♦ HELICAL ANCHORS & FOUNDATIONS ♦

www.hubbellpowersystems.com

Industry Standards
based on CHANCE ®

multi-helix anchor specs

State-of-the-Art:
R&D history of inter-helix spacing
traces application of technical principles

T
he helical screw anchor is not a Answers to FAQs
sophisticated product in the 21st (Frequently Asked Questions):
century of cell phones, the This array of screw anchor types has led many to
Internet and High-Definition TV. ask why so many? What requirements or design
A low-tech product in a high-tech world, constraints have led to their current forms?
it continues to serve ever-expanding roles Can the current design be improved?
for utilities and in civil construction. In In the case of multi-helix screw anchors,
fact, the screw anchor’s elegant simplicity particularly Type SS, how far apart should the
is its greatest asset: An uncomplicated helix plates be spaced along the shaft? Is there an
product with multiple uses. optimum spacing that provides the best performance
Historical Perspective: in terms of installation and load carrying capacity?
Answering these questions requires looking back
Low-tech to high-tech designs over some 40 years to just before A.B. Chance
Helical screw anchors may be simple in Company developed Type SS screw anchors.
concept, but they come in many forms. Take
out your copy of the CHANCE® Encyclopedia Introduced in 1959, PISA anchors were well
of Anchoring and look through the Anchor known and in widespread use by the early
Product Section. It shows you these types: 1960’s. They were available in single and
PISA® (Power Installed Screw Anchors), twin-helix configurations (twin 8" and twin
Tough One®, Square-Shaft (or SS), Round- 10"). Their inter-helix spacing changed often
Rod (or RR), and No-Wrench screw anchors. over the years, but always has been in the
If you also have an A.B. Chance Co. Civil 15- to 30-inch range. Their standard rod length was
Construction SA Catalog, you can find Types 7 ft. As the following quote from the 1966 edition of
HS, T/C, Street Light Foundations (SLF), the Encyclopedia of Anchoring indicates, the chief
Area Lighting Foundations (ALF), and advantage of multi-helix anchors was already known:
HELICAL PULLDOWN™ Micropiles “Installed in place of larger single helix Type PISA.
(HPM). These anchor types all have three Higher holding powers can be obtained with the two
things in common: helix anchors.”
1. At least one helically Where two helices are better than one, logic
shaped bearing plate, indicates three or more helices would be better than
2. A central steel shaft, two. This reasoning was put to good use in 1961,
when the Chance Company developed
3. An appropriate structural extendable Type RR multi-helix anchors. The
connection at the top. original application for multi-helix RR
anchors was as tiedowns for underground
12 Yet each different anchor type serves pipelines in poor soil conditions along
different applications. And new uses coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico. Type
seemingly come to light every day.
&
TiPS NEWS Reprinted from Vol. 8, No. 1 APRIL 2003
 Q

soil surface

Homogeneous,
B= Plate Normally
Diameter Consolidated Clay
B

q= FIGURE FIGURE
Distributed 2 3
Load Plate Bearing Cylindrical
Model Shear
Model

0.28q Stress
1B Distribution applied load to the soil in end bearing (bearing capacity
theory).
0.09q FIGURE This transfer of load results in a “stress zone” within a
2B 1 defined soil volume immediately above or below the
Stress Distribution helix depending on the direction of the load (tension -
Beneath Deep Buried above helix, compression - below helix). A necessary
0.04q Circular Plate
3B condition for this method to work is that the helices
must be spaced far enough apart to avoid overlapping
RR anchors worked well in weak surficial soils, but their their stress zones.
11⁄4" diameter shaft did not provide enough torque
strength to penetrate very far into firm bearing soils. The Boussinesq (circa 1885) Equation has described the
stress distribution in soil resulting from a load applied
Development of a high torque multi-helix anchor began in via a buried plate/footing as shown in Figure 1. For a
1963, culminating in the Chance Company’s introduction multi-helix anchor installed into uniform, homogeneous
of Type SS 11⁄2" square shaft multi-helix anchors in 1964- soil, spacing helix plates too close together can result in
65. overlapping stress distributions, which may lead to
Inter-helix spacing was 36" for both Types RR and SS unexpected failure.
anchors. Why 36 inches? Remember that the 7-ft. length Likewise, spacing helix plates too far apart prevents soil
of standard PISA rods was established as a length for a stress overlap, but results in a screw anchor that is
worker to reach when using the wrench-driven PISA unnecessarily long. As can be seen in Figure 1, the
system. Since Types RR and SS anchors also were driven magnitude of stress one diameter away from the buried
by tooling attached to a torque motor, this same practical plate is 28% the magnitude of stress at the plate. Note
length applied to them as well. the magnitude of stress three diameters away from the
Based on proportion, three helices equally spaced 36" apart buried plate is only 4% the magnitude of stress at the
fit well on a 7'-0" shaft. Using the same 36" spacing, two plate. Greater distance from the plate results in stress
helices were placed on a 5'-0" shaft (for bed-mounted magnitude reduction, but at a significantly reduced rate.
diggers) and four helices were placed on a 10'-0" shaft. The
three helix configuration quickly became the most popular What inter-helix spacing is optimum?
Type SS lead section and remains so today. Three-foot The Boussinesq Equation suggests a spacing of three-
(36") spacing remained the norm for Types RR and SS, as helix diameters as a practical solution based on stress
well as for HS-8, HS-11, and HS-14 High-Strength guy distribution. The design question posed by the above
anchors developed later in the 1960s. discussion also has been answered by two other accepted
principles.
Geotechnical science evolves changes
The bearing capacity theory (Figure 2, plate bearing
In the 1970s and early 1980s, a gradual change in the model) suggests the capacity of a multi-helix screw
design philosophy at A.B. Chance Co. eventually led to anchor is equal to the sum of the capacities of the
changes in inter-helix spacing. Adopting generally accepted individual helix plates. Calculating the unit bearing
geotechnical engineering principles, it was recognized that capacity of the soil and multiplying by the individual
a deep buried plate (i.e., screw anchor helix) transferred an helix areas determine the total end-bearing capacity.
2
The cylindrical shear theory (Figure 3, QH = Pullout capacity of a single helix
3QH r
cylindrical shear model) suggests the S = Helix Spacing
l s hea ing
D = Helix Diameter a c
capacity of a multi-helix screw anchor is ric α spa
ind
equal to the bearing capacity of the top- cyl acity

Pullout Capacity
most helix (tension load), plus the friction cap
capacity resulting from the shear strength individual bearing capacity
2QH independent of spacing
of the soil along a cylinder bounded by
the top and bottom helix with a diameter
defined by the average of all helix

Transition Zone
diameters on a multi-helix anchor.
QH
Both cylindrical shear and individual bearing
represent permissible failure mechanisms for
any inter-helix spacing, therefore the ultimate
capacity associated with them are upper
bounds of the actual ultimate capacity at all
spacings (see Figure 4). At “small” spacings, 1 2 3 4 5 6
cylindrical shear is the least upper bound and Helix Spacing (S/D)
FIGURE 4
controls capacity, per the Least Upper-Bound Pullout Capacity of 2-Helix Anchor vs Helix Spacing
Theorem. At “large” spacings, individual
bearing becomes the least upper bound and controls capacity.
To determine where the transition occurs from cylindrical shear to indivdual bearing, data from late 1970’s field
tests were analyzed. The interpreted results indicate that the transition spacing is about three diameters, as is
indicated in Figure 4. This is consistent with the performance of multi-belled concrete piers (Bassett, 1977) and
with the fact that the cylindrical shear and individual bearing methods usually give similar results for screw
anchors with three-helix diameters spacing.
®
Industry Standard derived from CHANCE three-diameters spacing
It is important to understand that soils generally are far apart increases the possibility that one or more of
not homogeneous mixtures exhibiting uniform them will not be located in the same soil layer as the
strength properties. Spacing helix plates unnecessarily others.

The key is to space the helix plates just far enough apart
to maximize the bearing capacity of a given soil.
This works to reduce the overall length of the anchor space between any two helices being three times the
and increases the likelihood for all helix plates to be diameter of the lower helix. This is the optimum
located in the same soil layer. This leads to more spacing that historically has been sufficient to prevent
predictable torque-to-capacity relationships and better one helix from significantly influencing the
creep (movement under load) characteristics. performance of another, while at the same time
Today, A.B. Chance Company manufactures helical preventing the previously mentioned disadvantages of
screw anchors with three-helix-diameters spacing, the spacing helices too far apart.

INDUSTRY STANDARD
A Definition: Three-helix-diameter spacing –
The optimum space between any two helical plates on a screw
anchor is three times the diameter of the lower helix.
With the introduction of Chance Type SS150, SS175, SS200, and SS225 High Strength SS Anchors in the late
1970’s and early 1980’s, helix plates were located on the shaft using three-helix-diameters spacing. Type HS
anchors were changed to this spacing in 1986. The standard-strength SS, known as the SS5 series, remained at
36 inch spacing until 1997, when it also was updated to the industry standard of three-diameters spacing, now
common to other Chance shaft-driven multi-helix screw anchors.

3
 ®

Web: http://www.hubbellpowersystems.com
E-mail: [email protected]
UNITED STATES CANADA MEXICO ASIA
HUBBELL POWER SYSTEMS, INC. HUBBELL CANADA, INC. HUBBELL DE MEXICO, S.A. DE. CV HUBBELL S.E. ASIA PTE. LTD.
210 N. Allen 870 Brock Road South Av. Coyoacan No. 1051 23 Tagore Lane #03-16
Centralia, Mo 65240 Pickering, Ontario L1W 1Z8 Col. Del Valle Tagore 23 Warehouse
Phone: 573-682-8414 Phone: 905-839-1138 03100 Mexico, D.F. Singapore 787601
Fax: 573-682-8660 Fax: 905-831-6353 Phone: 52-55-9151-9999 Phone: 65-6454-4772
e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Fax: 52-55-9151-9988 Fax: 65-6454-4775
e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.

® ® ® ®
ANDERSON

NOTE: Because Hubbell has a policy of continuous product improvement, we reserve the right to change design and specifications without notice.

©Copyright 2003 Hubbell, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. RGS 5M 04/03

Bulletin 04-0301