ity directly or indirectly by specifying the required installation predict the bearing capacity of the helix plates as they dis-
torque. The designer can choose either way. tribute load to the soil in a passive pressure bulb either below
A.1: MINIMUM CAPACITY: Regardless of the design method (compression) or above (tension) the helix plate(s). Depending
used, the ultimate resistance is the same. Ultimate resistance is on how fast the torque increases over the last 3 feet of pen-
the limit state based on the structural strength or the geotech- etration will have a significant impact on the capacity of the
nical capacity of the helical pile, defined as the point at which helical pile/anchor. Note that it is virtually impossible to aver-
no additional load can be appled without failure. age a helical anchor/pile’s maximum torque rating over the last
three average helix diameters, which means a shaft with higher
A factor of safety (or a resistance factor) is applied to the ul- torque strength may be needed in very dense soils.
timate resistance to provide a reserve capacity greater than
expected loads. This “normal use” load is commonly referred
to as service, design, working, SLS or un-factored load. The X. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
safety or resistance factor may be prescribed by building code,
A. CONSTRUCTION PLANS: The previous sections presented
but is often left up to the designer. A proper factor of safety/
the various design elements that should be considered when
resistance is a combination of economics and statistics. It is not
using helical piles/anchors. Each one of the following design
typically economically feasible to design for zero probability of
elements should be defined in the construction plans on a well-
failure. Generally the more uncertainty, the higher the factor of
engineered project.
safety/resistance applied. Conversely, the less uncertainty, the
• Shaft Type the writers’ experience that unless there is a wealth of geo-
technical information that is available to the bidder’s, lump sum

• Shaft Size
pricing is generally not in the owner’s best interest. A pricing
• Helix Configuration structure that shares some of the risk with the owner and the
• Pile/Anchor Length contractor tends to result in better overall pricing. One excep-
tion to this would be if the bidders are allowed access to the
• Minimum Capacity or Install Torque site to install probe or exploratory helical piles prior to bidding.
By defining the parameters that will be acceptable for each of Helical piles/anchors are well suited to exploratory installations
these design elements, more favorable results will be obtained because of torque-to-capacity relationships, the pile/anchor
from both a pricing and performance perspective. It is the au- material can be recovered, and there is minimal disruption to
thors’ experience that summarizing the pile/anchor parameters the site. The less risk the contractor assumes, the better the
in a format similar as listed above works well. pricing will be.
For example, consider using the following format or similar Generally, a pricing structure that allows for per/pile price to a
plans: specified bid depth with unit pricing for additional/deductible
length works best. For example, if the geotechnical informa-
TABLE C-11 - HELICAL PILE DATA SUMMARY tion available indicates the average pile/anchor depth to be
between 25’-0 and 30’-0, then a bid length of 28’-0 might be
Pile Type Square Shaft Helical Pile
established with unit pricing by the foot for piles that exceed
Shaft Material: Chance Type SS175 1-3/4” Solid Square Shaft or are short of that length. Unit pricing would likely be even
Helix Configuration: 8”/10”/12” Helix Plates better if it is based on increments of helical pile section lengths
Bid Length: 28’-0
(5’-0 & 7’-0) rather than 1’ increments, since 7’-0 is the most
Ultimate Resistance, or 80 kip Minimum
Installation Torque: 8,000 ft-lb Min Average common section length. This is because the same amount of
material is likely to be used once the contractor has to add
an additional section. In other words, if the pile depth exceeds
Other design parameters can also be added such as grout col- 28’- 0, there is an additional unit cost per unit additional 7’-0
umn diameter for grouted Helical Pulldown® Micropiles, mini- extension. Some situations may lend themselves to providing a
mum length (if different from bid length), termination type, unit price for helical extensions. Many helical tieback projects
angle of installation, or required casing diameter & length. Soil have benefited by utilizing this approach.
conditions may also require the pile head end condition (fixed
Another unit pricing strategy is to have the bidders provide a
or pinned) be specified if shaft capacity controls the design.
unit price per foot for the entire length of piling or anchorage
The above summary provides enough information for bidders on the project and not have a price per pile/anchor. In other
to aggressively bid on the same items as other bidders. It re- words, the construction plans might show 100 piles at an aver-
duces the risk of being undercut by a contractor bidding with age 50’ depth and the bid quantity would be set up for unit
either lesser material, or a lesser estimated length. This also pricing by the foot, (or 7’ increments) for 5000 lineal feet (LF)
gives the owner and the engineer a comparative basis for their of piling. Payment would be made by the unit price for the
bid analysis. A method for payment should also be established quantity of piling installed, whether it is 4500 LF or 5500 LF.
for deviations from the bid length and should be considered in
C. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: Technical Specifications are
the bid analysis.
an important part of well-crafted construction documents and
B. BIDDING DOCUMENTS: Well-crafted construction docu- should further define the details regarding helical piles or an-
ments will allow installation contractors to accurately bid and chors. Technical Specifications should define anything that af-
properly install helical piles to serve their intended purpose. It fects the pricing or performance of the piles or anchors. At a
is in the owner’s and engineer’s best interest for contractors minimum, the following should be defined:
to have the proper information to be able to accurately bid
• Pile materials
and properly install the piles/anchors. Poorly-crafted construc-
tion documents with lack of definition will result either in high • Installation tools and equipment
pricing because the contractor has to assume an inordinate • Quality control methods
amount of risk, less than desired performance from the piles/
anchors, installation problems, or change orders from the con- • Installation records required
tractor. None of these things make the designer, or helical piles, • Installation tolerances and techniques
attractive to the owner for future projects.
• Load testing requirements, procedures, and acceptance
Bid processes can be handled in several different ways, and are criteria (if any)
dependent on the particular aspects and needs of each proj-
Model specifications for helical piles, anchors, and tiebacks that
ect. No two projects are exactly the same. Therefore, different
can be used as templates and edited for your specific project
aspects of the project may be the driving force behind the bid
needs are included on www.chancefoundationsolutions.com.
process or bid structure. These could be price, speed, or func-
tion. Helical piles/anchors are used in design/build projects,
lump sum bids and projects with a unit pricing structure. It is
APPENDIX D: FORMS
CONTENTS
Preliminary Design Request Form.............................................................................................................D-2
Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor Axial Test Form.......................................................................................D-3
Atlas Resistance® Piers Installation Log..................................................................................................D-4
Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor Installation Log........................................................................................D-5
Chance Helical Pulldown® Micropile Installation Log.........................................................................D-6
Atlas Resistance® Piers - Project Summary Log................................................................................... D-7
Pole Load Determination Data Sheet......................................................................................................D-8
Site Inspection Form.......................................................................................................................................D-9
FORMS
DISCLAIMER
and requirements.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | Page D-1
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REQUEST FORM
Contact at Chance Civil Construction: ___________________________________________________
Installing Contractor
Firm: Contact:
Phone: Fax: Cell:
Project
Name: Type: o Foundation o Underpinning/Shoring
Address: o New Construction o Rock
o Tieback Retaining o Other:
FORMS
o Soil Nail Retaining
Project Engineer? o Yes o No

Firm: Contact:
Address: Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Geotechnical Engineer? o Yes o No

Firm: Contact:
Address: Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Loads
Design Load FS (Mech) #1 FS (Geo) #1 Design Load FS (Mech) #2 FS (Geo) #2
Compression
Tension
Shear
Overturning
Define the owner’s expectations and the scope of the project:

________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following are attached: o Plans o Soil Boring o Soil Resistivity o Soil pH
If any of the above are not attached, please explain:

________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Date: ________________ Requested Response: ______________________ CHANCE #: ___________ Response: ______________
Please copy and complete this form to submit a design request.
Page D-2 | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023
Chance® Helical Pile/Anchor Axial Test
Helix Configuration: Total Depth:
DISPLACEMENT
PRESS LOAD TIME
(psi) (kip) (min) GAUGE A GAUGE B GAUGE C
(in) (in) (in)
FORMS
ATLAS RESISTANCE® PIERS INSTALLATION LOG
Project: Sheet: of:
Pier Number:
Pier Designator: Installation Date:
Maximum Work Capacity: Installation Technician:
Installation Cylinder Effective Area:
DEPTH PIER PRESSURE LOAD
NOTES
(ft) SECTION (psi) (lbs)
3'-6 1
7'-0 2
FORMS
10'-6 3
14'-0 4
17'-6 5
21'-0 6
24'-6 7
28'-0 8
31'-6 9
35'-0 10
38'-6 11
42'-0 12
45'-6 13
49'-0 14
52'-6 15
56'-0 16
59'-6 17
63'-0 18
66'-6 19
70'-0 20
73'-6 21
77'-0 22
80'-6 23
84'-0 24
87'-6 25
Total Full Section Length: Length of Cut-Off Section:
Depth to Pier: Total Depth from Grade:
Lifting Log
Lift Ram Effective Area: Date of Lift:
Lift Amount Pressure Load Comments:
Final Lift (in) (psi) (lbs)
TD04263E_0819
CHANCE® HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR INSTALLATION LOG
Project: Date: Sheet: of:
Helix Configuration: Installation Angle:
Chance Helical Pulldown® Micropile Only:
Grout Column Diameter: Sleeve Depth: From to
DEPTH PRESSURE TORQUE COMMENTS or

(ft) (psi) (ft-lb) MICROPILE GROUT FLOW (Volume/Shaft/Length)
FORMS
TD04262E_0819
Atlas Resistance® Piers - Project Summary Log
Project: Project Completion Date:
Sheet of
Pier Date Total Install Install Stage Final Lift Final Lift Final Lift FS Drive
Number Depth Pressure Load Pressure Load Amount vs Lift
1
2
3
4
5
FORMS
6
7
8
9
10 DRIVE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LIFT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Report Prepared By: Date:
Chance Helical Pulldown® Micropile Installation Log
Helix Configuration: Installation Angle:
Grout Column Diameter: Sleeve Depth: From to
DEPTH PRESSURE TORQUE

GROUT FLOW (Volume/Shaft/Length)
(ft) (psi) (ft-lb)
FORMS
Need by: _________________________
Pole Load Determination Data Sheet
Contact Name: Phone: Date:
Job Name: Job Location:
*Select Appropriate Units of Measure
1. Luminaire Mounting Height: m ft

2. Height of Pole: m ft
3. Outside Diameter of Pole Top: cm in
4. Outside Diameter of Pole Bottom: cm in
5. Arm Length: m ft
FORMS
6. Arm Tip Outside Diameter: cm in

7. Arm Bottom outside Diameter: cm in
8. Luminaire Weight: kg lb
9. Luminaire EPA (Projected Area x Cd): m2 ft2
10. Basic Wind Speed: kph mph
11. Minimum Design Life (Select Choice): 10 25 50
Design life default is 25 years. See Table 3-3, below
12. Number of Arms:

13. Number of Luminaires:
14. Pole Shape (Select choice from list below)
Flat Dodecagonal ( 12 Sides) Square (4 Side) Diamond
15. Arm Shape (Select choice from list below)
Flat Dodecagonal ( 12 Sides) Square (4 Side) Diamond
16. Anchor Bolt Diameter: cm in
17. Number of Bolts (in base plate):
18. Bolt Circle Diameter: cm in
19. Special Cableway Requirements:
20. Site Soil Conditions (if available):

21. CHANCE Precast Concrete Collar: Yes No 12" H or 24" H
Table 3-3. Recommended Minimum Design Life

Reproduced from AASHTO Specification, 4th Edition, 2001

-Luminaire support structures exceeding 15m (49.2 ft.)
50 Years
-Overhead sign structures
-Luminaire support structures less than 15m (49.2 ft.) in height
25 Years
-Traffic signal structures
10 Years -Roadside sign structures
TD_04_196E
SITE INSPECTION FORM
Customer Name: Date: Sheet: of:
Address: City/State/Zip:
Phone: Email:
Time: Start Finish Inspected by:
POTENTIAL MAJOR GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS ADDITIONAL NOTES AND SKETCHES

Location of faults ______________________________________
Stability of hillside _____________________________________
Flood plain location ____________________________________
Potential for excessive water runoff due to future development
FORMS
____________________________________________________
SITE CONDITIONS
Slope of the land______________________________________
Configuration of fill wedge______________________________
Depth of rock_________________________________________
Depth of water table___________________________________
Examination of nearby creeks____________________________
Examination of nearby house____________________________
Condition of roadway adjacent to house (potential slab creep &
slope failure problems)__________________________________
Examination of road curbs_______________________________
General Topography____________________________________
Surface Drainage______________________________________
ACCESSIBILITY
Equipment Access on site?______________________________
Head-room (If interior install)____________________________
What length of extensions are needed?____________________
Does homeowner want to:  Lift structure  Stabilize
Areas to avoid (gardens, patios, etc.) ______________________
FOUNDATION CONDITION
Foundation Type:  Basement  Crawl space  Slab-on-grade
Foundation construction:  Block  Stone  Mono-block
General appearance of foundation________________________
Map cracks in foundation________________________________
Proximity of trees to foundation__________________________
Gutter and downspouts_________________________________
Water in crawl space___________________________________
STRUCTURAL CONDITION
Examination of roof-line to detect general movement_________
Openings square_______________________________________
Cracks in plaster around opening_________________________
Cracks around windows and doors (put on sketch)___________
Floor level, may require levels conducted___________________
Construction of home: ________ Brick: _______
Frame: _________ Age: _______________________________
Floor system construction (include description of framing, joist
size, and spacing)______________________________________
Structure has been previously piered:  Yes  No
TD04299E_0420

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHANCE TECHNICAL

Chance® Civil Construction | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.

© Copyright 2023 Hubbell Incorporated. Chance® is a registered trademark of Hubbell, Inc.

Bulletin 01-0605 | Revision 01-2023

Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | i

SYMBOLS & ACRONYMS

ii | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023

SECTION 2: SOIL MECHANICS

SECTION 3: PRODUCT FEASIBILITY

SECTION 4: LOAD DETERMINATION

SECTION 5: DESIGN METHODOLOGY

SECTION 6: INSTALLATION METHODOLOGY

SECTION 7: PRODUCT DRAWINGS AND RATINGS

iv | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023

SECTION 8: DESIGN EXAMPLES

SECTION 9: SOIL SCREW® RETENTION WALL SYSTEM

SECTION 10: INSTANT FOUNDATION® SYSTEM

Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | v

APPENDIX B: LOAD TESTS

APPENDIX C: HELICAL PILES & ANCHORS - A BASIC GUIDELINE FOR DESIGNERS

vi | Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023

Effective Stress - The total force on a cross section of a soil

Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. | All Rights Reserved | Copyright © 2023 | ix

The Atlas Resistance pier is a manufactured, two-stage product

APPLIED RESEARCH AND

the 2000 International Building and Residential Codes of

SUMMARY OF ATLAS RESISTANCE PIER ADVANTAGES

Originally used with Type SS helical piles, the special foundation

CHANCE® CIVIL CONSTRUCTION SOIL CLASSIFICATION, TABLE 1-2

PROBE VALUES* (ft∙lb TYPICAL BLOW COUNT

ESR-2794 is an ICC-ES evaluation report that demonstrates code

SUMMARY OF CHANCE HELICAL PILE/ANCHOR ADVANTAGES

EXPANSIVE SOILS REMEDIAL APPLICATIONS

THE SOIL PROFILE

Overconsolidated, Low to Medium

fraction SM Silty sands. Sand-silt mixtures.

*Based on the material passing the 3” (76 mm) sieve.

The shear strength is the maximum shear resistance that the

angle of The primary purpose of a geotechnical site investigation is to

are useful for the following reasons:

maximum stress • To establish the location of any weak or potentially liquefi-

In some cases, especially for small projects and shallow con-

pling tool placed in the bottom of the borehole. Continuous

Split Spoon Sample

GEOMETRY OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Cone penetrometers cannot penetrate more than a few meters

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF VARIOUS ROCKS, TABLE 2-5

• Visual Classification – Samples collected during the drill-

Liquidity Index greater than about 1.2.

RESISTANCE® PRODUCTS Hubbell steel foundation products offer simplicity in design

anchors and/or compression piles for varied foundation support

VERY WEATHERED TO WEATHERED ROCK;

PRODUCT SELECTION GUIDE, FIGURE 3-1

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Owner, Prime Contractor or Consultant

Geotechnical Review by CHANCE Helical Pile/Anchor Designer,

Structural Certifed CHANCE Installer

Load Capacity Calculations

Lateral Load and Buckling

Installation Criteria and Report

Date: Requested Response: CHANCE #: _ Response: __________