“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Design and
Technical Service Manual
-- Ninth Edition --

By: Donald J. Clayton, PE

© 2013 Earth Contact Products, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

The material in this book may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of Earth Contact Products, LLC,
except as noted below. Any unauthorized uses of the material and inventions disclosed herein or reproductions or copies of the
pages of this book are hereby prohibited. Such uses would be deemed infringement of Earth Contact Products’ intellectual
property rights and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC

Company Office and Manufacturing Facility
15612 South Keeler Terrace, Olathe, Kansas 66062
913 393-0007 - FAX 913 393-0008
Toll Free – 866 327-0007
www.earthcontactproducts.com

Tenth Printing – 12/2013

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent
with our efforts toward continuous product improvement. We also make changes and corrections to the technical design text
consistent with the state of the art. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent design information and product specifications.

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page i All rights reserved
From the author:
This manual was written and configured with reader in mind. The goal was to present the technical theories and
equations in a simple, understandable way. This manual is not a rigorous text on soil mechanics and engineering
theory. The intent was to produce a manual that distilled the theory down to make is easy to understand and to reach
an answer or a solution in a timely manner. The technical information provided herein can help the engineer with a
basic understanding of foundation support to delve deeper into the subject. Unlike some other technical manuals,
there is nothing left out of this ECP Design and Technical Service Manual that would prevent the reader from
performing an analysis and arriving at a solution without calling to the manufacturer or an engineer for assistance.
Engineers were in mind when the theoretical explanations, the assumptions, and equations to arrive at solution were
written. It is the goal to provide sufficient technical data and guidance necessary to design typical foundation support
or tieback systems. This book is not intended to be a thorough analysis of the subject area but rather a handbook for
solutions to typically encountered situations in the field.
The book also has been written for non-engineers such as project managers, estimators, contractors; and foundation
repair company owners, office supervisors and field superintendents in the business of installing foundation support
systems. The dry, technical theory is there if the reader is interested in learning the subject matter more thoroughly,
but the extensive use of tables and graphs in this edition reduces the need to master the theory and the need to go into
difficult equations to get a solution.
New to this edition is our “Quick and Rough” estimating methods. These “Quick and Rough” methods are presented
throughout the book. “Quick and Rough” estimating allows the non-engineer to arrive at a solution to a foundation
support problem with a minimum of time and only a small amount of mathematics. Most of the design examples
presented in this manual are solved using both methods. The results from both methods have shown reasonably
comparable results from the same design example.
The manual is divided into three distinct sections; Helical Screw Products, Resistance Piers, and Corrosion
Considerations. The divisions can clearly be determined from the tab markings on the right edge of the book. While
some topics overlap, an attempt to make each section stand alone so that the reader can concentrate on only the
subject of interest at the time.
This manual not intended to replace professional engineering input and judgment. It is highly recommend that you
seek professional engineering input on any critical projects. It is also considered good practice to incorporate a
minimum factor of safety of 2.0 into each and every preliminary design, to perform a field load test on any heavily
loaded foundation element or on any critical projects; and to seek professional engineering input when in doubt or
when available information is incomplete or confusing.
Finally, special thanks to a friend and colleague, Mr. Aaron Grayham, for his help, suggestions, constructive
criticisms and vision for this manual. His suggestions have helped to transform the previous editions of the ECP
Design and Technical Service Manual into the more detailed and user friendly book that you hold in your hand.
DJC/September 2013

Table of Contents – Page iii

Index of Tables and Graphs – Page vii

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page ii All rights reserved
ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page iii All rights reserved
 Table of Contents
-- Ninth Edition --

Section I – ECP Torque Anchors™

Chapter 1 – ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Design Manual 1
Introduction 2
ECP Torque Anchors™ 2
Torque Anchor™ Components 2
Product Benefits 3
Product Limitations 3
ECP Torque Anchor™ Product Designations 4
Capacities of ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ 4
Product Descriptions 5
Symbols Used In This Chapter 15
Design Criteria 15
Preliminary Design Guidelines 16
Soil Behavior 16
Cohesive Soil (Clays & Silts) 17
Cohesionless Soil (Sands and Gravels) 18
Mixed Soils 20
Effects of Water Table Fluctuations and Freeze-Thaw Cycle 21
Budgetary Capacity Estimates by “Quick and Rough” Method 21
Torque Anchor™ Holding Capacity 25
Installation Torque 25
Helical Torque Anchor™ Design Considerations 26
Projected Areas of Helical Torque Anchor™ Plates 26
Allowable Helical Plate Capacities 26
Relationship Between Installation Torque and Torque Anchor ™ Capacity 26
Plate Embedment in Tension Applications 28
Preventing “Punch Through” 28
Tieback Design Considerations 28
Placement of Tiebacks 29
Hydrostatic Pressure 29
Basement Tieback Applications 29
Simple Retaining Wall Tieback Applications 30
Simple Retaining Wall Tieback Applications With Soil Surcharge 30
Ultimate Tieback Capacity Selection 30
Horizontal embedment Length – “L0” 31
Installation Angle – “α” 31
Critical Embedment Depth – “D” 31
Torque Anchor™ Installation Limits 31
Shaft Strength 31
Shaft Stiffness 32
Buckling Loads in Weak Soils 32
Allowable Compressive Loads – Pile in Air 33

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page iv All rights reserved
 Chapter 2 – ECP Helical Torque™ Anchors - Installation Guidelines
and Testing Procedures 35
Hydraulic Torque Motors 36
Installation Torque 36
Soil Efficiency Factor – “k” 36
Determining Installation Torque 37
Converting Motor Pressure Differential to Shaft Torque 38
ECP Smart Anchor Monitor (SAM) and Assembly Configuration 40
ECP Hydraulic Torque Motor Performance Curves 40
Structural Compressive Pile and/or Tensile Helical Anchor Installation Procedure 44
Field Test Procedures for Static Axial Compression and Tensile Loads 47
Basic Procedure for Quick Tension or Compression Tests 48

Chapter 3 – ECP Helical Torque™ Anchors - Design Examples 51

Design Example 1 – Heavy Weight New Construction – Cohesionless Soil 52
Design Example 1A – Heavy Weight New Construction - “Quick and Rough” Method 54
Design Example 1B – Heavy Weight New Construction –Weak Soil 56
Design Example 2 – Light Weight New Construction – Cohesive Soil 58
Design Example 2A – Light Weight New Construction – “Quick and Rough” Method 60
Design Example 3 – Basement Wall Tieback Anchor – Cohesive Soil 62
Design Example 3A – Basement Wall Tieback Anchor – “Quick and Rough” Method 65
Design Example 4 – Retaining Wall Tieback Anchor – Cohesionless Soil 67
Design Example 5 – Foundation Restoration – Cohesive Soil 69
Design Example 5A – Foundation Restoration – “Quick and Rough” Method 72
Design Example 6 – Motor Output Torque 75
Design Example 6A – Motor Output Torque – “Quick and Rough” Method 76
Design Example 7 – Ultimate Capacity from Field Data 77
Design Example 7A – Ultimate Capacity from Field Data - “Quick and Rough” Method 77

Chapter 4 – ECP Torque Anchors™ - Introduction to ECP Helical Soil Nails 79

Introduction 80
ECP Soil Nail Components 81
Product Benefits 81
Product Descriptions – ECP Square Shaft Soil Nails 82
Product Limitations 83
Capacities of ECP Soil Nails 83
Mechanics of Soil Nail Installation 84
Shotcrete 86
Field Documentation 86

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page v All rights reserved
 Section II – ECP Steel Piers™
Chapter 5 – ECP Steel Piers™ - Technical Design Manual 89
Introduction 90
Features and Innovations 90
Product Benefits 91
Pier Installation Sequences 91
PPB Utility Bracket Installation 92
PPB Utility Bracket Components 92
PPB 166 Slab Jack Installation 93
ECP Steel Pier™ Product Configurations 94
“Suitable Load Bearing Stratum” 95
Why Determine Structural Loads? 95
Simplified Tables of Structural Foundation Loads 96
Estimating Structural Loads 97
Benefits of Estimating Foundation Loads 97
“Quick and Rough” Structural Load Estimating 98
Estimating Commercial Building Loads 99
Determining Pier Spacing 99
Pier Spacing Based Upon Pier Strength 99
Pier Spacing Based Upon Footing Strength 99
Pier Installation, Load Testing & Project Documentation 102
Pier Installation 102
Proof Testing and Project Documentation 103
Buckling Loads on the Pier Shaft in Weak Soil 103
Allowable Compressive Loads – “P” in Air 104
Pier Sleeves 105
“Quick and Rough” Buckling Load Estimates 106
ECP Steel Pier™ Model 350 Utility Bracket System, ECP TA-150 Torque
Anchor™ and Model 350-TA Tieback Adapter Assembly 106
Chapter 6 – ECP Steel Piers™ - Resistance Pier Design Examples 107
Design Example 1 – Calculate Foundation Load – Two Story Brick with Full Basement 108
Design Example 1A – Calculate Foundation Load – “Quick and Rough” Method”
Two Story Brick with Full Basement 109
Design Example 2 – Calculate the Maximum Pier Spacing for Design Example 1 110
Design Example 2A – Adjust for Pier Buckling in Weak Soil 110
Design Example 3 – Calculate Foundation Load – Single Story Slab on Grade 111
Design Example 3A – Calculate Foundation Load – “Quick and Rough”
Method” Single Story Slab on Grade 112
Design Example 4 – Calculate the Maximum Pier Spacing for Design Example 3 113
Design Example 5 – Calculate the Foundation Load and Determine Pier Spacing
Three Story Office Building 114
Design Example 5A – Estimate the Drive Cylinder and Lifting Ram Pressures –
“Quick and Rough” Method for Design Example 5 117
Design Example 6 – Determine Force Applied to Pier from Field Data 118
Design Example 6A – Determine Force Applied to Pier – “Quick and Rough” Method” 118

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page vi All rights reserved
 Section III – Corrosion Considerations
Chapter 7 – Corrosion Life of Steel Foundation Products 119
Corrosion Considerations 120
Steel Underground – How Long Does It Last? 120
Difference in Electrical Potential 120
Electrolyte 120
Aeration 120
Controlling Factors for Corrosion 120
Soil Resistivity 120
Soil pH 121
Corrosion Test Results 122
Zinc Galvanizing for Corrosion Protection 122
Oxygen Availability 122
Estimating Corrosion Potential 123
Special Corrosion Conditions 124
Methods of Corrosion Control 125
Passive Control 125
Active Control 126
Corrosion Life Analysis 127
“Quick and Rough” Corrosion Life Estimating 128
Corrosion of the Torque Anchor™ Shafts 128
Life of Torque Anchor™ Galvanization 128
Corrosion Life of ECP Steel Pier™- 129
Results of Field Tested Galvanized Coating Life 130

Manufacturer’s Warranty 131

Chapter 8 – ECP Torque Anchors™ & ECP Steel Piers™

Corrosion Life Design Examples 133
™
Design Example 1 – Corrosion Life of Tubular Torque Anchor 134
Design Example 1A – Corrosion Life of Tubular Torque Anchor™
“Quick and Rough” Method” 136
Design Example 2 – Corrosion Life of Tubular ECP Steel Pier™ Pipe 137
Design Example 2A – Corrosion Life of Tubular ECP Steel Pier™ Pipe
“Quick and Rough” Method” 139

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent
with our efforts toward continuous product improvement. We also make changes and corrections to the technical design text
consistent with the state of the art. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent design information and product specifications.

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how to prepare
preliminary designs, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each placement when using ECP Torque
Anchors™. If you have questions or require engineering assistance in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact
Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page vii All rights reserved
 Index of Tables and Graphs
-- Ninth Edition --

Section II – ECP Torque Anchors™

Chapter 1 – ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Design Manual 1
™
Table 1. ECP Torque Anchor Product Designations 4
Table 2. Capacities of Torque Anchors™ 4
Tables of Available Standard Torque Anchor™ Leads and Extensions 5
How to Specify Special Order Torque Anchors™ 10
Tables of Available Utility Brackets, Pile Caps and Tieback Transitions 11
Table 3. Symbols Used in this Chapter 15
Table 4. Cohesive Soil Classification 17
Table 5. Properties of Cohesive Soil 17
Graph 1. Required Helical Plate Area vs. SPT, “N” – Cohesive Soils 18
Table 6. Cohesionless Soil Classification 18
Table 7. Properties of Cohesionless Soil 19
Table 8. Mixed Soil Descriptions 20
Table 9. Soil Classifications 22
Graphs 2 – 5. Torque Anchor™ Holding Capacity 23
™
Table 10. Projected Areas of Helical Torque Anchor Plates 26
Table 11. Average Ultimate Mechanical Helical Plate Capacities 26
Table 12. Soil Efficiency Factor, “k” 27
Graph 6. Motor Output Torque vs Ultimate Capacity 27
Table 13. Angular Embedment Length 31
Table 14. Torque Anchor™ Shaft Stiffness Comparisons 32
Graph 7. Conservative Critical Buckling Load for Budget Estimates 33
Table 15. Conservative Critical Buckling Load for Budget Estimates 33
Graph 8. Ultimate Axial Compressive Load on Piles without Lateral Soil Support 34

Chapter 2 – Installation Guidelines and Testing Procedures for

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ 35
Table 16. Hydraulic Torque Motor Specifications 39
Graphs 9 – 13. Pressure at Motor vs. Motor Output Torque – Various Motors 41
™
Torque Anchor Installation Record – (Template) 46
Field Load Test Report – (Template) 49

Chapter 4 – Introduction to ECP Helical Soil Nails 79

Tables of Available Standard ECP Soil Nail Leads, Extensions and Wall Plates 82
Table 17. Capacities of ECP Soil Nails 83

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page viii All rights reserved
 Section II – ECP Steel Piers™
Chapter 5 – ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Design Manual 89
™
Table of ECP Steel Pier Product Configurations 94
Table 1. ECP Steel Resistance Pier System Ratings 95
Tables 2 – 7. Simplified Tables of Structural Foundation Loads 96
Table 8. Estimated Soil Loads on Footings 98
Graph 1. Temporary Soil Load (One Side) – Wt 98
Table 9. Estimated Snow Loads 98
Table 10. Ranges for Typical Averege Residential Building Loads 98
Table 11. Weights of Building Materials 99
Graph 2. Graphs for Estimating Pier Spacing Based Upon Foundation Strength of
Spread Footing or Monolithic Slab Only (No Stem Wall or Hollow Masonry
Stem Walls) 100
Graph 3. Graph for Estimating Pier Spacing Based Upon Foundation Strength of
Spread Footing with Short Integrally Cast Concrete Stem Walls 101
Graph 4. Cylinder Force vs Hydraulic Pressure 102
Graph 5. Maximum Compressive Load on Steel Piers Without Soil Support 104
Table 12. Steel Pier Shaft Stiffness Comparisons 104
Table 13. Conservative Critical Buckling Load for “Quick and Rough”
Budgetary Estimating 106

Section III – Corrosion Considerations

Chapter 7 – Corrosion Life of Steel Foundation Products 119
Table 1. Soil Resistivity Ranges for General Soil Types 121
Table 2. Soil Resistivity and Relative Corrosivity Rating 121
Graph 1. The Effect of pH on Corrosion of Iron 122
Graph 2. The Effect of pH on Corrosion of Zinc 122
Graph 3. Corrosion Potential Estimating Graph – Underground Bare Steel Structures 123
Table 3. Numerical Corrosivity Score 124
Table 4. Soil Corrosion Potential 124
Table 5. Sample ECP Torque Anchor™ & Soil Nail Life Expectancy
Estimates at Full Load 128
™
Table 6. Sample ECP Steel Pier Life Expectancy Estimates at Full Load 130
Table 7. Corrosion of Galvanized Steel Pipe in Contact with Various Soils 130

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how to prepare
preliminary designs, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each placement when using ECP Torque
Anchors™. If you have questions or require engineering assistance in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact
Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.

ECP Design & Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page ix All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Chapter 1

Design
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™
Technical Design Manual
 Square Bar Helical Torque Anchors ™
 Tubular Helical Torque Anchors™
 Torque Anchor™ Pile Caps, Utility Brackets and Shaft Terminations

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 1 All rights reserved
 Introduction
Screw piles have been in use for more than 160 early 20th centuries mainly for supporting
years. In 1838 a lighthouse was built upon screw structures and bridges over weak or wet soil.
piles designed by an Irish engineer, Alexander Hydraulic torque motors became available in the
Mitchell. In 1863, Eugenius Birch designed the 1960’s, which allowed for easy and fast
Brighton West Pier in Brighton, England. These installation of screw piles. Screw piles then
piers are still in use 150 years later. The original became the favored product for resisting tensile
screw piles were installed at 10 feet per hour forces. Electric utility companies began to use
using eight 20 foot long torque bars and the force screw piles for tie down anchors on transmission
of 32 up to 40 men. towers and for guy wires on utility poles.
In the United States, the Thomas Point Shoal Screw piles are ideal for applications where there
Lighthouse on Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, near is a need to resist both axial tension and
Annapolis, Maryland; is the only remaining compression forces. Some examples of
lighthouse built upon helical screw piles that is structures requiring resistance to both
situated at its original location. This lighthouse compressive and tensile forces are metal
has a hexagonal shape measuring 35 feet across, buildings, canopies and monopole
and it is still supported by seven original helical telecommunication tower foundations. Current
screw piles. The Thomas Point Shoal uses for screw pile foundations include
Lighthouse was constructed and first put into foundations for commercial and residential
structures, light poles, retaining walls tieback
anchors, restorations of failed foundations,
pipeline and pumping equipment supports,
elevated walkways, bridge abutments, and
numerous uses in the electric utility industry.

ECP Torque Anchors™

ECP Torque Anchors™ are a part of the complete
product line of screw piles, steel piers and
foundation support products manufactured by
Earth Contact Products, LLC, a family owned
company based in Olathe, Kansas. The company
was built upon the ECP Steel Pier™, a fourth
generation end bearing steel mini-pile designed
Thomas Point Shoal Lighthouse and patented for ECP.
operation on November 20, 1875. The helical Our 100,000 square foot state of the art
screw piles that support the structure consist of manufacturing facility produces all components
ten inch diameter wrought and steel assemblies. The only processes not
iron shafts with cast iron done in our facility are galvanization and hot
helical screw flanges at the forge upsetting of shaft couplings. We are able
end of the shafts. At to custom design and configure products to your
Thomas Point, the screw engineered specific applications. Earth Contact
piles were advanced into to Products uses only certified welders and robotics
sandy bottom of for quality fabrication.
Chesapeake Bay to a depth
of 11-1/2 feet. The signal Torque Anchor™ Components
light is mounted 43 feet The ECP Torque Anchor™ consists of a shaft
above the surface of the fabricated from either solid square steel bar or
water. tubular steel. Welded to the shaft are one or
Cast iron coupling
at Thomas Point Sporadic use of screw piles more helical plates. The plates can vary in
Lighthouse has been documented diameter from 6 inches to 16 inches and have a
throughout the 19th and thickness of 3/8 or 1/2 inch depending upon the

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 2 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
application. Typically the plate diameters allowing the Torque Anchor™ assembly to reach

Design
increase from the bottom of the shaft upward, the desired depth. Helical plates may also be
and are spaced a distance of three times the installed on the extensions where the length of
diameter of the plate directly below unless the lead is not sufficiently long enough to allow
specified otherwise by the engineer. The for the proper interval between plates. The
standard thickness for all helical plate diameters number of the plates per Torque Anchor™ is
is 3/8 inch, except for the 16 inch diameter limited only by the shaft capacity to transmit the
helical plate which is manufactured only in 1/2 torque required to advance the Torque Anchor™
inch thickness. In high capacity applications or into the soil.
in obstruction laden soils, a helical plate Torque Anchors™ may terminate with a pile cap
thickness of 1/2 inch may be special ordered for that embeds into a new concrete foundation. In
all sizes of plates. The standard pitch of all other applications such as tieback anchors, a
helical plates is three inches, which means that transition is made from the anchor shaft to a
the anchor advances into the soil a distance of continuously threaded rod for attachment to the
three inches during one revolution of the shaft. wall. Various beams, wall plates, etc. can be
The standard lead shaft lengths of most products attached to the threaded bar for wall support, for
are 10 inches, 5 feet, 7 feet and 10 feet, however, restorations, or to simply stabilize walls or other
other lengths may be specially fabricated for structure from overturning forces. When the
large quantity specialized applications. Because application requires existing foundation
Torque Anchors™ are considered deep restoration or stabilization, foundation brackets
foundation elements; they are usually installed are available that attach between the Torque
into the soil to a depth greater than just the Anchor™ and the foundation beam, footing or
length of the typical lead section. slab. The purpose of the foundation bracket is to
Extensions of various lengths are available and transfer the load from the foundation element to
are supplied with couplings and hardware for the Torque Anchor™.
attachment to the lead or other extensions

Product Benefits
 Quickly Installed  Easily Load Tested To Verify Capacity
 Low Installed Cost  Can Be Loaded Immediately After
 Installs With Little Or No Vibration Installation
 Installs In Areas With Limited Access  Installs Below The Unstable And
 Little Or No Disturbance To The Site Sinking Soil To Firm Bearing
 Soil Removal From Site Unnecessary  Small Shaft Size Limits “Down Drag”
From Shallow Consolidating Soils
 Installed Torque Correlates To
Capacity  All Weather Installation

Product Limitations
Torque Anchors™ are not suitable in locations not exert sufficient lateral force on the narrow
where subsurface material may damage the shaft shaft to prevent buckling. When extremely soft
or the helices. Soils containing cobbles, large soils are present, generally having a Standard
amounts of gravel, boulders, construction debris, Penetration Test – “N” < 5 blows per foot, one
and/or landfill materials are usually unsuitable must take into consideration the axial stiffness of
for helical products. the anchor shaft in the design.
Because the products have slender shafts, The slender shafts also render the typical Torque
buckling may occur when passing through Anchor™ ineffective against large lateral loads or
extremely weak soil because the soft soil may overturning moments.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 3 All rights reserved
Table 1. ECP Torque Anchor ™ Product Designations
Product Prefix Product Description
TAH Lead Section With One 3/8” Thick Helical Plate
HTAH Lead Section With One 1/2” Thick Helical Plate
Helical Lead Sections
TAF Lead Section with Multiple 3/8” Thick Helical Plates
HTAF Lead Section with Multiple 1/2” Thick Helical Plates
Shaft Extensions TAE Extension Section with Coupling & Hardware
Transitions TAT Transition Coupling – Helical Tieback Anchor Shaft to Threaded Bar
New Construction Pile TAB–NC New Construction Compression Pile Cap
Caps TAB–T New Construction Tension Pile Cap (Compression and uplift support)
TAB-150-SUB + TAB-150 TT Foundation Bracket – Fits 1-1/2” Sq. Shaft Helical Pile Shaft
TAB-288L-MUB + TAB-288-TTM Foundation Bracket – Fits 2-7/8” x 0.203” Wall Tubular Helical Pile Shaft
Brackets for Foundation TAB - LUB Large Foundation Bracket – Fits Under Footing and Connects to Pile Shaft:
Repair TAB-175-TT T-Tube for use with 1-3/4” Square Shaft
TAB-288-TT T-Tube for use with 2-7/8” Diameter Tubular Shaft
TAB-350-TT T-Tube for use with 3-1/2” Diameter Tubular Shaft
TAB-150-LP TAB-288-LP Porch Bracket – Fits 1-1/2” Square or 2-7/8” Dia. Helical Pile Shaft
TAB-150-SSB Screw Lift Slab Bracket – Fits 1-1/2” Square Helical Pile Shaft
Brackets for Slab TAB-150-HSB Hydraulic Lift Slab Bracket – Fits 1-1/2” Square Helical Pile Shaft
Repair
Hydraulic Lift Slab Bracket – Fits 2-7/8” Diameter Tubular Shaft
TAB-288-LHSB
Also Fits: 1-1/2” Square Shaft
TAB-288-HSB
1-3/4” Square Shaft
Timber Bracket TAB-150-TB Bracket to timber beams – Fits 1-1/2” Square Helical Pile Shaft
Wall Plate PA Stamped Wall Plate – Fastens Wall To Threaded Shaft From Tieback

Table 2. Capacities of ECP Helical Torque Anchors™

Installation Axial Ultimate-Limit Useable Practical Load
Shaft Size Torque Compression Tension Torsional Limit Based on
Factor (k) Load Limit Strength Strength Torsional Strength
1-1/2” Square Bar 9 - 11 70,000 lb. 70,000 lb. 7,000 ft-lb Load limited to the rated
capacity of the
1-3/4” Square Bar 9 - 11 100,000 lb. 100,000 lb. 10,000 ft-lb attachments and the
lateral soil strength
2-1/4” Square Bar 10 - 12 200,000 lb. 200,000 lb. 23,000 ft-lb against the shaft
2-7/8” Tubular – 0.203” Wall 8-9 60,000 lb. 60,000 lb. 5,500 ft-lb 44,000 lb
2-7/8” Tubular – 0.262” Wall 8-9 100,000 lb. 100,000 lb. 9,500 ft-lb 80,000 lb
3-1/2” Tubular – 0.300” Wall 7-8 115,000 lb. 120,000 lb. 13,000 ft-lb 97,000 lb
4-1/2” Tubular – 0.337” Wall 6-7 160,000 lb. 160,000 lb. 22,000 ft-lb 143,000 lb
The designer should select a product that provides adequate additional torsional
capacity for the specific project and soil conditions.
IMPORTANT NOTES:
The capacities listed for “Axial Compression Load Limit”, “Ultimate Limit Tension Strength” and “Useable Torsion
Strength” in Table 2 are mechanical ratings. One must understand that the actual installed load capacities for the
product are dependent upon the actual soil conditions on a specific job site. The shaft “Useable Torsional Strengths”
given here are the maximum values that should be applied to the product. Furthermore, these torsional ratings assume
homogeneous soil conditions and proper alignment of the drive motor to the shaft. In homogeneous soils it might be
possible to achieve up to 95% or more of the “Useable Torsional Strength” shown in Table 2. In obstruction-laden soils,
torsion spikes experienced by the shaft may cause impact fractures of the couplings or other components. Where
impact loading is expected, reduce shaft torsion by 30% or more from “Useable Torsional Strength” depending upon site
soil conditions to reduce chance of fracture or damage.
Another advantage of selecting a torsional rating below the values shown in Table 2 is that one may be able to drive the
pile slightly deeper after the torsional requirements have been met, thus eliminating the need to cut the pile shaft in the
field.
The load transfer attachment capacity must be verified for the design. Standard attachments and ratings are shown on
the following pages. Special configurations to fit your project can be fabricated to your specifications upon request.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 4 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
1-1/2” Round Corner Square Bar Torque Anchors ™

Design
"C" DIA
"A" DIA "B" DIA Extension (Supplied with hardware)
Helical Lead

™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Lead Configurations – 7,000 ft-lb*
Plate Diameter - inches Plate Area
Product Designation Length
“A” “B” “C” sq. ft.

TAH-150-10 08 8 -- -- 0.33 10”

TAH-150-10 10 10 -- -- 0.53 10”
TAH-150-10 12 12 -- -- 0.77 10”
TAH-150-60 08 8 -- -- 0.33 60”
TAH-150-60 10 10 -- -- 0.53 60”
TAH-150-60 12 12 -- -- 0.77 60”
TAF-150-60 06-08 6 8 -- 0.51 60”
TAF-150-60 08-10 8 10 -- 0.86 60”
TAF-150-60 10-12 10 12 -- 1.30 60”
TAH-150-84 12 12 -- -- 0.77 84”
TAF-150-84 08-10-12 8 10 12 1.63 84”
TAF-150-84 10-12 10 12 -- 1.30 84”
TAF-150-84 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.35 84”
TAF-150-120 8-10-12 8 10 12 1.63 120”
TAF-150-120 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.35 120”

™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Extensions
Part Number
36” 60” 84” 120”
TAE-150-36 TAE-150-60 TAE-150-84 TAE-150-120

Note: Products Listed Above Are Standard Items And Are Usually Available From Stock.
Other Specialized Configurations Are Available As Special Order – Allow Extra Time For Processing.
All Helical Plates Are Spaced At Three Times The Diameter Of The Preceding Plate
Effective Length Of Extension Is 3” Less Than Overall Dimension Due to Coupling Overlap
All Product Hot Dip Galvanized Per ASTM A123 Grade 100
Shaft Weight per Foot – 7.7 lb.
* Please see “IMPORTANT NOTES” on Table 2
If a Torque Anchor™ configuration is not shown above as a
standard product; please see “How to Specify Special Order
Torque Anchors™” on page 10.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 5 All rights reserved
 1-3/4” Round Corner Square Bar Torque Anchors ™

"C" DIA
"A" DIA "B" DIA Extension (Supplied with hardware)
Helical Lead
™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Lead Configurations – 10,000 ft-lb*
Plate Diameter - inches Plate Area
Product Designation Length
“A” “B” “C” sq. ft.
HTAH-175-60 08 8 -- -- 0.33 60”
TAF-175-60 10-12 10 12 -- 1.29 60”
TAF-175-84 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.34 84”
™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Extensions
Part Number
36” 60” 84” 120”
TAE-175-36 TAE-175-60 TAE-175-84 TAE-175-120
Note: Products Listed Above Are Standard Items And Are Usually Available From Stock
™
See page 11 – “How to Specify Special Order Torque Anchors for Specialized Configurations – Allow
Extra Time For Processing.
All Helical Plates Are Spaced At Three Times The Diameter Of The Preceding Plate
Effective Length Of Extension Is 3” Less Than Overall Dimension Due to Coupling Overlap
All Product Hot Dip Galvanized Per ASTM A123 Grade 100
Shaft Weight per Foot – 10.4 lb/ft.
“H” before part designation indicates helical plate thickness of 1/2 inch instead of standard 3/8”

2-1/4” Round Corner Square Bar Torque Anchors ™

™
2-1/4” Square Bar Torque Anchor Leads – 23,000 ft-lb*

HTAF-225 (1/2" Thick TAE-225 Extension & Coupling

Optional 90 Deg. Spiral Cut Helical Plates) (Supplied Wih Hardware)
Plate - Specify Which Plate(s)

™
2-1/4” Square Bar Torque Anchor Extensions
Shaft Length 36” 60” 84” 120”
Part Number TAE-225-36 TAE-225-60 TAE-225-84 TAE-225-120

Note: All 2-1/4” square bar products available as special order – Inquire for pricing and delivery
™
See page 11 – “How to Specify Special Order Torque Anchors for information
Helical plates are 1/2” thick and spaced at three times the diameter of the preceding plate.
Extensions supplied with coupling and SAE J429 grade 8 bolts and nuts.
Product hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 grade 100.
Shaft weight per foot – 17.2 lb.

* Please see “IMPORTANT NOTES” on Table 2

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 6 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Design
2-7/8” Dia. x 0.262 Wall Tubular Shaft Torque Anchors ™
Helical Lead Extension (Supplied with hardware)

"C" DIA
"A" DIA "B" DIA

™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Lead Configurations - 9,500 ft-lb*
Plate Diameter - inches Plate Area
Product Designation Length
“A” “B” “C” sq. ft.

TAH-288-60 08 8 -- -- 0.30 60”

TAH-288-60 10 10 -- -- 0.50 60”
TAH-288-60 12 12 -- -- 0.74 60”
TAF-288-60 8-10 8 10 -- 0.80 60”
TAF-288-60 10-12 10 12 -- 1.24 60”
TAF-288-84 08-10 8 10 -- 0.80 84”
HTAF-288-84 08-10 8 10 -- 0.80 84”
TAF-288-84 10-12 10 12 -- 1.24 84”
HTAF-288-84 10-12 10 12 -- 1.24 84”
TAF-288-84 8-10-12 8 10 12 1.54 84”
TAF-288-84 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.26 84”
TAF-288-120 8-10-12 8 10 12 1.54 120”
TAF-288-120 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.26 120”
TAF-288-120 14-14-14 14 14 14 3.07 120”

™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Extensions
Part Number
36” 60” 84” 120”
TAE-288-36 TAE-288-60 TAE-288-84 TAE-288-120

Note: Products Listed Above Are Standard Items And Are Usually Available From Stock.
Other Specialized Configurations Are Available As Special Order – Allow Extra Time For Processing.
All Helical Plates Are Spaced At Three Times The Diameter Of The Preceding Plate
Effective Length Of Extension Is 6” Less Than Overall Dimension Due to Coupling Overlap
All Product Hot Dip Galvanized Per ASTM A123 Grade 100
Shaft Weight per Foot – 7.7 lb.
“H” before part designation indicates helical plate thickness of 1/2 inch instead of standard 3/8”

* Please see “IMPORTANT NOTES” on Table 2

If a Torque Anchor™ configuration is not shown above as a
standard product; please see “How to Specify Special Order
Torque Anchors™” on page 10.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 7 All rights reserved
 3-1/2” Dia. x 0.300 Wall Tubular Shaft Torque Anchors ™
™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Lead Configurations – 13,000 ft-lb*
Plate Diameter - inches Plate Area
Product Designation Length
“A” “B” “C” sq. ft.
TAF-350-60 10-12 10 12 -- 1.20 60”
TAF-350-84 8-10-12 8 10 12 1.48 84”
TAF-350-120 8-10-12 8 10 12 1.48 120”
TAF-350-120 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.20 120”
™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Extensions
Part Number
36” 60” 84” 120”
TAE-350-36 TAE-350-60 TAE-350-84 TAE-350-120

3-1/2” Dia. x 0.300 Wall Tubular Shaft Torque Anchors ™ and

4-1/2” Dia. x 0.337 Wall Tubular Shaft Torque Anchors ™
Helical Lead Extension (Supplied with hardware)

"A" DIA "C" DIA

"B" DIA

4-1/2” Dia. x 0.337 Wall Tubular Shaft Torque Anchors ™

™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Lead Configurations – 22,000 ft-lb*
Plate Diameter - inches Plate Area
Product Designation Length
“A” “B” “C” sq. ft.
TAF-450-84 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.07 84”
HTAF-450-120 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.07 120”
™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Extensions
Part Number
Length 36” 60” 84” 120”
Part Number TAE-450-36 TAE-450-60 TAE-450-84 TAE-450-120

Note: Products Listed Above Are Standard Items And Are Usually Available From Stock.
Other Specialized Configurations Are Available As Special Order – Allow Extra Time For Processing.
All Helical Plates Are Spaced At Three Times The Diameter Of The Preceding Plate
Extensions are Supplied with an Internal Coupling and Hardware.
All Product Hot Dip Galvanized Per ASTM A123 Grade 100.
Shaft Weight per Foot – TAF-350 - 10.2 lb; TAF-450 – 15.4 lb
“H” before part designation indicates helical plate thickness of 1/2 inch instead of standard 3/8”

* Please see “IMPORTANT NOTES” on Table 2

If a Torque Anchor™ configuration is not shown above as a standard product;
please see “How to Specify Special Order Torque Anchors ™” on page 10.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 8 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Design
2-7/8” x 0.203” Wall Tubular Shaft – Light Duty Torque Anchors™

"C" DIA
"A" DIA
"B" DIA Helical Lead Extension (Supplied with hardware)
™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Lead Configurations – 5,500 ft-lb*
Plate Diameter - inches Plate Area
Product Designation Length
“A” “B” “C” sq. ft.
TAF-288L-60 08-10 8 10 -- 0.80 60”
TAF-288L-60 10-12 10 12 -- 1.24 60”
TAF-288L-84 08-10 8 10 -- 0.80 84”
TAF-288L-84 10-12 10 12 -- 1.24 84”
TAF-288L-60 12 12 -- -- 0.74 60”
™
Available ECP Torque Anchor Lead Configurations – Not Stocked**
TAF-288L-84 8-10-12 8 10 12 1.54 84”
TAF-288L-84 10-12-14 10 12 14 2.26 84”
TAF-288L-84 12-14 12 14 - 1.76 84”
™
Standard ECP Torque Anchor Extensions
Part Number
60” 84” 120”
TAE-288L-60 TAE-288L-84 TAE-288L-120

Note: NO SPECIAL ORDERS ACCEPTED - Only the products shown above are stocked or available
Effective Length Of Extension Is 5” Less Than Listed Due to Coupling Overlap; supplied with ASTM A325 bolts & nuts.
All Product Hot Dip Galvanized Per ASTM A123 Grade 100. Shaft weight per foot – 5.8 lb.

Light Pole Support Torque Anchors ™

5'- 0" OR 7'- 0" 15-3/4"

6-5/8" DIA x 0.280" OR 1"

8-5/8" DIA x 0.250" SHAFT 4.750 x
1.125
SLOTS
TYP 15-3/4"

14" DIA. x 3/8" 2" x 10" SLOT

THICK HELIX BOTH SIDES 1'- 6" 1" NOTCH ALIGNS
6" WITH SLOTS IN PIPE

Ultimate-Limit Capacity at SPT > 5 bpf

Torque Anchor™ Configuration Part Number
Overturning Moment Lateral Load
6-5/8” Dia. x 0.280” Wall & 14” Helix – 7’- 0” Long** HTAF-663-84 14 < 12,000 ft-lb < 1,000 lb
8-5/8” Dia. x 0.250” Wall & 14” Helix – 7’- 0” Long** HTAF-863-84 14 < 17,500 ft-lb < 1,200 lb

Note: Integral Pile Cap is 1” Thick x 15-3/4” Square Pile Cap Welded to Shaft With Slots for 1” Diameter Mounting Bolts
2” x 10” Cable Access Slot Provided on Both Sides of Shaft
Double Cut Chamfer on Bottom of Shaft Aligns Pile and Eases Installation
We Will Fabricate Custom Light Pole Supports to Your Design Specifications – Allow Extra Time For Processing.
Other Shaft Lengths are Available to Meet Your Engineering Specifications
Product Supplied Hot Dip Galvanized Per ASTM A123 Grade 100.

* Please see “IMPORTANT NOTES” on Table 2

** The products shown shaded are available but are not stocked – allow extra time for fabrication
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 9 All rights reserved
 HOW TO SPECIFY SPECIAL ORDER TORQUE ANCHORS™

OPTIONAL DOUBLE
CUT TAPER ON
LEADING EDGE - SHAFT DIAMETER
DESIGNATE WITH "D"
FOLLOWING SHAFT "C" DIA
LENGTH "B" DIA
"A" DIA SHAFT LENGTH

OPTIONAL 90 DEG. SPIRAL CUT HELICAL

PLATE - USE "S" FOLLOWING PLATE
DIAMETER TO DESIGNATE WHICH PLATES
RECEIVE SPIRAL CUT LEADING EDGES

Typical Product Designation System:

(H)TAF-(Shaft Dia.)-(Shaft Length)(D*) (Plate Dia – “A(C)” -“B”-“C”)
* Notes: “H” at the beginning of the designation indicates that all helical plates will be 1/2” thick
“F” following TA indicates a multi-helix configuration – “TAH” indicates a single flight pile
“D” following the shaft length indicates a double taper cut at the tip of the shaft
0
“C” following a plate diameter indicates that the plate will receive a special 90 spiral cut
leading edge treatment.

Special Order Product Designation Examples:

1/2" HELICAL PLATES 3/8" HELICAL PLATE

MULTI-HELICAL PLATES SINGLE HELICAL PLATE

HTAF-350-120 10-12-14 TAH-175-60 10C

3 HELICAL PLATES - 10" DIA HELICAL PLATE -
10", 12" & 14" DIA WITH SPECIAL SPIRAL CUT
SHAFT LENGTH - 10' SHAFT LENGTH - 5'
SHAFT DIAMETER - 3-1/2" x 0.300" WALL SHAFT SIZE - 1-3/4" SOLID SQUARE SHAFT

3/8" HELICAL PLATES

MULTI-HELICAL PLATES
3/8" HELICAL PLATE
DOUBLE CUT TAPER AT TIP SINGLE HELICAL PLATE

TAF-288-84D 08C-10C-12 TAH-150-60 12

3 HELICAL PLATES - 8", 10" & 12" DIA
WITH SPECIAL 90 DEG SPIRAL CUT ON 12" DIA HELICAL PLATE
THE 8" AND 10" DIA PLATES
SHAFT LENGTH - 5'
SHAFT LENGTH - 7'
SHAFT SIZE - 1-1/2" SOLID SQUARE SHAFT
SHAFT DIAMETER - 2-7/8" x 0.262" WALL

Notes: Allow Extra Time and Cost For Processing – Inquire for Pricing and Delivery
All Helical Plates Are Spaced At Three Times The Diameter Of The Preceding Plate
All Product Hot Dip Galvanized Per ASTM A123 Grade 100.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 10 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Torque Anchor™ Utility Brackets

Design
TAB-150-SUB Standard Duty & TAB-288-MUB Light Weight Utility Bracket

Shaft Size: 1-1/2” Sq. 2-7/8” Dia.

Bracket TAB-150- TAB-288-

Designation: SUB MUB

TAB-150-TT TAB-288-TTM
Pier Cap:
T-Tube T-Tube

Ultimate-Limit 1
40,000 lb.
Capacity:

Bearing Area: 68-1/4 sq. inches

DETAILS FOR
Standard Lift
TAB-150-SUB & TAB-150-TT BRACKET ASSY
2
4 inches TAB-288-MUB & TAB-288-TTM BRACKET ASSY
Capacity:

TAB-LUB Large Utility Bracket

Shaft Size: 1-3/4” Sq. 2-7/8” Dia 3-1/2” Dia
15 3/4"

Bracket 7 1/2 " 13 "

TAB-LUB TAB-LUB TAB-LUB
Designation: 11/16" DIA.
4 HOLES

3 TAB-175-TT TAB-288-TT TAB-350-TT

Pier Cap:
T-Tube T-Tube T-Tube 8"

Ultimate-Limit 1
98,000 lb. 18 "
Capacity:

Bearing Area: 75 square inches

Standard Lift 2
5-1/2 inches
Capacity:
10 "

NOTES:
1. These are mechanical capacity ratings. Foundation 2-7/8" DIA. x 0.262"
strength and soil capacity will dictate actual capacity. WALL TUBULAR
PILE - ORDERED
2. Bracket Lift Height Can Easily Be Increased By SEPARATELY-
(1-3/4" SQ. & 3-1/2"
Ordering Longer Continuously Threaded Bracket Rods. DIA PILES MAY ALSO
BE USED WITH
3. The TAB-LUB Bracket is the same component for PROPER PILE CAPS)
three different shaft sizes; the Pile Cap configuration
varies to accommodate the appropriate shaft for the DETAIL OF TAB-LUB & TAB-288-TT
application.
SUPPORT SYSTEM ASSEMBLY

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 11 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™ Porch & Slab Brackets
TAB–150-LP Porch Bracket TAB–150-HSB Hydraulic Lift
TAB-150 SSB Slab Bracket
TAB–288-LP (not shown) Slab Bracket*
15"
7/8"-9 BOLT
x 9" LONG 8" DIA. ACCESS HOLE CONCRETE
SLAB
8 STEEL
6 CHANNEL
C4 x 5.4

9 4 2"
1"- 4 BOLT
PIER CAP x 10" LONG
2-3/8" OD x
0.188 WALL 1-1/2" SOLID
20-3/8 x 5-15/16" 8-7/16"
SQUARE HELICAL HYDRAULIC SLAB
16 BRACKET ASSY
2-1/2" SCH. PILE WITH 8" DIA.
(1" x 5-3/4" x 12"
40 PIPE HELICAL PLATE
(ORDERED BEARING PLATE)
SEPARATELY)

1-1/2" SQUARE HELICAL PILE

1-1/2" OR 1-3/4" SQUARE (SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATION
-- HELICAL PILE MUST BE
HELICAL TORQUE ANCHOR ORDERED SEPARATELY)
(1-1/2" SQ. SHOWN FOR
ILLUSTRATION -- HELICAL
PILE MUST BE ORDER
SEPARATELY)

TAB–288-LHSB Hydraulic Lift TAB-288-HSB Hydraulic Lift TAB–150-TB 3-1/2” x 8”

4
Slab Bracket* Slab Bracket* Timber Bracket

HYDRAULIC RAM &

8" DIA. ACCESS HOLE CONCRETE LIFT ASSY (ORDER
SLAB 10" DIAMETER SEPARATELY)
ACCESS HOLE
CONCRETE SLAB

HYDRAULIC SLAB
BRACKET ASSY
2-7/8" DIA. x 0.262"
(1" x 5-3/4" x 12"
WALL TUBULAR
BEARING PLATE)
SLEEVE (SUPPLIED
WITH BRKT ASSY) 2-7/8" DIA. x 0.262" HYDRAULIC SLAB
2-7/8" DIA. x 0.262" WALL TUBULAR BRACKET ASSY
WALL TUBULAR PILE - ORDERED (8" x 14" BEARING
PILE - ORDERED
SEPARATELY - PLATE)
SEPARATELY -
(1-1/2" & 1-3/4" SQ.
(1-1/2" & 1-3/4" SQ.
PILES MAY ALSO PILES MAY ALSO
BE USED) BE USED)

PRODUCT FITS TORQUE ULT.-LIMIT LIFT PRODUCT FITS TORQUE ULT. LIMIT LIFT
DESIGNATION ANCHOR CAPACITY1, 3 CAPACITY2 DESIGNATION ANCHOR CAPACITY1, 3 CAPACITY2

1-1/2” Sq 9,000 lb TAB-288-LHSB 1-1/2”, 1-3/4” Sq.

TAB-150-LP 4-1/2” 20,000 lb 4”
1-3/4” Sq. 16,000 lb (8” Dia. Hole) & 2-7/8” Dia.

TAB-150 SSB TAB-288-HSB 1-1/2”, 1-3/4” Sq.

1-1/2” Sq. 8,000 lb 4-1/2” 40,000 lb 4”
(8” Dia. Hole) (10” Dia. Hole) & 2-7/8” Dia.

TAB-150 HSB
1-1/2” Sq. 20,000 lb 4” TAB-150 TB 1-1/2” Sq. 20,000 lb N/A
(8” Dia. Hole)

* Load transfer and elevation recovery is accomplished using ECP Steel Pier™ Bracket Lift Assemblies (Purchased Separately) The TAB-
150-HSB and TAB-288-LHSB Bracket requires an ECP Model 300 Lift Assembly and the TAB-288-HSB Bracket requires an ECP Model
350 Lift Assembly.
1. The capacities listed for foundation brackets are mechanical ratings, and the actual installed load capacities are dependent upon
the strength and condition of the concrete, and the specific soil conditions on the job site. Concrete strength for the above ratings
was assumed to be 3,000 psi.
2. Bracket lift height may be increased by ordering longer continuously threaded bracket rods.
3. Capacities based upon “soft” soil values “N” > 5 blows per foot
4. Special configurations to fit your project can be fabricated to your specifications upon request. Allow extra time for processing.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 12 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Torque Anchor™ Pile Caps

Design
Compression (No Bolts) Tension Illustration “A” (One Bolt) Tension Illustration “B” (Two Bolts)

Square Bar Torque Anchor™ Pile Caps

Part Number
TAB-150 NC TAB-175 NC TAB-288L NC
(Compression)

Part Number (Tension) TAB-150-T TAB-175-T TAB-288L-T NOTE 2

(Illustration “A”) (Illustration “A”) (Illustration “A”)

Pier Size 1-1/2” Sq. Bar 1-3/4” Sq. Bar 2-7/8” Dia. Tubular
Bearing Plate 1/2” x 6” x 6” 3/4” x 8” x 8” 1/2” x 6” x 6”
Pier Sleeve 2-3/8” Dia. x 5-3/4” 2-7/8” Dia. x 7-3/4” 3-1/2” Dia. x 5-3/4”
Ultimate-Limit
55,000 lb 70,000 lb 55,000 lb.
Compressive Capacity
Ultimate-Limit Tension
40,000 lb 70,000 lb. 40,000 lb.
Capacity

Tubular Torque Anchor™ Pile Caps

Part Number
TAB-288 NC TAB-350 NC TAB-450 NC
(Compression)

Part Number (Tension) TAB-288-T NOTE 2 TAB-350-T TAB-450-T

(Illustration “B”) (Illustration “B”) (Illustration “B”)

Pier Size 2-7/8” Dia. Tubular 3-1/2” Dia. Tubular 4-1/2” Dia. Tubular
Bearing Plate 3/4” x 8” x 8” 3/4” x 8” x 8” 1” x 10” x 10”
Pier Sleeve 3-1/2” Dia. x 7-3/4” 4” Dia. x 7-3/4” 5-9/16” Dia. x 9-3/4”
Ultimate-Limit
70,000 lb. 70,000 lb. 120,000 lb.
Compressive Capacity
Ultimate-Limit Tension
70,000 lb. 70,000 lb. 120,000 lb.
Capacity

Pile Cap Notes:

1. Capacities based upon 3,000 psi concrete. Reduce loading or increase plate area appropriately
for lower strength concrete.
2. Pile caps shown are standard items and are usually available from stock. Note: TAB-288L-T and
TAB-288-T are not interchangeable because bolt hole spacing varies.
3. Part numbers for tension include attachment holes and SAE J429 Grade 8 hardware as shown;
compression pile caps do not include hardware or mounting holes.
4. Compressive capacity ratings of some pile caps are limited by compressive pile shaft capacity.
5. Pile caps are supplied plain steel -- hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 Grade 100 is available.
6. Configuration for the TAB-225 NC Pile Cap is slightly different than illustrations
Custom fabricated pile caps are available for all shaft sizes by special order – allow extra time for
processing.
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 13 All rights reserved
 ™
Torque Anchor Transitions & Wall Plates
Transition Assemblies Stamped Wall Plates
TAT-150 TAT-150-HD TAT-175-HD TAT-225 PA-SWP PA-LWP
Output Thd. 11” x 16” 12” x 26”
Output Thd. Output Thd. Output Thd.
Major Dia. 1.2 ft2 Bearing 2.2 ft2 Bearing
Major Dia. Major Dia. Major Dia.
1” (B-12 Coil
1-1/8” (WF-8) 1-3/8” (WF-10) 1-7/8” (WF-14)
Rod) Wall Plates
include:
Plate Flat Washer
TAT-150 Plate Washer Plate Washer Plate Washer
Washer 3/16” x 4” Sq.
3/8” x 5” x 5” 3/8” x 6” x 6” Not Supplied
3/8” x 5” x 5”
Hot Dip Galv.

Ultimate-
Ultimate-Limit Ultimate-Limit Ultimate-Limit
Limit Clamping
Capacity Capacity Capacity
Capacity Capacity:
70,000 lb. 99,000 lb. 225,000 lb.
38,000 lb. 8,250 lb
TAT-150-HD
TAT-175-HD

TAT-288 TAT-350 TAT-450 Transition Notes:

1. Transitions listed are standard
items; usually available from
Output Thd. Output Thd. Output Thd. stock.
Major Dia. Major Dia. Major Dia. 2. Hot dip galvanized per ASTM
1-3/8” (WF-10) 1-3/8” (WF-10) 1-1/2” (WF-11) A123 Grade 100
TAT-225 3. The capacities listed are
mechanical ratings.
Plate Washer Not Supplied. Order Separately 4. All Transitions are supplied
to the Engineering Requirements with 22” All Thread Rod, Nut and
Mounting Hardware. Square shaft
transitions also have a flat
Ultimate-Limit Ultimate-Limit Ultimate-Limit washer included with the
Capacity Capacity Capacity exception of the TAT-225
100,000 lb. 120,000 lb. 140,000 lb. Transition. (See Sketch Below)
TAT-288 - TAT-350 – TAT-450
ECP Plate Anchor Kit
PLATE WASHER
ECP Earth Plate Anchors are supplied as illustrated below.
2
Available wall plate area is 1.3 or 2.3 ft and available soil bearing
2
area is 1.3, 1.6, 2.3 or 3.0 ft . The ultimate-limit tension capacity
is 10,000 lb. The plate spacing is adjustable from 9 ft to 17-1/2 ft. MOUNTING HARDWARE
(Please request Typical Specifications for installation and load details.)

TIEBACK NUT
3/4" SQ. NUT - TYP.

PLATE EARTH ANCHOR

ALL THREAD BAR x 22" LONG
PLATE WASHER
4" x 6" x 1/4" TRANSITION

WALL PLATE

The sketch above shows the components that

are shipped with solid bar transition assemblies.
ALL THD BAR The transition and the hardware required to
3/4"-10 DIA.
attach the transition to the tieback will vary
3/4" DIA. HEX COUPLING - TYP. depending upon the product ordered. Please
refer to the table above for additional details.
Tubular transitions and TAT-225 do not include a
flat wall plate. As the angle of installation usually
0 0
varies generally from 15 to 30 , bevel washers
should be ordered separately.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 14 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Design Criteria

Design
Table 3. Symbols Used In This Chapter
The Bearing Capacity of a Torque Anchor™
α Tieback installation angle from horizontal
2 (Pw) can be defined as the load which can be
A Projected area of helical plate – ft
2
sustained by the Torque Anchor™ without
c Undrained shear strength of the soil – lb/ft producing objectionable settlement, either
dx Helical plate diameter -- ft initially or progressively, which results in
dlargest Diameter of Largest Helical Plate damage to the structure or interferes with the
Critical Depth – The distance from ground use of the structure.
D surface to the shallowest helical tieback Bearing Capacity is dependant upon many
plate. (D = 6 x dlargest)
factors:
γ Dry Density Of The Soil – lb/ft
3
 Kind Of Soil,
FS Factor Of Safety (Generally FS = 2)  Soil Properties,
H Height of soil against wall or basement - ft  Surface and/or Ground Water
h Vertical depth from surface to helical plate Conditions,
Vertical depth from the ground surface to a  Torque Anchor™ Configuration (Shaft
hmid point midway between the lowest and Size & Type, Helix Diameter(s), and
highest helical plates – ft
Number Of Helices),
Empirical factor relating ultimate capacity
k of a pile or tieback to the installation
 Depth to Bearing,
-1
torque – ft (k = Pu or Tu / T)  Installation Angle,
Torque conversion factor that is used to  Torque Anchor™ Spacing,
K determine torque motor output from  Installation Torque,
pressure differential across motor
 Type of Loading - Tension,
Total length of product required by the Compression, Alternating Loads, etc.
L
design
L0 Minimum required horizontal embedment The design of Helical Torque Anchors™ uses
classical geotechnical theory and analysis along
Distance to achieve the minimum required
L15 0
embedment length, “L0” at 15 Installation with empirical relationships that have been
Angle developed from field load testing. In order to
prepare an engineering design, geotechnical
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Results.
N = Number of blows with a 140 lb hammer information is required from the site along with
to penetrate the soil a distance of one foot. structural load requirements including a factor
N
(Note: “N” may be given directly or in 3 of safety - “FS”.
segments. Always add the last two segment
counts to get “N” – 4/5/7 is N = 12.) The most accurate design requires knowledge
from soil testing using the Standard Penetration
Nc Bearing capacity factor for clay soil
Test (SPT) standardized to ASTM D1586 plus
Nq Bearing capacity factor for granular soil
laboratory evaluations of the soil shear
pH Measure of acidity or alkalinity strength, which is usually given as soil
P Foundation or Wall Load – lb/Lineal ft cohesion – “c”, soil density – “γ”, and granular
Pu Ultimate pile or anchor capacity* – lb. friction angle – “”
Pw Working or design load – lb.
Soils will vary from site to site and may vary
∆p Pressure differential measured across a from point to point on some sites. Each
torque motor ∆p = pin - pout - psi
2
analysis must use data relevant to the project at
q Soil overburden pressure (lb/ft ) hand as each project has different parameters.
S Helical Plate Embedment for Tension - ft
T Installation or Output Torque – ft-lb Each design requires specific information
Tu Ultimate Tension Capacity – lb involving the structure and soil
Tw Working Tension Load – lb characteristics at the site. Each design
w Distributed load along foundation – lb/lin.ft. should involve geotechnical and engineering
X Product Spacing - ft input.
* Unfactored Limit, use as nominal, “Pu” value per design codes

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 15 All rights reserved
 Preliminary Design Guideline Using Site Specific Soil Data
The following diameters has been successfully installed, but
LOAD
preliminary design this work requires special installation equipment
information is that can maintain accurate installation angles.
intended to assist PILE The spacing requirement of five times the
with the selection CAP diameter of the largest plate is measured at the
of an appropriate target depth. It is acceptable to install several
ECP Torque shafts at the same surface location with suitable
Anchor™ system outward batter to accomplish the required shaft
for a given project. EXTENSION to shaft spacing at the final installed depth.
Deep Foundations MINIMUM
Using guidelines described above, the ultimate
DEPTH capacity of an ECP Torque Anchor™ system can
Torque Anchor™ MUST BE be calculated from the following equation:
systems must be 6 TIMES
DIAMETER
considered as deep OF TOP Equation 1: Ultimate Theoretical Capacity:
foundation HELICAL Pu or Tu = AH (c Nc + q Nq)
elements. EXTENSION PLATE
Where:
As a rule of Pu or Tu = Ult. Capacity of Torque Anchor™ - (lb)
thumb, helical AH = Sum of Projected Helical Plate Areas (ft 2)
products must be c = Cohesion of Soil - (lb/ft2)
installed to a SOIL Nc = Bearing Capacity Factor for Cohesion
Critical Depth of REACTION q = Soil Overburden Pressure to hmid depth – (lb/ft2)
Nq = Bearing Capacity Factor for Granular Soil.
at least six times HELICAL
the diameter of LEAD The ultimate capacity is defined as the load that
the largest helix. SECTION results in a deformation of one inch. In general
The depth is ultimate capacity is the working or service load
SOIL with a factor of safety of 2.0 applied.
measured from REACTION
the intended final If one has access to a soil report in which “c”, “γ”,
surface elevation and “ф” are given, then Equation 1 can be solved
to the uppermost directly. Unfortunately, often many soil reports do
helical plate of the not contain these values and the designer must
Torque Anchor™. SOIL decide which soil type is more likely to control the
REACTION
ultimate capacity.
The capacity of a Figure 1. Helical Pile Load When one is unsure of the soil type or the soil
multi-helix deep and Reaction Diagram behavior cannot be determined, we recommend that
foundation system one calculate loads using cohesive soil behavior
assumes that the ultimate bearing capacity is the because the result will be conservative.
sum of the bearing support from each plate of the
system. Testing has shown that when the helical In all cases, we highly recommend field testing
plates are spaced at three times the diameter to verify the accuracy of the preliminary
away from the adjacent lower helical plate, each design load capacities.
plate will develop full efficiency in the soil. Soil Behavior
Spacing the helical plates at less than three The following information is provided to introduce
diameters is possible, however, each plate will the reader to the field of soil mechanics. Explained
not be able to develop full capacity and the are the terms and theories used to determine soil
designer will have to include a plate efficiency behavior and how this behavior relates to Torque
factor in the analysis when conducting the Anchor™ performance. This is not meant to
design. substitute for actual geotechnical soil evaluations.
Pile or anchor spacing should be no closer than A thorough study of this subject is beyond the scope
five times the diameter of the largest plate at the of this manual. The values presented here are
bearing depth. Pile spacing as close as three typical of those found in geotechnical reports.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 16 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Cohesive Soil (Clays & Silts)

Design
Cohesive soil is soil that is generally classified as a fine grained clay soil and/or silt. By comparison,
granular soils like sands and gravels are sometimes referred to as non-cohesive or cohesionless soil.
Clays or cohesive soils are defined as soils where the internal friction between particles is
approximately zero. This internal friction angle is usually referred to as “” or “phi”.
Cohesive soils have a rigid behavior when exposed to stress. Stiff clays act almost like rock. They
remain solid and inelastic until they fail. Soft clays act more like putty. The soft clay bends and molds
around the anchor when under stress.
Undrained Shear Strength – “c”: The undrained
shear strength of a soil is the maximum amount of Table 5. Properties of Cohesive Soil
shear stress that may be placed on the soil before

Compressive
Soil Density
the soil yields or fails. This value of “c” only

Count - “N”
Description

Unconfined
2
Undrained
SPT Blow

“c” -- lb/ft
Strength

Strength
occurs in cohesive soils where the internal friction

Shear

2
lb/ft
“” of the fine grain particles is zero or nearly
zero. The value of “c” generally increases with
soil density; therefore, one can expect that stiff
clays have greater undrained shear strength than
Very
soft clay soil. It is easy to understand that when Soft
0–2 < 250 < 500
dealing with cohesive soils; that the greater the
shear strength “c” of the soil, the greater the Soft 2–4 250–500 500—1,000
bearing capacity. It also follows that the capacity
Firm 4–8 500–1,000 1,000—2,000
of the soil tends to increase with depth.
Stiff 8 – 15 1,000–2,000 2,000—4,000
Table 4. Cohesive Soil Classification
Very
USCS Density Density 15 – 32 2,000–4,000 4,000—8,000
Soil Description Stiff
Symbol Description “γ” lb/ft3
Soft 90 Hard 32 – 48 4,000–6,000 8,000—12,000
Inorganic silt, rock flour,
silty or clayey fine sand or ML Stiff 110 Very
silt with low plasticity > 48 > 6,000 > 12,000
Hard 130 Hard

Inorganic clay of low to Soft 90

medium plasticity, sandy Cohesive Bearing Capacity Factor - “Nc”: The
CL Stiff 110
clay, gravelly clay, lean bearing capacity factor for cohesion is an
clay Hard 130 empirical value proposed by Meyerhof in the
Soft 75 Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Organic silts and organic Proceedings of ASCE, 1976. For small shaft
OL Stiff 90
silty clays, low plasticity helical piles or tieback anchors with plate
Hard 105
diameters under 18 inches, the value of the
Soft 80 Cohesive Bearing Capacity Factor, “Nc” was
Inorganic silt, fine sandy or
silty soils, elastic silts - MH Stiff 93 found to be approximately nine, therefore “Nc” = 9
high plasticity is generally accepted as a reasonable value to use
Hard 105
when determining capacities of these helical piles
Soft 90
Inorganic clays of high and anchors embedded in cohesive soils.
CH Stiff 103
plasticity, fat clay, silty clay When determining the ultimate capacity for a
Hard 115
Torque Anchor™ situated in cohesive soil, Equation
Organic silts and organic
Soft 75 1 may be simplified because the internal friction,
clays of medium to high OH Stiff 95 “”, of the soil particles can be assumed to be zero
plasticity and the cohesive bearing factor, “Nc”, is assumed to
Hard 110
be 9. Equation 1 can be modified when dealing
Peat and other highly
organic soils
PT -- -- with cohesive soil as shown below:

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 17 All rights reserved
Equation 1a Where:
Ultimate Capacity - Cohesive Soil Pu or Tu = Ultimate Cap. of Torque Anchor™ - (lb)
Pu or Tu = AH (9c) or AH = Pu or Tu / (9c) AH = Sum of Projected Helical Plate Areas (ft 2)
c = Cohesion of Soil - (lb/ft2)

REQUIRED HELICAL PLATE AREA vs. SPT, "N"

Graph 1.
Cohesive Soils
10
9 10 kip. Ult. Cap.

8 20 kip Ult. Cap.

Helical Plate Area - sq.ft.

40 kip Ult. Cap.

7
80 kip Ult. Cap.
6

5
4
3
2

1
0
2 4 8 15 20 30
Standard Penetration Test - "N"
depth of the pile or anchor. One may also use
Graph 1 above may be used to quickly get a
Graph 1 to compare results obtained from
rough estimate the plate area requirements in
Equation 1a.
cohesive (clay & silty) soils based upon Standard
Penetration Test, “N”, values at the termination

Cohesionless Soil (Sands & Gravels)

In cohesionless soil, particles of sand act independently of each other. This type of soil has fluid-like
characteristics. When cohesionless soils are placed under stress they tend to reorganize into a more
compact configuration as the load increases.
Cohesionless soils achieve their strength and
capacity in several ways. Table 6. Cohesionless Soil Classification
 The soil density, USCS
 The overburden pressure (The unit weight of Soil Description Symbol
the soil above the Torque Anchor™), Well Graded Gravel Or Gravel-Sand GW
 The internal friction angle “”,
Poorly Graded Gravel Or Gravel-Sand GP
Soil Overburden Pressure – “q”: The soil Silty Gravel Or Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures GM
overburden pressure at a given depth is the
summation of density “γ” (lb/ft3) of each soil Clayey Gravel Or Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures GC
layer multiplied by its thickness, “h”. The moist Well Graded Sand Or Gravelly-Sands SW
density of the soil is used when calculating the
Poorly Graded Sand Or Gravelly-Sands SP
value of “q” for soils above the water table.
Below the water table the buoyancy effect of the Silty Sand Or Sand Silt Mixtures SM
water must be taken into consideration. The Clayey Sands Or Sand-Clay Mixtures SC
submerged density of the soil where all voids in
the soil have been filled with water is

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 18 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
determined by subtracting the

Design
Table 7. Properties of Cohesionless Soil
buoyant force of the water (62.4
Bearing Density “γ” lb/ft3
lb/ft3) from the moist density of Soil Density SPT Blow Friction
Capacity
the soil. Description Count “N” Angle “ф” Moist Soil Submerged
Factor “Nq”
0
To arrive at value for soil Very Loose <2 28 12
70 – 100 45 - 62
overburden pressure on a single 3–4 28 0
13
helical plate of a Torque 5–7 290 14 – 15
™ 90 – 115
Anchor , the value of “qplate” for Loose
0
52 - 65
8 – 10 30 15 – 16
each stratum of soil must be
determined from the intended 11 – 15 300 - 320 17 - 19
final surface elevation to the 16 – 19 0
32 - 33 0
20 – 22
helical plate elevation, “hplate”. Medium
20 – 23 0
33 - 34 0
23 – 25 110 –130 68 - 90
Dense
By using Equation 2b, the 0 0
24 – 27 34 - 35 26 – 29
ultimate bearing capacity of the 0 0
helical plate is determined. The 28 – 30 35 - 36 30 – 32

ultimate capacity of a multi-plate 31 – 34 0

36 - 37 0
34 - 37
helical pile may be determined by 35 – 38 0
37 - 38 0
39 – 43
summing the capacities of all
Dense 39 – 41 0
38 - 39 0
45 – 48 110 – 140 80 - 97
helical plates. A simpler method
0 0
often used to estimate the 42 – 45 39 - 40 50 – 56
ultimate capacity of a multi-plate 46 – 50 0
40 - 41 0
59 – 68
pile configuration is to determine Very Dense > 50 > 42 0
End Bearing 140+ > 85
the soil overburden, “q”, at a
depth midway between the upper
helical plate and the lowest helical plate, “hmid”. Effect of Water Table on Pile Capacity:
This value of “q” is used to estimate the ultimate It cannot be emphasized enough that the
capacity of the pile configuration. buoyant force of water on the soil overburden
can dramatically change the load capacity of the
Cohesionless Bearing Capacity Factor - “Nq”: helical pile or anchor. Calculating soil
Zhang proposed the ultimate compression overburden for a specific site usually entails
capacity of the helical screw pile in a thesis for determining the density of each stratum of soil
the University of Alberta in 1999. From this between the surface and the termination depth
work the dimensionless empirical value “Nq” was of the helical support product.
introduced. “Nq” is related to the friction angle of
the soil - “ф”, as estimated in Table 7. To illustrate the effect of the water table on the
pile capacity the following example assumes
When determining the ultimate capacity for a that site contains 25 feet of cohesionless soil
Torque Anchor™ in cohesionless soils, Equation that is homogeneous, has a constant density of
1 may be simplified because granular soils have 100 lb/ft3 and a constant SPT - “N” = 10 bpf
no soil cohesion. Therefore “c” may be assumed that extends beyond 25 feet. Such uniform soil
to be zero. Equation 1 when used for as this is seldom found. In the second example
cohesionless soils can be modified as follows: all assumptions remain except the water table is
assumed to be located ten feet below grade.
Equation 1b:
Ultimate Capacity - Cohesionless Soil Using Equation 1b and Table 7 the ultimate
Pu or Tu = AH (q Nq) or capacity of a TAF-288 (8-10-12) pile (1.54 ft2)
AH = Pu or Tu/(q Nq) is calculated when no ground water is present:
Where: Pu = AH (q Nq) = 1.54 [(100 x 25 ft) x 16]
Pu or Tu = Ult. Capacity of Torque Anchor™ - (lb) Pu = 61,600 lb (Damp soil - no water Present)
AH = Projected Helical Plate Area(s) (ft2) When the water table is present at 10 feet below
q = Soil Overburden Pressure from the surface to
grade, notice the reduction in pile capacity that
plate depth “h” – (lb/ft2)
Nq = Bearing Capacity Factor for Granular Soil. is caused by the buoyant force of the water.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 19 All rights reserved
 Pu = AH (q Nq) AH = Pu/(q Nq)
Pu = 1.54 [(100 x 10 ft) + (60 x 15)] x 16 AH = 61,600/[(100 x 10 ft) + (60 x 15)] x 16
Pu = 46,816 lb (Water Table at 10 feet) AH = 2.03 ft2
The reduction in capacity of the same pile The closest standard product that will provide
configuration in the same soil when water is this helical plate area is a TAF-288 (10-12-14),
present at 10 feet below grade is approximately which offers 2.26 ft2 of plate area.
76%. This demonstrates that knowing the level
of the water table is necessary for safe design. This example clearly illustrates that if
subsurface water is not considered during the
Using Equation 1b must be used again to
designing process, it is highly likely that the
determine a new helical plate area requirement
pile or anchor will be under designed and
and a new pile configuration that will have
could fail.
sufficient plate area to support 61,600 pounds in
the soil with the higher water table.

Mixed Soils – Cohesive and Cohesionless Soils

When reviewing soil boring logs one often sees descriptions that combine the two soil types. One often
sees such terms as “clayey sand” or “sandy clay” in the soil descriptions on the soil boring log.
The soils engineers use terms to describe soils
that contain both cohesive soil and granular soil Table 8 Mixed Soil Descriptions
in the samples. When one encounters such Soil Description Estimated Percentage Present
descriptions in the soil report, the design analysis
“trace” 1% to 5%
requires that both soil types be considered.
Equation 1 must be used to determine the “slightly” 6% to 15%
ultimate capacity or projected helical area “little” 10% to 20%
requirement. The designer must assign a “with” 15% to 25%
percentage of each type of soil present when “silty” or clayey” 20% to 49%
placing data into Equation 1. “some” 20% to 34%
Table 8 provides guidance for relative “very” 35% to 49%
percentages of each type of soil. Experience has Note: There is no national standard for soil description
shown that there is no national standard for these percentages reported by soil engineers. Listed above are
the descriptors and most commonly encountered
soil descriptions. Because of this, Table 8 percentages. For increased accuracy, or when working
provides the most typical percentages. It is on a critical project, verify the descriptive percentages
always a good idea to check with the soil with the project soil engineer.
engineer to verify his or her soil type percentages
on a specific soil boring log when working on a Equation 1 is modified as shown to adjust to the
critical project. reported soil composition:
Pu = Helical Plate Area x (30% strength of
When preparing a load capacity design when clay + 70% strength of sand)
mixed soils are present, adjust for the
percentages of cohesive and cohesionless soils Pu = AH (0.30 c Nc + 0.70 q Nq)
present in Equation 1. For example, assume that The result of the analysis will be a helical pile
the soils engineer described the soil on the site as capacity that is lower than if it was embedded in
being “clayey sand”. Referring to Table 8 there only sand, but greater than if embedded only in
is a range from 20% to 49% for the cohesive clay clay.
component in the sample. For this illustration it
is assumed that no additional data is available Keep in mind that when dealing with
from the soil engineer regarding the percentages incomplete data, it is wise to add a sufficient
present. A value for the cohesive clay factor of safety to the result or to choose the
component of the soil is estimated at 30% and percentage for the cohesionless soil
the remaining 70% of the soil is assumed to be component at the lower end of the range
sand: provided in Table 8.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 20 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Effects of Water Table Fluctuations and Freeze Thaw Cycle

Design
When designing helical anchors, the amount of plate. In most cases this is usually means
water present in the soil at the time of installing the helical plates three to four feet
installation, and possible moisture changes in the below the lowest expected frost depth. The
future, must be considered. If the anchor is reasoning here is that when the soil thaws and
installed near the water table, the capacity of the the ice changes to water, the soil can become
anchor can dramatically change with the saturated. From the discussion above about
changing level of the water table. installations made near the water table, a similar
situation exists with thawing frost. Load
Cohesionless soil is buoyed by the water when
capacity could reduce because saturated soil
the soil around the helical pile or anchor
cannot support as much load as damp to dry soil.
becomes saturated. This buoyancy of the soil
Clay soil is especially vulnerable and can
particles in the soil reduces the load capacity of
become plastic when saturated. A saturated
the anchor. A different situation exists if the
cohesive soil might simply flow around the
anchor is just below the water table and dry
helical plates and could cause creep or failure.
conditions cause the water table to drop. As the
In addition, freezing water within the pores of
water drains from between the soil particles, the
the soil can lead to upward pressure on the
soil around the helical plates could begin to
helical plates resulting in movement and/or loss
consolidate. This soil consolidation may cause
of strength when the plates are terminated within
the anchor to creep and require adjustment.
the freeze-thaw zone.
It is also important to know the maximum frost
Monitoring the installation torsion on the shaft
depth along with the range of depth for the water
(Discussed below and in Chapter 2) can predict
table at the job site to insure a solid and stable
the performance of the anchor at the time of
installation. Anchors should always be installed
installation, but changes in the soil moisture can
below the lowest recorded frost depth to a depth
affect the product’s long term holding ability.
of more than three diameters of the uppermost

Budgetary Capacity Estimates by “Quick and Rough” Design Method

Many installers and engineers are familiar with configuration installed into a soil that fits within
the Soil Classification Table that other a certain soil classification. The graphs are not
manufacturers use for budgetary helical anchor intended to be a substitute for engineering
designs. This table “classifies” soil into eight judgement and design calculations detailed
soil groups ranging from solid rock down to very earlier that rely upon specific soil data relative to
soft clays, organics and peats. These Soil the project. Table 10 and Graphs 2 through 5
Classifications are used for reference to estimate represent general trends of capacity through
expected pile capacities indicated by graphs or different homogeneous soil classifications. The
tables. graphs are based upon conservative estimates.
Table 9 below is the Soil Classification Table Graphs 2 - 5 represent the ultimate capacity
that relates the classification levels offered by of the helical plate configuration in the soil,
other manufacturers along with anticipated and one must always apply a suitable factor of
values for Standard Penetration Tests, “N”, safety to the service load before using these
likely to be found within each classification. The tables to insure reliability of any tieback or
Holding Capacity Graphs 2 through 5 that pile installation.
follow were developed to provide rough
estimates of holding capacities for various sizes In very dense soil or rock stratum when rotation
and combinations of helical plates attached to of the helical anchor shaft does not advance the
Torque Anchor™ shafts and installed into these product into the soil, the helical plates are not
soil classifications. able to fully embed and cannot achieve the
capacity level predicted by Terzaghi’s bearing
It must be clearly understood that Graphs 2
capacity formula (Equation 1). The graphs
through 5 are provided to help offer a general
disregard soil classifications zero through class 2
estimated load capacity for a pile or anchor
because these soils are usually too dense for the

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 21 All rights reserved
Torque Anchors™ to advance without pre- and possibly unstable soil into a more robust and
drilling, stable soil stratum underlying these undesirable
strata.
Likewise, soil class 8 was not represented in the
graphs because class 8 soils usually contain It is also important to understand that the Graphs
significant amounts of organics or fill materials. 2 through 5 below do not take into consideration
The organics may continue to decay and/or soil the size of the shaft or type of shaft being used in
with organics and/or fill may not be properly conjunction with the helical plate configurations.
consolidated and are therefore not considered As a result, these graphs could suggest holding
suitable for long term support. capacities well above the “Useable Torsional
Capacity” of the helical shafts shown in Table 2.
Graphs 2 through 5 presented here also show a
shaded area for Class 7 soils and part of Class 6 Where the graph line is truncated at the top of
soils. This is to alert the user that, in some cases, the graph for a particular helical plate
soils that fall within these shaded areas of the configuration, one should not try to extrapolate a
graphs may not be robust enough to support higher capacity than indicated by the top line
heavy loads. If the soil in the shaded areas because these plate configurations have reached
contain fill; the fill could contain rocks, cobbles, the ultimate mechanical capacity for that
trash, and/or construction debris. In addition, particular configuration being represented. It
these soils may not be fully consolidated and/or might be possible to achieve higher capacities
could contain organic components. Any of these with a given configuration presented in the
could allow for creep of a foundation element graphs if one orders the Torque Anchor™ with
embedded within the stratum. This could cause one-half inch thick helical plates instead of the
a serious problem for permanent or critical standard three-eighths inch thickness. Please
installations. When such weak soils are check with ECP or your engineer to determine if
encountered, it is strongly recommended that the using thicker helical plates could achieve a
anchor or pile be driven deeper so that the higher ultimate capacity requirement on a
Torque Anchor™ will penetrate beyond all weak particular project.

Table 9. SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

Standard
Class Soil Description Geological Classification Penetration Test
Range - “N”
(Blows per foot)

0 Solid Hard Rock (Unweathered) Granite; Basalt; Massive Sedimentary No penetration

Very dense/cemented sands; Coarse gravel
1 and cobbles
Caliche 60 to 100+
Basal till; Boulder clay; Caliche;
2 Dense fine sands; very hard silts and/or clays
Weathered laminated rock 45 to 60
Glacial till; Weathered shale; Schist,
3 Dense sands/gravel, hard silt and clay
Gneiss; Siltstone
35 to 50
Medium dense sand/sandy gravels; very stiff
4 /hard silt/clay
Glacial till; Hardpan; Marl 24 to 40
Medium dense coarse sand and sandy gravel;
5 Stiff/very stiff silt and clay
Saprolites; Residual soil 14 to 25
Loose/medium dense fine/coarse sand; Stiff Dense hydraulic fill; Compacted fill;
6 clay and silt Residual soil
7 to 15
Flood plain soil; Lake clay; Adobe; Clay
7 Loose fine sand; soft/medium clay; Fill
gumbo; Fill
4 to 8
Peat, Organic silts, Fly ash, Very loose sand; Unconsolidated fill; Swamp deposits; WOH to 5
8GraphVery
1. soft/soft clay 7 6 Marsh soil 5 4 3 of Hammer)
(WOH = Weight

Notes:
1. Soils in class “0”, class “1” and a portion of class “2” are generally not suitable for tieback anchorage because
the helical plates are unable to advance into the very dense/hard soil or rock sufficiently for anchorage.
2. When installing anchors into soils classified from “7” and “8”, it is advisable to continue the installation deeper
into more dense soil classified between “3” and “5” to prevent creep and enhanced anchor capacity.
3. Shaft buckling must be considered when designing compressive anchors that pass through Class 8 soils.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 22 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Design
TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY
Single Helical Plate Sizes
8" 10" 12" 14"
40000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

35000

30000

25000
20000

15000

10000

5000
0
Graph 2. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY

Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
8-8" 8-10" 10-10" 10-12"
70000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
Graph 3. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

Note: It is advisable not to install Torque Anchors™ into Soil Classes in the shaded area for better stability and
performance. In situations where this is not possible, we recommend increasing the factor of safety for a safer
design. Installing the Torque Anchors™ to an underlying stratum that has a higher bearing capacity and a more
stable soil classification is recommended.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 23 All rights reserved
 TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY
Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
12-14" 8-10-12" 10-12-14" 12-14-14"
120000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
Graph 4. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY

Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
8-10-12-14" 14-14-14" 10-12-14-14" 12-14-14-14"
160000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
Graph 5. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

Note: It is advisable not to install Torque Anchors™ into Soil Classes in the shaded area for better stability and
performance. In situations where this is not possible, we recommend increasing the factor of safety for a safer
design. Installing the Torque Anchors™ to an underlying stratum that has a higher bearing capacity and a more
stable soil classification is recommended.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 24 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Torque Anchor™ Holding Capacity

Design
The capacity of a helical product can be measured creep exceeds the established limit for
estimated by accurately measuring the acceptance, the useful capacity of the pile or
installation shaft torsion. Several methods are anchor has been exceeded. The load increment
commonly used. Transducers attached to the prior to this final load increment shall be
hydraulic lines, strain gauge monitors, shear pins recorded as the ultimate capacity of the product.
and monitoring pressure differential across the Load capacity is discussed in greater detail in
installation motor are all common ways to Chapter 2.
determine installation torque being applied to the
Soil type will affect the performance of the
anchor shaft. The average recorded shaft torsion
helical product during field testing. For
must be at or above the torque requirement
example, piles or anchors installed in clay will
during the final three feet of installation to
show minimal creep with increasing load and
confirm meeting the installation torque
then suddenly and continuously start moving.
requirement. By continuing to install the helical
Cohesionless soils, on the other hand, usually
product beyond first reaching the shaft torsion
will produce a more predictable load to creep
requirement insures that all anchor plates are
curve.
sufficiently embedded into the target soil and
this reduces the chance of creep, settlement or Installation Torque
pullout in the future.
Shaft torsion during installation can provide a
Field load testing is required to verify the actual reasonably accurate estimate of the expected
load capacity. During a field test, the helical ultimate capacity of the helical product. The
product is loaded in the direction of the intended relationship between the shaft torsion during
compressive or tensile load and at the intended installation and the ultimate capacity of the pier
installation angle. ASTM D1143 and ASTM or anchor is empirical and was developed from
3689 field load tests measure the ultimate results from thousands of tests. When one
capacity of the helical product when fully applies rotational torsion to a shaft at grade,
loaded. There is normally a small shaft some of the torque energy is lost before it
movement when a helical product is initially reaches the helical plates at the bottom end of the
loaded due to “seating” the plates into the soil. shaft. This is due to friction between the shaft
This movement is normally not considered in the and the soil.
test measurement. Before beginning the field
Figure 2, below, illustrates that not all of the
load test, a small initial “seating” load of 1,500
torque applied to the shaft by the motor reaches
to 2,000 pounds is usually applied to the pile or
the helical plates. The actual torque applied to
anchor prior to commencing test procedures.
the helical plates is TPlates = TMotor - TShaft. The
During testing, the load on the helical shaft is
friction generated between the circumference of
incrementally increased and after applying each
the shaft and the soil is directly related to the
load increment the movement at the top of the
shaft configuration and size along with the
shaft is measured against a fixed point. If creep
properties of the soil. Because of this loss of
occurs only during the application of the
efficiency in transmitting the motor torque down
incremental load, the test can continue
to the plates, an empirical Soil Efficiency Factor
immediately after measuring the initial creep
(“k”) must be employed to arrive at a reasonable
increment. As the load increases and nears
estimate of pile or anchor ultimate capacity.
ultimate capacity, the pile or anchor may
continue to slowly move for a period of time Shaft torsion should always be monitored during
after the incremental load was applied. During Shaft Friction Torque from
this time the incremental load on the helical = Tshaft Motor Applied
to Shaft = TMotor
product must be maintained as the shaft
continues to creep. The total deflection shall not
be determined until the movement ceases and the
pile or anchor becomes stable. If after 15 to 20
minutes, the movement is continuing or the total Helical Plate Figure 2.
Friction = Tplates

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual Figure 2. © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 25 All rights reserved
the installation of helical screw piles and torsion measurements on the new placement
anchors. Generally, the ultimate holding shall be averaged over three feet, but the anchor
capacity of the typical solid square shaft helical shall not be installed to the spin depth.
product within a given soil stratum is ten times
the average shaft torsion measured over the final Due to larger friction between the soil and
three feet of installation. tubular shaft configurations, one cannot use
When estimating the anchor’s capacity, one must the ten to one relationship mentioned above to
not consider any torque readings on an anchor estimate ultimate capacity of tubular shafts.
when it is stalled or encountering obstructions;
instead average the readings three feet before the A more detailed discussion of the relationship
stall. Likewise the shaft torsion readings on an between torque on the shaft and anchor capacity
anchor that spins upon encountering very dense is presented in the next section.
soil cannot be used. When a tension anchor
spins, it must be removed and repositioned. The
Helical Torque Anchor™ Design Considerations
Projected Areas of Helical Plates:
When determining the capacity of a Table 10. Projected Areas* of Helical
™
Torque Anchor Plates
screw pile in a given soil, knowledge of
the projected total area of the helical Helical 6” 8” 10” 12” 14” 16”
Plate Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia.
plates is required. This projected area is 2
the summation of the areas of the helical Shaft Projected Area – ft
plates in contact with the soil less the 1-1/2” Sq. 0.181 0.333 0.530 0.770 1.053 1.381
cross sectional area of the shaft. Table
1-3/4” Sq. 0.175 0.328 0.524 0.764 1.048 1.375
10 provides projected areas in square
feet of bearing area for various plate 2-1/4” Sq. 0.161 0.314 0.510 0.750 1.034 1.361
diameters on different shaft 2-7/8” Dia 0.151 0.304 0.500 0.740 1.024 1.351
configurations.
3-1/2” Dia 0.130 0.282 0.478 0.719 1.002 1.329
Allowable Helical Plate Capacity:
When conducting a preliminary design, 4-1/2” Dia 0.086 0.239 0.435 0.675 0.959 1.286
one must also be aware of the * Projected area is the face area of the helical plate less the cross
sectional area of the shaft.
mechanical capacity of the helical plate
and the shaft weld strength. Average Important: When a 900 spiral cut leading edge is specified, the projected areas
listed in Table 10 will be reduced by approximately 20%.
capacities of plates are given in Table
11. Actual capacities are generally Designs using 12” to 14” diameter plates on
higher than shown for smaller diameter helical square bar shafts will have ultimate mechanical
plates. Capacities are also slightly higher when capacities that are slightly lower than shown in
the helices are mounted to larger diameter Table 11. This variance is usually not a concern
tubular shafts. except when a small shaft is highly loaded with
only a single or double helix configuration.
Table 11. Average Ultimate Mechanical
Helical Plate Capacities Relationships between Installation Torque
6” through 14” Diameter Plates and Torque Anchor™ Capacity: Estimating
the capacity of a given screw pile based upon the
Helical Plate Average Average Service
Thickness Ultimate Load Load installation torque has been used for many years.
3/8” 40,000 lb 20,000 lb Unless a load test is performed on site to
1/2” 50,000 lb 25,000 lb determine a specific value for the relationship
16” Diameter Plate between installation shaft torsion and ultimate
1/2” 40,000 lb 20,000 lb product capacity, commonly referred to as Soil
Efficiency Factor, “k”, a conservative value
should be selected when designing. While

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 26 All rights reserved
values for “k” have been reported from 2 to 20, guidelines. Graph 6 illustrates how the Soil
most projects will produce a value of “k” in the 6 Efficiency Factor, “k” affects the ultimate
to 14 range. Earth Contact Products suggests capacity of a pile or anchor. It can be seen that
using the values for “k” as shown in Table 12 the ultimate capacity varies significantly when
when estimating Torque Anchor™ ultimate the same torque is applied to each different shaft
configuration.
Table 12. Soil Efficiency Factor “k” It is also important to refer to Table 2 for the
Torque Anchor™
Typically Suggested Useable Torque Strength values to avoid shaft
Encountered Average fractures during installation.
Type
Range “k” Value, “k”
1-1/2” Sq. Bar 9 - 11 10 Equation 2: Helical Installation Torque
1-3/4” Sq. Bar 9 - 11 10 T = (Pu or Tu) / k or (Pu or Tu) = k x T
2-1/4” Sq. Bar 10 - 12 11 Where,
2-7/8” Diameter 8-9 8-1/2 T = Final Installation Torque - (ft-lb)
(Averaged Over the Final 3 to 5 Feet)
3-1/2” Diameter 7-8 7-1/2 Pu or Tu = Ult. Capacity of Torque Anchor™ - (lb)
4-1/2” Diameter 6-7 6-1/2 k = Empirical Torque Factor - (ft-1)
An appropriate factor of safety of 2.0, minimum,
capacities. must always be applied when using design or
working loads with Equation 3.
It is important to understand that the value of “k”
is a measure of friction during installation as To determine Soil Efficiency Factor, “k” from
illustrated in Figure 2 on page 25 above. This field load testing, Equation 2 can be rewritten as:
friction has a direct relationship between the soil Equation 2a: Soil Efficiency Factor
properties and anchor design. For example, “k” k = (Pu or Tu) / T
for clay soil would usually be greater than for
dry sand. The “k” for a square bar is generally Where,
higher than for a tubular pile. Keep in mind that k = Empirical Torque Factor - (ft-1)
Pu or Tu = Ult. Capacity of Torque Anchor™ - (lb)
the suggested values in Table 12 are only
T = Final Installation Torque - (ft-lb)

GRAPH 6 - MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY

Torque Efficiency Factor - "k" to Shaft Configuration
240
220
Sq. Shaft (k = 10)
200 2-7/8" Dia (k - 8.5)
Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

3-1/2" Dia (k - 7.5)

180
4-1/2" Dia (k = 6.5)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 27 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Always verify capacity by performing a field that the pile is fully embedded, the required

Design
load test on any critical project. terminal torsion applied to the shaft must have
been an average of the torsion developed over a
Torque Anchor™ Spacing – “X”: Equation 3 is
distance of no less than three times the diameter
used to determine the center-to-center spacing of
of the uppermost (largest) plate (3 x dLargest).
Torque Anchors™.
Equation 3: Torque Anchor™ Spacing Preventing “Punch Through”: A soil boring
“X” = Pu/(w) x (FS) or Pu = (“X”) x (w) x (FS) on occasion may report a layer of competent soil
Where, overlaying a weak and softer stratum of soil. ,
“X” = Product Spacing - (ft) One must consider the possibility that the Torque
Pu = Ultimate Capacity - (lb) Anchor™ could “punch through” to the weaker
w = Distributed Load on Foundation or Wall (lb/ft) soil when fully loaded in situations when
FS = Factor of Safety (Typically 2.0 – Foundations designing the Torque Anchor™ to achieve axial
or Permanent Walls and 1.5 for Temporary Walls) compressive bearing in any competent soil
Plate Embedment in Tension Applications: situated directly above a weaker soil stratum.
When a pile must resist uplift or tension loads, When designing a pile in such situations, it is
the pile must be adequately embedded into the recommended that a distance greater than five
bearing stratum to offer resistance to pull out. times the diameter of the lowest (smallest)
The pile must first qualify as a deep foundation, helical plate (5 x dLowest) exist below the lowest
defined as being installed to a depth from Torque Anchor™ to prevent “punching through”
intended surface elevation of no less than six to the stratum of weaker soil and possibly
times the diameter of the largest and shallowest failing.
helical plate (6 x dLargest). In addition, to insure
Tieback Design Considerations
One of the most common applications for helical of inwardly bulging, have horizontal tension
tieback anchors is for supplemental basement fractures and/or have rotated inwardly.
wall support. Many basement walls show signs

ACTIVE
PASSIVE FAILURE FAILURE
PLANES PLANE

ACTIVE SOIL
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE AREA
PRESSURE AREA

TU
CRITICAL
EMBEDMENT INSTALLATION
DEPTH - "D" ANGLE TIEBACK
PLACEMENT
LARGEST HELICAL
PLATE DIAMETER = "d" SOIL
(MEASURE IN FEET)  HEIGHT
"H"

MINIMUM HELICAL PLATE LATERAL FORCE

EMBEDMENT AT THE REQUIRED OF SOIL AGAINST
INSTALLATION TORQUE = "d" x 3 WALL
(LARGEST PLATE DIA. x 3)
Lo = MINIMUM HORIZONTAL
EMBEDMENT = H + 10d (ft)
(EQUATION 10) 
OS
L/C
N G TH =
E
NT L 13)
D M E ( TA B L E
E MBE

Figure 3. Elements of Tieback Design

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 28 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
Consolidation of the fill soil, inoperative drain Placement of Tiebacks: The vertical placement

Design
tiles, plumbing leaks, ponding water on the of the tieback is dictated by the height of the soil
surface near the basement wall, or other against the wall. It is recommended that the
environmental factors are largely the cause of the tieback be installed close to the point of
distress seen in many basement wall failures. maximum bulging of the wall and/or close to the
When ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ are most severe horizontal crack in the wall. When
installed and anchored into the soil; two repair the wall is constructed of blocks, or where a
options are available: concrete wall is severely distressed, vertical steel
1. The tieback is designed and loaded to support supports and/or horizontal waler beams must be
or supplement the wall structure. Soil is not used to provide even distribution of the reaction
removed from behind the wall; therefore, the force of the anchor across the face of the wall.
wall can be only supported and not restored. The typical vertical mounting location for
2. The soil behind the wall is removed and the tieback anchors is 20% to 50% of the distance
tieback anchor is used to restore the wall to down from the elevation where the soil touches
near its original position. Proper granular down to the wall to the bottom of the wall. Seek
material must be used as backfill against the engineering assistance for walls taller than 12
wall after restoration along with a proper feet and/or more complicated projects.
ground water drainage system for stability. Hydrostatic Pressure: If water is present or
The wall will always be exposed to active suspected behind a basement or retaining wall,
pressure from the soil and possible hydraulic the additional force of the hydrostatic pressure
force from water. For the Torque Anchor™ to must be added to the load requirements of the
properly develop resistance against this active tieback anchor.
pressure, the anchor must be installed beyond
this active soil area. Once beyond this area, the When soil and/or subsurface conditions are
tieback can develop passive earth pressure unknown, it MUST be assumed in the design
against the helical plate(s). Figure 3, above, that water pressure is present.
shows the general layout for a tieback project Basement Tieback Applications: If a basement
and design elements for the embedment of the wall fails because of insufficient structural
helical plates for proper support. integrity, improper fill against the wall and/or
It is most important that any basement wall improper compaction of the fill, then Equation 4
repair include an investigation, and any remedial may be used for approximating the load per
work required to prevent any future conditions lineal foot against the basement wall. This
where the soil behind the wall can become equation assumes that no hydrostatic pressure is
saturated. If the drainage work is not present. Please refer to Figures 3 & 4.
accomplished immediately following tieback
installation, the design must assume that there
will be hydraulic pressure against the wall. An
engineer can determine if the wall has sufficient
structural integrity to support these combined
loads if drainage corrections are not
implemented. TU

Design of retaining walls is very complicated TIEBACK

and requires engineering input. This manual has PLACEMENT
0.2H TO 0.6H
greatly simplified the equations so that the reader SOIL
HEIGHT
PH
can quickly and relatively easily obtain an "H"

estimate of the reaction force required to

stabilize and support a failing retaining wall.
This material should be used with caution for (EQUATIONS
4 OR 5)
new construction retaining walls or basement
Figure 4. Basement Tieback Application
wall designs.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 29 All rights reserved
Equation 4: Basement Wall Load Equation 7: Simple Retaining Wall Load
PH = 18 x (H2) (No Water Pressure) PH = 50 x (H + S)2 (Water is Present)
Where:
When water pressure is present behind the PH = Soil Load on Wall - (lb/lineal foot)
basement wall or if it is not known if hydrostatic H = Height of Backfill - (ft)
pressure exists, Equation 5 should always be S = Height of Soil Surcharge - (ft)
used to estimate the load.
When water pressure is present behind the
Equation 5: Basement Wall Load retaining wall of it is unknown if hydrostatic
PH = 45 x (H2) (Water is Present) pressure exists, Equation 7 must be used to
estimate the load on the retaining wall.
Where:
PH = Soil Load on Wall - (lb/lineal foot) Ultimate Tieback Capacity Selection: To
H = Height of Backfill - (ft)
determine the ultimate tieback capacity
Simple Retaining Wall Tieback Applications: requirement, multiply the soil force against the
Similarly, if a retaining wall fails because of wall by the selected center to center tieback
insufficient structural capacity, improper fill spacing appropriate for the existing or planned
against the wall and/or consolidation of the fill, wall construction and loading.
then Equation 6 may be used to approximate the
load per lineal foot of retaining wall. If the soil Equation 8: Ultimate Tieback Capacity
at the top of the wall is level as shown in Figure TU = (PH) x (“X”) x FS
5, then the value of “S” in Equations 6 & 7
becomes zero. This equation assumes that no Where:
hydrostatic pressure present. (Refer to TU = Ultimate Tieback Capacity Tension – (lb)
PH = Foundation Load or Force on Wall – (lb/lin.ft)
Figures 3 and 5.)
FS = Factor of Safety (Typically 2.0 - Permanent
Simple Retaining Wall Tieback Applications Walls and 1.5 for Temporary Walls)
with Soil Surcharge: A load on a retaining wall “X” = Center to Center Spacing of Tiebacks – (ft)
with a simple soil surcharge load such as shown
It is highly recommended to consult a registered
in Figure 6 may also be approximated using
professional engineer when more complex
Equations 6 & 7. One must first estimate the
surcharge loads such as a structure, parking lot,
surcharge height, “S” as shown.
road, etc. is located on the surface near the top of
Equation 6: Simple Retaining Wall Load the retaining wall.
PH = 24 x (H + S)2 (No Water Pressure)
Horizontal Embedment Length – “L0”: The
H/2

SOIL SURCHARGE "S"

TU TU

TIEBACK TIEBACK
PLACEMENT PLACEMENT
0.25H TO 0.45H 0.2H TO 0.4H
WALL WALL
PH HEIGHT PH HEIGHT
(EQUATIONS "H" "H"
(EQUATIONS
7 OR 8) 7 OR 8)

Figure 5. Simple Retaining Wall Tieback Application Figure 6. Simple Retaining Wall with Soil Surcharge

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 30 All rights reserved
Helical Torque Anchor™ must be installed into Critical Embedment Depth – “D”: In tension
soil a sufficient distance away from the wall so applications there is a shallow failure mechanism
that the helical plate(s) can fully develop for screw piles. The anchor fails when the soil
anchoring capacity beyond any failure planes. suddenly erupts from insufficient soil
(See Figure 3.) overburden on the anchor. To prevent such
failures, Torque Anchors™ must be installed to a
Equation 9: Horizontal Embedment sufficient embedment depth to be considered a
L0 = H + 10dlargest deep foundation. This is illustrated in Figure 3
Where: on Page 28.
L0 = Minimum Horizontal Embedment Length As a general rule of thumb, many designers use
from Wall to the Shallowest Plate – (ft) six times the diameter of the largest plate as the
H = Height of Soil Against Wall - (ft)
minimum vertical depth from the surface
dlargest = Diameter Of Largest Plate - (ft)
elevation as the critical embedment depth for the
Installation Angle – “α”: Typically in tieback anchor to be considered a deep foundation.
applications, Torque Anchors™ are installed at
downward angles of 50 to 300 measured from Table 13. Angular Embedment Length
horizontal. Most often the designer calls for
installed angles between 100 and 200. The Installation Angle Length “L” of installed product
“α” (Downward required to reach the proper
smaller the angle, the less shaft material is embedment length
From Horizontal)
required to reach a suitable horizontal
0
embedment length; however, a large enough 10 L10 = [H + (10 dlargest)] x 1.015
installation angle is required to reach critical 15
0
L15 = [H + (10 dlargest)] x 1.035
depth, “D”, which insures that a shallow 20
0
L20 = [H + (10 dlargest)] x 1.064
embedment failure cannot occur. (See Figure 3.) 0
25 L25 = [H + (10 dlargest)] x 1.103
Table 13 provides equations to obtain minimum 0
30 L25 = [H + (10 dlargest)] x 1.155
horizontal embedment length when the anchor is
H = Height of Backfill (ft) dlargest = Largest Plate Dia. (ft)
installed at various downward angles.

Torque Anchor™ Installation Limits

Shaft Strength: The data in Table 2 gives the resistance criterion has been met. In addition,
strength ratings for various shaft configurations fractures from unexpected impact loading can
in axial tension, compression and shaft torsion. and often occur during installation, especially in
The values are from mechanical testing and obstruction laden soils.
not from tests in the soil. Because Torque It is recommended that a margin of at least 30%
Anchor™ products are installed by rotating them above the required installation torque be allowed
into the soil; the installation torsion can limit the to insure proper embedment and to prevent shaft
ultimate strength of the product. impact fractures.
The Useable Torsional Strength column in Table It is important to also understand that the
2 indicates the maximum installation torque that empirical torsional factor “k” reduces the
should be intentionally applied to the Torque practical limit on the ultimate capacity that can
Anchor™ shaft during installation in be developed in the soil. This is especially
homogeneous soil. The risk of product failure important when designing with larger tubular
dramatically increases when one exceeds these products because large tubular shafts pass
limits. through the soil less efficiently than smaller
tubular shafts and solid square bars.
When choosing a product for a project, the
designer should select a product that has an Shaft Stiffness: When the tubular Torque
adequate margin of torsional strength above the Anchor™ is installed through soft soils that
torque required for embedment. This margin display a Standard Penetration Test value “N” <
will allow for increases in torque during the final 4 blows per foot (“N” < 5 for square shafts), the
embedment length after the initial torsional possibility of shaft buckling must be considered

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 31 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
in assessing the axial

Design
™
Table 14 Torque Anchor Shaft Stiffness Comparisons
compressive capacity of the
pile. Pier
™ Cross Moment of
Torque Anchor Shaft 4 Stiffness
It is important to remember Section Inertia - in
Configuration 2 Relative to
Area - in (Stiffness)
that tubular shafts provide TA-288
superior resistance to TA-150 (1-1/2” Square) 2.21 0.40 22%
buckling than solid square TA-175 (1-3/4” Square) 3.00 0.74 40%
bars when used in axial
TA-225 (2-1/4” Square) 5.00 2.04 110%
compression applications.
TA-288L (2-7/8” Dia x 0.203”) 1.70 1.53 82%
This is because tubular shafts
have greater flexural TA-288 (2-7/8” Dia x 0.262”) 2.08 1.85 100%
stiffness. (They have a larger TA-350 (3-1/2” Dia x 0.300”) 3.02 3.89 206%
moment of inertia.) In TA-450 (4-1/2” Dia x 0.337”) 4.41 9.61 519%
general tubular pile
configurations the larger shaft
diameter will provide greater resistance to lateral grade level to prevent lateral forces transmitting
deflection or buckling within the soil. to the top of the pile.
Table 14 illustrates how tubular piles have Whenever one encounters weak soils such as
superior shaft stiffness when compared to solid peat or other organic soils, improperly
square bars. It is interesting to note that the 2- consolidated soil, or where the pile may become
7/8” diameter tubular Torque Anchor™ with a fully exposed from the soil due to erosion; the
wall thickness of 0.262 inches costs pile will not be able to support the full rated
approximately the same as a Torque Anchor ™ capacity listed in Table 2.
fabricated from 1-3/4” solid square bar stock. In addition to the amount of lateral soil support
Please notice in Table 14 that the 1-3/4” solid on the shaft, both the length of the pile pipe that
square bar is only 40% as stiff as the 2-7/8” is exposed to insufficient lateral support and the
diameter tubular product. It is clear that the 2- stiffness of the slender shaft will affect the
7/8” tubular product is the better choice when reduction in allowable capacity.
designing foundation piles that are to be loaded
in axial compression. It should be noted that solid square shafts are
only recommended to be installed through
Another situation where shaft buckling should be soils having SPT, “N” values greater or equal
considered is where there are both axial to five blows per foot.
compression and lateral forces acting upon the
pile. Normally when the pile terminates within a The reason for this is the shaft offers very little
footing, this is not a problem. When the pile is strength against buckling when subjected soils
not fixed at the surface, there may be factors with SPT blow less than five. When designing
present that affect buckling. These factors piles in axial compression that must penetrate
include shaft diameter, length, soil density and weak soils, it is good practice to consider tubular
strength, and pile cap attachment. products for the application.
The most accurate way to determine the buckling
Buckling Loads In Weak Soil: Whenever a load of a helical pile shaft in weak soil is by
slender shaft does not have adequate lateral soil performing a buckling analysis by finite
support, the load carrying capacity of the shaft is differences. There are several specialized
reduced as shaft buckling becomes an issue. In computer programs that can perform this
the case of tubular Torque Anchors™, the full analysis and allow the introduction of shaft
ultimate capacity is available provided the soil properties and soil conditions that can vary with
through which the pile penetrates maintains a depth. Another, less accurate method of
value for “N” ≥ 4 blows per foot or greater as estimating critical buckling is by Davisson
reported on a Standard Penetration Test for the Method, “Estimating Buckling Loads for Piles”
entire length of the pile embedment. The pile (1963). In this method, Davisson assumes
must also be secured to a suitable footing at various combinations of pile head and tip

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 32 All rights reserved
 Torque Anchor™
boundary conditions with a constant

Design
modulus of sub-grade reaction, “kH” with GRAPH 7 - CONSERVATIVE CRITICAL
depth. Load transfer to the soil due to skin BUCKLING LOAD FOR BUDGET ESTIMATES
friction is assumed to not occur and the pile SPT "N" < 1 SPT 'N" < 2 SPT 'N" < 4
is straight. Davisson’s formula is shown as
170
Equation 10 below.
160
Equation 10: Critical Buckling 150
Pcr = Ucr Ep Ip / R2
140
Where:

BUCKLING STRENGTH X 1,000 LBS

130
Pcr = Critical Buckling Load – lb
Ucr = Dimensionless ratio (Assume = 1) 120
Ep = Shaft Mod. of Elasticity = 30 x 10 6 psi 110
Ip = Shaft Moment of Inertia = in4
100
R = 4√ Ep Ip / kH d
d = Shaft Diameter – in 90

Computer analysis of shaft buckling is the 80

recommended method to achieve the most 70
accurate results. Many times, however, one 60
must have general information to prepare a
50
preliminary design or budget proposal.
Table 15 below provides conservative 40
working load estimates for various shaft 30
sizes penetrating through different types of 20
weak homogeneous soils. Graph 7 presents
10
a visual representation of critical buckling
loads that will quickly identify shaft 0
configurations with Insufficient Buckling 1-1/2 1-3/4 2-1/4 2-7/8- 2-7/8- 3-1/2- 4-1/2-
Strength when passing through soft soils Sq. Sq. Sq. .203 .262 .300 .337
that do not adequately support the shaft. SHAFT CONFIGURATION IN CLAY SOIL

Allowable Compressive Loads - Pile in

Air: Graph 8 shows the reduction in allowable diameter shaft. In addition, Graph 8
axial compressive loading relative to the length demonstrates that the 4-1/2” diameter pile has an
of the pier shaft that is without lateral support. ultimate capacity of more than four times that of
Table 14 illustrates that the 4-1/2” diameter the 2-7/8” diameter shaft when each shaft has ten
tubular Torque Anchor™ provides an axial feet of exposed column height without any
stiffness of more than five times that of a 2-7/8” lateral support. When one compares the
buckling capacity of the 4-
Table 15 Working Loads Under Buckling Conditions 1/2” and diameter shaft to
For Budgetary Estimating (Factor of Safety = 2) the 1-3/4” solid square
Uniform Soil Condition shaft, the 4-1/2” diameter
Shaft Size Organics Very Soft Clay Soft Clay Loose Sand tubular shaft has more than
N<1 N=1-2 N=2-4 N=2-4 three times the capacity.
1-1/2” Sq 14,000 lb 16,000 lb 23,000 lb 18,000 lb The same comparison
between the 3-1/2”
1-3/4” Sq. 20,000 lb 24,000 lb 34,000 lb 27,000 lb
diameter shaft and the 1-
2-1/4” Sq. 38,000 lb 45,000 lb 64,000 lb 52,000 lb 3/4” solid square shaft, the
2-7/8” Dia x 0.203” 19,000 lb 22,000 lb 31,000 lb 25,000 lb 3-1/2 shaft has 1.6 times
greater buckling capacity.
2-7/8” Dia x 0.262” 20,000 lb 24,000 lb 34,000 lb 28,000 lb
3-1/2” Dia x 0.300” 33,000 lb 39,000 lb 55,000 lb 45,000 lb
4-1/2” Dia x 0.337” 59,000 lb 69,000 lb 98,000 lb 80,000 lb

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 33 All rights reserved
Each design where shaft buckling is possible requires specific information involving the structure
and soil characteristics at the site. We strongly recommend that the final structural design be
prepared or reviewed and approved by a geotechnical and structural engineer.

ULTIMATE AXIAL COMPRESSIVE LOAD ON PILES

WITHOUT LATERAL SOIL SUPPORT
160
150
140
130
Ultimate Capacity - lb x 1,000

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

50
4-1/2"- 0.337"
40 3-1/2"- 0.300"
2-7/8"- 0.262"
30 2-1/4" Sq Bar

20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
GRAPH 8. Unsupported Column Height - ft

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with
understanding how to prepare preliminary designs, installation procedures, load testing, and
documentation of each placement when using ECP Torque Anchors™. If you have questions or
require engineering assistance in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact
Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 34 All rights reserved
 Chapter 2

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™

Installation and
Testing
Installation Guidelines and Testing Procedures
 Hydraulic Torque Motors
 Installation Procedures
 Field Testing of Torque Anchors™

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 35 All rights reserved
 Hydraulic Torque Motors
Helical Torque Anchors™ are usually installed Soil Efficiency Factor – “k”: This is the
with a hydraulic motor and reduction gear box relationship between installation torque and
assembly. Some motors offer a two speed gear ultimate capacity of the installed Torque
box, which allows the installer to increase the Anchor™. Estimating the ultimate capacity of
advancement the Torque Anchor™ through the helical foundation product based upon the
upper strata of the soil. Once approximately 75% installation torque has been used for many years.
of the design installation torque has been
Unless a load test is performed to create a site
reached, the rotational speed is reduced to
specific value for the Soil Efficiency Factor
between 5 and 10 rpm until the final torque is
(“k”), a value must be estimated when designing.
maintained for required embedment distance.
While values for “k” have been reported from 2
to 20, most projects will produce a value of “k”
Installation Torque
in the 6 to 14 range. Earth Contact Products
Installation torque on the shaft, the Soil offers a range of values for Soil Efficiency
Efficiency Factor (“k”) and Table 12 were Factors (“k”) in Table 12. Graph 6 on Page 40
introduced and discussed in Chapter 1. These are also illustrates this. These values may be used
reproduced for reference below. for estimating empirical ultimate capacities of
Shaft torsion during installation can provide a installed Torque Anchors™. These values may be
reasonably accurate estimate of the ultimate used until a field load test can provide a more
capacity of the installed helical screw product. accurate site specific value for “k”. Table 12 lists
The relationship between the shaft torsion during typical values of “k” for successful estimations of
installation and the ultimate helical product ultimate capacities of Torque Anchors™ based
capacity is empirical and was developed from upon the output torque at the installation motor
results from thousands of tests. When one shaft.
applies rotational torsion to the end of the shaft at
grade level, some of the torque energy is lost Table 12. Soil Efficiency Factor “k”
before it reaches the helical plates at the bottom Typically Suggested
Torque
end of the shaft. This loss of torque is due to Encountered Average Value,
Anchor™ Type
friction between the shaft and the soil. Range “k” “k”
In the sketch below, notice that not all of the All Square Shafts 9 - 11 10
torque applied to the shaft by the motor reaches 2-7/8” Diameter 8-9 8-1/2
the helical plates. The actual torque applied to 3-1/2” Diameter 7-8 7-1/2
the helical plates is T Plates = TMotor - TShaft. The
friction generated between the surface area of the 4-1/2” Diameter 6-7 6-1/2
shaft and the soil is directly related to the tyoe if
shaft and shaft size along with the properties of Understand that the value of the Soil Efficiency
the soil. Because of this loss of torque in Factor (“k”) is an estimation of friction loss
transmitting the motor torque to the plates, an during installation. The amount of friction loss
empirical Soil Efficiency Factor (“k”) must be has a direct relationship to soil properties and the
employed to arrive at a reasonable estimate of anchor shaft.
pile or anchor ultimate capacity. The “k” value for square bars is generally higher
than for tubular shafts. Keep in mind that the
Shaft Friction Torque from suggested values in Table 12 are only guidelines.
= Tshaft Motor Applied
to Shaft = TMotor It is also important to refer to Table 2 at the
beginning of Chapter 1 for the Useable Torsional
Strength that can be applied to a specific anchor
shaft. Being mindful of the torsional strength of
the shaft will help to avoid shaft fractures during
Figure 2. installation.
Helical Plate
Friction = Tplates
Failure to verify that the shaft configuration has

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 36 All rights reserved
sufficient reserve torsional capacity could result number of pins used, one can restrict the
in an unexpected shaft fracture during installation maximum torsion that can be applied to the
especially in soils containing debris, rocks and shaft. When the desired torsion is reached, the
cobbles. pins shear and the hub no longer transmits
torsion to the helical anchor shaft. For this
Equation 4: Installation Torque device to accurately predict ultimate capacity,
T = (Tu or Pu) / k or (Tu or Pu) = k x T the soil into which the screw anchor is
Where, installed must be homogeneous and with no

Installation and
T = Final Installation Torque - (ft-lb) obstructions. The shear pin hub, by nature,
(Averaged Over the Final 3 to 5 Feet) tends to overestimate the shaft torsion. If,

Testing
Tu = Pu = Ultimate Capacity - (lb) during installation, the helical plates encounter
(Measured from field load tests) an obstruction or something that causes a
k = Soil Efficiency Factor - (ft-1) spike in the shaft torque, the shear pins
To determine the site specific Soil Efficiency become deformed and weakened. In addition,
Factor, (“k”) from field load testing, Equation 4 if the target stratum rapidly becomes very
is rewritten as: dense, the shear pins may break before all
plates have been properly embedded. This is
Equation 4a: Soil Efficiency Factor especially important in tension applications
k = (Tu or Pu) / T where the desired shaft torsion should be
Where,
averaged over a distance of at least three feet
k = Soil Efficiency Factor - (ft-1) before terminating the installation. Earth
Tu = Pu = Ultimate Capacity - (lb) Contact Products does not endorse the shear
(Calculated or measured from field load tests) pin hub and considers it a less desirable way
T = Final Installation Torque - (ft-lb) to measure shaft torsion.
An appropriate factor of safety must always  Single Pressure Gauge – Many operators
be applied to the design or working loads install a single pressure gauge at the inlet to
when using Equation 4 and 4a. the hydraulic gear motor. This is a dangerous
practice and not recommended because in
nearly every hydraulic system there is back
Determining Installation Torque pressure. This back pressure represents
Shaft torsion can be determined several ways: energy that enters the gear motor, but is not
 Twisting of the Solid Square Bar – This used by the motor. The back pressure simply
method of torque control is the least accurate causes the oil to flow back into the system and
method to determine the torsion that is being to the reservoir. Typically, back pressures
applied to the shaft. The reason this method is range from 200 to 500 psi. In some cases it is
inaccurate and not recommended is because higher.
the point at which twisting occurs will vary The danger in using a single gauge to estimate
with fluctuations in the steel chemistry used to shaft torsion is that the back pressure is
make the bar, the differences in torsional unknown. As a result, the shaft torsion on the
strength from bar to bar within a mill run of shaft is overestimated, which results in an
bars and the tolerances in the steel anchor capacity prediction that is overstated.
compositions from mill run to mill run of Anchors installed with a single gauge
similar bars. The length of shaft can also system, in general, will not produce as
affect the number of twists for a given shaft much capacity as expected and could fail.
torque. ECP does not recommend using this
 Dual Pressure Gauges -- One of the most
method to determine installation torque.
common ways to determine motor output
 Shear Pin Hub – This device uses a hub that torque is to measure the difference between
attaches between the motor and the anchor the input pressure and output pressure across
shaft. Maximum shaft torsion is determined the motor. When using two gauges installed
by inserting a number of shear pins between one on each port of the gear motor, the actual
the flanges of the hub. Each pin usually pressure drop across the motor is known. This
represents 500 ft-lbs. Based upon the total is a theoretical representation of the amount of

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 37 All rights reserved
 hydraulic energy that was used by the motor. between the differential pressure measured across
Once the pressure differential is determined, the hydraulic ports of the motor and the shaft
the output shaft torque can be estimated from output torque of the motor. This factor, which is
motor performance data that is provided by referred to as “K”, may be used to calculate the
the motor manufacturer. It is especially output torque of a motor. In Table 16 on the
important to have the gauges calibrated following page, hydraulic gear motor
regularly. Gauges can become damaged and manufacturers’ data for several commonly used
rendered inaccurate in the field. hydraulic torque motors have been provided.
 Strain Gauge Monitor (Torque Transducer) The important column in this table is the Torque
This device provides a direct display of Motor Conversion Factor (“K”).
installation torque being applied to the shaft; it (Do not confuse the Torque Motor Conversion
also provides a recorded history of the shaft Factor, “K”, with the Soil Efficiency Factor, “k”,
torsion through the entire depth of installation. which is the measure of the soil friction on the
This system consists of three parts; a Torque shaft.)
Analyzer Rotor installed on the flanged
coupling between the motor and anchor shaft, Equation 11 below is used to convert pressure
a Torque Analyzer PDA indicator and a differential into motor shaft output torque.
battery charger. Equation 11: Motor Output Torque
The unit is extremely rugged and ideal for T = K x ∆P
field based applications. The strain gauge Where,
monitor measures the torque applied between T = Hydraulic Motor Output Torque - ft-lb
two flanges located between the motor output K = Torque Motor Conversion Factor – (Table 16)
shaft and the helical anchor shaft. This data is ∆P = pin – pout = Motor Pressure Differential
transmitted to a hand held PDA readout
When determining the installation torque
device for display and logging. This method
from hydraulic pressure differentials, it is
of measuring the torque applied is highly
imperative that the motor outlet pressure be
accurate (+/- 0.25%). The torque sensor is
subtracted from the motor inlet pressure prior
built into the housing of the flanges and the
to referring to any tables or charts that
data is transferred by a wireless transmitter
convert differential motor pressure to output
fitted into the housing.
shaft torque.
The data is captured by the PDA and is
recorded as a text file that can be viewed or In Table 16 presents the Torque Motor
downloaded to any computer software for Conversion Factor, (“K”) for some commonly
further analysis such as Microsoft Excel. used hydraulic torque motors.

This unit is the most accurate and the most Caution: Determining output shaft torsion when
rapid way to monitor and record installation operating at very low motor output torque should
torque. It is highly recommended. be approached with caution. Hydraulic torque
motor curves are not exactly linear. Errors are
possible at the low end of the motor output curve
Converting Motor Pressure
when using a fixed value of “K”.
To Shaft Torque
When a pressure differential is measured across Caution: It is very important to capture the
the motor ports, it must be converted to motor pressure differential across the motor directly at
output shaft torque. This can be accomplished by the motor ports.
using Torque Motor Output Curves for the
specific motor being used on site, or one can use If the pressure measurement connections are
a motor specific Torque Motor Conversion made at other locations, the differential pressure
Factor, (“K”). Both are available from the motor reading may be inaccurate and could result in
manufacturer. incorrect estimates of motor shaft torsions.
Finally, the accuracy of the data is only as
Torque Motor Conversion Factor – “K”: accurate as the gauges. Calibrate the pressure
Each motor has a unique Torque Motor gauges regularly to insure accurate results.
Conversion Factor, which is the relationship
ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 38 All rights reserved
Table 16. Hydraulic Torque Motor Specifications
Torque Motor Maximum Max. Output Hex
Model Graph Weight
Illustration Output Torque Pressure Flow Speed Output
Number No. lb.
ft-lb Conversion psi gpm rpm Shaft
Factor – “K”
L6K5 10 6,335 2.53 2,500 16 13.8 2” 132

L7K5 9 7,644 2.55 3,000 35 32.8 2-1/2 363

Installation and
X9K5 9 9,663 3.22 3,000 35 26 2-1/2 365
PRO-DIG

Testing
X12K5 9 12,612 4.20 3,000 40 23.5 2-1/2” 366

5,597/ 2-1/2” or
T12K 10 2.24/4.85 2,500 65 70/32 382
12,128 2-3/4

X16K5 11 16,563 5.52 3,000 40 17.9 3” 565

X20K 11 20,670 6.89 3,000 40 14.3 3” 571

B26 2” Dia
Eskridge 12 4,500 1.5 3,000 10 10 68
16:1 Keyed
B5016-
12 5,000 1.71 3,000 20 24 2” 150
21F54

77BA 13 12,000 5.0 2,400 40 19 2-1/2” 250

IMPORTANT: Torque Motor Conversion Factor, “K”, tends to become lower than shown in this table when pressure
differentials are below 1,000 psi. As a safety guideline, use only 90% of the “K” shown when pressure differentials
are between 750 and 900 psi; use 80% of “K” shown for pressure differentials between 500 and 750 psi.

Torque Motor Accessories

DT-150-5 DT-175-5 DT-200-5 DT-250-5
1.50 inch Sq. Shaft Drive Tool 1.75 inch Sq. Shaft Drive Tool 2 inch Hex Drive Tool 2.50 inch Hex Drive Tool

DT-288-L-5 DT-288-5 DT-350-5 & DT-350-7*

Link Arm
2.88 inch Drive Tool (Two Hole) 2.88 inch Drive Tool (Three Hole) 3-1/2 inch Dia. Drive Tool

Hydraulic Motor
Pipe Install Tool Shear Pin Torque Indicator Smart Anchor Monitor
Pressure Monitor

* DT-350-7 Drive Tool. Similar to DT-350-5 but with 7-5/8” flange (Not Shown)

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 39 All rights reserved
ECP Smart Anchor Monitor (SAM) and Assembly Configuration Hydraulic
Motor
The torque transducer is assembled between the hydraulic gear motor and the
Torque Anchor™ shaft that is to be monitored during installation. This state of
the art tool provides the state of the art helical anchor monitoring and
recording. Flange
 Highly accurate (+/-0.25%) torque monitoring capabilities Adapter

 Angle and depth monitoring

 GPS data recorder for exact location of the anchor
Torque
 Multiple wireless PDA’s can be used to view one drive Transducer
 Data can be exported to third party software
 Shaft RPM Indicator
 Calibrated to NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology Certification)
 Extremely rugged design Drive
Tool
 No mechanical parts
This quick reference can be used to estimate the ultimate capacity of a Torque
Anchor™ when the motor output torque and the shaft configuration are known.
Caution: When using the Solid Square Shaft curve, do not exceed the “Useable Helical Shaft

MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY

Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
240
220
200
Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Graph 6. Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb
Torsional Strength” of the shaft.

ECP Hydraulic Torque Motor Performance Curves

The graphs on the following pages are hydraulic performance curves provide a quick source for
motor performance curves for Pro-Dig and motor torque output based upon the actual
Eskridge gear motors that are normally in stock pressure differential across the motor ports.
at ECP and ready for immediate delivery. Motor

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 40 All rights reserved
 GRAPH 9. PRO-DIG SINGLE SPEED GEAR MOTORS - DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE AT MOTOR VS. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE FOR
Pro-Dig L7K5 Pro-Dig X9K5 Pro-Dig X12K5
13,000
12,000

Installation and
11,000
Output Torque at Shaft (ft-lb)

10,000

Testing
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Pressure Differential Across Motor x 100 (psi)

GRAPH 10. PRO-DIG SINGLE AND TWO SPEED GEAR MOTORS

DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE AT MOTOR VS. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE
Pro-Dig T12K LOW Pro-Dig T12K HIGH Pro-Dig L6K5
12,500
11,500
10,500
Output Torque at Shaft (ft-lb)

9,500
8,500
7,500
6,500
5,500
4,500
3,500
2,500
1,500
500
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Pressure Differential Across Motor x 100 (psi)

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 41 All rights reserved
 GRAPH 11. PRO-DIG SINGLE SPEED GEAR MOTORS - DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE AT MOTOR VS. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE
Pro-Dig X16K5 Pro-Dig X20K
21000

19000
Output Torque at Shaft (ft-lb)

17000

15000

13000

11000

9000

7000

5000

3000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Pressure Differential Across Motor x 100 (psi)

GRAPH 12. ESKRIDGE SINGLE SPEED GEAR MOTORS - DIFFERENTIAL

PRESSURE AT MOTOR VS. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE
B26 16:1 B5016-21
5,500

4,500
Output Torque at Shaft (ft-lb)

3,500

2,500

1,500

500
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Pressure Differential Across Motor x 100 (psi)

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 42 All rights reserved
 GRAPH 13. ESKRIDGE 77BA SINGLE SPEED GEAR MOTOR
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE AT MOTOR VS. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE
12000
11000
Output Torque at Shaft (ft-lb)

10000

Installation and
9000

Testing
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Pressure Differential Across Motor x 100 (psi)

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 43 All rights reserved
 Structural Compressive Pile and/or Tensile Helical Anchor Installation Procedure
General Considerations:
 Prepare site for safe working conditions.
 Thoroughly investigate the site for any and all underground utilities before excavating.
 Excavate as required for installation of the product.
 Install ECP Helical Torque Anchor™ to depth and torque specifications
 Cut to length and install the pile cap or wall support assembly as required
 Load test to verify design and capacity of the product and installation
 Remove equipment from work area and clean work area

Installation Plan:
The torque anchors shall be installed as shown on the written new construction or repair plan that was
prepared by the engineer or the installer, and submitted to the owner or their representative. The plan
shall include, but not be limited to:
 Size and number of placements
 Helical plate configuration on the helical torque anchor™
 Spacing between helical torque anchors™
 Minimum depth of embedment
 Minimum target torque requirement
 Load testing requirements

STEP 1 – Installation Requirements:

 The minimum average installation torque and the minimum length shown on the plans shall be
satisfied prior to termination the installation. The installation torque shall be an average of the
installation torque recorded during a minimum of the last three feet of installation.
 The torsional strength rating of the torque anchor™ shall not be exceeded during installation. If the
torsional strength limit for the torque anchor™ has been reached, but the anchor has not reached the
target depth, the following modifications are acceptable:
A. If the torsional strength limit is achieved prior to reaching the target depth, the installation
may be acceptable if reviewed and approved by the engineer and/or owner.
B. The installer may remove the torque anchor™ and install a new one with fewer and/or
smaller diameter helical plates with review and approval by the engineer and/or owner
 If the target is achieved, but the torsional requirement has not been met; the installer may do one of
the following subject to the review and approval of the engineer and/or owner:
A. Install the torque anchor™ deeper to obtain the required installation torsion.
B. The installer may remove the torque anchor™ and install a new one with an additional
helical plate and/or larger diameter helical plates.
C. Reduce the load capacity of the placement and provide additional helical torque anchors™
at closer spacing to achieve the required total support for the project.
 If the torque anchor™ hits an obstruction or is deflected from its intended path, the installation shall
be terminated and the anchor removed. Either the obstruction must be removed or the torque
anchor™ relocated as directed by the engineer and/or owner and the installation resumed.
 In no case shall a torque anchor™ be backed out and reinstalled to the same depth. If an anchor
must be removed for any reason, it must be installed to a deeper embedment of at least three feet.
 After meeting the installation requirements, the installer may remove the final plain extension
section and replace it with a shorter one to obtain the design elevation, or he may cut the extension
to length. The cut shall be smooth and at 90 degrees to the axis of the shaft. It is not permissible to
reverse the installation to reach the desired coupling elevation.

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 44 All rights reserved
STEP 2 – Torque Anchor™ Installation:
The hydraulic installation motor shall be installed on a suitable machine capable providing the proper
installation angle, reaction against installation torque, and downward force (crowd). The lead section
shall be positioned with the shaft at the proper installation angle(s) at the designated location(s). The
opposite end shall be attached to the hydraulic installation motor with a pin(s) and retaining clip(s).
If using portable equipment, the torque reaction bar MUST be properly secured against movements in
all directions. Torque Anchor™ lead sections shall be placed at the locations indicated on the plans.
The lead section shall be advanced into the soil in a smooth and continuous manner using sufficient

Installation and
force for uniform advancement. The installer shall have knowledge of the desired pressure differential
that will produce the desired terminal installation torque approved by the engineer before beginning the

Testing
installation.
Once the lead is installed, the motor shall be unpinned from the lead. One or more extensions shall be
installed and securely bolted in place with the hardware supplied by the manufacturer.
The torque anchor™ shall be continued to be driven to the average design torque until the bottom end of
the torque anchor™ is at the design depth. Once the design torque at the design depth has been
achieved, the installation motor shall be removed from the torque anchor ™.

STEP 3 – Documentation:
The installer shall carefully monitor the torque applied to the anchor as it is installed. It is
recommended that the installation torque be recorded at one foot intervals, but should never exceed
every two feet. The data may be collected from electronic torsion monitoring equipment that has been
calibrated to the installation motor being used. Installation torque may also be monitored by noting the
differential pressure across the installation motor and determining the torque from the manufacturer’s
published torque curves.
At the conclusion of the installation, the raw field data shall be converted into an installation report that
includes the location of each placement, the installation depth, installation torque readings at intervals
and the averaged installation torque over the final three feet.

STEP 4 – Torque Anchor™ Termination:

 Pile Cap or Bracket – The pile cap, slab pier bracket, utility bracket, or porch bracket shall be
installed by placing the appropriate sleeve over the torque anchor ™ shaft. If the foundation will be
subjected to uplift, the pile cap shall be bolted to the torque anchor shaft using bolt(s) and nut(s)
supplied by the manufacturer having the same diameter and strength rating as used to couple the pile
sections.
 Transition – The transition is sometimes used for equipment anchorage. The transition shall be
bolted to the end of the torque anchor™ using the hardware supplied by the manufacturer. All-thread
bar shall be attached between the transition and the equipment base. If required, the installer may
place a center-hole ram over the continuously threaded bar to preload pile in tension as specified.
The mounting nuts shall then be tightened securely to maintain the preload. In less critical
applications the wall plate nuts may be tightened to a torque specified by the engineer or owner.

STEP 5 – Clean up:

Remove all scrap and other construction debris from the site. Remove all tools and equipment, clean
them and store them. Any disturbed soils in the area of work shall be restored to the dimensions and
condition specified by the engineer and/or owner. Dispose of all construction debris in a safe and legal
manner.
End Procedure

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 45 All rights reserved
 ™
TORQUE ANCHOR INSTALLATION RECORD

Job Name: Date:

Job Address: Placement Number: (Show On Sketch)

Installing Crew:

Torque Motor Make: Model No: Torque Conversion: Maximum Motor Output:
“K” = ft-lb

Press. Gauge Make: Max psi = Strain Ga. Make: Max. Torque =

Motor Back Pressure = psi Machine Motor is Mounted to:

™
ECP Torque Anchor Lead Designation: Plate Sizes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Shaft Size: □ Sq. □ Tubular

Depth From Depth From

Grade To Tip
∆ Pressure Torque Grade To Tip
∆ Pressure Torque
(ft) (psi) (ft-lb) (ft) (psi) (ft-lb)

1 21
2 22
3 23
4 24
5 25
6 26
7 27
8 28
9 29
10 30
11 31
12 32
13 33
14 34
15 35
16 36
17 37
18 38
19 39
20 40

NOTES:

Utility Industry Anchor Design and Maintenance Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 46 May be reproduced for ECP installers for the sole purpose
of Torque Anchor™ Installation. – All other rights reserved
 Field Test Procedures for Static Axial Compression and Tensile Loads
Many projects require field testing to verify The increments and failure criteria provided
capacity, in other cases a field test can provide below in our “Basic Procedure for Quick Tests”
valuable information. Not only will the load test outlines are conservative and designed for tests
verify that the anchor or pile has achieved the on supports for permanent buildings and
capacity requirement, a field load test on the job retaining walls.
site can provide a precise Soil Efficiency Factor,
When determining acceptable criteria for guy
“k”, for the particular shaft configuration being
wire anchorage or for other temporary

Installation and
installed at this specific site.
anchorages, the failure criterion could differ
In the utility industry, guy anchors do not have to from the test procedures presented here because

Testing
meet such stringent requirements as permanent significantly more creep is usually acceptable in
structural supports. In general, the amount of guy anchor applications. For this reason, the
creep allowed in guy wire applications is engineer in charge should be consulted to modify
typically four to six inches. When testing the test procedure, the load increments, time
support for permanent structures, a factor of intervals, measurement procedures, and the
safety of 2.0 is most commonly accepted by acceptable ultimate deflection that is consistent
engineers for building foundations, structural with the specific project and load conditions. If
supports and other permanent anchorages such as the result of load testing suggests less than the
retaining walls. The testing procedures are the ultimate load requirement has been achieved, the
same, whether the maximum movement of the responsible engineer may choose to adjust the
anchor of four inches is allowed for guy product spacing and/or increase the depth of
applications or the ECP recommended allowable anchor installation and/or modify the projected
maximum of one inch of movement for helical plate area on the shaft in order to achieve
permanent structural support applications. a higher capacity and/or the desired factor of
safety and acceptable shaft deflection.
In this section the test procedures closely
conform to ASTM D1143 and D3689 The first procedural outline is based closely on
specifications. the ASTM D1143 and D3689 testing procedures.
The “Quick Test” procedure outlined below will
It is recommended that any field load test for more quickly produce an estimate of actual
compressive bearing or tension anchor anchor performance on the job site. This load
resistance be conducted under the test will provide a more accurate ultimate load
supervision of a Registered Professional capacity than by relying only upon the Soil
Engineer. Efficiency Factor, “k” of the shaft as it penetrates
the soil.

ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 47 All rights reserved
 Basic Procedure for Quick Tension or Compression Tests
1. Determine the depth to the target stratum of soil from the geotechnical site investigation report that
includes boring logs. Use this data to select a pile design capacity, ultimate capacity and estimate
the installation torque at the target stratum and depth.
2. Set the spacing and install the four reaction piles at the test site. The recommended spacing
between the test pile and the reaction piles is 5D where D = diameter of the largest helical plate.
3. Install the test helical product pile at the center between the reaction piles to the target depth and
torque resistance.
4. Mount the two anchor beams on the four
reaction piles and the reaction beam LOAD CELL
MONITOR

E
A
C
T
I
O
N
B
E
A
M
HYDRAULIC PUMP

R
between the anchor beams and level. AND GAUGE

N
C
H
O
R
B
E
A
M
A
5. Install a load cell (or certified pressure

N
C
H
O
R
B
E
A
M
A
gauge) and hydraulic ram. The center-
hole load ram must be mounted below the
reaction beam for a bearing (compression)
test and above the reaction beam for an LOAD CELL
anchor (tension) test. HYDRAULIC RAM

6. Set the deflection measuring devices.

Deflection measuring devices can include 8'-0" to 8'-0" to
10'-0" 10'-0"
dial gauges (accuracy to 0.001”) with
minimum travel of one inch greater than
the acceptable deflection mounted on a
O
A
D
T
E
S
T
P
I
L
E
L

reference beam, a transit level surveying REACTION

HELICAL

system, or other types of devices as may ANCHOR

be specified by the Engineer.

7. Apply a small seating/alignment load,
usually 5% of the ultimate load. Hold the
seating load constant for a minimum of four minutes or until no further displacement is measured.
8. Set the deflection measuring device(s) to zero in preparation to starting the test.
9. Apply the first load increment of 5% of the ultimate load and hold that load constant for a
minimum of four minutes to a maximum of 15 minutes. Monitor the incremental deflection (d) at
intervals of 30 sec., 1, 2, and 4 minutes (per the “quick” test procedure of ASTM) and at longer
intervals of 8 and 15 minutes when permitted. The monitoring may be stopped after 4 or 15
minutes as long as the rate of deflection is less than 0.002” per minute. If d (at 15 minutes) <
0.330”, proceed to the next 5% load increment and repeat Step 9 until the ultimate load is reached
or failure occurs by excessive deflection (vertical deformation).
10. Once the maximum loading condition is reached, unloading commences with two to five unloading
decrements that are approximately equal. Hold each decrement for a minimum of four minutes to a
maximum of 15 minutes recording the movement at each decrement. A frequently used failure
criteria for permanent support of physical structures is “d” > 1.0” to define the ultimate acceptable
load with a permanent deflection of “d” < 0.5” after unloading.
A failure criterion is often different than outlined in this typical procedure. The failure
criteria should be reviewed and established by the project engineer prior to testing. He can
provide project specific test acceptance conditions for the installation. Acceptance criteria
are sometimes quite different for applications such as guy wire anchorage and for temporary
tension anchors. Discuss test procedures with the Engineer of Record on the project.
A plot of load versus pile deflection “d” is often prepared after testing to determine the acceptable
ultimate and working load capacities of the anchor, and for review of the actual performance of the
helical pile or anchor in the soil under changing load conditions.
End Test Procedure
ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 48 All rights reserved
 FIELD LOAD TEST REPORT
Load Test Log No. of Date: Zip Code:
Address:
Project No.

PROJECT DATA Project Name:

Load Type: (Compression, Tension or
Lateral)

Installation and
Project Ultimate Load: Project Working Load:

Testing
Helical Product No: Shaft Size:
PRODUCT
Part No. Part No.
TESTED
Part No. Part No.

LOAD TEST Load Test Cylinder Capacity: Effective Cylinder Area:

EQUIPMENT
INFORMATION Manufacturer: Cylinder Part Number:
Test Load Load Hydr. Load Initial Instrument Reading or Dial Gauge Reading (.001 in.)
Increment Force Press. Cell Dial
Number (lbs) (psi) Reading Reading 30 sec. 1 min. 2 min. 4 min. 8 min. 15 min.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

FAILURE LOAD lbs. MODE OF FAILURE:

COMMENTS:

Utility Industry Anchor Design and Maintenance Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-07 Page 49 May be reproduced for ECP installers for the sole purpose
of Torque Anchor™ testing. – All other rights reserved
ECP Technical Design Manual - Installation & Testing © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-07 Page 50 All rights reserved
 Chapter 3

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™

Design Examples
 Heavy Weight New Construction
 Light Weight New Construction
 Basement Wall Tieback Anchors
 Retaining Wall Tieback Anchors
 Foundation Restoration

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
 Motor Output Torque
 Ultimate Capacity from Field Data

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 51 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1 – Heavy Weight New Construction – Cohesionless Soil
Structural Details:
 New Building – 2 story house with basement ULT. CAP = 60,000 lb
 Estimated weight 3,700 lb/ft WORKING LOAD =
 Working load on foundation piles – 30,000 lb 30,000 lb
 Top of pile to be 12” above the soil surface
TAB-288-
 Soil data: NC 3/4 (8x8)
6 feet of sandy clay fill (CL), stiff PILE CAP 12"
Density = 110 pcf
30 feet of medium grained, well graded sand
(SW), medium dense, SPT “N” = 22
Density = 120 pcf ф = 340 TAE-288-84
Water table = 14 ft EXTENSION
Recommended target depth = 18 ft.
SANDY CLAY
DEPTH = 6'
Torque Anchor™ Design: DENSITY =
1. Select the proper capacity equation and 110 pcf
collect the known information.
Because the soil on the site is cohesionless,
Equation 1b from Chapter 1 is used:
Pu = AH (q Nq) Where:
Pw = 30,000 lb
FS = Factor of Safety = 2.0 DEPTH TO
TAE-288-84 MIDWAY
Pu = Pw x FS = 30,000 lb x 2.0 = 60,000 lb. EXTENSION BETWEEN
PLATES
hmid = 18 ft. = 18'
(Choose the target depth to be 18 ft. This is WATER
the measurement from the surface to TABLE = 14'
midway between the helical plates.) 12"
q = γ x hmid
q = (110 lb/ft3 x 6 ft) + (120 lb/ft3 x 8 ft) +
TAF-288-84 (8",10",12")
(120 – 62) lb/ft3 x 4 ft) = 1,852 lb/ft2 LEAD SECTION MINIMUM
Nq = 24 “N” = 22 (Chapter 1 - Table 7) PRODUCT
LENGTH
Use Equation 1b to solve for the helical L = 21-1/2'
plate area that is needed.
AH = Pu / (q Nq)
10"
AH = 60,000 lb / 1,852 lb/ft2 x 24
AH = 1.35 ft2 HOMOGENOUS
SAND
DEPTH = 30'
2. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™ DENSITY = 120 pcf LENGTH FROM MID-
suitable to support the load.  DEG. PLATE DEPTH TO
TIP OF PILE
Referring to Chapter 1, Table 2 the 2-7/8” S = 3 x (8" + 10") / 2
diameter x 0.262 wall thickness tubular pile S = 27"
8"
shaft is selected as most economical for this
application. Our project requires 60,000
pounds of compressive strength. The selected
pile shaft has a Compressive Load Limit of
100,000 pounds and a Useable Torsional
Strength of 9,500 ft-lbs. Figure 7. Design Example 1 & 2

Referring to Chapter 1, Table 10 the

ft2 of bearing area is needed to support an
combination of helical plates is selected from the
ultimate capacity of 60,000 pounds. The data
row opposite the 2-7/8” shaft size. At least 1.35

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 52 All rights reserved
from the 2-7/8” diameter shaft on Table 10 in summation of all the lengths previously provided
Chapter 1 is reproduce here: and determined.
6” Dia. = 0.151 ft2 A. The pile cap is placed 1 ft. above grade level
8” Dia. = 0.304 ft2 B. hmid = 18 ft.
10” Dia. = 0.500 ft2 C. Length from mid-plate to pile tip
(Recall that the helical plates are spaced at three
12” Dia. = 0.740 ft2
times the diameter of the nearest lower plate.)
14” Dia. = 1.024 ft2
htip = [(3 x 8” dia)+(3 x 10” dia)]/2 = 27”
Select the combination of 8”, 10”, and 12”
diameter plates on the 2-7/8” diameter tubular htip = 2-1/2 ft (Round up to 30”.)
shaft. L = 1 ft + 18 ft + 2-1/2 ft
AH = 0.304 + 0.500 + 0.740 = 1.544 ft2 L = 21-1/2 feet
AH = 1.54 ft2 > 1.35 ft2
6. Torque Anchor™ Specifications:
This plate combination provides a total area of The specified Torque Anchor™ assembly will
1.54 ft2, which exceeds the required plate area of consist of the following:
1.35 ft2, arrived at from Equation 2b.
 TAF-288-84 08-10-12 This is a 2-7/8”
Designation for the selected Torque Anchor™

Design Examples
diameter tubular product, having a standard

Torque Anchor™
configuration is found in the product list on Page length of 7 feet long, with an 8”, a 10”, and
7. The product selected is: a 12” diameter plates that are 3/8” thick,
TAF-288-84 08-10-12  TAE-288-84 Extension, which is 7 feet long
and includes coupling hardware. The
3. Installation Torque: Equation 2 in Chapter 1 coupling overlaps the previous section by 6
calculates the estimated installation torque. inches, which provides an effective length of
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, Where, the extension section at 6-1/2 feet. – Two
Pu = 60,000 lb. (30,000 Working Load x 2.0) extension sections are required
K = 8.5 (Chapter 1 - Table 12)  TAE-288-60 Extension, which is 5 feet long
T = 60,000 lb / 8.5 ft-1 with coupling hardware. The coupling
T = 7,100 ft-lb overlaps the previous section by 6 inches,
which provides an effective extension length
4. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A of 4-1/2 feet. – (One extension may be
review of Table 2 in Chapter 1 indicates that the required.)
2-7/8” diameter Torque Anchor™ has a Useable
Torsional Strength of 9,500 ft-lb. The torque  TAB-288 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 2-
requirement of 7,500 ft-lb is 21% below the 7/8” diameter tubular shaft and has a 3/4” x
torsional limit of the shaft. The selection should 8” x 8” bearing plate.
work for this application based upon the soil The total length of the assembled products from
report stating that the soil is sandy clay fill and the list is actually 24-1/2 feet long. The Torque
homogenous sand with no mention of rocks, Anchors™ shall be installed to minimum depth of
debris or other obstructions. A review of Table 21-1/2 feet at the locations designated on the
11 in Chapter 1 shows that three 3/8” thick plan and must develop a sufficient compressive
helical plates have a mechanical ultimate strength as determined by the minimum average
capacity of 120,000 pounds (40,000 lb x 3), installation torque of 7,100 ft-lb at this specified
which is double our requirement for this target depth or lower.
installation, so the mechanical capacity of the End Design Example 1
pile assembly exceeds the project requirements.
5. Installed Product Length. The installed
length required to accomplish this design is a

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 53 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1A – Heavy Weight New Construction – “Quick and Rough” Method
Design Details: Ultimate Capacity of the pile design. In this
 Compressive Service Load = 30,000 lbs at each case, a factor of safety of 2.0 is used to arrive at
pile. (See Figure 7 above.) 60,000 pounds per pile ultimate capacity.
 The soil information about the site indicated 6
feet of stiff sandy clay fill (CL) followed by 30 3. Select the proper compression pile from the
feet medium dense sand (SP) estimated capacity graphs. Referring to Graph
4 from Chapter 1 (reproduced below), notice that
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: The soil data the capacity line for a Torque Anchor™ with 10”,
provides only a rough description of the soil on 12” and 14” diameter helical plates attached
the site with no SPT, “N”, values or any crosses between Soil Class 4 & 5 at 60,000
indication of water table. The quick estimating pounds. The 10”, 12” and 14” diameter plate
method for designing the compression piles to configuration is selected for the design.
support the structure is used. The thorough
analysis for this project using the bearing 4. Check the Shaft Strength and Torsional
capacity equations was demonstrated in Design Strength to see which shaft is suitable. Refer
Example 1 above. Comparison between the to Table 2 in Chapter 1 and select the 2-7/8 inch
results of the two methods will be discussed. diameter tubular shaft that has sufficient capacity
to support the load, and has sufficient torsional
1. Determine the Soil Class. Referring to the shaft strength for installation. The required
Soil Classification Table (Chapter 1 - Table 9) a ultimate capacity for each pile is 60,000 lbs. The
Soil Class between 4 and 5 is selected based 2-7/8 inch tubular product, with 0.262 inch wall
upon the description of the soil. thickness, has an Axial Compressive Load Limit
2. Ultimate Helical Pile Capacity. The rating of 100,000 pounds and a Practical Load
engineer provided the Service Load (or working Limit based on Torsional Strength of 80,000
load) on this project based upon his knowledge pounds assuming a Useable Torsional Strength
of the calculated structural loading. Because the of 9,500 ft-lbs. The 2-7/8 inch diameter, 0.262
pile must have the capability to support more inch wall helical pile provides suitable torsional
than just the service capacity, a Factor of Safety capacity and a sufficient practical load limit to
must be added to the Service Load to obtain the exceed the ultimate load requirement of 60,000
pounds. The choice is verified.

TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY

Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
12-14" 8-10-12" 10-12-14" 12-14-14"
120000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
Graph 4. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 54 All rights reserved
5. Installation Torque. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY
Use Graph 6 from Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
Chapter 2 or Equation 2
240
from Chapter 1 to
determine the installation 220
torque requirement for 200

Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

these piles. 180
160
Find a capacity of 60,000
pounds on the left side of 140
Graph 6 and move 120
horizontally to where the 100
graph line for 2-7/8 inch 80
diameter shafts intersects 60
with 60,000 pounds.
40
Read down to determine
that the motor torque 20
requirement is 7,000 ft- 0

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
lb. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
T = 7,000 ft-lb, min. Graph 6. Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb

Calculation from Equation 2 shows a comparison

of results between the formula and the graph. L = 7’ + Ltip (Length from 10” to the 12”
plates) + (Length from 12” to the 14” plate)
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, Where,
Pu = 60,000 lb k = 8.5 (Table 12)
L = 7’ + (3 x 10” Dia)/12” + (3 x 12” Dia)/12”
-1 L = 7’ + 2.5’+ 3’ = 12-1/2 ft + 1 ft above grade
T = 60,000 lb / 8.5 ft = 7,059 ft-lb
provides the minimum shaft length
T = 7,100 ft-lb (Not a significant difference) Minimum Shaft Length = 13-1/2 ft
6. Minimum Embedment Depth. The The least amount of shaft needed for this project
minimum depth requirement from the surface to would be a 7 foot lead section plus a 7 foot
the shallowest plate on the pile must be at least extension (with a coupled length of 6-1/2 feet)
six times the diameter of the 14” dia. top helical provides 13-1/2 feet total.
plate. (Chapter 1, Page 16)
D = 6 x (14 in / 12 in/ft) = 7 feet 8. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The
D = Minimum Vertical Depth = 7 feet. minimum pile assembly shall consist of:
 TAF-288-84 10-12-14 – 2-7/8” diameter
7. Minimum Required Shaft Length. Helical tubular shaft with 0.262” wall thickness that
plates are spaced at three times the diameter of has a 10”, a 12” and a 14” diameter plate on
the next lower plate. The selected configuration the 7’-0” long shaft,
was 10-12-14. The additional shaft length from
the plate closest to the surface to the pile tip must  TAE-288-84 extension – 7’ extension &
be determined and added to minimum vertical hardware. (Additional extensions will likely
depth just determined. be needed to reach required shaft torsion.)
End of Example 1A
Review of Results of Example 1 & 1A
One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis clearly suggested a larger pile
than predicted the calculations. The “Quick and Rough” system was designed to be conservative and
this example demonstrates this. It is likely that the pile design of Example 1A will reach the required
shaft torque at more shallow depth than the 8-10-12 pile. The pile must terminate at least 12-1/2 feet
below grade to accurately predict capacity. Termination at this shallow depth may not be acceptable to
the engineer because the water table located at 14 feet below grade. (Not mentioned in the soil data in
this example.) This type of problem can appear when using incomplete soil data and Torque Anchor™
Capacity Graphs to obtain a “Quick and Rough” design.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 55 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1B – Heavy Weight New Construction – Weak Soil
In this variation, the same construction load and layer of very weak Class 8 soil consisting of
soil conditions prevail as stated in Design loose sand and soft organic clay located just
Example 1 with the exception that five feet of under the surface. These very weak soils overlay
very weak soil now exists directly below the inorganic clay that is able to support the required
surface. load where the soil will provide sufficient lateral
Additional Design Details: shaft support. However, an Axial Compressive
 The soil data revealed a least five feet of very Load Limit of 100,000 pounds shown in Table 2
loose sand fill and very soft clay organic soil near for a 2-7/8 inch diameter with 0.262 inch wall
the surface. tubular shaft is not valid when this shaft passes
 Standard Penetration Test values for this weak through the Class 8 soil with SPT values
layer were, “N” = 1 to 3 blows per foot - Soil reported to be between 1 and 3 blows per foot.
Class = 8 Instead of using Table 2 from Chapter 1 for the
 Below 5 feet the soil profile is the same as shown compressive load limit on the shaft, one must
in Design Example 1. understand that the upper layer of soil is not able
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: The soil data to provide sufficient lateral support to the shaft
here suggests that below the initial five feet of to prevent bucking. Table 15 in Chapter 1
very weak soil, the soil profile is similar to the Conservative Critical Buckling Load Estimates
soil in Design Example 1. Referring to Example (reproduced below) demonstrates this quite
1, it can be recalled that the pile configuration clearly for various soil strengths and types.
required supporting the 60,000 pound ultimate Referring to Table 15, it can be seen that the
load on pile using an 8-10-12 inch diameter plate estimated buckling strength for the 2-7/8 inch
configuration. The 2-7/8 inch diameter tubular diameter, 0.262 inch wall helical Torque
shaft, with 0.262 inch wall thickness, had a Anchor™ shaft when it passes through soil
sufficient Axial Compressive Load Limit to consisting of very loose sand fill and soft organic
support the design load and sufficient Useable clay having SPT values that range from “N” = 1
Torsional Strength to install the pile under the to 3 blows per foot is only 48,000 pounds.
soil conditions represented in Design Example 1. This soil is not capable of lateral shaft support
Knowing that there exists a layer of extremely for 60,000 pound ultimate compressive load
weak (Class 8) soil near the surface on this site is without concern for the shaft buckling within the
important information because helical piles have weak upper level soils.
slender shafts and require
sufficient lateral soil support Table 15 Conservative Critical Buckling Load Estimates
against the shaft to prevent Uniform Soil Condition
shaft buckling under full Shaft Size Organics Very Soft Clay Soft Clay Loose Sand
load. N<1 N=1-2 N=2-4 N=2-4
1. Determine the Buckling 1-1/2” Sq 26,000 lb 29,000 lb 33,000 lb 37,000 lb
Strength. Table 2 in
Chapter 1 lists the Axial 1-3/4” Sq. 39,000 lb 43,000 lb 48,000 lb 55,000 lb
Compression Load Limits for 2-1/4” Sq. 74,000 lb 81,000 lb 90,000 lb 104,000 lb
helical pile shafts when the
shafts are installed into soil 2-7/8” Dia x 0.203” 36,000 lb 44,000 lb 62,000 lb 51,000 lb
that provides sufficient
2-7/8” Dia x 0.262” 39,000 lb 48,000 lb 69,000 lb 56,000 lb
lateral support along the pile
shaft. Testing has suggested 3-1/2” Dia x 0.300” 63,000 lb 78,000 lb 110,000 lb 90,000 lb
that shaft buckling is not an
issue when the soil has a 4-1/2” Dia x 0.337” 113,000 lb 139,000 lb 160,000 lb 160,000 lb
SPT value, “N” > 5 blows
per foot for solid square shafts and “N” > 4 2. Select a Pile Shaft with Suitable Buckling
blows per foot for tubular shafts. Strength. The axial ultimate compressive
In this design example there exists a five foot capacity requirement for this project is 60,000

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 56 All rights reserved
pounds on pile shaft. The selected shaft from 4. Installation Torque. The larger diameter
Design Example 1 must be changed to a stiffer tubular shaft now required passes through the
shaft to be able to successfully pass through the soil less efficiently. This soil friction effect was
very week upper soil strata without buckling. A fully discussed at the beginning of Chapter 2. As
larger diameter tubular shaft is able to offer more a result, when the design requires a change in
shaft stiffness called Moment of Inertia or shaft size, the installation torque requirement
resistance to buckling. Referring once again to must be recalculated and will be higher for
Table 15 (above); notice the row labeled “3-1/2 larger diameter shafts.
inch dia. x 0.300” shows a conservative
A check of Table 12 in Chapter 1 shows that the
estimated buckling load capacity of 78,000
3-1/2 inch diameter shaft has a recommended
pounds for the larger diameter shaft. Because
efficiency factor, “k” = 7-1/2 as compared to “k”
there exists very weak soil near the surface in
= 8-1/2 that was used to estimate installation
this example, the pile shaft diameter must be
shaft torsion requirement for the 2-7/8 inch
increased to provide resistance to shaft buckling
diameter tubular shaft.
when the fully loaded pile passes through these
weak soils. Use Equation 4 introduced in Chapter 1 and
repeated in Chapter 2 to calculate the new
3. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The
installation torque requirement for the larger

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
Torque Anchor™ plate configuration remains as
diameter pile shaft.
originally determined in Design Example 1 to
support the structural load, but the shaft diameter Equation 5: T = Pu / k, Where,
must be increased to the 3-1/2 inch diameter, Pu = 60,000 lb
k = 7.5 (Table 12 – Chapter 1 & 2)
0.300 inch wall tubular shaft for increased
buckling strength: T = 60,000 lb / 7.5 ft-1 = 8,000 ft-lb
 TAF-350-84 08-10-12 Lead Section T = 8,000 ft-lb, minimum
 TAE-350-84 Extension Section (2 required) Earth Contact Products recommend that a
 TAE-350-60 Extension Section Registered Professional Engineer conduct the
 TAB-350 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 3- evaluation and design of Helical Torque
1/2” tubular shaft and has a 3/4” x 8” x 8” Anchors™ where shaft buckling may occur due
bearing plate. to the shaft being installed through weak soil or
in cases where the shaft is fully exposed without
lateral shaft support.

End of Example 1B

Review of Results of Example 1 & 1B

It is very important to remember that buckling is an issue when a pile shaft passes through weak soils
anywhere along the length of the shaft. The key numbers to remember here when looking at soil data
are the Standard Penetration Test, “N”, values throughout the depth of the borings. Watch for soil
strata that are weaker than “N” < 4 blows per foot for solid square shaft installations and “N” < 5 blows
per foot for tubular shafts. When such weak soils may be encountered, a check of the buckling strength
of the selected shaft diameter is necessary.
Whenever the shaft must extend above ground in the air or in water without any later support at all, On
the last page of Chapter 1, Graph 8 is provided to give ultimate load estimates for various shaft
configurations relative to the length of exposed and unsupported column height.

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help
you with understanding how to prepare preliminary designs, installation procedures,
load testing, and documentation of each placement when using ECP Torque
™
Anchors . If you have questions or require engineering assistance in evaluating,
“Designed and
Engineered
designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-
To Perform” 0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 57 All rights reserved
 Design Example 2 – Light Weight New Construction – Cohesive Soil
Structural Details:
 New building – single story brick veneer house on
monolithic concrete slab on grade
 The estimated weight is 1,269 lb/lineal ft on the
18” tall steel reinforced perimeter beam
 The client wants Torque Anchors™ on the
perimeter of the structure because of lot fill.
 Top of shaft to be one foot below soil surface
 Soil data:
4 feet of poorly compacted fill – “N” = 5
6 feet of silty clay (CH) – “N” = 5 to 7
15 feet of very stiff clay (CL) –
“N”= 25 to 30 blows per foot.
ULT. CAP = 17,766 lb
Torque Anchor™ Design: WORKING LOAD = 8,883 lb

1. Select suitable pile spacing and working load

from the description of the foundation beam.
Use Equation 3 from Chapter 1 to determine the
working load on the helical pile. From Graph 2 - POORLY
TAB-150- COMPACTED
Chapter 6, for an 18” beam choose “X” = 7 ft. NC 1/2 (6x6) FILL
PILE CAP DEPTH = 4'
Equation 3: Pu = (“X”) x (w) x (FS):
Where,
Pu = Ultimate Capacity of Torque Anchor ™ (lb) SOFT SILTY CLAY
TAE-150-84
w = Foundation Load (lb/ft) EXTENSION DEPTH = 6'
= 1,269 lb/lineal foot
FS = 2.0
MINIMUM
“X” = Product Spacing = 7 ft PRODUCT
LENGTH
PU = 1,269 lb/ft x 7 ft x 2.0 STIFF SILTY CLAY L = 18'
DEPTH = 15'
PU = 17,766 lb (Use 18,000 lb.) DENSITY = 120 pcf
SPT - "N" = 12 - 16
PU = 18,000 lb
8"
2. Select the proper ultimate capacity equation
and collect the known information. Because the TAF-150-60 08-08
soil on the site is cohesive (clay), Equation 1a LEAD SECTION
from Chapter 1 is used:
Equation 1a: AH = Pu / (9c) Where: 10" LENGTH TO EMBED
HELICAL PLATES
Pu = 18,000 lb S = 3 x (8") = 24"
c = 3,400 lb/ft2 (Table 5 – Assume “N” = 27 bpf)
Figure 8. Design Example 2
AH = Pu / (9 x 3,400)
AH = 18,000 lb / 30,600 lb/ft2
AH = 0.59 ft2 Referring to Table 10 – Chapter 1, select a
combination of plates from the row opposite the
3. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™ 1-1/2” square shaft size. At least 0.59 ft2 of
suitable to support the load. The requirement bearing area is required:
states an ultimate compressive capacity of 6” Dia. = 0.181 ft2
18,000 lb. Referring to Table 2 in Chapter 1 the 8” Dia. = 0.333 ft2
1-1/2” solid square pile shaft is an economical 10” Dia. = 0.530 ft2
12” Dia. = 0.770 ft2
choice because it has an Axial Compressive Load
Limit rating of 70,000 pounds and a Useable The combination of 8 inch diameter plates on the
Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs. 1-1/2” solid square shaft is selected.
AH = 0.333 + 0.333 = 0.67 ft2 > 0.59 ft2 - O.K.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 58 All rights reserved
This plate combination provides a total area of very stiff clay stratum. The installed length
0.67 ft2, which exceeds the required 0.59 ft2. As required to accomplish this design depth is:
an alternate, a single 12” diameter plate could be  The depth from the surface to bearing = 18 ft .
selected with a projected area of 0.77 ft 2.  The pile cap is specified at one foot below
The product designation for the standard length grade level = 18 ft – 1ft = 17 feet
Torque Anchor™ product is selected from the The distance to midway between the twin 8 inch
standard product listing on Page 5: plates is 1 ft. (8” x 3D8” = 24 in/2 = 12 inches)
TAF-150-60 08-08 The minimum shaft length requirement is:
4. Installation Torque: Equation 2 in Chapter 1 L = 17 ft + 1 ft = 18 ft
gives an estimation of the required installation
7. Torque Anchor™ Specifications: The
shaft torsion. It is determined as follows:
Torque Anchor™ assembly is specified from the
Equation 2: T = Pu / k standard products listed near the beginning of
Where, Chapter 1:
Pu = 18,000 lb
 TAF-150-60 08-08, which is a 1-1/2” solid
k = 10 (Table 12)
square bar product on a standard 5 foot long
T = 18,000 lb / 10 ft-1

Design Examples
shaft, with twin 8 inch diameter 3/8” thick

Torque Anchor™
T = 1,800 ft-lb plates
 TAE-150-84 Extension, which is 7 feet long,
5. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A
but the coupling overlaps 3 inches providing
review of Table 2 in Chapter 1 indicates that the
an effective length of 6’-9” The extension
1-1/2” solid square bar Torque Anchor™ has a
Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lb, which includes coupling hardware. Two extensions
is nearly four times the required installation are required.
torque. There was no mention of rocks, debris or  TAB-150 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 1-
other obstructions in the project information. 1/2” square bar and has a 1/2” x 6” x 6”
This is excellent product for this project. Table bearing plate.
9 in Chapter 1 shows the Ultimate Mechanical The total length of the assembled products from
Helical Plate Capacity of 80,000 pounds (40,000 above is exactly 18-1/2 feet long. Placements
lb x 2) for the two 3/8” thick helical plates. The shall be 7 feet on center along the perimeter
mechanical capacity of the selected pile grade beam and must develop an average
configuration is more than adequate. installation torque of 1,800 ft-lb or more at the
target depth of 18 feet. It is recommended that
6. Installed Product Length. The stiff silty clay
additional extension be on hand in case the shaft
has been targeted as the soil where the helical
torque requirement is not achieved at 18 feet.
plates will be founded. A depth of 18 feet is
selected to set the plates below the weaker soils. End Design Example 2
This places the plates within the middle of the

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready
to help you with understanding how to prepare preliminary designs,
installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each placement
™
when using ECP Torque Anchors . If you have questions or require
“Designed and engineering assistance in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth
Engineered Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.
To Perform”

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 59 All rights reserved
 Design Example 2A – Light Weight New Construction – “Quick and Rough” Method
Design Details from Design Example 2: provides suitable Useable Torsional Strength
 The ultimate capacity on each pile spaced at 7 and a sufficient practical load limit to exceed
feet on center is 18,000 pounds the ultimate job load requirement of 18,000
 Top of shaft to be one foot below soil surface pounds. Table 9 in Chapter 1 shows the
 Soil data: Ultimate Mechanical Helical Plate Capacity of
4 feet of poorly compacted fill followed by 6 80,000 pounds (40,000 lb x 2) for the two 3/8”
feet of silty clay (CH) over 15 feet of very stiff thick helical plates. The selected and verified
clay (CL)
pile configuration is TAF-150-60 08-08 and is
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: Because this smaller than recommended from the earlier
is a compressive load application and there is calculations in Design Example 2.
some poorly
compacted fill exists
the selection of Soil TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY
Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
Class must be
8-8" 8-10" 10-10" 10-12"
conservative. 70000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

1. Determine the
60000
Soil Class.
Referring to the Soil 50000
Classification Table
(Table 9 – Chapter 40000
1) and noticing that
the clay on the site 30000
is very stiff, Soil
Class 4 is selected. 20000
The poorly
10000
compacted fill
should not be a 0
problem at this light Graph 3. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
loading as long as Soil Classification
the helical plates are
founded into the underlying very stiff clay. 4. Installation Torque. Use Graph 6 from
2. Select the proper compression pile Chapter 2, please see Graph 6 on next page (or
configuration from the estimated capacity Equation 2 from Chapter 1) to determine the
graphs. Referring to Graph 3 from Chapter 1 installation torque requirement for these piles.
(reproduced right), notice that the capacity line The ultimate capacity requirement is 18,000
for an anchor with two 8” diameter helical pounds. Find this value on the left side of
plates attached crosses the midpoint of Soil Graph 6 and find the intersection of 18,000
Class 4 at 22,000 lb. The 8” – 8” diameter pounds with the graph line for solid square
plate configuration is selected for the design. shafts. Then read down to determine the motor
torque requirement of 1,800 ft-lb.
3. Check the Shaft Strength and Torsional T = 1,800 ft-lb, minimum
Strength to see which shaft is suitable. Refer
to Table 2 in Chapter 1 to find a shaft with a Calculating the installation torque from
suitable Axial Compression Load Limit and Equation 2: (shown here for comparison)
sufficient Useable Torsional Strength. The 1- Equation 3: T = Pu / k, Where,
1/2 inch solid square shaft has an Axial Pu = 18,000 lb k = 10 (Table 12)
Compression Load Limit rating of 70,000 T = 18,000 lb / 10 ft-1 = 1,800 ft-lb
pounds based upon an installation torsional
T = 1,800 ft-lb, minimum – O.K.
limit of 7,000 ft-lbs. The selected pile shaft

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 60 All rights reserved
 160

Ultimate Capacity x 1
140
120
5. Minimum Embedment
Depth. In Chapter 1, Page MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY 100
Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
16 of this manual, there is a 80
discussion about helical 240
products being deep 220
60
foundation elements. The 200

Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

formulas presented herein 180 40
are based upon “deep 160
foundation theory”. For the 140 20
results of the calculations, 120
tables and graphs to be 100
0
accurate, there must be
sufficient soil burden over
80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
the anchor or pile. Deep 60
Graph 6.
foundation theory dictates 40 Mo
that the minimum depth 20
from the surface to the 0
shallowest plate must

Design Examples
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Torque Anchor™
Graph 6.
exceed six times the largest Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb
diameter.
Minimum Embedment Depth: *Because the soil profile is known to be weak
near the surface, a 10 foot long extension
D = 6 x dlargest plate. = 6 x (8 in/12 in) = 4 ft* should be considered because it offers a depth
*Notice: The soil information provided on this of 15-3/4 feet (14-3/4 feet of shaft plus 1 ft
project stated at least 10 feet of soft soil existed depth to the pile cap. Additional extensions
below the surface before reaching stiff to very stiff could be required if the torsion requirement of
clay. The “Minimum Vertical Depth” for this 1,800 ft-lb is not achieved between 10 ft and
design is invalid and the pile must be installed 15-3/4 ft depth.
deeper than ten feet.
7. Torque Anchor™ Selection:
D = Minimum Vertical Depth > 10 feet  TAF-150-60 08-08 – 1-1/2 inch solid
6. Minimum Required Shaft Length. The square shaft that has two 8” diameter plate
shaft length between the two 8” plates must be on the 5’-0” long shaft,
determined and added to the 10 foot, minimum  TAE-150-120 extension – 10’ extension
vertical depth. In addition, the engineer stated section & hardware, (9’-9” effective
that the termination point for the pile caps shall length). It recommended to have
be one foot below grade. additional extensions on hand should the
L = 10’ – 1’ + (3D8”)/2 = 10 ft target shaft torsion not be achieved at 15-
3/4 feet below grade.
L = 10 ft*
 TAB-150 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 1-
The least amount of shaft required to exceed
1/2” square bar and has a 1/2” x 6” x 6”
the minimum depth is a 5 foot lead and a 7 foot
bearing plate.
extension.
End of Example 2A
Review of Results of Example 2 & 2A
One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis clearly suggested the same pile
design as determined by the calculated analysis. Therefore the TAF-150 08-08 is a valid design and
should work well on this project. Recall that the calculated analysis used 18 feet dept to bearing.
* Example 2A, “Quick and Rough” method is not able to compensate for the fill soil near the surface.
Recall that the graphs are based upon capacities of helical piles installed into homogeneous soil, which
means that the soil is consistent at all depths. Clearly this is not the case in this example because of the
fill soil. A pile installation deeper than 15-3/4 feet might be required to support the load.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 61 All rights reserved
 Design Example 3 – Basement Wall Tieback Anchor -- Cohesive Soil
Structural Details:
 Cast concrete basement wall is 8 feet
tall and 10 inches thick.
 Unknown soil backfill against the
wall is 7 feet high
 The only soil information about the
site is that there exists inorganic clay T = 22,050 lb
U
ECP TAF-150-60 (10,12)
(CL), stiff to very stiff – 115 pcf CRITICAL TORQUE ANCHOR SOIL
HEIGHT
DEPTH = INSTALLATION
™ 7'-0"
Torque Anchor Design: Because 6 ft ANGLE
TIEBACK
PLACEMENT
LARGEST 3'-0" FROM
there is so little information about the HELICAL TOP OF WALL &
PLATE =  = 15 deg.
soil on this project, the designer will 12" DIA.
P = 2,205 lb/ft
HORIZONTALLY
AT 5 ft. O.C.
have to make judgments about the H

conditions on the site.

STIFF TO
REQUIRED MIN. VERY STIFF
1. Estimate the lateral soil force ADDITIONAL
EMBEDMENT
CLAY (CL)

against the wall. Equation 5 LENGTH AFTER

REACHING
presented in Chapter 1 is selected 2,200 ft-lb =
3 X 12" = 3 ft.
Lo = MINIMUM HORIZONTAL
EMBEDMENT = 17 ft
because hydrostatic pressure must be .6 ft
= 17
assumed as part of the reason for the LEN
GTH
ENT RED
EDM QUI
damage to the wall. EMB H R E 0 ft)
N G T (USE 2
L E
PH = 45 x (H2) T ft
DUC + 2.5
P R O 17.6 ft
L=
Where, H = 7 ft
PH = 45 x (49) = 2,205 Figure 9. Design Example 3
PH = 2,205 lb/lineal foot
AH = 22,050 lb / 18,000 lb/ft2
2. Ultimate Tieback Capacity. Choose a AH = 1.23 ft2
Torque Anchor™ spacing of 5 ft on center as
typical for a damaged basement wall of unknown 4. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™
construction. Use Equation 8 from Chapter 1 to configuration suitable to support the load.
determine the Ultimate Capacity on the Torque Referring to Table 2 – Chapter 1 choose the 1-
Anchor™. 1/2” solid square pile shaft. An ultimate tensile
Equation 8: Tu = (PH) x (“X”) x FS, Where: strength for this job is 22,050 lb and the 1-1/2
inch solid square shaft an Ultimate Limit Tension
Tu = Ultimate Tieback Capacity – lb
Strength rating of 70,000 pounds and a Useable
PH = Horizontal Soil Force on Wall – lb/lin.ft
FS = Factor of Safety (Typically 2:1 permanent
Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs.
support and 1.5:1 for temporary support) Referring to Table 10 – Chapter 1 (reproduced
“X” = Center to Center Spacing of Tiebacks - ft on next page), a combination of plates is selected
from the projected plate areas in the row
In this example, the ultimate capacity becomes:
opposite the 1-1/2” solid square shaft size. At
Tu = 2,205 lb x 5 ft x 2 least 1.23 ft2 of bearing area is needed:
Tu = 22,050 lb 6” Dia. = 0.181 ft2 8” Dia. = 0.333 ft2
10” Dia. = 0.530 ft 12” Dia. = 0.770 ft2
2

3. Select the proper bearing capacity equation 14” Dia. = 1.053 ft2
and collect the known information.
ΣA = 0.530 + 0.770 = 1.30 ft2
Because the soil on the site is cohesive, Equation
The combination of 10” and 12” diameter plates
1a – Chapter 1 is used:
on the 1-1/2” solid square shaft provides a total
Equation 1a: AH = Tu / (9c), Where: area of 1.30 ft2, which exceeds our requirement
Tu = 22,050 lb of 1.23 ft2.
c = 2,000 lb/ft2
(Table 5 - Chapter 1 – Stiff to Very Stiff Clay)
AH = Tu / (9 x 2000 lb/ft2)

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 62 All rights reserved
 Table 10. Projected Areas* of Helical 2,200 ft-lbs must be continuous for a
™
Torque Anchor Plates minimum distance of 3 feet (12”
Helical 6” 8” 10” 12” 14” 16”
diameter plate x 3 dia.) before
Plate Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. terminating the installation.
2
Shaft Projected Area – ft 6. Minimum Horizontal Embedment:
1-1/2” Sq. 0.181 0.333 0.530 0.770 1.053 1.381 Determine the Minimum Embedment
Length from Equation 9 in Chapter 1.
1-3/4” Sq. 0.175 0.328 0.524 0.764 1.048 1.375
(Also see Figure 3 – Chapter 1, which is
2-1/4” Sq. 0.161 0.314 0.510 0.750 1.034 1.361 reproduced on next page for reference.)
2-7/8” Dia 0.151 0.304 0.500 0.740 1.024 1.351 L0 = H + (10 x dLargest) Where,
3-1/2” Dia 0.130 0.282 0.478 0.719 1.002 1.329 H = Height of Soil (7 ft)
dLargest = Largest Plate Dia. (12 in = 1 ft)
4-1/2” Dia 0.086 0.239 0.435 0.675 0.959 1.286
L0 = 7 ft + (10 x 1 ft)
* Projected area is the face area of the helical plate less the cross L0 = 17 feet
sectional area of the shaft.
The Torque Anchor™ tieback product Min. Horizontal Embedment = 17 feet

Design Examples
designation TAF-150-60 10-12 is selected from

Torque Anchor™
7. Calculate the Critical Depth:
the Standard Product Tables near the beginning Use 6 x dLargest plate. (Discussed Page 31)
of Chapter 1. This anchor configuration will 6 x 1 (ft) = 6 feet (See Figure 3, below.)
provide the 22,050 pound ultimate capacity
required for tension support when spaced at 5 Critical Depth = 6 feet.
feet center to center along the wall. 8. Select Installation Angle and Determine
5. Installation Torque. Use Equation 2 from Product Length. Position the anchors to
Chapter 1, or use Graph 6 from Chapter 2 shown penetrate the wall at two feet below the soil
in the example above to calculate the installation surface. (Note: This is three feet from top of
torque requirement for this anchor. basement wall.) From Step 7 it was determined
that the Critical Depth, “D”, of 6 feet is required,
Equation 2: T = Tu / k, Where, which means that the 12” diameter plate must
Tu = 22,050 lb
k = 10 (Table 12, below from Chapters 1 & 2)
terminate at least 4 feet lower than where the
T = 22,050 lb / 10 ft-1 anchor shaft penetrated the wall. Select an
installation angle of 150 and determine the
T = 2,200 ft-lb minimum installed product length that will
The torque must be developed for a long enough provide the additional 4 feet of soil depth
distance to insure that the helical plates are required at the 12” plate to achieve critical depth.
properly embedded to develop the required
tension capacity. The torque requirement must This can be determined as follows:
be averaged over a distance of at least three L15 deg = (4 ft / sine 150)
times the diameter of the largest plate. The L15 deg = 4 ft / 0.259 = 15-1/2 ft
The minimum distance from the wall to the 12”
Table 12. Soil Efficiency Factor “k”
plate when installed at a 150 downward angle is
Typically Suggested 15-1/2 feet to insure meeting the critical depth
Torque
Encountered Average Value, requirement of 6 feet. Comparing the minimum
Anchor™ Type
Range “k” “k” horizontal embedment length of 17 feet from
1-1/2” Sq. Bar 9 - 11 10 Step 6 to the 15-1/2 foot length required for
1-3/4” Sq. Bar 9 - 11 10
obtaining Critical Depth at 150 installation angle;
it is clear that 17 feet of horizontal length of
2-1/4” Sq. Bar 10 - 12 11 embedment from the wall is the controlling
2-7/8” Diameter 8-9 8-1/2 distance. The additional length of shaft required
to get to the 10 inch diameter plate to the
3-1/2” Diameter 7-8 7-1/2 required distance of 17 feet at a shaft installation
4-1/2” Diameter 6-7 6-1/2 angle of 150 downward must be calculated.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 63 All rights reserved
 ACTIVE
PASSIVE FAILURE FAILURE
PLANES PLANE

ACTIVE SOIL
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE AREA
PRESSURE AREA

TU
CRITICAL
EMBEDMENT INSTALLATION
DEPTH - "D" ANGLE TIEBACK
PLACEMENT
LARGEST HELICAL
PLATE DIAMETER = "d" SOIL
(MEASURE IN FEET)  HEIGHT
"H"

MINIMUM HELICAL PLATE LATERAL FORCE

EMBEDMENT AT THE REQUIRED OF SOIL AGAINST
INSTALLATION TORQUE = "d" x 3 WALL
(LARGEST PLATE DIA. x 3)
Lo = MINIMUM HORIZONTAL
EMBEDMENT = H + 10d (ft)
(EQUATION 10) 
OS
L/C
G T H=
L E N 13)
ENT E
E D M (TABL
EMB

Figure 3. Elements of Tieback Design

(Possibly four extensions could be needed

Use the equation shown in Chapter 1 on Table
for if insufficient shaft torsion is measured at
13 for a 150 downward angle.
20 ft.)
L15 deg = [H + (10 dlargest)] x 1.035
 TAT-150 – Light Duty Transition that
L15 deg = [7 ft + (10 x 1 ft] x 1.035 = 17.6 feet
connects from 1-1/2” square bar to a 22”
Total Shaft Length Needed: length of continuous threaded rod, with
hardware.
LTotal = L15 + LTip (Where LTip = 3D10”)
LTotal = 17.6 ft + (3 x 10”)/12”  PA-SWP – Stamped steel wall plate that
LTotal = 17.6 ft + 2.5 ft = 20.1 ft measures 11” x 16”
Use LTotal = 20 ft α = 150 The length of all of the Torque Anchor™ shafts
plus the threaded bar that penetrates the wall is
Specify required product length by selecting
19’-3” + 20” = 20’–11”. The anchors shall
standard product assembled lengths exceeding
mount along the wall on 5 feet on center at 3 feet
20’ long.
from the top of the basement wall. (Two feet
8. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The below soil level) The anchors are angled down
Torque Anchor™ assembly will consist of at 150. The tieback must be installed to a
products selected from the Standard Product minimum shaft length of 20 feet and must
Selection near the beginning of Chapter 1. develop an average installation torque of 2,200
 TAF-150-60 10-12 -- 1-1/2” solid square bar ft-lb or greater for a minimum distance of at least
with a 10” and a 12” diameter plate attached 3 feet after reaching 17 feet, otherwise the
to a standard 5’-0” long shaft length. anchor must be driven deeper using additional
 TAE-150-60 extension – 5’ extension bar &
extension sections until the torque requirement is
hardware are specified for ease of satisfied.
installation in the basement. (4’-9” effective End of Example 3
length). Three extensions are required.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 64 All rights reserved
 Design Example 3A – Basement Wall Tieback Anchor – “Quick and Rough Method”

Mandatory Installation Requirements If any of the conditions are encountered that are
Before beginning a complicated basement substantially different from what is normally
tieback anchor design like Design Example 3A encountered, an analysis and design shall be
using the “Quick and Rough” method with only performed by a Registered Professional
general information and data from graphs and Engineer, or the engineer needs to review and
tables; the following Mandatory Installation approve your design.
Requirements MUST ALWAYS BE DEFINED
in the final design before the “Quick and Rough” Structural Details: The only data available:
method will be successful.  Cast concrete basement wall is 8 feet tall and 10
inches thick.
Before performing a “Quick and Rough  Backfill against the wall is 7 feet - Unknown soil
Design” for a basement tieback system, the  The only soil information given: There exists
following items MUST be defined and inorganic clay (CL), stiff to very stiff – 115 pcf in
included for a “Safe Use” design: the area

1. The anchor must penetrate the wall at 1. Determine the Soil Class. Referring to the

Design Examples
Soil Classification Table (Chapter 1 - Table 9)

Torque Anchor™
between 3 and 5 feet from the floor of an 8
foot tall basement wall. (This is also valid the soil class of 4 - 5 is selected based upon the
for a 9 foot basement wall with no more than soil description being “stiff to very stiff clay”.
eight feet of soil overburden. 2. Ultimate Helical Pile Capacity. In this
2. There must be at least two feet of soil above design the largest spacing allowed is selected –
the penetration point for the tiebacks. five feet on center. The Ultimate Design Load
for the project is estimated at:
3. Ground water must be assumed present Tu = 3,250 lb/lin ft x 2 x 5 ft =
behind the wall. Tu = 32,500 lb per anchor
4. Unless otherwise given, the working soil 3. Select the proper tieback anchor from the
load on the wall shall be assumed to be 3,250 estimated capacity graphs. Referring to Graph
lb/lin.ft. of wall. To obtain the load on each 3 from Chapter 1 (reproduced on next page),
placement, multiply 3,250 lb/lineal ft by a notice that the capacity line for an anchor with an
Factor of Safety = 2 and by the spacing of a 10” and 12” diameter helical plate suggests a
the anchors on the wall (feet). capacity in excess of at 32,500 lb at Soil Class
5. Unless otherwise given, the maximum between 4 - 5. The 10”-12” diameter plate
spacing of tiebacks shall be no more than 5 configuration is selected for the design.
feet on center with a downward angle 150. 4. Check the Shaft Strength and Torsional
6. A minimum installed shaft length of 22 feet Strength to see which shaft is suitable. Refer
from the wall to the tip of the tieback to Table 2 to verify that the 1-1/2 inch solid
assembly shall be used when the largest square shaft has sufficient capacity to support the
helical plate on the shaft is 12 inches tensile load, and has sufficient torsional shaft
diameter. If the largest plate diameter is 14 strength for installation. The required ultimate
inches the minimum installed shaft length at capacity for each anchor is 32,500 lbs. (Step 2.)
a 150 downward is 25 feet. The 1-1/2 inch solid square shaft has an Ultimate
Limit Tension Strength rating of 70,000 pounds
IMPORTANT: If the tieback reaches and a Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs.
maximum torque before obtaining the length The selected helical pile provides suitable
requirement, the helical plate area MUST be torsional capacity and a sufficient practical load
reduced and the anchor MUST be installed to limit to exceed the ultimate load requirement of
the minimum length stated above, or the 32,500 pounds. The choice is verified.
possibility that the anchor will load the wall and
fail exists. 5. Installation Torque. Use Equation 2 from
Chapter 1, (or Graph 6 demonstrated in Design

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 65 All rights reserved
 TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY
Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
8-8" 8-10" 10-10" 10-12"
70000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity
60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
Graph 3. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

Example 2A) to calculate the installation torque The items shown below are from the list of
requirement for this pile. Mandatory Installation Requirements at the
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, Where, beginning of this example. These requirements
Pu = 32,500 lb MUST always be included when designing
k = 10 (See Table 12 in Design Example 3) “Quick and Rough” basement tieback projects.
T = 32,500 lb / 10 ft-1 = 3,250 ft-lb
7. Mandatory Installation Requirements:
T = 3,300 ft-lb, minimum
 Anchors shall be installed at 3 to 6 feet
6. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. from the floor of the standard 8 foot
 TAF-150-84 10-12 – 1-1/2 inch round corner basement wall.
solid square shaft that has a 10 inch diameter  Anchors shall have a minimum of two feet
and a 12” diameter plate attached to a 7’-0” of soil cover from point of penetration of
long shaft, the wall to the ground surface.
 TAE-150-60 extension – 5’-0 extension  Anchors shall be installed with a
section & hardware. This extension has a declination of 150.
coupled length of 4’-9”. The installation will
 These anchors with 12” diameter largest
need four extensions to exceed 22 feet total helical plates shall be installed to a length
length. not less than 22 feet.
 TAT-150 – Light Duty Transition that
 Anchors shall achieve installation shaft
connects from 1-1/2” square bar to a 20”
torsion of at least 3,300 ft-lb over the final
length of continuous threaded rod, with
three feet of installation prior to
hardware.
termination.
 PA-SWP – Stamped steel wall plate that
measures 11” x 16” End of Example 3A
Review of Results of Example 3 & 3B
One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis suggested a similar anchor
configuration as predicted by using the bearing capacity equation. Because this is a general use “Quick
and Rough Design” there are design parameters put in place to cover most situations with an eight foot
tall basement wall (or nine foot wall with no more than eight feet of soil overburden). In addition,
many installation requirements MUST be followed to provide a safe design when a “Quick and Rough”
design method is used. These installation requirements were explained in the Design Example 3B. If
the job not typical, consult a Registered Professional Engineer.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 66 All rights reserved
 Design Example 4 – Retaining Wall Tieback Anchor -- Cohesionless Soil
Structural Details: AH = 0.328 + 0.524 + 0.764 = 1.62 ft2
 New construction steel reinforced cast concrete q = γ x hmid
retaining wall – 12 ft tall h = Design Embedment = 10 ft. is selected
 Backfilled with granular fill at the wall with free (This is the measurement from the ground
flow drainage tiles at the footing surface to where the 12” diameter helical
 The soil information about the site indicated plate is located when the tieback is fully
medium to coarse gravelly sand (SP), Medium installed - See Figure 10, below.)
dense – 130 pcf γ = Soil density = 130 lb/ft3
 Standard Penetration Blow count “N” = 20 blows Nq = 23 (“N” = 20 & Φ = 330) Table 7 Chapter 1
per foot at 10 feet deep
 Φ = 320 Tu = 1.62 ft2 x (130 lb/ft3 x 10 ft) x (23)
1. Estimate the lateral soil force against the Tu = 48,438 lb
wall. Equation 6 in Chapter 1 is selected 3. Torque Anchor™ Spacing. Determine the
because the design specifies that the hydrostatic Torque Anchor™ spacing along the wall for the
pressure is relieved by the drainage system. configuration selected. Use Equation 4 from
Equation 6: PH = 24 x (H2), Where, H = 12 ft. Chapter 1.

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
PH = 24 x (12’ x 12’) = 3,456 (Use 3,500) Equation 4: “X” = Tu / [PH x (FS)], Where,
PH = 3,500 lb/lineal foot “X” = Product Spacing
Tu = Ultimate Capacity on Torque Anchor ™
2. Select a Torque Anchor™ and make an PH = Lateral Force on Wall (lb/lin.ft)
analysis to see if it is suitable. In this example FS = Factor of Safety (Typically 2.0:1)
the TAF-175-60 08-10-12 is tried, a 1-3/4” solid “X” = 48,438 lb/[3,500 lb/lin.ft x 2 (FS)] = 6.9’
square bar product with an 8”, 10” and a 12”
diameter helical plate attached. From the soil 4. Installation Torque & Embedment. Use
data available the soil is cohesionless; Equation Equation 3 – Chapter 1 to calculate the
1b from Chapter 1 is used: installation torque for this anchor.
Equation 3: T = Tu / k Where,
Equation 1b: Tu = AH (q Nq) Where, Tu = 48,438 lb (Step 3)
A8” = 0.328 ft2 (From Table 10 – Chapter 1) k = 10 (Table 12 – Chapter 1)
A10” = 0.524 ft2 (See also pg 63 above.)
A12” = 0.764 ft2
T = 48,438 lb/10 ft-1 = 4,844 ft-lb.
T = 4,900 ft-lb
NO SOIL SURCHARGE

GRAVELLY ECP TAF-175-60 (8,10,12)

TORQUE ANCHOR TU = 48,318 lb SOIL
SAND, MEDIUM DESIGN HEIGHT
SPT, "N" = 10 EMBEDMENT 12'-0"
 pcf DEPTH = INSTALLATION TIEBACK
10 ft ANGLE
 DEG. 12"
PLACEMENT
3-1/2' FROM
DIA. TOP OF WALL &
10" DIA. HORIZONTALLY
8" DIA. P = 3,456 lb/ft AT 7' O.C.
H

 = 15 deg.
PRO PER
DRAINAGE
REQUIRED MIN.
HELICAL PLATE L = MIN. HORIZONTAL
EMBEDMENT EMBEDMENT =
LENGTH AT H + (10 x 12" Dia) = 22 ft
4,900 ft-lb (Equation 9)
= 3 X 12" = 3 ft. ENT
EDM
E D E M B 25 ft
UIR H=
R E Q LENGT D
UIRE t
R E Q 2 9 .5 f
E N G T H 10") =
DUC
T L ) + (3 x
" “Designed and
P R O t + (3 x 8
L= 2 5 f Engineered
To Perform”
Figure 10. Design Example 4.
™
ECP Helical Torque Anchors Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 67 All rights reserved
The torque must be developed for a distance Where: LTip = (3 x dplate 1) + (3 x dplate 2)
great enough to insure that the helical plates are LTip = [(3D x 8” dia)+(3D x 10” dia)]/12
properly embedded to develop adequate tension LTip = 4-1/2 ft
capacity. The torque requirement must be L = L15 + LTip = 25 ft + 4-1/2 ft = 29-1/2 ft
averaged over a minimum distance of at least L = 29-1/2 feet α = 150
three times the diameter of the largest plate. The
installer must average at least 4,900 ft-lbs 6. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A
through a distance of 3 feet. (Three times the review of Table 2 – Chapter 1 indicates that the
12” diameter plate.) 1-3/4” solid square bar Torque Anchor™ has a
Ultimate Limit Tension Strength of 100,000 lb
5. Select Installation Angle and Product and a Useable Torsional Strength of 10,000 ft-lb.
Length. The anchors penetrate the wall at 3-1/2 The project ultimate tension capacity and
feet below the soil surface. (This is torsional requirement are approximately one-half
approximately 0.3 times the wall height.) Recall of the mechanical and torsional capacity of the
that embedment depth was selected at 10 ft in product. There was no mention about rocks,
Step 2. This means that the depth below the soil debris or other obstructions in the soil so
surface to the location of the 12” helical plate installation should be smooth. A check of Table
must be at least 10 feet. Try using an 11 – Chapter 1 indicates that three 3/8” thick
installation angle of 150 and determine the helical plates have an ultimate capacity of
product length that will provide the 10 feet of 120,000 pounds (3 x 40,000 lb), so the total
vertical embedment required. (The required mechanical capacity of the anchor is satisfactory.
depth of embedment is 10 ft. Recall that the
distance from the top of grade level to where the 7. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The
anchors will penetrate the wall is 3-1/2 feet. The required Torque Anchor™ assembly consists of:
additional depth required by the anchor is 6-1/2  TAF-175-84 08-10-12 - 1-3/4” solid square
feet (10 ft - 3-1/2 ft) = 6-1/2 feet.) bar, on a standard 7’ long shaft with 8”, 10”
The shaft length required at 150 to achieve the 6- & 12” dia. plates,
1/2 foot vertical depth is calculated using the  TAE-175-84 extensions - 7 feet long &
equation given in Table 13 in Chapter 1 for a hardware (6’-9” effective length) – Three
declination angle of 150. extensions are required.
L15 = (6-1/2 ft/sine 150) = 6-1/2 ft/0.259 = 25 ft  TAE-175-60 extensions - 5’ long with
hardware (4’-9” effective length) – One
The minimum shaft length at 150 installation extension is required.
angle is 25 feet, which will insure that the 12”  TAB-175 T Tension Pile Cap – 3/4” x 8” x
diameter plate is located at a total embedment 8” pile cap with bolt and nut. The pile cap
depth of 10 feet below the surface. bolts to the anchor shaft and will be
Comparing the Minimum Horizontal Embedment incorporated into the concrete new
length from Equation 9 to the Minimum construction wall.
Embedment Depth (Step 5): The actual assembled length of the specified
L0 = 12 + [10 x 1’] = 22 ft. Torque Anchor™ system is 32 ft.
The anchors shall mount along the wall at 7 feet
It is clear that L15 = 25 ft (Length to insure
center to center at a distance of 3-1/2 feet from
required 10’ soil embedment depth determined in
the top of the proposed wall. The anchors shall
Step 5) exceeds the Minimum Horizontal
be installed at a downward angle of 150 from
Embedment requirement.
horizontal. The tiebacks must be installed to a
The 10 ft depth of embedment also exceeds the length greater than 29-1/2 feet and must develop
Critical Depth, “D” = 6 x d12 = 6 x 12”/12 = 6 ft an average installation torque of 4,900 ft-lb or
L15 = 25’ > L0 = 22’ using D = 6 more for a minimum distance of at least 3 feet
beyond an installed length of 26 feet, otherwise
Use L15 = 25 ft
the anchor shall be driven deeper until this
Minimum Required Shaft Length: torque requirement is satisfied.
L = L15 + LTip (Distance shallowest plate to tip) End of Example 4

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 68 All rights reserved
 Design Example 5 – Foundation Restoration – Cohesive Soil
Structural Details:
 Two story wood frame house with wood
ULT. CAP. = 18,750 lb
composition siding. WORKING LOAD = 9,375 lb
MONOLITHIC CONCRETE
 Foundation consists of 20” wide by 18” tall steel FOUNDATION:
18" X 20" BEAM & 4" SLAB
reinforced concrete perimeter beam with a 4”
thick concrete slab cast with the perimeter beam. ANCHOR BOLT
(OPTIONAL)
 The corner of structure has settled 2”
 Top of pile will be 12” below the soil surface
MODEL TAB-150
 Soil data: There are two feet of consolidating, UTILITY BRACKET

poorly compacted fill overlaying 20 feet of

inorganic clay (CL), stiff. 2 FEET OF POORLY
COMPACTED AND
 SPT “N” blow count was measured between 8 to CONSOLIDATING
FILL MATERIAL
12 blows per foot increasing with depth
Torque Anchor™ Design:
1. Determine the foundation load: Breaking

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
down weights of structural elements can be TAE-150-60 EXTENSIONS
(2 REQUIRED)
found in the Simplified Tables of Structural 13' = DEPTH
TO MID
Foundation Loads in Tables 2 through 9 in TAF-150-60 (12-14)
PLATES

Chapter 5, ECP Steel Piers™ Design, later in this HELICAL LEAD

14-1/2'

manual. The foundation loads are estimated

below: 14" DIA.

Footing – 20” x 18” 360 lb/lf

Slab Floor, Carpet & Pad 195
20 FEET OF INORGANIC
Wood Frame Walls – 2 Story 176 CLAY -- FIRM TO STIFF
12" DIA.
2nd Floor – 14’ Span, Carpet & Pad
STP BLOW COUNTS --
98 "N" = 8 TO 10

Roof – 6” in 12” Composition, 14’ Span 171

Total Dead Load 1,000 lb/lf
Live Load – Slab 120
Live Load – 2nd Floor, 14’ Span 180 Figure 13. Design Example 5.
Total Live Load 300 lb/lf FS = Factor of Safety (Use 2.0)
w = Distributed Load = 1,000 + 300 = 1,300 lb/lf Pu = 7-1/2 ft x 1,300 lb/ft x 2 = 19,500 lb
w = 1,300 lb/lineal foot
3. Determine the helical plate area required
2. Select a Suitable Pile Spacing and from the known information: Because the soil
Determine Ultimate Torque Anchor™ Load: on the site is cohesive, Equation 1a from Chapter
This is not a heavy structure, so for economy
24" the 1 is used:
solid square bar Torque Anchor™ configuration
/ft
/ft

/ft

/ft
lb
lb

22" Equation 1a: AH = Pu / (9c) Where:

lb

is chosen for this restoration along with Utility lb /ft

0
00

BEAM
0

00

4 - #5 REBARS 0 lb
50
4,0

HEIGHT
P = 19,500 lb (Step 2) 50 0
3,

(GR-60)
Brackets to transfer the structural load to20"the pile , 0
3,

u 2 0
Height of Steel Reinforced

c = 1,250 lb/ft2 Average “N” = 10 (assumed) 2,

shaft. Using Graph 2 in Chapter 5, select pile Structural weight per lineal foot
Monolithic Footing

18" (Table 5 - Chapter 1)

along the footing perimeter (lb/ft)
spacing, “X”, at 7-1/2 feet on the
perimeter beam. (Note arrow on 3 4 5 6 7 8
graph.) Determine the working 18"
t
/ft /ft /f
load on the piles from Equation 4 lb lb lb ft ft
16" BEAM 0 50
0 00 lb/ lb/
– Chapter 1. HEIGHT ,00 2 , 2,0
500 /ft ,0 00
3 1, lb 1
14" 200
Equation 4. Pu = “X” x w x (FS): 1,
4 - #4 REBARS EXAMPLE 5
Where, 12" (GR-60)
“X” = Product Spacing = 7-1/2
feet (Selected) 3 4 5 6 7 8
w = 1,300 lb/lineal foot (Step 1) PIER SPACING - feet

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 69 All rights reserved
 AH = Pu / (9 x 1,250) = 19,500 lb / 11,250 lb/ft2 that the pile would reach the desired shaft torsion
AH = 1.73 ft2 at a mid-plate depth of about 13 feet.
Minimum Required Shaft Length:
4. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™ L = hmid + LTip - hF
suitable to support the load. Where:
Referring to Table 2 – Chapter 1 the 1-1/2” solid hmid = 13 ft (The depth from the surface to
square pile shaft is selected. It has an Axial midway between plates on the shaft.)
Compression Load Limit rating of 70,000 pounds LTip = (3DPlate 1) / 2
and a Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs.
LTip = (3 x 12” dia / 2 = 18 in
Referring to Table 10 – Chapter 1, we will select
our combination of plates from the list opposite LTip = 1-1/2 ft
the 1-1/2” shaft size. We must provide at least hF = -1 ft (The pile cap will terminate at the
1.67 ft2 of bearing area: Utility Bracket approximately 12
inches below grade level.)
6” Dia. = 0.181 ft2
8” Dia. = 0.333 ft2 L = 13 ft + 1-1/2 – 1 ft
10” Dia. = 0.530 ft2 L = 13-1/2 feet = Shaft length estimate
12” Dia. = 0.770 ft2
14” Dia. = 1.053 ft2 8. Torque Anchor™ Specifications: Specify
The combination of 12” & 14” diameter plates the necessary Torque Anchor™ components:
on the 1-1/2” solid square shaft provides a total  TAF-150-60 12-14 - 1-1/2” solid square bar
area of 1.82 ft2. lead section on a standard length 5 feet long
TAF-150-60 12-14 shaft with a 12” and 14” diameter plate.
5. Installation Torque. Use Equation 2 –  TAE-150-60 Extension – 1-1/2” solid square
Chapter 1 to calculate the installation torque for bar extension 5 feet long with hardware, 2
this anchor. required (The coupling overlaps 3 inches
providing an effective length of 4’-9”)
T = Tu / k Where,
 TAB-150-SUB-150 Utility Bracket. This
Tu = 19,500 lb (Step 2)
foundation bracket fits over the 1-1/2”
k = 10 (Table 12 – Chapter 1)
square bar and mounts to the perimeter
T = 19,500 lb / 10 ft-1 beam. The bearing plate provides 68-1/4 in2
T = 1,950 ft-lb – Use 2,000 ft-lb at the bottom of the foundation for load
transfer.
6. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A
review of Table 2 – Chapter 1 indicates that the The total length of the assembled Torque
1-1/2” solid square bar Torque Anchor™ has a Anchor™ is 14-1/2 ft.
Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lb, which The Torque Anchors™ shall be spaced at 7-1/2
is more than adequate for this application. The feet center to center along the perimeter grade
product selection should work based upon the beam and must develop an average installation
soil report stating that the firm to stiff clay torque of 2,000 ft-lb or more during the last 3
becomes more dense as the depth increases. feet of the installation. Depth is 13-1/2 feet.
There was no mention of rocks, debris or other Note: It is recommended to order additional
obstructions. Table 11 – Chapter 1 verifies that extension sections because the target torque
two 3/8” thick helical plates have a mechanical might not be achieved at 13-1/2 feet.
ultimate capacity of 80,000 pounds. The
mechanical capacity of the pile is excellent. 9. Foundation Restoration. Once all of the
Torque Anchor™ piles have been installed and
7. Installed Product Length. Termination the Utility Brackets mounted, the structure may
depth is targeted in the stiff silty clay where the be restored to as close to the original elevation as
helical plates will be situated. The data indicates the construction will permit.
that the soil has a variance in the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) blow count, “N”,  A pile cap, lift assembly and hydraulic jack
between 8 and 12 blows per foot. It is estmated are installed at each placement.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 70 All rights reserved
  All hydraulic jacks are connected to a hand (Pu-job = Installation Torque x k)
pump and gauge through a manifold system Pw-job = Lifting Force to Restore – lb
that distributes equal pressure to all jacks. (Pw-job = Jack Pressure x Cylinder Area)

 The hand pump is actuated, transferring the The Project Installation Report data is used to
structural load from the soil below the calculate the actual factors of safety for each
footing to the Torque Anchor™ shafts. As Torque Anchor™ placement:
the structure responds and a portion of the
FSActual = TFinal x k (Table 12)/ PLift
foundation reaches the desired elevation,
the jack(s) supporting the restored area(s) Pile 1: FS = (2,000 ft-lb x 10 ft-1) lb / 9,000 lb
are isolated and the pressure at the jack(s) FSpile 1 = 2.22
recorded. Pile 2: FS = (1,950 ft-lb x 10 ft-1) lb / 9,400 lb
 The restoration process continues until the FSpile 2 = 2.07
structure is satisfactorily restored, and all Pile 3: FS = (2,050 ft-lb x 10 ft-1) lb / 7,700 lb
jacks have been isolated and their pressures FSpile 3 = 2.66
recorded.
PROJECT INSTALLATION REPORT
 All installation and restoration data is
transferred to a Project Installation Report.

Design Examples
Project Name: Design Example 5

Torque Anchor™
This report should include, but is not Project Address: 123 Anywhere, Mid-America, USA
limited to, project identification, equipment Products Installed: TAF-150-60 10-12 Lead
used, product installed, final installation TAE-150-60 Extensions
torque, installed depth, lifting force TAB-150-SUB Utility Bracket
required to restore the structure and lift Torque Motor: Model LW6K – 6,000 ft-lb
measurement. This data must be recorded Lifting Jack: Model RC254 – 25 Ton
for each placement. Calculated Ultimate Pile Capacity: Pu = 19,500 lb
Calculated Working Pile Load: Pw = 9,750 lb
 Review the report and calculate actual
Placement Identification Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3
factors of safety on the installation to see if
Final Install Torque, ft-lb 2,000 1,950 2,050
the design requirements have been
Pile Depth, ft 18.5 16 16.5
satisfied.
Force to Lift, lb 9,000 9,400 7,700
Amount of Lift, in 1-1/2 1-3/4 2
10. Actual Load vs. Calculated Load and
Actual Factor of Safety 2.22 2.07 2.66
Installed Factor of Safety: The installation
data must be compared to the calculated values. Soil tends to be non-homogeneous and normally
This enables the designer to verify the accuracy installation torque varies from point to point on a
of the design. In addition, actual project factors project; in addition, the load on a footing is
of safety should be verified, as shown below. usually not uniform due to different architectural
The actual factor of safety for each pile elements in the design of the structure. Pile 2
installation is calculated, a slight variation of the had slightly lower shaft torsion than required and
typical factor of safety formula is used. had a slightly higher working load. This resulted
in the lowest Factor of Safety. Pile three was on
Equation 12: Project Factor of Safety a lightly loaded part of the building an had a
FSjob = Pu-job / Pw-job large Factor of Safety.
Where: End Design Example 5
Pu-job = Installed Estimated Ult. Capacity – lb
Review of Results of Example 5
Comparing the calculated design working load of 8,818 lb per pile (Pw = w (Step 1) x “X” (Step 2) =
1,300 lb/ lineal ft x 7-1/2 ft = 9,750 lb) to the actual lifting forces one can see that all working pile
loads are slightly lower than predicted by the calculations. These differences between calculated and
actual working loads are not significant and are related to the fact that actual loads on the footing are
not uniform along the footing. The actual factors of safety for the installation on this project
demonstrate that the project has actual factor of safeties within normal tolerances. The project has a
safe design.
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 71 All rights reserved
 Design Example 5A – Foundation Restoration – “Quick and Rough” Method
Design Details from Design Example 5: other column provides a range of foundation
 Two story wood frame house with slab dead load weights for this kind of residential
foundation and wood composition siding. structure. Dead loads range between 1,050 and
 Foundation consists of 20” wide by 18” tall steel 1,550 lb/lin.ft and the live load estimates run
reinforced concrete perimeter beam from 300 to 475 lb/lin.ft.
 Top of pile to be 12” below the soil surface A judgment about the quality of construction is
 Soil data: Two feet of consolidating poorly
used to select the foundation loads from within
compacted fill was found overlaying 20 feet of the ranges. For Design Example 5A careful
inorganic clay (CL), firm to stiff. judgment about the construction suggests using
DL = 1,200 lb/lin.ft and LL = 375 lb/lin.ft. The
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: average perimeter loading to be used for the
1. Determine the foundation load: Use Table “Quick and Rough” design is 1,575 lb/lin.ft.
2, Ranges for Typical Average Residential
Building Loads that can be found in Chapter 5 of 2. Determine the Soil Class. The soil was
this manual. A portion of Table 2 from Chapter reported only as still clay. Referring to the Soil
5 is shown below. (This table does not include Classification Table - Table 9 (Chapter 1), Soil
snow loads. Snow loads must be added for the Class 6 is selected. Keep in mind that little soil
job location.) information available and there is concern about
the poorly compacted fill near the surface.
Table 2. Ranges for Typical Average Residential
Building Loads
3. Select a Suitable Pile Spacing and
Estimated Foundation
Building Construction
Load Range Determine Ultimate Torque Anchor™ Load:
(Slab On Grade)
(DL = Dead – LL = Live) This is not a heavy structure so the solid square
One Story bar Torque Anchors™ configuration is chosen for
DL 750 – 850 lb/ft
Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood
LL 100 – 200 lb/ft this restoration along with Utility Brackets are
Framing -- Footing with Slab
the most economical products to use to transfer
One Story
Masonry Walls with Wood Framing –
DL 1,000 – 1,200 lb/ft the structural load from the foundation to the pile
LL 100 – 200 lb/ft shaft. Use Graph 2 from Chapter 6, to select pile
Footing with Slab
Two Story spacing, “X”. (See below)
DL 1,050 – 1,550 lb/ft
Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
Framing – Footing with Slab A loading of 1,575 lb/lin. ft is slightly higher
Two Story
DL 1,300 – 2,000 lb/ft than the 1,500 lb/ft line on the graph. This line
1st Floor Masonry, 2nd Wood/Metal/Vinyl
with Wood Framing – Footing with Slab
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft will be used to select the spacing and then the
Two Story
spacing will be adjusted to reflect the load higher
DL 1,600 – 2,250 lb/ft than the graph curve. Read across from the 18
Masonry Walls with Wood Framing –
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
Footing with Slab inch footing height to an estimated 1,575 lb/ft
24" position, then drop down to see the pile spacing
From the description of the project, the total
/ft
/ft

of 6-3/4 feet. 6-3/4 feet center to center is /ft

/ft

lb
lb

22"
lb

foundation load (except snow loads) canHEIGHTbe lb /ft

0
00

BEAM
selected
4 - #5for “Safe Use” design.
0

00

REBARS
00 lb
50
4,0

roughly estimated for this structure from Table 2. 5 0

3,

(GR-60)
2, 00
3,

20"
Height of Steel Reinforced

“X” = 6-3/4 feet 2,

The portion of Table 2 reproduced is for slabStructural
on weight per lineal foot
Monolithic Footing

grade foundation loads, which is the 18" typealong of the footing perimeter (lb/ft)
foundation on this project that 3 4 5 6 7 8
supports a two story residence 18"
/ft /ft
that has wood composition /ft lb lb
lb ft ft
siding. 16" BEAM 0 50
0 00 lb/ lb/
00 , ,0
00 t 00
, 2 2
1,5 b/f 1,0
HEIGHT
3
To determine the estimated 14" 00l
1,2
foundation load, look down the 4 - #4 REBARS EXAMPLE 5
12"
first column until the “Two (GR-60)

Story” description that most 3 4 5 6 7 8

closely matches the job house is PIER SPACING - feet
found. Reading across to the
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 72 All rights reserved
4. Determine Ultimate Torque Anchor™ Load: Soil Class 6. The 12” and 14” diameter plate
Use Equation 3 from Chapter 1 to determine the configuration is selected for the design.
ultimate capacity per pile:
Equation 3. Pu = (“X”) x (w) x (FS): 6. Check Shaft Strengths and Torsional
Where,
Strengths to see which shaft is suitable: Refer
“X” = Product Spacing = 6-3/4 feet to Table 2 in Chapter 1 to find a shaft with a
w = 1,575 lb/lineal foot (Step 1) suitable Axial Compression Load Limit and
FS = Factor of Safety (Use 2.0) sufficient Useable Torsional Strength. The 1-1/2
Pu = 6-3/4 ft x 1,575 lb/ft x 2 = 21,263 lb inch solid square shaft is selected because it has
an Axial Compression Load Limit rating of
5. Select the proper pile configuration: 70,000 pounds based upon an installation
Referring to Graph 4 from Chapter 1 (reproduced torsional limit of 7,500 ft-lbs. This pile exceeds
below), notice that the capacity line for 12” and the ultimate job load requirement of 21,263
14” diameter helical plates attached to shaft pounds. The selected and verified pile
crosses just above 20,000 pounds at the center of configuration is TAF-150-60 12-14.

TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
12-14" 8-10-12" 10-12-14" 12-14-14"
120000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
Graph 4. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

7. Installation Torque. Use Graph 6 from 8. Installed Product Length. Termination

Chapter 2, shown next page to determine the depth is the stiff clay. It is likely that the pile
installation torque requirement for the piles. The would reach the desired shaft torsion at a depth
Ultimate Capacity requirement is 21,263 pounds. somewhere beyond the unconsolidated soil near
Find 22,000 pounds at the left side of Graph 6 grade. The minimum depth is the summation of
look horizontally to the graph line for solid the Critical Depth (Chapter 1, page 16) plus the
square shafts, read down to torque of 2,200 ft-lb. distance to the lowest plate.
T = 2,200 ft-lb, minimum Minimum Required Shaft Length:
Lmin = DCritical + LTip Where:
Just for comparison, the installation torque is DCcritical = 14” dia./12” x 6 ft (Page 16)
calculated: from Equation 2 in Chapter 1: (Critical Depth = 6 x diameter of largest plate.)
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, (from Chapter 1) LTip = 12” dia./12” x 3 = 3 ft
Pu = 21,263 lb k = 10 (Table 12) (Plates spaced at 3 x diameter.)
-1
T = 21,263 lb/10 ft = 2,127 ft-lb T = 2,200 ft-lb Lmin = (14”/12” x 6’) + (12”/12” x 3) = 10 ft
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 73 All rights reserved
 220
200

Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

180
160
MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE
140 CAPACITY
Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
120
240
220 100
200 80
Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

180
60
160
40
140
120 20
100 0
80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
60 Graph 6.
Motor Torque x
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Graph 6.
Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb

“Safe Use” design suggests that the piles be  TAB-150-SUB Utility Bracket This
installed deeper than ten feet below grade foundation bracket fits over the 1-1/2”
because there is weak and consolidating fill soil square bar and mounts to the perimeter
near the surface. A longer standard shaft length beam. The bearing plate provides 68-1/4 in2
of 12 feet, minimum, is selected. at the bottom of the foundation for load
transfer.
9. Torque Anchor™ Specifications: The
 It is recommended that additional extensions
selected Torque Anchor™ assembly is specified:
(TAE-150-60 extension – 5 foot extension
 TAF-150-60 12-14 – 1-1/2 inch solid square section & hardware - 4’-9” effective length
shaft that has a 12” and a 14” diameter plate or TAE-150-84 extension – 7 foot extension
on the 5’-0” long shaft, section & hardware - 6’-9” effective length)
 TAE-150-84 extension – 7 foot extension be on hand in case the shaft torque
section & hardware. (6’-9” effective length) requirement is not achieved at 12 feet.
End of Example 5A

Review of Results of Example 5 & 5A

One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis clearly suggested the same pile
that was determined by the analysis that used the bearing capacity equations. There were some
variations in the design because a higher footing load and higher installation torque were predicted by
the “Quick and Rough” method. This was caused in part by the higher ultimate load suggested by the
“Quick and Rough” tables and graphs from Chapter 5. Once again, similar results were determined
from the “Quick and Rough” design method, but good judgment estimating the quality of construction
is most important in selecting proper data from the tables and graphs for more accurate results.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 74 All rights reserved
 Design Example 6 – Motor Output Torque
The heavy weight new construction pile design Conversion Factor – “K” is found on Table 16 in
presented in Design Example 1 required shaft Chapter 2. (A portion of the table is shown
torsion of 7,100 ft-lb be applied to the 2-7/8 inch below.) Looking in the “Model Number”
diameter Torque Anchor™ shaft to achieve the column of Table 16, the X12K5 Torque Motor
ultimate capacity requirement of 60,000 pounds. data is found. Reading to the right the value for
In Design Example 1B, where weak soil was the Motor Conversion Factor, “K”, for this
present, the torsion requirement was determined motor is determined to be “K” = 4.20.
to be 8,000 ft-lb on a 3-1/2 inch diameter tubular
3. Motor Output Torque: Once the differential
shaft to be able to achieve the same 60,000
pressure across the hydraulic torque motor has
pound ultimate pile capacity.
been calculated (Step 1) and the value for “K”
Project Details Provided from the Field: determined (Step 2), the values can be used in
 New Building – 2 story house with basement Equation 11 to determine the actual torque that
 Ultimate Capacity = 60,000 lb was applied to the pile shaft at termination depth.
 Torque Motor Available = Pro-Dig X12K5 Equation 11: Motor Output Torque
 Design 1 – Avg. Pressures at termination depth - T = K x ∆P

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
2-7/8” dia = 1,900 psi at inlet & 200 psi at outlet
Where,
 Design 1B – Avg. pressures at termination depth, T = Hydraulic Motor Output Torque - ft-lb
3-1/2” dia = 2,150 psi at inlet & 200 psi at outlet K = Torque Motor Conversion Factor – (Table 16)
 Pressures averaged over final three feet of depth ∆P = pin – pout = Motor Pressure Differential
Equation 11 introduced in Chapter 2 is used to Confirm proper installation torque for Design
convert pressure differential across the hydraulic Example 1.
gear motor into shaft output torque. T Example 1 = 4.20 x 1,700 psi
T Example 1 = 7,140 ft-lb
Equation 12: Motor Output Torque
T = K x ∆P 7,140 ft-lb > 7,100 ft-lb - O.K.
Confirm proper installation torque for Design
1. Differential Pressures: Before using
Example 2.
Equation 11, the pressure differential, or ∆P,
T Example 1B = 4.20 x 1,950
from the field must be determined. The Motor
T Example 1B = 8,190 ft-lb
Torque Conversion Factor – “K” must also be
identified for the Pro-Dig X12K5. 8,190 ft-lb > 8,000 ft-lb - O.K.

The Pressure Differential across the motor is End Design Example 6

determined as follows:
∆P = Inlet psi – Outlet psi Table 16. Hydraulic Torque Motor Specifications
∆P = pin – pout Motor
Torque Maximum Output
∆P from Design Example 1: Model Torque
Illustration Output Pressure Speed
Number Conversion
∆PExample 1 = 1,900 psi – 200 psi ft-lb psi rpm
Factor – “K”
∆PExample 1 = 1,700 psi
L6K5 6,335 2.53 2,500 16 13.8
∆P from Design Example 1B:
∆PExample 1B = 2,150 psi – 200 psi L7K5 7,644 2.55 3,000 35 32.8
PRO-DIG
∆PExample 1B = 1,950 psi.
X9K5 9,663 3.22 3,000 35 26
2. Motor Torque Conversion
Factor, “K”: The Motor Torque X12K5 12,612 4.20 3,000 40 23.5

5,597/
T12K 2.24/4.85 2,500 65 70/32
12,128

X16K5 16,563 5.52 3,000 40 17.9

X20K 20,670 6.89 3,000 40 14.3

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
B26 16:1 4,500 1.5 3,000 10 10 2
2013-09 Page 75
Eskridge All rights reserved

B5016-
5,000 1.71 3,000 20 24
21F54
 Design Example 6A – Motor Output Torque “Quick and Rough Method”
The heavy weight new construction pile design ∆PExample 1 = 1,900 psi – 200 psi
presented in Design Example 1 specified that ∆PExample 1 = 1,700 psi
when installed on the site, torsion of 7,100 ft-lb
was needed on the 2-7/8 inch diameter Torque ∆P from Design Example 1B:
∆PExample 1B = 2,150 psi – 200 psi
Anchor™ shaft to reach the ultimate capacity
requirement of 60,000 pounds. ∆PExample 1B = 1,950 psi

In Design Example 1B where weak soil was With the actual field measured pressure
present the torsion requirement increased to differentials calculated, one can find the actual
8,000 ft-lb on the 3-1/2 inch diameter tubular installation motor torque at pile termination
shaft to achieve the same 60,000 pound ultimate depth on Graph 9. Locate 1,700 psi and 1,950
pile capacity. psi values at the bottom of the graph. Then read
upward until the motor curve line for the X12K5
Determine Motor Output Torque: Graph 9 motor is reached. Read horizontally to the left
introduced in Chapter 2 is used to convert where the Output Torque at the Shaft” where can
pressure differential across the hydraulic gear be found.
motor into shaft output torque. Referring to Design Example 1 output shaft torsion is
Graph 9 (reproduced below); the output torque of determined to be estimated at 7,250 ft-lbs.
the X12K5 motor can be determined once the
pressure differentials across the installation Design Example 1B had a pressure differential of
motor are determined. 1,950 psi pressure differential, which produced
an output torque estimated at 8,200 ft-lb.
∆P = Inlet psi – Outlet psi
∆P = pin – pout Proper installation shaft torque is confirmed for
Design Examples 1 and 1B
∆P from Design Example 1:
End Design Example 6A

GRAPH 9. PRO-DIG SINGLE SPEED GEAR MOTORS - DIFFERENTIAL

PRESSURE AT MOTOR VS. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE FOR
Pro-Dig L7K5 Pro-Dig X9K5 Pro-Dig X12K5
13,000
12,000
11,000
Output Torque at Shaft (ft-lb)

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Pressure Differential Across Motor x 100 (psi)

Review of Results of Example 6 & 6A

One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis suggested the shaft torsion
from field data was sufficient to provide the load capacity. The calculated method and the “Quick and
Rough” solutions for the actual installation shaft torque values were similar.
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 76 All rights reserved
 Design Example 7 – Ultimate Capacity from Field Data
In this exercise the anticipated ultimate Ultimate Capacity of the 2-7/8” diameter, 0.262
capacities of the pile designs from Design wall piles installed in Example 1 (Pu-Example 1):
Example 1 and 1B will be determined. This Where,
information will be used to confirm that the k = 8.5 (Table 12)
installed piles meet or exceed the design TExample 1 = 7,140 ft-lb (Design Example 6)
requirements set out in the original designs Pu = 8.5 x 7,140 = 60,690 lb
Pu = 60,690 lb > 60,000 lb O.K.
Equation 2 from Chapter 1 is used to calculate
the ultimate compressive capacity of the pile Calculating the ultimate pile capacity using data
based upon data provided from the field. Recall from Design Example 1B:
that the Design Example 1 - Heavy Weight New Ultimate Capacity of the 3-1/2” diameter piles
Construction Project required an ultimate with 0.300 inch wall thickness that were installed
capacity at each pile of 60,000 pounds. in Design Example 1B = Pu-Example 1B:
Where,
Equation 2: Helical Pile Ultimate Capacity k = 7.5 (Table 12)
Pu = k x T TExample 1B = 8,190 ft-lb (Design Example 6)

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
Where, Pu = 7.5 x 8,190 = 61,425 lb
Pu or Tu = Ult. Capacity of Torque Anchor™ - (lb) Pu = 61,425 lb > 60,000 lb O.K.
T = Final Installation Torque - (ft-lb) The results of the calculations confirm the
(Averaged Over the Final 3 to 5 Feet)
k = Empirical Torque Factor - (ft-1)
ultimate capacity determined from the field data
exceeds the design ultimate capacity stated in the
Calculating the ultimate pile capacity using data specifications of Design Examples 1 and 1B.
from Design Example 1: End Design Example 7

Design Example 7A – Ultimate Capacity from Field Data – “Quick and Rough” Method
This exercise will determine the ultimate pile line for the 2-7/8 inch diameter shaft
capacity based upon field data using the “Quick configuration. The legend near the top of the
and Rough” method. The comparison between graph provides choices between square shafts
the calculated design specifications and the and various tubular shafts. Read upward from
actual field capacity will verify whether the pile the 7,250 ft-lb “Motor Torque” line until the
installation is satisfactory. bold dashed line that represents the 2-7/8 inch
diameter shaft configuration is encountered.
Design Example 6A determined that the output
Then move horizontally to the vertical axis at left
torque at the motor shaft was 7,250 ft-lb at the
to see if installed pile ultimate capacity exceeds
termination of the pile installation. Graph 7
60,000 pounds.
from Chapter 2 (shown on the next page)
provides a method to demonstrate the ultimate Looking carefully at the point where the
capacity of the installed helical product. A horizontal plot intersects the “Ultimate
comparison to the design requirement will Capacity” axis, the field generated shaft torsion
determine if the installed pile capacity exceeds at the termination of the pile installation shows
the specified ultimate capacity. to be slightly above 60,000 lb. This verifies that
the actual installed pile capacity exceeds design
Estimate the location on the horizontal axis for
specifications.
shaft torsion of 7,250 ft-lb slightly to the right of
the 7,250 ft-lb grid line and read up to the plot End Design Example 7

Review of Results of Example 7 & 7A

The value in using the “Quick and Rough” method is that it provides rapid results from the graphs.
This method cannot tell exactly how much the field installation exceeded the design requirements, but
it confirms whether the installation meets or exceeds specificaitons. If the engineer wants to know the
actual installed ultimate capacity, then it must be calculated.
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 77 All rights reserved
 MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY
Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
240
220
200
Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with
understanding how to prepare preliminary designs, installation procedures, load testing, and
™
documentation of each placement when using ECP Torque Anchors . If you have questions or
require engineering assistance in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products,
please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 78 All rights reserved
 Chapter 3

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™

Design Examples
 Heavy Weight New Construction
 Light Weight New Construction
 Basement Wall Tieback Anchors
 Retaining Wall Tieback Anchors
 Foundation Restoration

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
 Motor Output Torque
 Ultimate Capacity from Field Data

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 51 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1 – Heavy Weight New Construction – Cohesionless Soil
Structural Details:
 New Building – 2 story house with basement ULT. CAP = 60,000 lb
 Estimated weight 3,700 lb/ft WORKING LOAD =
 Working load on foundation piles – 30,000 lb 30,000 lb
 Top of pile to be 12” above the soil surface
TAB-288-
 Soil data: NC 3/4 (8x8)
6 feet of sandy clay fill (CL), stiff PILE CAP 12"
Density = 110 pcf
30 feet of medium grained, well graded sand
(SW), medium dense, SPT “N” = 22
Density = 120 pcf ф = 340 TAE-288-84
Water table = 14 ft EXTENSION
Recommended target depth = 18 ft.
SANDY CLAY
DEPTH = 6'
Torque Anchor™ Design: DENSITY =
1. Select the proper capacity equation and 110 pcf
collect the known information.
Because the soil on the site is cohesionless,
Equation 1b from Chapter 1 is used:
Pu = AH (q Nq) Where:
Pw = 30,000 lb
FS = Factor of Safety = 2.0 DEPTH TO
TAE-288-84 MIDWAY
Pu = Pw x FS = 30,000 lb x 2.0 = 60,000 lb. EXTENSION BETWEEN
PLATES
hmid = 18 ft. = 18'
(Choose the target depth to be 18 ft. This is WATER
the measurement from the surface to TABLE = 14'
midway between the helical plates.) 12"
q = γ x hmid
q = (110 lb/ft3 x 6 ft) + (120 lb/ft3 x 8 ft) +
TAF-288-84 (8",10",12")
(120 – 62) lb/ft3 x 4 ft) = 1,852 lb/ft2 LEAD SECTION MINIMUM
Nq = 24 “N” = 22 (Chapter 1 - Table 7) PRODUCT
LENGTH
Use Equation 1b to solve for the helical L = 21-1/2'
plate area that is needed.
AH = Pu / (q Nq)
10"
AH = 60,000 lb / 1,852 lb/ft2 x 24
AH = 1.35 ft2 HOMOGENOUS
SAND
DEPTH = 30'
2. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™ DENSITY = 120 pcf LENGTH FROM MID-
suitable to support the load.  DEG. PLATE DEPTH TO
TIP OF PILE
Referring to Chapter 1, Table 2 the 2-7/8” S = 3 x (8" + 10") / 2
diameter x 0.262 wall thickness tubular pile S = 27"
8"
shaft is selected as most economical for this
application. Our project requires 60,000
pounds of compressive strength. The selected
pile shaft has a Compressive Load Limit of
100,000 pounds and a Useable Torsional
Strength of 9,500 ft-lbs. Figure 7. Design Example 1 & 2

Referring to Chapter 1, Table 10 the

ft2 of bearing area is needed to support an
combination of helical plates is selected from the
ultimate capacity of 60,000 pounds. The data
row opposite the 2-7/8” shaft size. At least 1.35

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 52 All rights reserved
from the 2-7/8” diameter shaft on Table 10 in summation of all the lengths previously provided
Chapter 1 is reproduce here: and determined.
6” Dia. = 0.151 ft2 A. The pile cap is placed 1 ft. above grade level
8” Dia. = 0.304 ft2 B. hmid = 18 ft.
10” Dia. = 0.500 ft2 C. Length from mid-plate to pile tip
(Recall that the helical plates are spaced at three
12” Dia. = 0.740 ft2
times the diameter of the nearest lower plate.)
14” Dia. = 1.024 ft2
htip = [(3 x 8” dia)+(3 x 10” dia)]/2 = 27”
Select the combination of 8”, 10”, and 12”
diameter plates on the 2-7/8” diameter tubular htip = 2-1/2 ft (Round up to 30”.)
shaft. L = 1 ft + 18 ft + 2-1/2 ft
AH = 0.304 + 0.500 + 0.740 = 1.544 ft2 L = 21-1/2 feet
AH = 1.54 ft2 > 1.35 ft2
6. Torque Anchor™ Specifications:
This plate combination provides a total area of The specified Torque Anchor™ assembly will
1.54 ft2, which exceeds the required plate area of consist of the following:
1.35 ft2, arrived at from Equation 2b.
 TAF-288-84 08-10-12 This is a 2-7/8”
Designation for the selected Torque Anchor™

Design Examples
diameter tubular product, having a standard

Torque Anchor™
configuration is found in the product list on Page length of 7 feet long, with an 8”, a 10”, and
7. The product selected is: a 12” diameter plates that are 3/8” thick,
TAF-288-84 08-10-12  TAE-288-84 Extension, which is 7 feet long
and includes coupling hardware. The
3. Installation Torque: Equation 2 in Chapter 1 coupling overlaps the previous section by 6
calculates the estimated installation torque. inches, which provides an effective length of
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, Where, the extension section at 6-1/2 feet. – Two
Pu = 60,000 lb. (30,000 Working Load x 2.0) extension sections are required
K = 8.5 (Chapter 1 - Table 12)  TAE-288-60 Extension, which is 5 feet long
T = 60,000 lb / 8.5 ft-1 with coupling hardware. The coupling
T = 7,100 ft-lb overlaps the previous section by 6 inches,
which provides an effective extension length
4. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A of 4-1/2 feet. – (One extension may be
review of Table 2 in Chapter 1 indicates that the required.)
2-7/8” diameter Torque Anchor™ has a Useable
Torsional Strength of 9,500 ft-lb. The torque  TAB-288 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 2-
requirement of 7,500 ft-lb is 21% below the 7/8” diameter tubular shaft and has a 3/4” x
torsional limit of the shaft. The selection should 8” x 8” bearing plate.
work for this application based upon the soil The total length of the assembled products from
report stating that the soil is sandy clay fill and the list is actually 24-1/2 feet long. The Torque
homogenous sand with no mention of rocks, Anchors™ shall be installed to minimum depth of
debris or other obstructions. A review of Table 21-1/2 feet at the locations designated on the
11 in Chapter 1 shows that three 3/8” thick plan and must develop a sufficient compressive
helical plates have a mechanical ultimate strength as determined by the minimum average
capacity of 120,000 pounds (40,000 lb x 3), installation torque of 7,100 ft-lb at this specified
which is double our requirement for this target depth or lower.
installation, so the mechanical capacity of the End Design Example 1
pile assembly exceeds the project requirements.
5. Installed Product Length. The installed
length required to accomplish this design is a

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 53 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1A – Heavy Weight New Construction – “Quick and Rough” Method
Design Details: Ultimate Capacity of the pile design. In this
 Compressive Service Load = 30,000 lbs at each case, a factor of safety of 2.0 is used to arrive at
pile. (See Figure 7 above.) 60,000 pounds per pile ultimate capacity.
 The soil information about the site indicated 6
feet of stiff sandy clay fill (CL) followed by 30 3. Select the proper compression pile from the
feet medium dense sand (SP) estimated capacity graphs. Referring to Graph
4 from Chapter 1 (reproduced below), notice that
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: The soil data the capacity line for a Torque Anchor™ with 10”,
provides only a rough description of the soil on 12” and 14” diameter helical plates attached
the site with no SPT, “N”, values or any crosses between Soil Class 4 & 5 at 60,000
indication of water table. The quick estimating pounds. The 10”, 12” and 14” diameter plate
method for designing the compression piles to configuration is selected for the design.
support the structure is used. The thorough
analysis for this project using the bearing 4. Check the Shaft Strength and Torsional
capacity equations was demonstrated in Design Strength to see which shaft is suitable. Refer
Example 1 above. Comparison between the to Table 2 in Chapter 1 and select the 2-7/8 inch
results of the two methods will be discussed. diameter tubular shaft that has sufficient capacity
to support the load, and has sufficient torsional
1. Determine the Soil Class. Referring to the shaft strength for installation. The required
Soil Classification Table (Chapter 1 - Table 9) a ultimate capacity for each pile is 60,000 lbs. The
Soil Class between 4 and 5 is selected based 2-7/8 inch tubular product, with 0.262 inch wall
upon the description of the soil. thickness, has an Axial Compressive Load Limit
2. Ultimate Helical Pile Capacity. The rating of 100,000 pounds and a Practical Load
engineer provided the Service Load (or working Limit based on Torsional Strength of 80,000
load) on this project based upon his knowledge pounds assuming a Useable Torsional Strength
of the calculated structural loading. Because the of 9,500 ft-lbs. The 2-7/8 inch diameter, 0.262
pile must have the capability to support more inch wall helical pile provides suitable torsional
than just the service capacity, a Factor of Safety capacity and a sufficient practical load limit to
must be added to the Service Load to obtain the exceed the ultimate load requirement of 60,000
pounds. The choice is verified.

TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY

Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
12-14" 8-10-12" 10-12-14" 12-14-14"
120000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
Graph 4. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 54 All rights reserved
5. Installation Torque. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY
Use Graph 6 from Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
Chapter 2 or Equation 2
240
from Chapter 1 to
determine the installation 220
torque requirement for 200

Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

these piles. 180
160
Find a capacity of 60,000
pounds on the left side of 140
Graph 6 and move 120
horizontally to where the 100
graph line for 2-7/8 inch 80
diameter shafts intersects 60
with 60,000 pounds.
40
Read down to determine
that the motor torque 20
requirement is 7,000 ft- 0

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
lb. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
T = 7,000 ft-lb, min. Graph 6. Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb

Calculation from Equation 2 shows a comparison

of results between the formula and the graph. L = 7’ + Ltip (Length from 10” to the 12”
plates) + (Length from 12” to the 14” plate)
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, Where,
Pu = 60,000 lb k = 8.5 (Table 12)
L = 7’ + (3 x 10” Dia)/12” + (3 x 12” Dia)/12”
-1 L = 7’ + 2.5’+ 3’ = 12-1/2 ft + 1 ft above grade
T = 60,000 lb / 8.5 ft = 7,059 ft-lb
provides the minimum shaft length
T = 7,100 ft-lb (Not a significant difference) Minimum Shaft Length = 13-1/2 ft
6. Minimum Embedment Depth. The The least amount of shaft needed for this project
minimum depth requirement from the surface to would be a 7 foot lead section plus a 7 foot
the shallowest plate on the pile must be at least extension (with a coupled length of 6-1/2 feet)
six times the diameter of the 14” dia. top helical provides 13-1/2 feet total.
plate. (Chapter 1, Page 16)
D = 6 x (14 in / 12 in/ft) = 7 feet 8. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The
D = Minimum Vertical Depth = 7 feet. minimum pile assembly shall consist of:
 TAF-288-84 10-12-14 – 2-7/8” diameter
7. Minimum Required Shaft Length. Helical tubular shaft with 0.262” wall thickness that
plates are spaced at three times the diameter of has a 10”, a 12” and a 14” diameter plate on
the next lower plate. The selected configuration the 7’-0” long shaft,
was 10-12-14. The additional shaft length from
the plate closest to the surface to the pile tip must  TAE-288-84 extension – 7’ extension &
be determined and added to minimum vertical hardware. (Additional extensions will likely
depth just determined. be needed to reach required shaft torsion.)
End of Example 1A
Review of Results of Example 1 & 1A
One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis clearly suggested a larger pile
than predicted the calculations. The “Quick and Rough” system was designed to be conservative and
this example demonstrates this. It is likely that the pile design of Example 1A will reach the required
shaft torque at more shallow depth than the 8-10-12 pile. The pile must terminate at least 12-1/2 feet
below grade to accurately predict capacity. Termination at this shallow depth may not be acceptable to
the engineer because the water table located at 14 feet below grade. (Not mentioned in the soil data in
this example.) This type of problem can appear when using incomplete soil data and Torque Anchor™
Capacity Graphs to obtain a “Quick and Rough” design.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 55 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1B – Heavy Weight New Construction – Weak Soil
In this variation, the same construction load and layer of very weak Class 8 soil consisting of
soil conditions prevail as stated in Design loose sand and soft organic clay located just
Example 1 with the exception that five feet of under the surface. These very weak soils overlay
very weak soil now exists directly below the inorganic clay that is able to support the required
surface. load where the soil will provide sufficient lateral
Additional Design Details: shaft support. However, an Axial Compressive
 The soil data revealed a least five feet of very Load Limit of 100,000 pounds shown in Table 2
loose sand fill and very soft clay organic soil near for a 2-7/8 inch diameter with 0.262 inch wall
the surface. tubular shaft is not valid when this shaft passes
 Standard Penetration Test values for this weak through the Class 8 soil with SPT values
layer were, “N” = 1 to 3 blows per foot - Soil reported to be between 1 and 3 blows per foot.
Class = 8 Instead of using Table 2 from Chapter 1 for the
 Below 5 feet the soil profile is the same as shown compressive load limit on the shaft, one must
in Design Example 1. understand that the upper layer of soil is not able
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: The soil data to provide sufficient lateral support to the shaft
here suggests that below the initial five feet of to prevent bucking. Table 15 in Chapter 1
very weak soil, the soil profile is similar to the Conservative Critical Buckling Load Estimates
soil in Design Example 1. Referring to Example (reproduced below) demonstrates this quite
1, it can be recalled that the pile configuration clearly for various soil strengths and types.
required supporting the 60,000 pound ultimate Referring to Table 15, it can be seen that the
load on pile using an 8-10-12 inch diameter plate estimated buckling strength for the 2-7/8 inch
configuration. The 2-7/8 inch diameter tubular diameter, 0.262 inch wall helical Torque
shaft, with 0.262 inch wall thickness, had a Anchor™ shaft when it passes through soil
sufficient Axial Compressive Load Limit to consisting of very loose sand fill and soft organic
support the design load and sufficient Useable clay having SPT values that range from “N” = 1
Torsional Strength to install the pile under the to 3 blows per foot is only 48,000 pounds.
soil conditions represented in Design Example 1. This soil is not capable of lateral shaft support
Knowing that there exists a layer of extremely for 60,000 pound ultimate compressive load
weak (Class 8) soil near the surface on this site is without concern for the shaft buckling within the
important information because helical piles have weak upper level soils.
slender shafts and require
sufficient lateral soil support Table 15 Conservative Critical Buckling Load Estimates
against the shaft to prevent Uniform Soil Condition
shaft buckling under full Shaft Size Organics Very Soft Clay Soft Clay Loose Sand
load. N<1 N=1-2 N=2-4 N=2-4
1. Determine the Buckling 1-1/2” Sq 26,000 lb 29,000 lb 33,000 lb 37,000 lb
Strength. Table 2 in
Chapter 1 lists the Axial 1-3/4” Sq. 39,000 lb 43,000 lb 48,000 lb 55,000 lb
Compression Load Limits for 2-1/4” Sq. 74,000 lb 81,000 lb 90,000 lb 104,000 lb
helical pile shafts when the
shafts are installed into soil 2-7/8” Dia x 0.203” 36,000 lb 44,000 lb 62,000 lb 51,000 lb
that provides sufficient
2-7/8” Dia x 0.262” 39,000 lb 48,000 lb 69,000 lb 56,000 lb
lateral support along the pile
shaft. Testing has suggested 3-1/2” Dia x 0.300” 63,000 lb 78,000 lb 110,000 lb 90,000 lb
that shaft buckling is not an
issue when the soil has a 4-1/2” Dia x 0.337” 113,000 lb 139,000 lb 160,000 lb 160,000 lb
SPT value, “N” > 5 blows
per foot for solid square shafts and “N” > 4 2. Select a Pile Shaft with Suitable Buckling
blows per foot for tubular shafts. Strength. The axial ultimate compressive
In this design example there exists a five foot capacity requirement for this project is 60,000

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 56 All rights reserved
pounds on pile shaft. The selected shaft from 4. Installation Torque. The larger diameter
Design Example 1 must be changed to a stiffer tubular shaft now required passes through the
shaft to be able to successfully pass through the soil less efficiently. This soil friction effect was
very week upper soil strata without buckling. A fully discussed at the beginning of Chapter 2. As
larger diameter tubular shaft is able to offer more a result, when the design requires a change in
shaft stiffness called Moment of Inertia or shaft size, the installation torque requirement
resistance to buckling. Referring once again to must be recalculated and will be higher for
Table 15 (above); notice the row labeled “3-1/2 larger diameter shafts.
inch dia. x 0.300” shows a conservative
A check of Table 12 in Chapter 1 shows that the
estimated buckling load capacity of 78,000
3-1/2 inch diameter shaft has a recommended
pounds for the larger diameter shaft. Because
efficiency factor, “k” = 7-1/2 as compared to “k”
there exists very weak soil near the surface in
= 8-1/2 that was used to estimate installation
this example, the pile shaft diameter must be
shaft torsion requirement for the 2-7/8 inch
increased to provide resistance to shaft buckling
diameter tubular shaft.
when the fully loaded pile passes through these
weak soils. Use Equation 4 introduced in Chapter 1 and
repeated in Chapter 2 to calculate the new
3. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The
installation torque requirement for the larger

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
Torque Anchor™ plate configuration remains as
diameter pile shaft.
originally determined in Design Example 1 to
support the structural load, but the shaft diameter Equation 5: T = Pu / k, Where,
must be increased to the 3-1/2 inch diameter, Pu = 60,000 lb
k = 7.5 (Table 12 – Chapter 1 & 2)
0.300 inch wall tubular shaft for increased
buckling strength: T = 60,000 lb / 7.5 ft-1 = 8,000 ft-lb
 TAF-350-84 08-10-12 Lead Section T = 8,000 ft-lb, minimum
 TAE-350-84 Extension Section (2 required) Earth Contact Products recommend that a
 TAE-350-60 Extension Section Registered Professional Engineer conduct the
 TAB-350 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 3- evaluation and design of Helical Torque
1/2” tubular shaft and has a 3/4” x 8” x 8” Anchors™ where shaft buckling may occur due
bearing plate. to the shaft being installed through weak soil or
in cases where the shaft is fully exposed without
lateral shaft support.

End of Example 1B

Review of Results of Example 1 & 1B

It is very important to remember that buckling is an issue when a pile shaft passes through weak soils
anywhere along the length of the shaft. The key numbers to remember here when looking at soil data
are the Standard Penetration Test, “N”, values throughout the depth of the borings. Watch for soil
strata that are weaker than “N” < 4 blows per foot for solid square shaft installations and “N” < 5 blows
per foot for tubular shafts. When such weak soils may be encountered, a check of the buckling strength
of the selected shaft diameter is necessary.
Whenever the shaft must extend above ground in the air or in water without any later support at all, On
the last page of Chapter 1, Graph 8 is provided to give ultimate load estimates for various shaft
configurations relative to the length of exposed and unsupported column height.

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help
you with understanding how to prepare preliminary designs, installation procedures,
load testing, and documentation of each placement when using ECP Torque
™
Anchors . If you have questions or require engineering assistance in evaluating,
“Designed and
Engineered
designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-
To Perform” 0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 57 All rights reserved
 Design Example 2 – Light Weight New Construction – Cohesive Soil
Structural Details:
 New building – single story brick veneer house on
monolithic concrete slab on grade
 The estimated weight is 1,269 lb/lineal ft on the
18” tall steel reinforced perimeter beam
 The client wants Torque Anchors™ on the
perimeter of the structure because of lot fill.
 Top of shaft to be one foot below soil surface
 Soil data:
4 feet of poorly compacted fill – “N” = 5
6 feet of silty clay (CH) – “N” = 5 to 7
15 feet of very stiff clay (CL) –
“N”= 25 to 30 blows per foot.
ULT. CAP = 17,766 lb
Torque Anchor™ Design: WORKING LOAD = 8,883 lb

1. Select suitable pile spacing and working load

from the description of the foundation beam.
Use Equation 3 from Chapter 1 to determine the
working load on the helical pile. From Graph 2 - POORLY
TAB-150- COMPACTED
Chapter 6, for an 18” beam choose “X” = 7 ft. NC 1/2 (6x6) FILL
PILE CAP DEPTH = 4'
Equation 3: Pu = (“X”) x (w) x (FS):
Where,
Pu = Ultimate Capacity of Torque Anchor ™ (lb) SOFT SILTY CLAY
TAE-150-84
w = Foundation Load (lb/ft) EXTENSION DEPTH = 6'
= 1,269 lb/lineal foot
FS = 2.0
MINIMUM
“X” = Product Spacing = 7 ft PRODUCT
LENGTH
PU = 1,269 lb/ft x 7 ft x 2.0 STIFF SILTY CLAY L = 18'
DEPTH = 15'
PU = 17,766 lb (Use 18,000 lb.) DENSITY = 120 pcf
SPT - "N" = 12 - 16
PU = 18,000 lb
8"
2. Select the proper ultimate capacity equation
and collect the known information. Because the TAF-150-60 08-08
soil on the site is cohesive (clay), Equation 1a LEAD SECTION
from Chapter 1 is used:
Equation 1a: AH = Pu / (9c) Where: 10" LENGTH TO EMBED
HELICAL PLATES
Pu = 18,000 lb S = 3 x (8") = 24"
c = 3,400 lb/ft2 (Table 5 – Assume “N” = 27 bpf)
Figure 8. Design Example 2
AH = Pu / (9 x 3,400)
AH = 18,000 lb / 30,600 lb/ft2
AH = 0.59 ft2 Referring to Table 10 – Chapter 1, select a
combination of plates from the row opposite the
3. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™ 1-1/2” square shaft size. At least 0.59 ft2 of
suitable to support the load. The requirement bearing area is required:
states an ultimate compressive capacity of 6” Dia. = 0.181 ft2
18,000 lb. Referring to Table 2 in Chapter 1 the 8” Dia. = 0.333 ft2
1-1/2” solid square pile shaft is an economical 10” Dia. = 0.530 ft2
12” Dia. = 0.770 ft2
choice because it has an Axial Compressive Load
Limit rating of 70,000 pounds and a Useable The combination of 8 inch diameter plates on the
Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs. 1-1/2” solid square shaft is selected.
AH = 0.333 + 0.333 = 0.67 ft2 > 0.59 ft2 - O.K.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 58 All rights reserved
This plate combination provides a total area of very stiff clay stratum. The installed length
0.67 ft2, which exceeds the required 0.59 ft2. As required to accomplish this design depth is:
an alternate, a single 12” diameter plate could be  The depth from the surface to bearing = 18 ft .
selected with a projected area of 0.77 ft 2.  The pile cap is specified at one foot below
The product designation for the standard length grade level = 18 ft – 1ft = 17 feet
Torque Anchor™ product is selected from the The distance to midway between the twin 8 inch
standard product listing on Page 5: plates is 1 ft. (8” x 3D8” = 24 in/2 = 12 inches)
TAF-150-60 08-08 The minimum shaft length requirement is:
4. Installation Torque: Equation 2 in Chapter 1 L = 17 ft + 1 ft = 18 ft
gives an estimation of the required installation
7. Torque Anchor™ Specifications: The
shaft torsion. It is determined as follows:
Torque Anchor™ assembly is specified from the
Equation 2: T = Pu / k standard products listed near the beginning of
Where, Chapter 1:
Pu = 18,000 lb
 TAF-150-60 08-08, which is a 1-1/2” solid
k = 10 (Table 12)
square bar product on a standard 5 foot long
T = 18,000 lb / 10 ft-1

Design Examples
shaft, with twin 8 inch diameter 3/8” thick

Torque Anchor™
T = 1,800 ft-lb plates
 TAE-150-84 Extension, which is 7 feet long,
5. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A
but the coupling overlaps 3 inches providing
review of Table 2 in Chapter 1 indicates that the
an effective length of 6’-9” The extension
1-1/2” solid square bar Torque Anchor™ has a
Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lb, which includes coupling hardware. Two extensions
is nearly four times the required installation are required.
torque. There was no mention of rocks, debris or  TAB-150 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 1-
other obstructions in the project information. 1/2” square bar and has a 1/2” x 6” x 6”
This is excellent product for this project. Table bearing plate.
9 in Chapter 1 shows the Ultimate Mechanical The total length of the assembled products from
Helical Plate Capacity of 80,000 pounds (40,000 above is exactly 18-1/2 feet long. Placements
lb x 2) for the two 3/8” thick helical plates. The shall be 7 feet on center along the perimeter
mechanical capacity of the selected pile grade beam and must develop an average
configuration is more than adequate. installation torque of 1,800 ft-lb or more at the
target depth of 18 feet. It is recommended that
6. Installed Product Length. The stiff silty clay
additional extension be on hand in case the shaft
has been targeted as the soil where the helical
torque requirement is not achieved at 18 feet.
plates will be founded. A depth of 18 feet is
selected to set the plates below the weaker soils. End Design Example 2
This places the plates within the middle of the

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready
to help you with understanding how to prepare preliminary designs,
installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each placement
™
when using ECP Torque Anchors . If you have questions or require
“Designed and engineering assistance in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth
Engineered Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.
To Perform”

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 59 All rights reserved
 Design Example 2A – Light Weight New Construction – “Quick and Rough” Method
Design Details from Design Example 2: and a sufficient practical load limit to exceed
 The ultimate capacity on each pile spaced at 7 the ultimate job load requirement of 18,000
feet on center is 18,000 pounds pounds. Table 9 in Chapter 1 shows the
 Top of shaft to be one foot below soil surface Ultimate Mechanical Helical Plate Capacity of
 Soil data: 80,000 pounds (40,000 lb x 2) for the two 3/8”
4 feet of poorly compacted fill followed by 6 thick helical plates. The selected and verified
feet of silty clay (CH) over 15 feet of very stiff pile configuration is TAF-150-60 08-08 and is
clay (CL)
smaller than recommended from the earlier
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: Because this calculations in Design Example 2.
is a compressive load application and there is
some poorly compacted
fill exists the selection of TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY
Soil Class must be Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
8-8" 8-10" 10-10" 10-12"
conservative. 70000
1. Determine the Soil
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

60000
Class.
Referring to the Soil 50000
Classification Table
(Table 9 – Chapter 1) and 40000
noticing that the clay on
30000
the site is very stiff, Soil
Class 4 is selected. The 20000
poorly compacted fill
should not be a problem 10000
at this light loading as
long as the helical plates 0
are founded into the Graph 3. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
underlying very stiff clay. Soil Classification

2. Select the proper compression pile 4. Installation Torque. Use Graph 6 from
configuration from the estimated capacity Chapter 2, please see Graph 6 on next page (or
graphs. Referring to Graph 3 from Chapter 1 Equation 2 from Chapter 1) to determine the
(reproduced right), notice that the capacity line installation torque requirement for these piles.
for an anchor with two 8” diameter helical The ultimate capacity requirement is 18,000
plates attached crosses the midpoint of Soil pounds. Find this value on the left side of
Class 4 at 22,000 lb. The 8” – 8” diameter Graph 6 and find the intersection of 18,000
plate configuration is selected for the design. pounds with the graph line for solid square
shafts. Then read down to determine the motor
3. Check the Shaft Strength and Torsional torque requirement of 1,800 ft-lb.
Strength to see which shaft is suitable. Refer T = 1,800 ft-lb, minimum
to Table 2 in Chapter 1 to find a shaft with a
suitable Axial Compression Load Limit and Calculating the installation torque from
sufficient Useable Torsional Strength. The 1- Equation 2: (shown here for comparison)
1/2 inch solid square shaft has an Axial Equation 3: T = Pu / k, Where,
Compression Load Limit rating of 70,000 Pu = 18,000 lb k = 10 (Table 12)
pounds based upon an installation torsional T = 18,000 lb / 10 ft-1 = 1,800 ft-lb
limit of 7,000 ft-lbs. The selected pile shaft
T = 1,800 ft-lb, minimum – O.K.
provides suitable Useable Torsional Strength

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 60 All rights reserved
 160

Ultimate Capacity x 1
140
120
5. Minimum Embedment
Depth. In Chapter 1, Page MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY 100
Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
16 of this manual, there is a 80
discussion about helical 240
products being deep 220
60
foundation elements. The 200

Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

formulas presented herein 180 40
are based upon “deep 160
foundation theory”. For the 140 20
results of the calculations, 120
tables and graphs to be 100
0
accurate, there must be
sufficient soil burden over
80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
the anchor or pile. Deep 60
Graph 6.
foundation theory dictates 40 Mo
that the minimum depth 20
from the surface to the 0
shallowest plate must

Design Examples
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Torque Anchor™
Graph 6.
exceed six times the largest Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb
diameter.
Minimum Embedment Depth: *Because the soil profile is known to be weak
near the surface, a 10 foot long extension
D = 6 x dlargest plate. = 6 x (8 in/12 in) = 4 ft*
should be considered because it offers a depth
*Notice: The soil information provided on this of 15-3/4 feet (14-3/4 feet of shaft plus 1 ft
project stated at least 10 feet of soft soil existed depth to the pile cap. Additional extensions
below the surface before reaching stiff to very stiff could be required if the torsion requirement of
clay. The “Minimum Vertical Depth” for this 1,800 ft-lb is not achieved between 10 ft and
design is invalid and the pile must be installed 15-3/4 ft depth.
deeper than ten feet.
7. Torque Anchor™ Selection:
D = Minimum Vertical Depth > 10 feet  TAF-150-60 08-08 – 1-1/2 inch solid
6. Minimum Required Shaft Length. The square shaft that has two 8” diameter plate
shaft length between the two 8” plates must be on the 5’-0” long shaft,
determined and added to the 10 foot, minimum  TAE-150-120 extension – 10’ extension
vertical depth. In addition, the engineer stated section & hardware, (9’-9” effective
that the termination point for the pile caps shall length). It recommended to have
be one foot below grade. additional extensions on hand should the
L = 10’ – 1’ + (3D8”)/2 = 10 ft target shaft torsion not be achieved at 15-
L = 10 ft* 3/4 feet below grade.
 TAB-150 NC Pile Cap that fits over the 1-
The least amount of shaft required to exceed
the minimum depth is a 5 foot lead and a 7 foot 1/2” square bar and has a 1/2” x 6” x 6”
extension. bearing plate.
End of Example 2A
Review of Results of Example 2 & 2A
One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis clearly suggested the same pile
design as determined by the calculated analysis. Therefore the TAF-150 08-08 is a valid design and
should work well on this project. Recall that the calculated analysis used 18 feet dept to bearing.
* Example 2A, “Quick and Rough” method is not able to compensate for the fill soil near the surface.
Recall that the graphs are based upon capacities of helical piles installed into homogeneous soil, which
means that the soil is consistent at all depths. Clearly this is not the case in this example because of the
fill soil. A pile installation deeper than 15-3/4 feet might be required to support the load.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 61 All rights reserved
 Design Example 3 – Basement Wall Tieback Anchor -- Cohesive Soil
Structural Details:
 Cast concrete basement wall is 8 feet
tall and 10 inches thick.
 Unknown soil backfill against the
wall is 7 feet high
 The only soil information about the
site is that there exists inorganic clay T = 22,050 lb
U
ECP TAF-150-60 (10,12)
(CL), stiff to very stiff – 115 pcf CRITICAL TORQUE ANCHOR SOIL
HEIGHT
DEPTH = INSTALLATION
™ 7'-0"
Torque Anchor Design: Because 6 ft ANGLE
TIEBACK
PLACEMENT
LARGEST 3'-0" FROM
there is so little information about the HELICAL TOP OF WALL &
PLATE =  = 15 deg.
soil on this project, the designer will 12" DIA.
P = 2,205 lb/ft
HORIZONTALLY
AT 5 ft. O.C.
have to make judgments about the H

conditions on the site.

STIFF TO
REQUIRED MIN. VERY STIFF
1. Estimate the lateral soil force ADDITIONAL
EMBEDMENT
CLAY (CL)

against the wall. Equation 5 LENGTH AFTER

REACHING
presented in Chapter 1 is selected 2,200 ft-lb =
3 X 12" = 3 ft.
Lo = MINIMUM HORIZONTAL
EMBEDMENT = 17 ft
because hydrostatic pressure must be .6 ft
= 17
assumed as part of the reason for the LEN
GTH
ENT RED
EDM QUI
damage to the wall. EMB H R E 0 ft)
N G T (USE 2
L E
PH = 45 x (H2) T ft
DUC + 2.5
P R O 17.6 ft
L=
Where, H = 7 ft
PH = 45 x (49) = 2,205 Figure 9. Design Example 3
PH = 2,205 lb/lineal foot
AH = 22,050 lb / 18,000 lb/ft2
2. Ultimate Tieback Capacity. Choose a AH = 1.23 ft2
Torque Anchor™ spacing of 5 ft on center as
typical for a damaged basement wall of unknown 4. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™
construction. Use Equation 8 from Chapter 1 to configuration suitable to support the load.
determine the Ultimate Capacity on the Torque Referring to Table 2 – Chapter 1 choose the 1-
Anchor™. 1/2” solid square pile shaft. An ultimate tensile
Equation 8: Tu = (PH) x (“X”) x FS, Where: strength for this job is 22,050 lb and the 1-1/2
inch solid square shaft an Ultimate Limit Tension
Tu = Ultimate Tieback Capacity – lb
Strength rating of 70,000 pounds and a Useable
PH = Horizontal Soil Force on Wall – lb/lin.ft
FS = Factor of Safety (Typically 2:1 permanent
Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs.
support and 1.5:1 for temporary support) Referring to Table 10 – Chapter 1 (reproduced
“X” = Center to Center Spacing of Tiebacks - ft on next page), a combination of plates is selected
from the projected plate areas in the row
In this example, the ultimate capacity becomes:
opposite the 1-1/2” solid square shaft size. At
Tu = 2,205 lb x 5 ft x 2 least 1.23 ft2 of bearing area is needed:
Tu = 22,050 lb 6” Dia. = 0.181 ft2 8” Dia. = 0.333 ft2
10” Dia. = 0.530 ft 12” Dia. = 0.770 ft2
2

3. Select the proper bearing capacity equation 14” Dia. = 1.053 ft2
and collect the known information.
ΣA = 0.530 + 0.770 = 1.30 ft2
Because the soil on the site is cohesive, Equation
The combination of 10” and 12” diameter plates
1a – Chapter 1 is used:
on the 1-1/2” solid square shaft provides a total
Equation 1a: AH = Tu / (9c), Where: area of 1.30 ft2, which exceeds our requirement
Tu = 22,050 lb of 1.23 ft2.
c = 2,000 lb/ft2
(Table 5 - Chapter 1 – Stiff to Very Stiff Clay)
AH = Tu / (9 x 2000 lb/ft2)

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 62 All rights reserved
 Table 10. Projected Areas* of Helical 2,200 ft-lbs must be continuous for a
™
Torque Anchor Plates minimum distance of 3 feet (12”
Helical 6” 8” 10” 12” 14” 16”
diameter plate x 3 dia.) before
Plate Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. Dia. terminating the installation.
2
Shaft Projected Area – ft 6. Minimum Horizontal Embedment:
1-1/2” Sq. 0.181 0.333 0.530 0.770 1.053 1.381 Determine the Minimum Embedment
Length from Equation 9 in Chapter 1.
1-3/4” Sq. 0.175 0.328 0.524 0.764 1.048 1.375
(Also see Figure 3 – Chapter 1, which is
2-1/4” Sq. 0.161 0.314 0.510 0.750 1.034 1.361 reproduced on next page for reference.)
2-7/8” Dia 0.151 0.304 0.500 0.740 1.024 1.351 L0 = H + (10 x dLargest) Where,
3-1/2” Dia 0.130 0.282 0.478 0.719 1.002 1.329 H = Height of Soil (7 ft)
dLargest = Largest Plate Dia. (12 in = 1 ft)
4-1/2” Dia 0.086 0.239 0.435 0.675 0.959 1.286
L0 = 7 ft + (10 x 1 ft)
* Projected area is the face area of the helical plate less the cross L0 = 17 feet
sectional area of the shaft.
The Torque Anchor™ tieback product Min. Horizontal Embedment = 17 feet

Design Examples
designation TAF-150-60 10-12 is selected from

Torque Anchor™
7. Calculate the Critical Depth:
the Standard Product Tables near the beginning Use 6 x dLargest plate. (Discussed Page 31)
of Chapter 1. This anchor configuration will 6 x 1 (ft) = 6 feet (See Figure 3, below.)
provide the 22,050 pound ultimate capacity
required for tension support when spaced at 5 Critical Depth = 6 feet.
feet center to center along the wall. 8. Select Installation Angle and Determine
5. Installation Torque. Use Equation 2 from Product Length. Position the anchors to
Chapter 1, or use Graph 6 from Chapter 2 shown penetrate the wall at two feet below the soil
in the example above to calculate the installation surface. (Note: This is three feet from top of
torque requirement for this anchor. basement wall.) From Step 7 it was determined
that the Critical Depth, “D”, of 6 feet is required,
Equation 2: T = Tu / k, Where, which means that the 12” diameter plate must
Tu = 22,050 lb
k = 10 (Table 12, below from Chapters 1 & 2)
terminate at least 4 feet lower than where the
T = 22,050 lb / 10 ft-1 anchor shaft penetrated the wall. Select an
installation angle of 150 and determine the
T = 2,200 ft-lb minimum installed product length that will
The torque must be developed for a long enough provide the additional 4 feet of soil depth
distance to insure that the helical plates are required at the 12” plate to achieve critical depth.
properly embedded to develop the required
tension capacity. The torque requirement must This can be determined as follows:
be averaged over a distance of at least three L15 deg = (4 ft / sine 150)
times the diameter of the largest plate. The L15 deg = 4 ft / 0.259 = 15-1/2 ft
The minimum distance from the wall to the 12”
Table 12. Soil Efficiency Factor “k”
plate when installed at a 150 downward angle is
Typically Suggested 15-1/2 feet to insure meeting the critical depth
Torque
Encountered Average Value, requirement of 6 feet. Comparing the minimum
Anchor™ Type
Range “k” “k” horizontal embedment length of 17 feet from
1-1/2” Sq. Bar 9 - 11 10 Step 6 to the 15-1/2 foot length required for
1-3/4” Sq. Bar 9 - 11 10
obtaining Critical Depth at 150 installation angle;
it is clear that 17 feet of horizontal length of
2-1/4” Sq. Bar 10 - 12 11 embedment from the wall is the controlling
2-7/8” Diameter 8-9 8-1/2 distance. The additional length of shaft required
to get to the 10 inch diameter plate to the
3-1/2” Diameter 7-8 7-1/2 required distance of 17 feet at a shaft installation
4-1/2” Diameter 6-7 6-1/2 angle of 150 downward must be calculated.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 63 All rights reserved
 ACTIVE
PASSIVE FAILURE FAILURE
PLANES PLANE

ACTIVE SOIL
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE AREA
PRESSURE AREA

TU
CRITICAL
EMBEDMENT INSTALLATION
DEPTH - "D" ANGLE TIEBACK
PLACEMENT
LARGEST HELICAL
PLATE DIAMETER = "d" SOIL
(MEASURE IN FEET)  HEIGHT
"H"

MINIMUM HELICAL PLATE LATERAL FORCE

EMBEDMENT AT THE REQUIRED OF SOIL AGAINST
INSTALLATION TORQUE = "d" x 3 WALL
(LARGEST PLATE DIA. x 3)
Lo = MINIMUM HORIZONTAL
EMBEDMENT = H + 10d (ft)
(EQUATION 10) 
OS
L/C
G T H=
L E N 13)
ENT E
E D M (TABL
EMB

Figure 3. Elements of Tieback Design

(Possibly four extensions could be needed

Use the equation shown in Chapter 1 on Table
for if insufficient shaft torsion is measured at
13 for a 150 downward angle.
20 ft.)
L15 deg = [H + (10 dlargest)] x 1.035
 TAT-150 – Light Duty Transition that
L15 deg = [7 ft + (10 x 1 ft] x 1.035 = 17.6 feet
connects from 1-1/2” square bar to a 22”
Total Shaft Length Needed: length of continuous threaded rod, with
hardware.
LTotal = L15 + LTip (Where LTip = 3D10”)
LTotal = 17.6 ft + (3 x 10”)/12”  PA-SWP – Stamped steel wall plate that
LTotal = 17.6 ft + 2.5 ft = 20.1 ft measures 11” x 16”
Use LTotal = 20 ft α = 150 The length of all of the Torque Anchor™ shafts
plus the threaded bar that penetrates the wall is
Specify required product length by selecting
19’-3” + 20” = 20’–11”. The anchors shall
standard product assembled lengths exceeding
mount along the wall on 5 feet on center at 3 feet
20’ long.
from the top of the basement wall. (Two feet
8. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The below soil level) The anchors are angled down
Torque Anchor™ assembly will consist of at 150. The tieback must be installed to a
products selected from the Standard Product minimum shaft length of 20 feet and must
Selection near the beginning of Chapter 1. develop an average installation torque of 2,200
 TAF-150-60 10-12 -- 1-1/2” solid square bar ft-lb or greater for a minimum distance of at least
with a 10” and a 12” diameter plate attached 3 feet after reaching 17 feet, otherwise the
to a standard 5’-0” long shaft length. anchor must be driven deeper using additional
 TAE-150-60 extension – 5’ extension bar &
extension sections until the torque requirement is
hardware are specified for ease of satisfied.
installation in the basement. (4’-9” effective End of Example 3
length). Three extensions are required.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 64 All rights reserved
 Design Example 3A – Basement Wall Tieback Anchor – “Quick and Rough Method”

Mandatory Installation Requirements If any of the conditions are encountered that are
Before beginning a complicated basement substantially different from what is normally
tieback anchor design like Design Example 3A encountered, an analysis and design shall be
using the “Quick and Rough” method with only performed by a Registered Professional
general information and data from graphs and Engineer, or the engineer needs to review and
tables; the following Mandatory Installation approve your design.
Requirements MUST ALWAYS BE DEFINED
in the final design before the “Quick and Rough” Structural Details: The only data available:
method will be successful.  Cast concrete basement wall is 8 feet tall and 10
inches thick.
Before performing a “Quick and Rough  Backfill against the wall is 7 feet - Unknown soil
Design” for a basement tieback system, the  The only soil information given: There exists
following items MUST be defined and inorganic clay (CL), stiff to very stiff – 115 pcf in
included for a “Safe Use” design: the area

1. The anchor must penetrate the wall at 1. Determine the Soil Class. Referring to the

Design Examples
Soil Classification Table (Chapter 1 - Table 9)

Torque Anchor™
between 3 and 5 feet from the floor of an 8
foot tall basement wall. (This is also valid the soil class of 4 - 5 is selected based upon the
for a 9 foot basement wall with no more than soil description being “stiff to very stiff clay”.
eight feet of soil overburden. 2. Ultimate Helical Pile Capacity. In this
2. There must be at least two feet of soil above design the largest spacing allowed is selected –
the penetration point for the tiebacks. five feet on center. The Ultimate Design Load
for the project is estimated at:
3. Ground water must be assumed present Tu = 3,250 lb/lin ft x 2 x 5 ft =
behind the wall. Tu = 32,500 lb per anchor
4. Unless otherwise given, the working soil 3. Select the proper tieback anchor from the
load on the wall shall be assumed to be 3,250 estimated capacity graphs. Referring to Graph
lb/lin.ft. of wall. To obtain the load on each 3 from Chapter 1 (reproduced on next page),
placement, multiply 3,250 lb/lineal ft by a notice that the capacity line for an anchor with an
Factor of Safety = 2 and by the spacing of a 10” and 12” diameter helical plate suggests a
the anchors on the wall (feet). capacity in excess of at 32,500 lb at Soil Class
5. Unless otherwise given, the maximum between 4 - 5. The 10”-12” diameter plate
spacing of tiebacks shall be no more than 5 configuration is selected for the design.
feet on center with a downward angle 150. 4. Check the Shaft Strength and Torsional
6. A minimum installed shaft length of 22 feet Strength to see which shaft is suitable. Refer
from the wall to the tip of the tieback to Table 2 to verify that the 1-1/2 inch solid
assembly shall be used when the largest square shaft has sufficient capacity to support the
helical plate on the shaft is 12 inches tensile load, and has sufficient torsional shaft
diameter. If the largest plate diameter is 14 strength for installation. The required ultimate
inches the minimum installed shaft length at capacity for each anchor is 32,500 lbs. (Step 2.)
a 150 downward is 25 feet. The 1-1/2 inch solid square shaft has an Ultimate
Limit Tension Strength rating of 70,000 pounds
IMPORTANT: If the tieback reaches and a Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs.
maximum torque before obtaining the length The selected helical pile provides suitable
requirement, the helical plate area MUST be torsional capacity and a sufficient practical load
reduced and the anchor MUST be installed to limit to exceed the ultimate load requirement of
the minimum length stated above, or the 32,500 pounds. The choice is verified.
possibility that the anchor will load the wall and
fail exists. 5. Installation Torque. Use Equation 2 from
Chapter 1, (or Graph 6 demonstrated in Design

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 65 All rights reserved
 TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY
Multiple Helical Plate Sizes
8-8" 8-10" 10-10" 10-12"
70000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity
60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
Graph 3. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

Example 2A) to calculate the installation torque The items shown below are from the list of
requirement for this pile. Mandatory Installation Requirements at the
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, Where, beginning of this example. These requirements
Pu = 32,500 lb MUST always be included when designing
k = 10 (See Table 12 in Design Example 3) “Quick and Rough” basement tieback projects.
T = 32,500 lb / 10 ft-1 = 3,250 ft-lb
7. Mandatory Installation Requirements:
T = 3,300 ft-lb, minimum
 Anchors shall be installed at 3 to 6 feet
6. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. from the floor of the standard 8 foot
 TAF-150-84 10-12 – 1-1/2 inch round corner basement wall.
solid square shaft that has a 10 inch diameter  Anchors shall have a minimum of two feet
and a 12” diameter plate attached to a 7’-0” of soil cover from point of penetration of
long shaft, the wall to the ground surface.
 TAE-150-60 extension – 5’-0 extension  Anchors shall be installed with a
section & hardware. This extension has a declination of 150.
coupled length of 4’-9”. The installation will  These anchors with 12” diameter largest
need four extensions to exceed 22 feet total helical plates shall be installed to a length
length. not less than 22 feet.
 TAT-150 – Light Duty Transition that
 Anchors shall achieve installation shaft
connects from 1-1/2” square bar to a 20”
torsion of at least 3,300 ft-lb over the final
length of continuous threaded rod, with
three feet of installation prior to
hardware.
termination.
 PA-SWP – Stamped steel wall plate that
measures 11” x 16” End of Example 3A
Review of Results of Example 3 & 3B
One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis suggested a similar anchor
configuration as predicted by using the bearing capacity equation. Because this is a general use “Quick
and Rough Design” there are design parameters put in place to cover most situations with an eight foot
tall basement wall (or nine foot wall with no more than eight feet of soil overburden). In addition,
many installation requirements MUST be followed to provide a safe design when a “Quick and Rough”
design method is used. These installation requirements were explained in the Design Example 3B. If
the job not typical, consult a Registered Professional Engineer.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 66 All rights reserved
 Design Example 4 – Retaining Wall Tieback Anchor -- Cohesionless Soil
Structural Details: AH = 0.328 + 0.524 + 0.764 = 1.62 ft2
 New construction steel reinforced cast concrete q = γ x hmid
retaining wall – 12 ft tall h = Design Embedment = 10 ft. is selected
 Backfilled with granular fill at the wall with free (This is the measurement from the ground
flow drainage tiles at the footing surface to where the 12” diameter helical
 The soil information about the site indicated plate is located when the tieback is fully
medium to coarse gravelly sand (SP), Medium installed - See Figure 10, below.)
dense – 130 pcf γ = Soil density = 130 lb/ft3
 Standard Penetration Blow count “N” = 20 blows Nq = 23 (“N” = 20 & Φ = 330) Table 7 Chapter 1
per foot at 10 feet deep
 Φ = 320 Tu = 1.62 ft2 x (130 lb/ft3 x 10 ft) x (23)
1. Estimate the lateral soil force against the Tu = 48,438 lb
wall. Equation 6 in Chapter 1 is selected 3. Torque Anchor™ Spacing. Determine the
because the design specifies that the hydrostatic Torque Anchor™ spacing along the wall for the
pressure is relieved by the drainage system. configuration selected. Use Equation 4 from
Equation 6: PH = 24 x (H2), Where, H = 12 ft. Chapter 1.

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
PH = 24 x (12’ x 12’) = 3,456 (Use 3,500) Equation 4: “X” = Tu / [PH x (FS)], Where,
PH = 3,500 lb/lineal foot “X” = Product Spacing
Tu = Ultimate Capacity on Torque Anchor ™
2. Select a Torque Anchor™ and make an PH = Lateral Force on Wall (lb/lin.ft)
analysis to see if it is suitable. In this example FS = Factor of Safety (Typically 2.0:1)
the TAF-175-60 08-10-12 is tried, a 1-3/4” solid “X” = 48,438 lb/[3,500 lb/lin.ft x 2 (FS)] = 6.9’
square bar product with an 8”, 10” and a 12”
diameter helical plate attached. From the soil 4. Installation Torque & Embedment. Use
data available the soil is cohesionless; Equation Equation 3 – Chapter 1 to calculate the
1b from Chapter 1 is used: installation torque for this anchor.
Equation 3: T = Tu / k Where,
Equation 1b: Tu = AH (q Nq) Where, Tu = 48,438 lb (Step 3)
A8” = 0.328 ft2 (From Table 10 – Chapter 1) k = 10 (Table 12 – Chapter 1)
A10” = 0.524 ft2 (See also pg 63 above.)
A12” = 0.764 ft2
T = 48,438 lb/10 ft-1 = 4,844 ft-lb.
T = 4,900 ft-lb
NO SOIL SURCHARGE

GRAVELLY ECP TAF-175-60 (8,10,12)

TORQUE ANCHOR TU = 48,318 lb SOIL
SAND, MEDIUM DESIGN HEIGHT
SPT, "N" = 10 EMBEDMENT 12'-0"
 pcf DEPTH = INSTALLATION TIEBACK
10 ft ANGLE
 DEG. 12"
PLACEMENT
3-1/2' FROM
DIA. TOP OF WALL &
10" DIA. HORIZONTALLY
8" DIA. P = 3,456 lb/ft AT 7' O.C.
H

 = 15 deg.
PRO PER
DRAINAGE
REQUIRED MIN.
HELICAL PLATE L = MIN. HORIZONTAL
EMBEDMENT EMBEDMENT =
LENGTH AT H + (10 x 12" Dia) = 22 ft
4,900 ft-lb (Equation 9)
= 3 X 12" = 3 ft. ENT
EDM
E D E M B 25 ft
UIR H=
R E Q LENGT D
UIRE t
R E Q 2 9 .5 f
E N G T H 10") =
DUC
T L ) + (3 x
" “Designed and
P R O t + (3 x 8
L= 2 5 f Engineered
To Perform”
Figure 10. Design Example 4.
™
ECP Helical Torque Anchors Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 67 All rights reserved
The torque must be developed for a distance Where: LTip = (3 x dplate 1) + (3 x dplate 2)
great enough to insure that the helical plates are LTip = [(3D x 8” dia)+(3D x 10” dia)]/12
properly embedded to develop adequate tension LTip = 4-1/2 ft
capacity. The torque requirement must be L = L15 + LTip = 25 ft + 4-1/2 ft = 29-1/2 ft
averaged over a minimum distance of at least L = 29-1/2 feet α = 150
three times the diameter of the largest plate. The
installer must average at least 4,900 ft-lbs 6. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A
through a distance of 3 feet. (Three times the review of Table 2 – Chapter 1 indicates that the
12” diameter plate.) 1-3/4” solid square bar Torque Anchor™ has a
Ultimate Limit Tension Strength of 100,000 lb
5. Select Installation Angle and Product and a Useable Torsional Strength of 10,000 ft-lb.
Length. The anchors penetrate the wall at 3-1/2 The project ultimate tension capacity and
feet below the soil surface. (This is torsional requirement are approximately one-half
approximately 0.3 times the wall height.) Recall of the mechanical and torsional capacity of the
that embedment depth was selected at 10 ft in product. There was no mention about rocks,
Step 2. This means that the depth below the soil debris or other obstructions in the soil so
surface to the location of the 12” helical plate installation should be smooth. A check of Table
must be at least 10 feet. Try using an 11 – Chapter 1 indicates that three 3/8” thick
installation angle of 150 and determine the helical plates have an ultimate capacity of
product length that will provide the 10 feet of 120,000 pounds (3 x 40,000 lb), so the total
vertical embedment required. (The required mechanical capacity of the anchor is satisfactory.
depth of embedment is 10 ft. Recall that the
distance from the top of grade level to where the 7. Torque Anchor™ Specifications. The
anchors will penetrate the wall is 3-1/2 feet. The required Torque Anchor™ assembly consists of:
additional depth required by the anchor is 6-1/2  TAF-175-84 08-10-12 - 1-3/4” solid square
feet (10 ft - 3-1/2 ft) = 6-1/2 feet.) bar, on a standard 7’ long shaft with 8”, 10”
The shaft length required at 150 to achieve the 6- & 12” dia. plates,
1/2 foot vertical depth is calculated using the  TAE-175-84 extensions - 7 feet long &
equation given in Table 13 in Chapter 1 for a hardware (6’-9” effective length) – Three
declination angle of 150. extensions are required.
L15 = (6-1/2 ft/sine 150) = 6-1/2 ft/0.259 = 25 ft  TAE-175-60 extensions - 5’ long with
hardware (4’-9” effective length) – One
The minimum shaft length at 150 installation extension is required.
angle is 25 feet, which will insure that the 12”  TAB-175 T Tension Pile Cap – 3/4” x 8” x
diameter plate is located at a total embedment 8” pile cap with bolt and nut. The pile cap
depth of 10 feet below the surface. bolts to the anchor shaft and will be
Comparing the Minimum Horizontal Embedment incorporated into the concrete new
length from Equation 9 to the Minimum construction wall.
Embedment Depth (Step 5): The actual assembled length of the specified
L0 = 12 + [10 x 1’] = 22 ft. Torque Anchor™ system is 32 ft.
The anchors shall mount along the wall at 7 feet
It is clear that L15 = 25 ft (Length to insure
center to center at a distance of 3-1/2 feet from
required 10’ soil embedment depth determined in
the top of the proposed wall. The anchors shall
Step 5) exceeds the Minimum Horizontal
be installed at a downward angle of 150 from
Embedment requirement.
horizontal. The tiebacks must be installed to a
The 10 ft depth of embedment also exceeds the length greater than 29-1/2 feet and must develop
Critical Depth, “D” = 6 x d12 = 6 x 12”/12 = 6 ft an average installation torque of 4,900 ft-lb or
L15 = 25’ > L0 = 22’ using D = 6 more for a minimum distance of at least 3 feet
beyond an installed length of 26 feet, otherwise
Use L15 = 25 ft
the anchor shall be driven deeper until this
Minimum Required Shaft Length: torque requirement is satisfied.
L = L15 + LTip (Distance shallowest plate to tip) End of Example 4

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 68 All rights reserved
 Design Example 5 – Foundation Restoration – Cohesive Soil
Structural Details:
 Two story wood frame house with wood
ULT. CAP. = 18,750 lb
composition siding. WORKING LOAD = 9,375 lb
MONOLITHIC CONCRETE
 Foundation consists of 20” wide by 18” tall steel FOUNDATION:
18" X 20" BEAM & 4" SLAB
reinforced concrete perimeter beam with a 4”
thick concrete slab cast with the perimeter beam. ANCHOR BOLT
(OPTIONAL)
 The corner of structure has settled 2”
 Top of pile will be 12” below the soil surface
MODEL TAB-150
 Soil data: There are two feet of consolidating, UTILITY BRACKET

poorly compacted fill overlaying 20 feet of

inorganic clay (CL), stiff. 2 FEET OF POORLY
COMPACTED AND
 SPT “N” blow count was measured between 8 to CONSOLIDATING
FILL MATERIAL
12 blows per foot increasing with depth
Torque Anchor™ Design:
1. Determine the foundation load: Breaking

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
down weights of structural elements can be TAE-150-60 EXTENSIONS
(2 REQUIRED)
found in the Simplified Tables of Structural 13' = DEPTH
TO MID
Foundation Loads in Tables 2 through 9 in TAF-150-60 (12-14)
PLATES

Chapter 5, ECP Steel Piers™ Design, later in this HELICAL LEAD

14-1/2'

manual. The foundation loads are estimated

below: 14" DIA.

Footing – 20” x 18” 360 lb/lf

Slab Floor, Carpet & Pad 195
20 FEET OF INORGANIC
Wood Frame Walls – 2 Story 176 CLAY -- FIRM TO STIFF
12" DIA.
2nd Floor – 14’ Span, Carpet & Pad
STP BLOW COUNTS --
98 "N" = 8 TO 10

Roof – 6” in 12” Composition, 14’ Span 171

Total Dead Load 1,000 lb/lf
Live Load – Slab 120
Live Load – 2nd Floor, 14’ Span 180 Figure 13. Design Example 5.
Total Live Load 300 lb/lf FS = Factor of Safety (Use 2.0)
w = Distributed Load = 1,000 + 300 = 1,300 lb/lf Pu = 7-1/2 ft x 1,300 lb/ft x 2 = 19,500 lb
w = 1,300 lb/lineal foot
3. Determine the helical plate area required
2. Select a Suitable Pile Spacing and from the known information: Because the soil
Determine Ultimate Torque Anchor™ Load: on the site is cohesive, Equation 1a from Chapter
This is not a heavy structure, so for economy
24" the 1 is used:
solid square bar Torque Anchor™ configuration
/ft
/ft

/ft

Equation 1a: AH = Pu / (9c) Where: /ft

lb
lb

22" Utility
lb

is chosen for this restoration along with lb /ft

0
00

BEAM
0

00

4 - #5 REBARS 0 lb
50

Pu = 19,500 lb (Step 2)
4,0

50
HEIGHT
Brackets to transfer the structural load to the pile 0
3,

(GR-60)
, 0
3,

20" c = 1,250 lb/ft2 Average “N” = 10 (assumed) 2 0

Height of Steel Reinforced

shaft. Using Graph 2 in Chapter 5, select pile 2,

Structural weight per lineal foot
(Table 5 - Chapter 1)
Monolithic Footing

spacing, “X”, at 7-1/2 feet on the 18" along the footing perimeter (lb/ft)

perimeter beam. (Note arrow on 3 4 5 6 7 8

graph.) Determine the working 18"
/ft /ft
load on the piles from Equation 4 /ft lb lb
lb ft ft
– Chapter 1. 16" BEAM 0 50
0 00 lb/ lb/
,00 , 2,0
00 ft 00
2
1,5 b/ 1,0
HEIGHT
3
Equation 4. Pu = “X” x w x (FS): 0l
14" ,20 1
Where, 4 - #4 REBARS EXAMPLE 5
12"
“X” = Product Spacing = 7-1/2 (GR-60)

feet (Selected) 3 4 5 6 7 8
w = 1,300 lb/lineal foot (Step 1) PIER SPACING - feet

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 69 All rights reserved
 AH = Pu / (9 x 1,250) = 19,500 lb / 11,250 lb/ft2 that the pile would reach the desired shaft torsion
AH = 1.73 ft2 at a mid-plate depth of about 13 feet.
Minimum Required Shaft Length:
4. Select the ECP Helical Torque Anchor™ L = hmid + LTip - hF
suitable to support the load. Where:
Referring to Table 2 – Chapter 1 the 1-1/2” solid hmid = 13 ft (The depth from the surface to
square pile shaft is selected. It has an Axial midway between plates on the shaft.)
Compression Load Limit rating of 70,000 pounds LTip = (3DPlate 1) / 2
and a Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lbs.
LTip = (3 x 12” dia / 2 = 18 in
Referring to Table 10 – Chapter 1, we will select
our combination of plates from the list opposite LTip = 1-1/2 ft
the 1-1/2” shaft size. We must provide at least hF = -1 ft (The pile cap will terminate at the
1.67 ft2 of bearing area: Utility Bracket approximately 12
inches below grade level.)
6” Dia. = 0.181 ft2
8” Dia. = 0.333 ft2 L = 13 ft + 1-1/2 – 1 ft
10” Dia. = 0.530 ft2 L = 13-1/2 feet = Shaft length estimate
12” Dia. = 0.770 ft2
14” Dia. = 1.053 ft2 8. Torque Anchor™ Specifications: Specify
The combination of 12” & 14” diameter plates the necessary Torque Anchor™ components:
on the 1-1/2” solid square shaft provides a total  TAF-150-60 12-14 - 1-1/2” solid square bar
area of 1.82 ft2. lead section on a standard length 5 feet long
TAF-150-60 12-14 shaft with a 12” and 14” diameter plate.
5. Installation Torque. Use Equation 2 –  TAE-150-60 Extension – 1-1/2” solid square
Chapter 1 to calculate the installation torque for bar extension 5 feet long with hardware, 2
this anchor. required (The coupling overlaps 3 inches
providing an effective length of 4’-9”)
T = Tu / k Where,
 TAB-150-SUB-150 Utility Bracket. This
Tu = 19,500 lb (Step 2)
foundation bracket fits over the 1-1/2”
k = 10 (Table 12 – Chapter 1)
square bar and mounts to the perimeter
T = 19,500 lb / 10 ft-1 beam. The bearing plate provides 68-1/4 in2
T = 1,950 ft-lb – Use 2,000 ft-lb at the bottom of the foundation for load
transfer.
6. Torque Anchor™ Capacity Verification: A
review of Table 2 – Chapter 1 indicates that the The total length of the assembled Torque
1-1/2” solid square bar Torque Anchor™ has a Anchor™ is 14-1/2 ft.
Useable Torsional Strength of 7,000 ft-lb, which The Torque Anchors™ shall be spaced at 7-1/2
is more than adequate for this application. The feet center to center along the perimeter grade
product selection should work based upon the beam and must develop an average installation
soil report stating that the firm to stiff clay torque of 2,000 ft-lb or more during the last 3
becomes more dense as the depth increases. feet of the installation. Depth is 13-1/2 feet.
There was no mention of rocks, debris or other Note: It is recommended to order additional
obstructions. Table 11 – Chapter 1 verifies that extension sections because the target torque
two 3/8” thick helical plates have a mechanical might not be achieved at 13-1/2 feet.
ultimate capacity of 80,000 pounds. The
mechanical capacity of the pile is excellent. 9. Foundation Restoration. Once all of the
Torque Anchor™ piles have been installed and
7. Installed Product Length. Termination the Utility Brackets mounted, the structure may
depth is targeted in the stiff silty clay where the be restored to as close to the original elevation as
helical plates will be situated. The data indicates the construction will permit.
that the soil has a variance in the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) blow count, “N”,  A pile cap, lift assembly and hydraulic jack
between 8 and 12 blows per foot. It is estimated are installed at each placement.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 70 All rights reserved
  All hydraulic jacks are connected to a hand (Pu-job = Installation Torque x k)
pump and gauge through a manifold system Pw-job = Lifting Force to Restore – lb
that distributes equal pressure to all jacks. (Pw-job = Jack Pressure x Cylinder Area)

 The hand pump is actuated, transferring the The Project Installation Report data is used to
structural load from the soil below the calculate the actual factors of safety for each
footing to the Torque Anchor™ shafts. As Torque Anchor™ placement:
the structure responds and a portion of the
FSActual = TFinal x k (Table 12)/ PLift
foundation reaches the desired elevation,
the jack(s) supporting the restored area(s) Pile 1: FS = (2,000 ft-lb x 10 ft-1) lb / 9,000 lb
are isolated and the pressure at the jack(s) FSpile 1 = 2.22
recorded. Pile 2: FS = (1,950 ft-lb x 10 ft-1) lb / 9,400 lb
 The restoration process continues until the FSpile 2 = 2.07
structure is satisfactorily restored, and all Pile 3: FS = (2,050 ft-lb x 10 ft-1) lb / 7,700 lb
jacks have been isolated and their pressures FSpile 3 = 2.66
recorded.
PROJECT INSTALLATION REPORT
 All installation and restoration data is
transferred to a Project Installation Report.

Design Examples
Project Name: Design Example 5

Torque Anchor™
This report should include, but is not Project Address: 123 Anywhere, Mid-America, USA
limited to, project identification, equipment Products Installed: TAF-150-60 10-12 Lead
used, product installed, final installation TAE-150-60 Extensions
torque, installed depth, lifting force TAB-150-SUB Utility Bracket
required to restore the structure and lift Torque Motor: Model LW6K – 6,000 ft-lb
measurement. This data must be recorded Lifting Jack: Model RC254 – 25 Ton
for each placement. Calculated Ultimate Pile Capacity: Pu = 19,500 lb
Calculated Working Pile Load: Pw = 9,750 lb
 Review the report and calculate actual
Placement Identification Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3
factors of safety on the installation to see if
Final Install Torque, ft-lb 2,000 1,950 2,050
the design requirements have been
Pile Depth, ft 18.5 16 16.5
satisfied.
Force to Lift, lb 9,000 9,400 7,700
Amount of Lift, in 1-1/2 1-3/4 2
10. Actual Load vs. Calculated Load and
Actual Factor of Safety 2.22 2.07 2.66
Installed Factor of Safety: The installation
data must be compared to the calculated values. Soil tends to be non-homogeneous and normally
This enables the designer to verify the accuracy installation torque varies from point to point on a
of the design. In addition, actual project factors project; in addition, the load on a footing is
of safety should be verified, as shown below. usually not uniform due to different architectural
The actual factor of safety for each pile elements in the design of the structure. Pile 2
installation is calculated, a slight variation of the had slightly lower shaft torsion than required and
typical factor of safety formula is used. had a slightly higher working load. This resulted
in the lowest Factor of Safety. Pile three was on
Equation 12: Project Factor of Safety a lightly loaded part of the building an had a
FSjob = Pu-job / Pw-job large Factor of Safety.
Where: End Design Example 5
Pu-job = Installed Estimated Ult. Capacity – lb

Review of Results of Example 5

Comparing the calculated design working load of 8,818 lb per pile (Pw = w (Step 1) x “X” (Step 2) =
1,300 lb/ lineal ft x 7-1/2 ft = 9,750 lb) to the actual lifting forces one can see that all working pile
loads are slightly lower than predicted by the calculations. These differences between calculated and
actual working loads are not significant and are related to the fact that actual loads on the footing are
not uniform along the footing. The actual factors of safety for the installation on this project
demonstrate that the project has actual factor of safeties within normal tolerances. The project has a
safe design.
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 71 All rights reserved
 Design Example 5A – Foundation Restoration – “Quick and Rough” Method
Design Details from Design Example 5: other column provides a range of foundation
 Two story wood frame house with slab dead load weights for this kind of residential
foundation and wood composition siding. structure. Dead loads range between 1,050 and
 Foundation consists of 20” wide by 18” tall steel 1,550 lb/lin.ft and the live load estimates run
reinforced concrete perimeter beam from 300 to 475 lb/lin.ft.
 Top of pile to be 12” below the soil surface A judgment about the quality of construction is
 Soil data: Two feet of consolidating poorly
used to select the foundation loads from within
compacted fill was found overlaying 20 feet of the ranges. For Design Example 5A careful
inorganic clay (CL), firm to stiff. judgment about the construction suggests using
DL = 1,200 lb/lin.ft and LL = 375 lb/lin.ft. The
ECP Torque Anchor™ Design: average perimeter loading to be used for the
1. Determine the foundation load: Use Table “Quick and Rough” design is 1,575 lb/lin.ft.
2, Ranges for Typical Average Residential
Building Loads that can be found in Chapter 5 of 2. Determine the Soil Class. The soil was
this manual. A portion of Table 2 from Chapter reported only as still clay. Referring to the Soil
5 is shown below. (This table does not include Classification Table - Table 9 (Chapter 1), Soil
snow loads. Snow loads must be added for the Class 6 is selected. Keep in mind that little soil
job location.) information available and there is concern about
the poorly compacted fill near the surface.
Table 2. Ranges for Typical Average Residential
Building Loads
3. Select a Suitable Pile Spacing and
Estimated Foundation
Building Construction
Load Range Determine Ultimate Torque Anchor™ Load:
(Slab On Grade)
(DL = Dead – LL = Live) This is not a heavy structure so the solid square
One Story bar Torque Anchors™ configuration is chosen for
DL 750 – 850 lb/ft
Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood
LL 100 – 200 lb/ft this restoration along with Utility Brackets are
Framing -- Footing with Slab
the most economical products to use to transfer
One Story
Masonry Walls with Wood Framing –
DL 1,000 – 1,200 lb/ft the structural load from the foundation to the pile
LL 100 – 200 lb/ft shaft. Use Graph 2 from Chapter 6, to select pile
Footing with Slab
Two Story spacing, “X”. (See below)
DL 1,050 – 1,550 lb/ft
Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
Framing – Footing with Slab A loading of 1,575 lb/lin. ft is slightly higher
Two Story
DL 1,300 – 2,000 lb/ft than the 1,500 lb/ft line on the graph. This line
1st Floor Masonry, 2nd Wood/Metal/Vinyl
with Wood Framing – Footing with Slab
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft will be used to select the spacing and then the
Two Story
spacing will be adjusted to reflect the load higher
DL 1,600 – 2,250 lb/ft than the graph curve. Read across from the 18
Masonry Walls with Wood Framing –
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
Footing with Slab inch footing height to an estimated 1,575 lb/ft
24" position, then drop down to see the pile spacing
From the description of the project, the total
/ft
/ft

of 6-3/4 feet. 6-3/4 feet center to center is /ft

/ft

lb
lb

22"
lb

foundation load (except snow loads) canHEIGHTbe lb /ft

0
00

BEAM
selected
4 - #5for “Safe Use” design.
0

00

REBARS
00 lb
50
4,0

roughly estimated for this structure from Table 2. 5 0

3,

(GR-60)
2, 00
3,

20"
Height of Steel Reinforced

“X” = 6-3/4 feet 2,

The portion of Table 2 reproduced is for slabStructural
on weight per lineal foot
Monolithic Footing

grade foundation loads, which is the 18" typealong of the footing perimeter (lb/ft)
foundation on this project that 3 4 5 6 7 8
supports a two story residence 18"
/ft /ft
that has wood composition /ft lb lb
lb ft ft
siding. 16" BEAM 0 50
0 00 lb/ lb/
00 , ,0
00 t 00
, 2 2
1,5 b/f 1,0
HEIGHT
3
To determine the estimated 14" 00l
1,2
foundation load, look down the 4 - #4 REBARS EXAMPLE 5
12"
first column until the “Two (GR-60)

Story” description that most 3 4 5 6 7 8

closely matches the job house is PIER SPACING - feet
found. Reading across to the
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 72 All rights reserved
4. Determine Ultimate Torque Anchor™ Load: 7. Installation Torque. Use Graph 6 from
Use Equation 3 from Chapter 1 to determine the Chapter 2, shown next page to determine the
ultimate capacity per pile: installation torque requirement for the piles. The
Equation 3. Pu = (“X”) x (w) x (FS): Ultimate Capacity requirement is 21,263 pounds.
Where,
Find 22,000 pounds at the left side of Graph 6
“X” = Product Spacing = 6-3/4 feet look horizontally to the graph line for solid
w = 1,575 lb/lineal foot (Step 1) square shafts, read down to torque of 2,200 ft-lb.
FS = Factor of Safety (Use 2.0) T = 2,200 ft-lb, minimum
Pu = 6-3/4 ft x 1,575 lb/ft x 2 = 21,263 lb
Just for comparison, the installation torque is
calculated: from Equation 2 in Chapter 1:
5. Select the proper pile configuration:
Equation 2: T = Pu / k, (from Chapter 1)
Referring to Graph 4 from Chapter 1 (reproduced
Pu = 21,263 lb k = 10 (Table 12)
below), notice that the capacity line for 12” and
14” diameter helical plates attached to shaft T = 21,263 lb/10 ft-1 = 2,127 ft-lb T = 2,200 ft-lb
crosses just above 20,000 pounds at the center of
Soil Class 6. The 12” and 14” diameter plate 8. Installed Product Length. Termination
configuration is selected for the design. depth is the stiff clay. It is likely that the pile

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
TORQUE ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY
Multiple Helic al Plate Sizes
12-14" 8-10-12" 10-12-14" 12-14-14"
120000
Estimated Ultimate Capacity

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
Graph 4. 1 7 2 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6
Soil Classification

would reach the desired shaft torsion at a depth

6. Check Shaft Strengths and Torsional
somewhere beyond the unconsolidated soil near
Strengths to see which shaft is suitable: Refer
grade. The minimum depth is the summation of
to Table 2 in Chapter 1 to find a shaft with a
the Critical Depth (Chapter 1, page 16) plus the
suitable Axial Compression Load Limit and
distance to the lowest plate.
sufficient Useable Torsional Strength. The 1-1/2
inch solid square shaft is selected because it has Minimum Required Shaft Length:
an Axial Compression Load Limit rating of Lmin = DCritical + LTip Where:
70,000 pounds based upon an installation DCcritical = 14” dia./12” x 6 ft (Page 16)
torsional limit of 7,500 ft-lbs. This pile exceeds (Critical Depth = 6 x diameter of largest plate.)
the ultimate job load requirement of 21,263 LTip = 12” dia./12” x 3 = 3 ft
pounds. The selected and verified pile (Plates spaced at 3 x diameter.)
configuration is TAF-150-60 12-14. Lmin = (14”/12” x 6’) + (12”/12” x 3) = 10 ft

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 73 All rights reserved
 220
200

Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

180
160
MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE
140 CAPACITY
Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
120
240
220 100
200 80
Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

180
60
160
40
140
120 20
100 0
80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
60 Graph 6.
Motor Torque x
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Graph 6.
Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb

“Safe Use” design suggests that the piles be  TAB-150-SUB Utility Bracket This
installed deeper than ten feet below grade foundation bracket fits over the 1-1/2”
because there is weak and consolidating fill soil square bar and mounts to the perimeter
near the surface. A longer standard shaft length beam. The bearing plate provides 68-1/4 in2
of 12 feet, minimum, is selected. at the bottom of the foundation for load
transfer.
9. Torque Anchor™ Specifications: The
 It is recommended that additional extensions
selected Torque Anchor™ assembly is specified:
(TAE-150-60 extension – 5 foot extension
 TAF-150-60 12-14 – 1-1/2 inch solid square section & hardware - 4’-9” effective length
shaft that has a 12” and a 14” diameter plate or TAE-150-84 extension – 7 foot extension
on the 5’-0” long shaft, section & hardware - 6’-9” effective length)
 TAE-150-84 extension – 7 foot extension be on hand in case the shaft torque
section & hardware. (6’-9” effective length) requirement is not achieved at 12 feet.
End of Example 5A

Review of Results of Example 5 & 5A

One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis clearly suggested the same pile
that was determined by the analysis that used the bearing capacity equations. There were some
variations in the design because a higher footing load and higher installation torque were predicted by
the “Quick and Rough” method. This was caused in part by the higher ultimate load suggested by the
“Quick and Rough” tables and graphs from Chapter 5. Once again, similar results were determined
from the “Quick and Rough” design method, but good judgment estimating the quality of construction
is most important in selecting proper data from the tables and graphs for more accurate results.

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 74 All rights reserved
 Design Example 6 – Motor Output Torque
The heavy weight new construction pile design Looking in the “Model Number” column of
presented in Design Example 1 required shaft Table 16, the X12K5 Torque Motor data is
torsion of 7,100 ft-lb be applied to the 2-7/8 inch found. Reading to the right the value for the
diameter Torque Anchor™ shaft to achieve the Motor Conversion Factor, “K”, for this motor is
ultimate capacity requirement of 60,000 pounds. determined to be “K” = 4.20.
In Design Example 1B, where weak soil was
3. Motor Output Torque: Once the differential
present, the torsion requirement was determined
pressure across the hydraulic torque motor has
to be 8,000 ft-lb on a 3-1/2 inch diameter tubular
been calculated (Step 1) and the value for “K”
shaft to be able to achieve the same 60,000
determined (Step 2), the values can be used in
pound ultimate pile capacity.
Equation 11 to determine the actual torque that
Project Details Provided from the Field: was applied to the pile shaft at termination depth.
 New Building – 2 story house with basement
Equation 11: Motor Output Torque
 Ultimate Capacity = 60,000 lb T = K x ∆P
 Torque Motor Available = Pro-Dig X12K5
Where,
 Design 1 – Avg. Pressures at termination depth - T = Hydraulic Motor Output Torque - ft-lb

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
2-7/8” dia = 1,900 psi at inlet & 200 psi at outlet K = Torque Motor Conversion Factor – (Table 16)
 Design 1B – Avg. pressures at termination depth, ∆P = pin – pout = Motor Pressure Differential
3-1/2” dia = 2,150 psi at inlet & 200 psi at outlet
Confirm proper installation torque for Design
 Pressures averaged over final three feet of depth
Example 1.
Equation 11 introduced in Chapter 2 is used to T Example 1 = 4.20 x 1,700 psi
convert pressure differential across the hydraulic T Example 1 = 7,140 ft-lb
gear motor into shaft output torque. 7,140 ft-lb > 7,100 ft-lb - O.K.
Equation 12: Motor Output Torque Confirm proper installation torque for Design
T = K x ∆P Example 2.
T Example 1B = 4.20 x 1,950
1. Differential Pressures: Before using
T Example 1B = 8,190 ft-lb
Equation 11, the pressure differential, or ∆P,
from the field must be determined. 8,190 ft-lb > 8,000 ft-lb - O.K.
The Motor Torque Conversion
Factor – “K” must also be
identified for the Pro-Dig X12K5. Table 16. Hydraulic Torque Motor Specifications
The Pressure Differential across Motor
Torque Maximum Output
the motor is determined as Model Torque
Illustration Output Pressure Speed
Number Conversion
follows: ft-lb psi rpm
Factor – “K”
∆P = Inlet psi – Outlet psi L6K5 6,335 2.53 2,500 16 13.8
∆P = pin – pout
L7K5 7,644 2.55 3,000 35 32.8
∆P from Design Example 1: PRO-DIG
∆PExample 1 = 1,900 psi – 200 psi X9K5 9,663 3.22 3,000 35 26
∆PExample 1 = 1,700 psi
X12K5 12,612 4.20 3,000 40 23.5
∆P from Design Example 1B:
∆PExample 1B = 2,150 psi – 200 psi 5,597/
T12K 2.24/4.85 2,500 65 70/32
12,128
∆PExample 1B = 1,950 psi.
2. Motor Torque Conversion X16K5 16,563 5.52 3,000 40 17.9
Factor, “K”: The Motor Torque Conversion X20K
End20,670
Design Example
6.89
6 3,000 40 14.3
Factor – “K” is found on Table 16 in Chapter 2.
(A portion of the table is shown below.) B26 16:1 4,500 1.5 3,000 10 10 2
Eskridge
B5016-
5,000 1.71 3,000 20 24
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples 21F54 © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 75 All rights reserved
77BA 12,000 5.0 2,400 40 19

IMPORTANT: Torque Motor Conversion Factor, “K”, tend to become lower than shown in this
differentials are below 1,000 psi. As a safety guideline, use only 95% of the “K” shown when
 Design Example 6A – Motor Output Torque “Quick and Rough Method”
The heavy weight new construction pile design ∆PExample 1 = 1,900 psi – 200 psi
presented in Design Example 1 specified that ∆PExample 1 = 1,700 psi
when installed on the site, torsion of 7,100 ft-lb
was needed on the 2-7/8 inch diameter Torque ∆P from Design Example 1B:
∆PExample 1B = 2,150 psi – 200 psi
Anchor™ shaft to reach the ultimate capacity
requirement of 60,000 pounds. ∆PExample 1B = 1,950 psi

In Design Example 1B where weak soil was With the actual field measured pressure
present the torsion requirement increased to differentials calculated, one can find the actual
8,000 ft-lb on the 3-1/2 inch diameter tubular installation motor torque at pile termination
shaft to achieve the same 60,000 pound ultimate depth on Graph 9. Locate 1,700 psi and 1,950
pile capacity. psi values at the bottom of the graph. Then read
upward until the motor curve line for the X12K5
Determine Motor Output Torque: Graph 9 motor is reached. Read horizontally to the left
introduced in Chapter 2 is used to convert where the Output Torque at the Shaft” where can
pressure differential across the hydraulic gear be found.
motor into shaft output torque. Referring to Design Example 1 output shaft torsion is
Graph 9 (reproduced below); the output torque of determined to be estimated at 7,250 ft-lbs.
the X12K5 motor can be determined once the
pressure differentials across the installation Design Example 1B had a pressure differential of
motor are determined. 1,950 psi pressure differential, which produced
an output torque estimated at 8,200 ft-lb.
∆P = Inlet psi – Outlet psi
∆P = pin – pout Proper installation shaft torque is confirmed for
Design Examples 1 and 1B
∆P from Design Example 1:
End Design Example 6A

GRAPH 9. PRO-DIG SINGLE SPEED GEAR MOTORS - DIFFERENTIAL

PRESSURE AT MOTOR VS. MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE FOR
Pro-Dig L7K5 Pro-Dig X9K5 Pro-Dig X12K5
13,000
12,000
11,000
Output Torque at Shaft (ft-lb)

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Pressure Differential Across Motor x 100 (psi)

Review of Results of Example 6 & 6A

One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis suggested the shaft torsion
from field data was sufficient to provide the load capacity. The calculated method and the “Quick and
Rough” solutions for the actual installation shaft torque values were similar.
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 76 All rights reserved
 Design Example 7 – Ultimate Capacity from Field Data
In this exercise the anticipated ultimate Ultimate Capacity of the 2-7/8” diameter, 0.262
capacities of the pile designs from Design wall piles installed in Example 1 (Pu-Example 1):
Example 1 and 1B will be determined. This Where,
information will be used to confirm that the k = 8.5 (Table 12)
installed piles meet or exceed the design TExample 1 = 7,140 ft-lb (Design Example 6)
requirements set out in the original designs Pu = 8.5 x 7,140 = 60,690 lb
Pu = 60,690 lb > 60,000 lb O.K.
Equation 2 from Chapter 1 is used to calculate
the ultimate compressive capacity of the pile Calculating the ultimate pile capacity using data
based upon data provided from the field. Recall from Design Example 1B:
that the Design Example 1 - Heavy Weight New Ultimate Capacity of the 3-1/2” diameter piles
Construction Project required an ultimate with 0.300 inch wall thickness that were installed
capacity at each pile of 60,000 pounds. in Design Example 1B = Pu-Example 1B:
Where,
Equation 2: Helical Pile Ultimate Capacity k = 7.5 (Table 12)
Pu = k x T TExample 1B = 8,190 ft-lb (Design Example 6)

Design Examples
Torque Anchor™
Where, Pu = 7.5 x 8,190 = 61,425 lb
Pu or Tu = Ult. Capacity of Torque Anchor™ - (lb) Pu = 61,425 lb > 60,000 lb O.K.
T = Final Installation Torque - (ft-lb) The results of the calculations confirm the
(Averaged Over the Final 3 to 5 Feet)
k = Empirical Torque Factor - (ft-1)
ultimate capacity determined from the field data
exceeds the design ultimate capacity stated in the
Calculating the ultimate pile capacity using data specifications of Design Examples 1 and 1B.
from Design Example 1: End Design Example 7

Design Example 7A – Ultimate Capacity from Field Data – “Quick and Rough” Method
This exercise will determine the ultimate pile line for the 2-7/8 inch diameter shaft
capacity based upon field data using the “Quick configuration. The legend near the top of the
and Rough” method. The comparison between graph provides choices between square shafts
the calculated design specifications and the and various tubular shafts. Read upward from
actual field capacity will verify whether the pile the 7,250 ft-lb “Motor Torque” line until the
installation is satisfactory. bold dashed line that represents the 2-7/8 inch
diameter shaft configuration is encountered.
Design Example 6A determined that the output
Then move horizontally to the vertical axis at left
torque at the motor shaft was 7,250 ft-lb at the
to see if installed pile ultimate capacity exceeds
termination of the pile installation. Graph 7
60,000 pounds.
from Chapter 2 (shown on the next page)
provides a method to demonstrate the ultimate Looking carefully at the point where the
capacity of the installed helical product. A horizontal plot intersects the “Ultimate
comparison to the design requirement will Capacity” axis, the field generated shaft torsion
determine if the installed pile capacity exceeds at the termination of the pile installation shows
the specified ultimate capacity. to be slightly above 60,000 lb. This verifies that
the actual installed pile capacity exceeds design
Estimate the location on the horizontal axis for
specifications.
shaft torsion of 7,250 ft-lb slightly to the right of
the 7,250 ft-lb grid line and read up to the plot End Design Example 7

Review of Results of Example 7 & 7A

The value in using the “Quick and Rough” method is that it provides rapid results from the graphs.
This method cannot tell exactly how much the field installation exceeded the design requirements, but
it confirms whether the installation meets or exceeds specificaitons. If the engineer wants to know the
actual installed ultimate capacity, then it must be calculated.
ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 77 All rights reserved
 MOTOR OUTPUT TORQUE vs ULTIMATE CAPACITY
Square Shaft 2-7/8" Dia 3-1/2" Dia 4-1/2" Dia
240
220
200
Ultimate Capacity x 1,000 lb.

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Motor Torque x 1000 ft-lb

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with
understanding how to prepare preliminary designs, installation procedures, load testing, and
™
documentation of each placement when using ECP Torque Anchors . If you have questions or
require engineering assistance in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products,
please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-0008.

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

ECP Helical Torque Anchors™ Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 78 All rights reserved
 Chapter 4

ECP Torque Anchors™

Introduction to ECP Helical Soil Nails

Introduction to
Soil Nails

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 79 All rights reserved
 Introduction
Before one can begin a discussion of soil nailing, One common way to do this is with a retaining
a clear understanding of the difference between wall and tieback anchors. The tiebacks work
soil nails and tieback anchors is required. Many together with the structural retaining wall to
times one hears the term “Soil Nail” and provide sufficient lateral support to retain the
“Tiebacks” used interchangeably and this unstable soil mass. The retaining wall must be
demonstrates a lack of understanding of the designed and constructed to provide rigid
products. support for the soil mass over the distance
between the tieback anchor placements. One
Suppose that a construction project requires an
often sees tieback anchors spaced eight to twelve
excavation where the side of a soil cut cannot be
feet apart along the length of the retaining wall.
provided with a stable slope. Figure 1 illustrates
The spacing and number of anchors depends
the soil cut and excavation for this project.
upon the wall height, surcharge loads and
ORIGINAL properties of the retained soil. Tieback anchors
GRADE
must be driven into the soil to a depth that is
sufficient to provide tension resistance in the
FACE OF CUT
anchor shaft that is equal to the soil forces
pushing against the retaining wall. A typical soil
cut with a retaining wall is illustrated in Figure 3.
BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION

ORIGINAL
GRADE

TIEBACK ANCHOR

Figure 1
RETAINING WALL

One can easily understand that without some

kind of containment of the soil at the face of the BOTTOM OF
EXCAVATION
cut, a collapse of the soil along a failure plane is
likely to occur. This failure can happen very
quickly and without warning. The failure might
look something like Figure 2. The unstable soil
moves to the bottom of the excavation leaving a Figure 3
natural and stable slope for the remaining soil.
This interface between the stable and unstable In many construction projects soil nails are used
soil is called a slip plane. to retain the unstable soil mass.
To accomplish this, soil nails are installed in an
ORIGINAL
evenly spaced close geometric pattern without
GRADE the massive retaining wall structure. When
FAILURE PLANE constructing a soil nail stabilization project, the
soil nail placement spacing and the incremental
excavation depth must be accomplished with
incremental excacations that typically measure 4
to 6 feet until the final depth of cut is
accomplished.
Usually only one depth increment can be
completed per day. Immediately following the
incremental excavation of the soil and the
Figure 2 installation of the soil nails, the vertical face of
The most common way to prevent this kind of the soil cut is covered with steel mesh
soil failure is to provide lateral support to the reinforcement and a coating of shotcrete.
unstable soil situated in front of the slip plane.

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 80 All rights reserved
Soil nails are passive structural elements and Helical plates on tieback anchors generally have
are not tensioned after installation. The soil increasing diameters as one moves away from
nail achieves pullout resistance from within the the tip of the anchor. Once a tieback anchor lead
sliding soil mass in front of the slip plane and the section is installed, extensions without helical
stable soil mass located behind the slip plane. plates are used to extend the helical plates at the
The geometric system of soil nail placements tip of the anchor to the target depth. This
characteristic of tieback anchors is clearly shown
ORIGINAL
GRADE
in Figure 3. When comparing the two products,
soil nails always have identical, evenly spaced,
HELICAL SOIL NAIL
small diameter helical plates along the entire
HELICAL SOIL NAIL
length of shaft from beginning to end.

REINFORCED SHOTCRETE
Soil nails may be the product of choice in
applications where the vibrations from installing
BOTTOM OF sheet piling or “H” piles may cause structural
EXCAVATION
distress to nearby structures. Soil nails are
generally installed to a shallower depth than
tiebacks, which might be an advantage if deeply
installed tiebacks have to cross property lines
Figure 4 and/or terminate under structures owned by other
creates an internally reinforced soil mass that is parties; or where otherwise obstructed.
stable. Figure 4 shows a sketch of a typical soil
Soil nails work very efficiently in medium dense
nail installation.
to dense sand with Standard Penetration Test
Notice that each soil nail shaft has a great values, ”N” > 7 blows per foot. They also are
number of helical plates with each plate the same suited for low plasticity cohesive soil (clays)
diameter. These helical plates are evenly spaced with SPT values, “N” > 8 blows per foot, which

Introduction to
along the entire length of the shaft. By also have soil cohesion values exceeding 1,000
comparison, a tieback anchor has one or more psf through the entire depth of soil to be

Soil Nails
helical plates situated at the tip of the tieback. stabilized.

ECP Soil Nail Components

ECP Soil Nail products consist of a shaft the same diameter as the lead section. Soil nail
fabricated from either 1-1/2 inch or 1-3/4 inch extensions are supplied with integral couplings
solid square steel bar. Welded along the entire and hardware for attachment to already installed
length of the soil nail shaft are identically sized lead or other extensions allowing the soil nail
helical plates measuring six or eight inches assembly to reach the designed embedment
diameter with a plate thickness of 3/8 inch. The length requirement.
available lead shaft lengths for ECP Soil Nails
Soil nails may be terminated with a large flat
are nominally five or seven feet long; however,
wall plate or an assembly of reinforcing bars
other lengths may be specially fabricated. Soil
welded to a small wall plate. The wall plates
nail extensions are also available in nominal
will eventually be embedded into the reinforced
lengths of five and seven feet. The extensions
shotcrete wall covering.
shall also contain evenly spaced helical plates of

Product Benefits
 Quickly Installed Using Rotary Hydraulic Torque Motor
 Installs With Little Or No Vibration
 Installs In Areas With Limited Access
 No Post-Tensioning – Immediate Support
 No Need for “H” Piles, Sheet Piling, or Walers
 In Temporary Applications, Soil Nail Removal and Reuse is Possible

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 81 All rights reserved
 ECP Square Shaft Soil Nails
6.00 27.00 27.00

60.00

6.00 27.00 27.00

EARTH CONTACT
PRODUCTS
“Designed & ngineered
to Perform”

ECP Soil Nail Product Configurations

Number Shaft
Part Number Shaft Size Torque Limit* Plate Size
Plates Length
TAS-150-60 06-06 Lead 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
6” Diameter 2 5’- 0”
TAS-175-60 06-06 Lead 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb
TAS-150-60 08-08 Lead 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
8” Diameter 2 5’- 0”
TAS-175-60 08-08 Lead 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb
TASE-150-60 06-06 Extension 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
6” Diameter 2 5’- 0”
TASE-175-60 06-06 Extension 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb
TASE-150-60 08-08 Extension 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
8” Diameter 2 5- 0”
TASE-175-60 08-08 Extension 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb

6.00 27.00 27.00 24.00

84.00

6.00 27.00 27.00 24.00

Number Shaft
Part Number Shaft Size Torque Limit* Plate Size
Plates Length
TAS-150-84 06-06-06 Lead 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
6” Diameter 3 7’- 0”
TAS-175-84 06-06-06 Lead 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb
TAS-150-84 08-08-08 Lead 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
8” Diameter 3 7’- 0”
TAS-175-84 08-08-08 Lead 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb
TASE-150-84 06-06-06 Extension 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
6” Diameter 3 7’- 0”
TASE-175-84 06-06-06 Extension 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb
TASE-150-84 08-08-08 Extension 1-1/2” Square 7,000 ft-lb
8” Diameter 3 7- 0”
TASE-175-84 08-08-08 Extension 1-3/4” Square 10,000 ft-lb
Note: Custom fabrication of soil nail products to your specifications is available – Inquire for pricing and delivery.
All helical plates are 3/8” thick and spaced as shown above.
Extensions supplied with integral coupling and SAE J429 grade 8 bolts and nuts.
Product is hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123 grade 100.
Soil Nail products available as special order – Allow extra time for processing.
* Please see “IMPORTANT NOTE” on Table 17, Page 83

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 82 All rights reserved
 ECP Soil Nail Terminations
TAS-150 WP 12-12 – Wall Plate to fit 1-1/2” Wall Plate with Rebar
Wall Plate square Soil Nail shaft. 1/2” x 12” x 12” with 2-1/8”
dia. hole
TAS-175 WP 12-12 – Wall Plate to fit 1-3/4”
square Soil Nail shaft. 1/2” x 12” x 12” with 2-3/8”
dia. hole

TAS-150 WPR – Wall Plate to fit 1-1/2” square

Soil Nail shaft. 3/8” x 6” x 6” with 2-1/8” dia. hole,
and four #4 rebar by 36” long
TAS-175 WPR 3/8 – Wall Plate to fit 1-3/4”
square Soil Nail shaft. 3/8” x 6” x 6” with 2-3/8”
dia. hole, and four #4 rebar by 36” long.

Product Limitations
Soil nails are designed to attain although under ideal soil conditions, excavations as deep as
pullout resistance from within the 25 feet deep have been reported.
sliding soil mass along with the
When designing soil stabilization with surcharge loads near
resistance from the stable soil behind
the top of the excavation such as buildings, roads, soil
the movement plane. As a result of
overburden, etc, the surcharge loads must be included with
this tensioning, one must anticipate
the weight of the soil mass being retained. With an expected
movements horizontally and
slump of 1/8 inch for each five feet of excavation, one should
vertically at the top of the excavation
consider stabilizing the perimeter footing of nearby structures
on the order of 1/8 inch movement
whenever the excavation exceeds 10 to 12 feet because lateral
for each five feet of excavation.
and vertical movements on the order of 1/4 to 3/8 inch could

Introduction to
These movements are normally not of
cause structural damage to existing structures nearby.
concern unless a building is situated

Soil Nails
close to the proposed soil cut. Creep Table 17. CAPACITIES OF ECP SOIL NAILS
of the soil mass after the initial soil
movement is usually not a problem; Shaft Ultimate-Limit Useable
Shaft Size
Configuration Tension Strength Torsion
however when the soil liquidity index
is > 0.2, a soil nail matrix is not 1-1/2” Square Solid Bar 70,000 lb. 7,000 ft-lb
recommended. 1-3/4” Square Solid Bar 100,000 lb. 10,000 ft-lb

Soil nails may not be suitable in IMPORTANT NOTE:

The capacities listed are mechanical ratings. One must
situations where the soil report understand that the actual installed load capacities are
indicates the presence of weathered dependent upon the actual soil conditions on a specific job site
rock anywhere within the area to be and the strength of the termination connection. The Useable
stabilized. Soil nails are also not Shaft Torsional Strengths given here are the maximum values
that should be applied to the product. Furthermore, these
recommended in loose sand with SPT
torsional ratings assume homogeneous soil conditions and
value of “N” < 7 blows per foot. The proper alignment of the drive motor. In homogeneous soils it
use of soil nails must be approached might be possible to achieve 90% to 95% of the ultimate
with caution where highly plastic torsional strength shown in the table.
clays and silts are present within the The designer should select a product that provides adequate additional
soil mass. Soil nails are not torsional capacity for the specific project and soil conditions.
recommended for low plasticity clay
soil having SPT value of “N” < 6 Each soil nail design requires very specific and detailed
blows per foot. information involving the soil characteristics at the site and
surcharge loads, if any. Each design is complicated and
The practical limit for excavations highly technical. The design and specifications should only
be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer trained
using the soil nail stabilization in soil nail design and familiar with the specific job site.
technique is approximately 20 feet;

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 83 All rights reserved
 Mechanics of Soil Nail Installation
Soil nails not only look different from Torque developed along the Soil Nail shaft.
Anchor™ tiebacks they are designed differently.
The forces developed within the soil nail system
It is important to understand the dramatic
remove the structural requirement for an exterior
differences in these products before working
retaining wall. In most cases the soil nails wall
with soil nails.
plates are embedded directly into the shotcrete
For soil nails to be effective, they must have coating. There is no need for sheet piles, “H”
equal diameter helical plates spaced evenly along piles or wales. The soil mass is stabilized by the
the entire length of shaft. matrix of soil nails, therefore only the thin
shotcrete wall is necessary.
Remember that soil nails are not tensioned to
gain strength; they gain pullout resistance from Soil nails are installed in a geometrical matrix to
within the sliding soil mass that is located in distribute the load evenly; and as such, soil nails
front of the slip plane. The concept is rather are more lightly loaded than tieback anchors.
simple to understand. As the soil mass begins to
Some engineers might specify a small “seating”
slip downward and outward, the sliding soil
load be applied to the soil nail after installation
creates a force against the back side of the helical
to remove slack in the couplings; but in general
plates embedded within this sliding soil mass.
practice, soil nails are usually not tensioned after
The force generated by the sliding soil against
installation because tensioning can change the
these helical plates is resisted equally, and in the
balance of stresses on the helices.
opposite direction, on the front side of the
remaining helical plates that are embedded Soil nailing is a passive restraint system,
within the stable soil behind the slip plane. meaning that the soil nails are not post-
Figure 5 illustrates the way that the forces are tensioned, the unstable soil mass has to slump
slightly before the soil nail system can develop
internal forces to
resist the soil
SLIP PLANE movements.
Soil nailed walls
STABLE SOIL MASS SLUMPING
SOIL MASS can be expected
to deflect both
REACTION FORCE IN
THE PORTION OF THE
downward and
SOIL NAIL EMBEDDED
INTO STABLE SOIL
outward during
the slumping of
REACTION FORCE IN
SOIL NAIL DUE TO the soil mass.
SLUMPING SOIL
Expected
movements of
approximately
1/8” of vertical
INSTALL ANGLE
and horizontal
5 TO 15 DEGREES movement of the
top of the wall for
each five feet of
excavation are
common.
These movements
Figure 5. are normally not a
concern except
when an existing
structure is
situated near the

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 84 All rights reserved
top of the excavation. The soil overburden load greatest. The soil nail is not installed to a
from a nearby structure can be reduced by pro- specified torsion requirement like tieback
viding supple-mental foundation support to the anchors; rather the length of embedment, the
perimeter beam and/or column footings of the installation angle and center to center spacing are
existing structure. ECP Steel Piers™ are the important elements in soil nail installations.
recommended to transfer the structural load of
Once all of the soil nails situated within the first
the existing build-ing foundation to the deep
excavation increment are installed, one-half of
support provided by ECP Steel Piers™. The ECP
the required thickness of shotcrete is placed on
Steel Piers™ not only reduce the surcharge on the
the wall followed immediately by the installation
soil mass, they prevent vertical settlement of the
of the wall plates and reinforcing steel mesh.
existing footing as the slight movement of the
The reinforcing mesh is cut long enough to
soil mass occurs during the tensioning of the soil
provide suitable splice overlap at the next
nail matrix. If there are concerns with regard to
increment of soil excavation. A surface coating
lateral movements of the building’s footings, the
of shotcrete is installed over the steel
designer has the ability to prevent lateral footing
reinforcement to provide the final thickness of
movements of the existing structure by using
concrete specified by the engineer. All work is
Torque Anchor™ tieback anchors along with
then left to cure prior to the next depth increment
ECP Steel Piers™ to provide both lateral and
excavation.
vertical stability to the building’s footing.
Prior to the beginning the next excavation
Figure 6 shows details of a typical soil nail
increment (usually the next day), the amount of
installation. Usually four to five feet of soil is
slump at the top of the excavation must be
excavated and immediately followed by the
measured to insure that the recently installed soil
installation of the first row of soil nails. Notice
nails are performing as intended. When
that the first row has the longest shaft length
approved, the next depth increment can be
because the distance to the slip plane is the
excavated followed by the installation of the next

Introduction to
Soil Nails
ORIGINAL LOCATION SOIL MASS SLUMP APPROXIMATELY
OF SOIL MASS 1/8" LATERAL AND 1/8" VERTICAL FOR
EACH 5' DEPTH EXCAVATED
SLIP PLANE
FINAL LOCATION OF
SOIL MASS AFTER ORIGINAL LOCATION OF SOIL MASS
SLUMP

FINAL LOCATION OF SOIL MASS AFTER SLUMP

SOIL NAILS ARE LONGER AT THE TOP OF

WALL AND BECOME SHORTER WITH DEPTH OF
OF EXCAVATION. SOIL NAIL SHOULD HAVE
EQUAL NUMBER OF HELICAL PLATES ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE SLIP PLANE

SOIL NAILS SPACED IN A

MATRIX USUALLY 4' TO 5'
ROWS AND 4' TO 6' BETWEEN
NAILS ALONG THE WALL

SHOTCRETE REINFORCED
WITH STEEL WITH THICKNESS
USUALLY 4" TO 6" THICK

Figure 6.

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 85 All rights reserved
row of soil nails followed by the immediate of shotcrete and steel must be interlocked to the
installation of the first layer of shotcrete. The previous work to provide continuity to the wall.
only difference between the initial
and subsequent incremental
excavations is that the new layers
Shotcrete
Shotcrete is a process where
Portland cement concrete, or
mortar, is propelled under air
pressure onto a surface. ECP
recommends the wet process
where the dry ingredients are
mixed with water and then sent to
the spray nozzle as opposed to
“Gunite” where the materials are
mixed as they leave the nozzle.
Shotcrete deposits more concrete
with less rebound upon impact
than “Gunite”.

Engineering Design
and Supervision
Design should involve
professional geotechnical and
engineering input. Each soil
nail design requires very
specific and detailed
information involving the soil
characteristics at the site and
surcharge loads, if any. Each
design is complicated and
highly technical. The final
design and specifications
should only be prepared by a
Registered Professional
Engineer trained in soil nail
design and familiar with the
specific job and job site.
The photographs show ECP Soil Nail installation and Shotcrete application.

Field Documentation
It is very important for the installer to be aware recording field data. This raw field data is
that soil nailing projects involve risk; and as normally compiled at the end of the day into a
such, close communications with the engineer Daily Installation Report. This report should be
and attention to detail is extremely important. assembled in a form that is easy to read and
The data collected on site will assist the engineer understand. At the start of each day the Daily
to determine if the project is progressing Installation Report from the previous day should
according to plan. Field data should be recorded be provided to the engineer prior to his field
on each soil nail product installed. Usually, the measurements and before beginning the next
field superintendent is the person responsible for excavation increment. ECP suggests reporting

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 86 All rights reserved
the following data on each installed soil nail to 5. The installed length of the soil nail
the engineer each day: 6. The installation torque required to
1. A diagram with the numbered locations advance the soil nail into the soil
of the installed ECP Soil Nail for recorded at one foot intervals
reference 7. Notes should be made on the torsion log
2. ECP Soil Nail product part numbers of for each soil nail placement to report the
the items that were installed presence of non-uniform soil or if the
soil nail encounters an obstruction
3. The elevation from the surface to the soil
during installation
nail entry point
4. The soil nail installation angle

Introduction to
Soil Nails
Two skid steer machines are shown above installing a A view of a finished ECP Soil Nail retaining wall.
second row of ECP Soil Nails.

NOTE: Technical Design Assistance Is Not Offered For Soil Nail Projects
Soil Nail design should only be performed after a thorough soil investigation by a registered professional engineer
because soil nail projects carry the risk of severe failure. All field installation procedures should be performed under
the direct supervision of the design engineer of record on site. As these types of projects require extremely detailed
soil reports, extensive engineering calculations, and intimate knowledge of the job site, ECP is unable offer
complementary preliminary designs for soil nail projects.

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”
www.earthcontactproducts.com

ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-07 Page 87 All rights reserved
ECP Soil Nails © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-07 Page 88 All rights reserved
 Chapter 5

ECP Steel Piers™

Technical Design Manual

 PPB-166 Slab Bracket System
 PPB-200 Under Footing Pier System
 PPB-250 Under Footing Pier System
 PPB-300 ECP Steel Pier™ System
 PPB-350 ECP Steel Pier™ System
 PPB-400 ECP Steel Pier™ System

ECP Steel Pier™

Design

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 89 All rights reserved
 Introduction
The ECP Steel Pier™ belongs to a family of
underpinning products that are sometimes
3' to 4'
referred to as micropiles, push piers, or STEM WALL

resistance piers. These underpinning products SPREAD CONTINUOUSLY

FOOTING ADJUSTABLE
are hydraulically driven into the soil using the BRACKET LIFT ROD
FLOOR
structural weight of the building as a reaction SLAB PIER CAP

force. A friction reduction collar is attached to PPB-300

PPB-350
the bottom end of the lead section of pier pipe. PPB-400
The purpose of the collar is to create an opening PIER BRACKET

in the soil that has a larger diameter than the pier

pipe that follows. This dramatically reduces the FACE PLATE

skin friction on the pier pipe as it is driven into

the soil. This feature allows the installer to load
test and to verify that the pier has encountered
firm bearing stratum or rock that is suitable to
PPB-300-EPS PIER PIPE
support the design load. 2-7/8" DIA x
0.165" WALL
The ECP Steel Pier™ like other resistance piers is PPB-350-EPS PIER PIPE
an end-bearing pier that does not rely upon, nor 3-1/2" DIA. x 0.165 WALL
PPB-400EPS PIER PIPE
requires, skin friction to produce support. Each 4" DIA x 0.220 WALL
pier is field load tested after it is installed. The PIPE SEGMENTS = 3'-6"
piers are able to develop a factor of safety SUITABLE LOAD LONG
BEARING
because the piers are installed and load tested STRATUM OR FRICTION
REDUCTION
individually using the structural weight from a ROCK
COLLAR
large part of the building as a reaction force. The
ability of the system to develop a significant
factor of safety comes from the much higher load
Figure 1. Typical configuration for the ECP Steel
the pier during pier installation and a lower load Pier™ System with Type PPB Utility
when the lifting load is transferred to the pier Bracket attachment to the footing.
during restoration. The piers are driven one at a
time using the weight of the entire structure as
A building with substantial construction and
the reaction during the installation. During load
rigidity can develop greater factor safety on each
transfer and restoration, hydraulic jacks are
pier than a structure with a weaker, more flexible
placed at multiple pier locations, which places
structure.
only the lower design/working load on each pier.

Features and Innovations

™
The patented ECP Steel Pier is the fourth to continuously threaded rods as opposed to the
generation of a product invented by Don May limitations imposed by the use of shims and
dating back to the 1970’s. This resistance steel pins on other systems. The ECP Steel Pier™ is
pier incorporates many advances over previous also more “installer friendly” because the inner
versions. An important improvement to the chamber of the drive stand is quickly accessible
ECP Steel Pier™ system is a reduction in the by temporarily removing face plates on the pier
eccentricity between centerline of the pier pipe bracket and drive stand. In addition, a pier
and the foundation bracket. This means that alignment guide is integral with one of the
there is less moment (twisting) at the pier drive stand face plates. The addition of a
bracket when in is loaded. This feature retaining plate that safely secures the heavy
translates to greater load capacities. The hydraulic drive cylinder to the drive stand is a
system offers nearly unlimited elevation large advancement for operator safety. The
recovery as the adjustment of the pier bracket drive cylinder had a tendency to work loose in
elevation is accomplished by hex nuts attached earlier designs. Other than a control sleeve that

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 90 All rights reserved
is only used on the PPB-350, all of the pier The “Inertia Sleeve” consists of a piece of pipe
brackets are designed to securely align and that fits snugly inside the existing pier pipe. At
guide the pier pipe without additional tools. one end the “Inertia Sleeve” has a nine inch
Another innovation on the ECP PPB-300 & long coupling that fits through, and spans
PPB-350 Steel Pier™ Systems is the patented across, the coupled pier joint. The “Inertia
“Inertia Sleeve”. This state of the art method Sleeve” is installed concurrent with the pier
of increasing the moment of inertia (stiffness) pipe installation and only takes the time
of the pier pipe and the “Inertia Sleeve” necessary to pick up the “Inertia Sleeve”
strengthens the coupled joints, which is product and to let it drop by gravity into the
unmatched in the industry. The pier pipe and current pier section prior to installing the next
“Inertia Sleeve” combination produces a more section of pier pipe.
rigid pier system with a higher moment of The installed cost of this pier strengthening
inertia (stiffness) than the pier pipe alone. product is hardly more than the purchase price
The “Inertia Sleeve” does not carry any of the of the “Inertia Sleeve” product, yet it creates a
axial compressive pier load; the function of this stiffer pier system that is more resistant to
product is only to increase pier stiffness in buckling when installed through weak soil.
weak soils to prevent buckling. (See Figure 3,
next page)
Product Benefits
 Ultimate-Limit Capacities: Up to 115,000 lb.  Installs With Little or No Vibration
 Proof Test Loads: Up to 86,000 lb.  Friction Reduction Collar On Lead Pier
 Standard Lift – 4” Fully Adjustable Section Reduces Skin Friction
 Greater Lift Capability With Optional  Installs To Rock or Verified End Bearing
Longer Bracket Rods Stratum
 Installs From Outside or Inside the  100% of Piers Are Field Load Tested to
Structure Verify Capacity During Installation
 Installs With Portable Hydraulic  Manufacturer’s Warranty
Equipment
Pier Installation Sequences
Quiet vibration free hydraulic
equipment is used to install ECP Steel
Piers™. All installation equipment is
portable and can be carried in a
wheelbarrow. After all of the piers
are installed and load tested, the

ECP Steel Pier™

structure can be immediately restored
DRIVE CYLINDER

by transferring the structural load to

Design
the piers. There are no days wasted
waiting for concrete to cure and no
soil to transport from the site. A DRIVE STAND
measured factor of safety is verified,
as the piers are 100% load tested to a FOUNDATION INSTALLED PIER
force greater than the actual working STEMWALL AND BRACKET

load prior to being put in service. FOUNDATION

FOOTING

Projects are usually completed in STARTER

PIER PIPE

days, not weeks. Should geologic

conditions change, the piers can be
easily inspected, tested and/or
adjusted.
Figure 2. Typical Steel Pier™ Installation with Utility Bracket.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 91 All rights reserved
 PPB Utility Bracket Installation PPB Utility Bracket Components
The following nine steps illustrate the typical installation
PIER
procedure for the PPB-300, PPB-350 or PPB-400 Utility CAP
Bracket. Figure 2 shows a structure with a spread footing.
The detail on the left side of Figure 2 illustrates the
configuration used when installing the resistance pier
system and driving the pier pipe. On the right side of
Figure 2 is the configuration of the installed pier system
following the transfer of the structural load to the pier.
Please contact ECP engineering department for ECP
Typical Specifications that provide the specific and
detailed product installation requirements and procedures.
1. Site survey: Pier placements are determined and BRACKET
locations of all underground utilities are verified. ROD & NUT
2. Excavation: Small excavations are dug for access at BRACKET
FACE
each placement location. The excavation required at CONTROL
PLATE
SLEEVE
the foundation is usually about 3 feet square. (PPB-350 ONLY)
3. Preparation of the foundation: The footing is
notched (if required) to situate the pier bracket under
the stem wall. The bearing area under the footing is
chipped a smooth and level condition and the face of
EXTENSION
the stem wall is adjusted to vertical (plumb) at the PIER
point of bracket attachment. SECTION

4. Utility Bracket Attachment: The utility bracket is

secured to the footing using two anchor bolts. Then
the drive stand and the hydraulic cylinder are mounted
to the bracket. (Shown on left side of Figure 2.)
STARTER
5. Pier Pipe Installation: The piers may be installed PIER
from outside or inside the structure. The pier pipe is SECTION
advanced into the soil using a small portable high-
pressure hydraulic pump. The pier pipe is 3-1/2 feet
long so low overhead clearance is not a problem
during installation. Pier installation continues until INERTIA SLEEVE
FRICTION
rock or suitable bearing is encountered below the REDUCTION
INSTALLS INSIDE
PIER SECTIONS
unstable soil near the surface. COLLAR
(OPTIONAL SOME
6. Proof Load Test: Every pier is load tested to insure PRODUCTS)

that rock or other firm bearing is verified to be

substantial enough to withstand a load greater than Figure 3. Component configuration for
required to restore and support the structure. The typical PPB-300, PPB-350 &
structure provides the reaction force for installing and PPB-400 Utility Brackets
testing. Typically Factor of Safeties from 1.25 to 3.0 structure is gently and evenly lifted
can typically be generated. to the specified design elevation.
7. Preparations for Restoration: Once all piers have The nuts at the pier caps are
been installed, load tested, and the installation data secured at each placement and the
recorded; lifting head assemblies and hydraulics are lifting equipment is removed.
placed at the placements, which are connected to one (Please see Figure 1.)
or more manifolds and hydraulic hand pumps. 9. Clean Up: The soil that was
8. Restoration: Under careful supervision, the excavated at each pier placement
structural load is transferred from the failing soil location is replaced and compacted.
under the foundation to the steel pier system. The The site is left clean and neat.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 92 All rights reserved
 PPB-166 Slab Jack Installation
The following nine steps illustrate the typical
installation procedure for the ECP PPB-166 Slab
Jack Bracket. Figure 4 shows the configuration HYDRAULIC
used to install the pier pipe and the installation DRIVE CYLINDER
ASSEMBLY
tools mounting configuration. Please contact
ECP engineering department for ECP Typical UNIVERSAL

Specifications that provide the specific and DRIVE STAND

detailed product installation requirements and

procedures.
1. Site survey: Pier placements are DRIVE
CYLINDER
determined and locations of all underground ADAPTER

utilities verified. 8" DIA. ACCESS HOLE

CONCRETE
SLAB

2. Core Drill/Excavation: Core drill an

eight inch diameter hole through the slab.
Excavate soil below hole to a depth of 14 to
16 inches. PPB-166-EPSB PIER SECTIONS:
1-1/4" DIA. SCH 40 PIPE x 3'-0"

3. PPB-166 Bracket Placement: The (PPB-300-EPS 2-7/8" DIA. - 0.165"

WALL TUBING x 3'-0" LONG
HYDRAULIC SLAB
BEARING PLATE
Bearing Plate shall be temporarily placed on ALTERNATE PIER PIPE) (1" x 6" x 16")

the soil at the bottom of the hole and aligned

with the center of the hole in the concrete.
The drive stand and hydraulic cylinder are
c o n n e c t e d to the bracket using 3/4 inch FRICTION
REDUCTION
ROCK OR
SUITABLE
diameter B7 all-thread rods. COLLAR
BEARING

4. Pier Pipe Installation: Each three foot

long section of pier pipe is advanced into Figure 4. PPB-166 Slab Jack installation configuration
the soil using a portable high-pressure
hydraulic pump. Overhead clearance is
Hydraulic rams are connected to one or
usually not a problem when using short pier
more manifolds and hydraulic hand pumps.
sections. The pier pipe is advanced into the
soil until rock or suitable bearing is 7. Restoration: Under careful supervision,
encountered below the failing unstable soil the load is transferred from the failing soil
directly under the slab. under the slab to the steel pier system. The
slab is gently and evenly lifted to as close to
5. Proof Load Test: Every pier is load tested to
the original elevation as the construction
insure that rock or other firm bearing is
will allow or to the specified elevation. The
verified to be substantial enough to

ECP Steel Pier™

nuts at the pier caps are secured at each
withstand a load greater than required to
placement, and then the lifting equipment is
restore and support the slab. Some slabs can
Design
removed.
provide sufficient reaction force for
installation and testing, but supplement 8. Filling the Voids: A lean concrete mud
weights around the access hole are slurry (2-1/2 sack mix) shall always be
sometime necessary to develop addition pumped under low pressure to fill all voids
reaction force and to reduce slab stress created when the slab was lifted.
cracks. Tests typically apply no more than 9 . Clean U p : The soil that was excavated
75% of the ultimate capacity. from each pier placement shall be removed
6. Preparations for Restoration: Once and disposed of in a safe and legal manner.
pier pipe has been installed, load tested, and The core drilled holes shall be filled with
the data recorded for all placements; the all structural concrete and finished to match the
of the bearing plates, lifting head assemblies existing floor. The site shall be left clean
and hydraulics are installed on the piers. and neat.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 93 All rights reserved
 ECP Steel Pier™ – Product Configurations
A. PPB-300 Utility Bracket B. PPB-350-400 Utility Bracket C. PPB-350-400-WM Wall Bracket
PIER OFFSET
11 3/4" UNLIMITED LIFT 2 5/8" UNLIMITED LIFT
13"
WITH LONGER PIER OFFSET WITH LONGER 15 1/4"
1-7/8" PIER UNLIMITED LIFT 5 1/16" BRACKET RODS 2 1/2" 6 7/8" BRACKET RODS
OFFSET WITH LONGER 4" STD. LIFT
BRACKET RODS BEFORE 1--1/8" DIA.
4" STD. LIFT BEFORE LIFT 8 HOLES
4" STD. LIFT LIFT 11/16" DIA.
BEFORE LIFT 11/16" DIA. 4 HOLES AFTER
4 HOLES 7 1/2" AFTER LIFT
7" AFTER LIFT LIFT

6" 7"
16 "

14 1/2"
18"
CONTROL
SLEEVE
(MODEL
350 ONLY)
CONTROL
2-7/8" DIA. x SLEEVE
0.165 WALL (MODEL
PIER PIPE 4" DIA. x 3-1/2" DIA. x 4 5/8 "
10 3/8" 9 3/4" 350 ONLY)
0.220 WALL 0.165 WALL
12"
PIER PIPE PIER PIPE

Ultimate-Limit Capacity
9 7/8"
(MODEL 400) (MODEL 350)

Std. Bracket: 107,000 pounds

Ultimate-Limit Bracket Capacity
Ultimate-Limit Bracket Capacity PPB-400 WM HD Bracket
79,000 pounds
99,000 pounds 115,000 pounds (Not Shown)

D. PPB-350-EP2 & PPB-350-EP4 Eccentric Bracket E. PPB-350-MP2 Micro Pile

4-1/2" PIER OFFSET 6-1/2" PIER OFFSET
14" 16" UNLIMITED LIFT
WITH LONGER
7 1/2" 7 1/2" BRACKET RODS
13"
CONCRETE TILT
4" STD. LIFT BEFORE 4" STD. LIFT BEFORE UP WALL
LIFT LIFT 11/16" DIA.
4 HOLES
AFTER AFTER
LIFT LIFT
SPREAD
FOOTING 3' to 4'
8"
CONTINUOUSLY
FLOOR SLAB ADJUSTABLE
BRACKET LIFT ROD
18 1/2" PIER CAP
MODEL PPB-EP2
ECCENTRIC PIER
BRACKET
FACE
PLATE

14"
4" DIA. x 0.220 Wall
PIER SLEEVE x 42" 12"
LONG

3-1/2" DIA. x 0.165

WALL PIER PIPE
PB-350 EP2 PPB- 350 EP4
9 7/8" PIER SLEEVE
x 3'-6" LONG WITH

Ultimate-Limit Bracket Capacity: EP2 - 68,000 lb – EP4 - 55,000 lb

COLLAR
COUPLING

GROUT
F. PPB-166 Slab Jack Bracket Assembly G. PPB-200 & PPB-250 COLUMN

Under Footing Bracket

8" DIA. ACCESS HOLE
HOLLOW
CONCRETE MICROPILE
PILE CAP ASSY SLAB SHAFT
1" x 3-1/2" x 7"

PIER SECTIONS:
1-1/4" DIA. SCH 40 PIPE x 3'-0"
(ALTERNATE 2-7/8" DIA. - 0.165" SUITABLE
WALL TUBING x 3'-0" LONG) BOND
HYDRAULIC SLAB ZONE
BRACKET ASSY SACRIFICIAL
DRILL BIT
(1" x 6" x 16"
BEARING PLATE)

FRICTION
ROCK OR
REDUCTION
COLLAR
SUITABLE
BEARING
Ultimate-Limit Bracket
Capacities:
PPB-200 - 50,000 pounds Ultimate-Limit Bracket Capacity
Ultimate-Limit Bracket Capacity: 22,000 lb PPB-250 - 54,000 pounds 68,000 pounds
(Pier Pipe Sold Separately) (PPB-250 similar, not shown)

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 94 All rights reserved
Table 1. ECP Steel Resistance Pier System Ratings
Ultimate-Limit 1 Ultimate-Limit 1 Maximum Recommended
Fig Product Designation – Pipe Size Bracket Only Mechanical System Drive Force - Design /
Capacity Capacity “Proof Test” 2 Service Load
A PPB-300 Steel Pier – 2-7/8” dia x 0.165” Wall 79,000 lb 68,000 lb 51,000 lb 34,000 lb
B PPB-350 Steel Pier – 3-1/2” dia x 0.165” Wall 99,000 lb 86,000 lb 64,500 lb 43,000 lb
B PPB-400 Steel Pier – 4” dia x 0.220” Wall 99,000 lb 99,000 lb 74,000 lb 49,500 lb
C PPB-350-WM – 3-1/2” dia x 0.165” Wall 107,000 lb 86,000 lb 64,500 lb 43,000 lb
C PPB-400-WM – 4” dia x 0.220” Wall 107,000 lb 107,000 lb 80,000 lb 53,500 lb
-- PPB-400- WMHD – 4” dia x 0.220” Wall 115,000 lb 115,000 lb 86,000 lb 57,500 lb
D PPB-350-EP2 – 3-1/2” dia x 0.165” Wall 68,000 lb 53,000 lb 39,750 lb 26,500 lb
D PPB-400-EP2 – 4” dia x 0.220” Wall 68,000 lb 54,000 lb 40,500 lb 27,000 lb
D PPB-350-EP4 – 3-1/2” dia x 0.165” Wall 55,000 lb 42,000 lb 31,500 lb 21,000 lb
E PPB-350-MP2 – Micro Pile Bracket 68,000 lb Note: Capacity depends upon drill dia, bar dia & grout strength
F PPB-166 – Slab Jack – 1-1/4” Sch. 403 22,000 lb 22,000 lb 16,500 lb 11,000 lb
G PPB-200 – Ftg Bracket – 2-7/8” dia x 0.165” Wall 50,000 lb 50,000 lb 37,500 lb 25,000 lb
-- PPB-250 – Ftg Bracket – 2-7/8” dia x 0.165” Wall 54,000 lb 54,000 lb 40,500 lb 27,000 lb
1. Unfactored Failure Limit, use as nominal, “Pn” value per design codes 2. Maximum recommended load to confirm suitable end bearing capacity of pipe
3. Alternate pier pipe – 2-7/8” dia x 0.165” Wall

“Suitable Load Bearing Stratum”

While field load testing of each resistance pier Field load tests over the years have confirmed
verifies that the pier has encountered suitable end that resistance piers will provide long term
bearing, several definitions can be found for the support in strata such as these. In many cases
word “Rock”. Many times when a soil boring suitable bearing can be achieved in less dense
log is available one may want to estimate the material depending upon the pile loading
approximate depth to load bearing. Presented requirements, the type of soil and the soil
here are guidelines to assist with the estimating density.
depth to suitable bearing. Thousands of comparisons between soil boring
When material described in a soil boring reflects logs and field load tests suggest that Suitable
a Standard Penetration Test, “N”, greater than 50 Load Bearing is generally achieved in soils
blows per foot, we generally consider the where “N” > 35 blows per foot at the termination
material to be “rock” or a very hard soil stratum. depth.
Why Determine Structural Loads?
Before one can begin to prepare a foundation that there is too much “suction” under the slab.

ECP Steel Pier™

underpinning design, an accurate estimate of the Other indications of underestimated foundation
foundation loading is required. All loads that are loads are the appearance of new foundation

Design
placed upon a structure eventually transfer to the fractures and/or continued settlement of the
soil through the foundation. Many times all of underpinning piers after project completion.
these loads are not considered during the design.
The cost to the foundation contractor due to
This can lead to an underestimation of the total
improperly estimating structural loads can be
structural load on the foundation. The result
high. First and foremost is the likelihood of a
may be a design that has insufficient strength to
customer complaint and lack of referrals. In
support and restore the structure. Several
addition, expensive callbacks cut into the
problems surface when underestimated structural
company’s profits. Finally, the long term
loads are used for the project design. The first
solution usually involves installing additional
indication of a problem is when the structure
underpinning between the existing piers, which
cannot be lifted, whereby the contractor usually
means that the project could easily cost the
tries to explain away the problem by saying that
contractor twice as much as originally planned.
he is only trying to “stabilize” the structure or

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 95 All rights reserved
 Simplified Tables of Structural Foundation Loads
When attempting a foundation load calculation for the first time, it often seems complicated and imposing. Once
the basics are learned, estimating structural loads is quite easy. The simplest way to prepare a foundation load
estimate is to break the structure into components, determine the estimated weight for each component and then
add all of the results together. The simplified tables below have been prepared for the most common residential
structural elements. (See note regarding Building Codes after Table 7 below.)

Table 2. Reinforced Concrete Spread Footings

WIDTH 8” 12” 15” 18” 20” 24”
HEIGHT Perimeter Weight – lb/ft
HEIGHT 6” 24 72 90 108 120 144
9” 72 108 135 162 180 216
WIDTH 12” 96 144 180 216 240 288
15” 120 180 225 270 300 360
18” 144 216 270 324 360 432
20” 160 240 300 360 400 480
24” 192 288 360 432 480 576

CAST
CONCRETE Table 3. Walls, Stem Walls, Basement Walls
STEMWALL
WALL HEIGHT 18” 24” 36” 48” 96” 108”
WALL WIDTH Perimeter Weight – lb/ft
HEIGHT

6” Conc. Block 65 86 129 172 344 387

CONCRETE
BLOCK 8” Conc. Block 83 110 165 220 440 495
WALL
8” Cast Concrete 144 192 288 384 768 964
10” Cast Concrete 180 240 360 480 960 1,080
WIDTH 12” Cast Concrete 216 288 432 576 1,152 1,296

Table 4. Wood Floors & Concrete Slabs

FLOORING
SUBFLOOR Wood Floor – Span To Girder 8’ 10’ 12’ 14’ 16’
(2 X 6 or 2 X 8 Joist Framing @ 12” O.C.)
Perimeter Weight – lb/ft
3/4” Sub Floor , 3/4” Hardwood & 1/2” Gypsum 48 60 78 91 96

GYPSUM 1-1/2” Sub Floor, Carpet, Pad & 1/2” Gypsum 52 65 84 98 104
BOARD
1-1/2” Sub Floor, 1/4” Ceramic Tile, 1/2” Gypsum 64 80 102 119 128
FLOOR
JOIST Perimeter
Concrete Slab
Weight
CONCRETE 4” Slab – Unfinished 191 lb/ft GYPSUM INSULATED
SLAB BOARD CONCRETE
4” Slab, Carpet & Pad 195 lb/ft BLOCK
THICKNESS
4” Slab & 1/4” Ceramic Tile 198 lb/ft BRICK
6” Slab – Unfinished 432 lb/ft VENEER

Perimeter BRICK
Table 5. Exterior Walls (8 ft tall) Weight VENEER

8” Heavy Weight Concrete Block, 1/2” Drywall &

Conc. Block 425 lb/ft
Insulation Fill (Not Illustrated)
Conc. Block 8” Heavy Weight Concrete Block, Clay Brick, 1/2”
815 lb/ft
Brick Veneer Drywall & Insulation Fill
1/2” Ship Lap or Plywood, 1/2” Sheathing, 2 x 4 WOOD
Wood Frame 88 lb/ft
Studs @ 16” o.c., 1/2” Drywall & 3-1/2” Insulation FRAME
Stucco 1-1/2” Concrete Stucco, 2 x 4 Studs @ 16” o.c., STUCCO
200 lb/ft
Veneer 1/2” Drywall & 3-1/2” Insulation VENEER
Clay Brick, 1/2” Sheathing, 2 x 4 Studs @ 6” o.c.,
Brick Veneer 390 lb/ft
1/2” Drywall & 3-1/2” Insulation

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 96 All rights reserved
Table 6. Roof & Ceiling

Roof -- Rafter Framing (2 X 6 or 2 X 8 @ 12” O.C.), 1/2”

Wafer Decking, 15# Felt, & 240# Asphalt Shingles
ROOF (1’ Roof Overhang)
PITCH
Ceiling – Joist Framing (2 X 6 or 2 X 8 @ 12” O.C.), 1/2” Dry Wall
& 10” Blown Insulation (No Attic Storage)

SPAN TO INTERIOR SUPPORT 8’ 10’ 12’ 14’ 16’

ROOF PITCH
Perimeter Weight – lb/ft
2” in 12” 91 116 143 164 185
3” in 12” or 4” in 12” 92 123 145 166 187
6” in 12” 95 127 149 171 193
12” in 12” 107 154 168 193 218

Table 7. Live Loads on Floors And Attics

Residential Occupant Live Loads – 6’ 8’ 10’ 12’ 14’
Span to Interior Support or Girder Perimeter Weight – lb/ft
2
First Floor – Wood Framing -- 40 lb/ft 120 160 200 240 280
WOOD
FRAMED Second Floor -- 30 lb/ft2 90 120 150 180 210
FLOOR
Habitable Attics -- 30 lb/ft2 90 120 150 180 210
Uninhabitable Attics -- 20 lb/ft2 60 80 100 120 140
CONCRETE
SLAB 4” Slab on Grade – 40 lb/ft2 120
FLOOR
Reference: Excerpts from American Standard Building Code Requirements for Minimum
Design Loads in Buildings – A58.1 – 1955

Note: Building techniques and Codes vary across the country; these tables are only to be used as a general guide
for structural load estimations on preliminary design work. When in doubt about the construction elements, add
10% to 20% to load estimate or increase factor of safety of the design to 2.2 to 2.5 for “Safe Use” Design.

Estimating Structural Loads Benefits of Estimating Foundation Loads

Two structural loads are usually specified in the  The design will be more accurate and there
design. “Dead Loads” are permanent weights will be greater restoration success with less
that are always applied to the foundation. chance of a call back from the owner later.
Examples of Dead Loads are loads associated
 The designer will have greater confidence
with components like the roof framing, the floor presenting his design to owners and engineers
structure and the masonry. “Live Loads” are
when he has prepared a load estimate.
weight on the foundation that can change. Live

ECP Steel Pier™

Loads are the weights associated with the  Pier placements are easily justified because
occupants, storage, snow and wind pressure, etc. the load analysis determines the pier

Design
The goal is to achieve an accurate estimated placement design can provide immediate
weight along the perimeter of the structure where restoration and long term support.
foundation restoration is needed. The easiest  The owner will perceive the designer as being
way to accomplish a foundation load estimate is a more competent contractor because he is
to break the structure into components, estimate careful and thorough with the design, has
weight for each component and then add all of attention to details, a solid design.
the results together. Tables 2 through 9 provide  Highly detailed proposals are generally more
estimated component loads on a foundation readily accepted than general repair outlines,
perimeter. One only needs to inspect the which translate to more work for the
structure and be familiar with typical building company.
codes in the area to be able to use the tables  There will be greater client satisfaction with
provided to estimate the foundation load. the final product.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 97 All rights reserved
 Table 8. Estimated Soil Loads on Footings
PERMANENT Permanent Soil Load on a Footing Toe – W d
TEMPORARY
Soil Height Against Wall 2’ 4’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’
STEM Soil Load per inch of Footing Width 18 lb 37 lb 55 lb 64 lb 73 lb 83 lb 92 lb
WALL
HEIGHT
"H" (ft) To determine the permanent soil load on a footing toe, multiply the actual width of the footing
toe (in inches) by the unit weight shown above for the soil height against the wall.

40 DEG Graph 1. Temporary Soil Load (One Side) – W t

ASSUMED
12" Stem Wall Only/Turn Down Slab Footing & Stem Wall

Perimeter Weight (lb/ft)

4000
TEMPORARY

3000
STEM
WALL 2000
HEIGHT
"H" (ft)
40 DEG 1000

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SOIL DENSITY = 110 lb/cu ft
Soil Height on Wall (ft)

Table 9. Estimating Snow Loads*

0 – 18” Snow = 10 lb/ft2 19” – 38” Snow = 20 lb/ft2 39” – 57” Snow = 30 lb/ft2 58” – 76” Snow = 40 lb/ft2 77” – 96” Snow = 50 lb/ft2
Snow Load Along Perimeter Footing With Hip Style Roof – [(L x W) / 2 (L + W)] x (Snow Load Factor)
Snow Load Along Perimeter – Rafter Side of Roof With Gable Ends – (L x W / 2L) x (Snow Load)
– Gable End of Roof – [1.5 + (Roof overhang)] x (Snow Load)
L = Length of the perimeter wall to be underpinned -- W = Span of roof from exterior wall plus roof overhang
* Verify the locally approved Snow Load Factor with a Building Official in your area.

“Quick and Rough” Structural Load Estimating

Table 10 offers empirical load estimates over a The estimated loads presented in Table 10 are
range of typical residential construction rough load estimates. Please use this data only
techniques from light to heavily built structures. for determining quick budget estimates.

Table 10. Ranges for Typical Average Residential Building Loads*

Estimated Foundation Estimated Foundation
Building Construction Building Construction
Load Range Load Range
(Slab On Grade) (Basement or Crawlspace & Footing)
(DL = Dead – LL = Live) (DL = Dead – LL = Live)
One Story One Story
DL 750 – 850 lb/ft DL 1,250 – 1,500 lb/ft
Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood Framing
LL 100 – 200 lb/ft LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
Framing -- Footing with Slab on Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
One Story One Story
DL 1,000 – 1,200 lb/ft DL 1,500 – 2,000 lb/ft
Masonry Walls with Wood Framing – Masonry Walls with Wood Framing on
LL 100 – 200 lb/ft LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
Footing with Slab Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
Two Story Two Story
DL 1,050 – 1,550 lb/ft DL 1,400 – 1,900 lb/ft
Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood Framing
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft LL 600 – 950 lb/ft
Framing – Footing with Slab on Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
Two Story Two Story
DL 1,300 – 2,000 lb/ft DL 1,650 – 2,200 lb/ft
1st Floor Masonry, 2nd Wood/Metal/Vinyl 1st Masonry, 2nd Wood/Metal/Vinyl – Wood
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft LL 600 – 950 lb/ft
with Wood Framing – Footing with Slab Framing, Basement or Crawlspace & Footing
Two Story Two Story
DL 1,600 – 2,250 lb/ft DL 1,900 – 2,500 lb/ft
Masonry Walls with Wood Framing – Masonry Walls with Wood Framing on
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft LL 600 – 950 lb/ft
Footing with Slab Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
* Table 10 load estimates DO NOT Include Snow Loads.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 98 All rights reserved
 Estimating Commercial Building Loads
Because commercial construction and building to determine perimeter and footing loads from
use is so varied, it is not practical to produce knowledge about the construction materials
tables similar to Table 2 through Table 7 for and techniques used to construct the building
commercial structures, but using the typical needing repair; simply use the component
weights of common building materials weights below to create weights for the
provided in Table 11, the designer may be able structural elements to the building.

Table 11. Weights of Building Materials

Weight Weight Weight
Materials Materials Materials
lb/sq. ft. lb/sq. ft. lb/sq. ft.
Brick Masonry: Wood Framing: Roof:
4” Brick 40 2x4 @ 12 – 16” o.c. 2 Asphalt 3
8” Brick 80 2x6 @ 12 – 16” o.c. 3 Wood 2
12” Brick 120 2x8 @ 12 – 16” o.c. 4 3-ply Felt & Gravel 5-1/2
Concrete: (per inch thick) Sheathing: Insulation (per inch)
Standard Concrete 12.5 1/2” Wood 2 Blown 1/2
Slag Concrete 11.5 3/4” Wood 3 Batts 3/4
Lightweight Concrete 6 to 10 1/2” Gypsum 2 Rigid 1-1/2
Soil: lb/cu. ft. Floors: Hollow Conc. Block:
Clay (Dry) 63 Vinyl 1 4” Light Wt 21
Clay (Damp) 110 7/8” Hardwood 4 4” Heavy Wt 30
Sand, Gravel (Dry, Loose) 90 - 105 3/4” Softwood 2-1/2 6” Light Wt 30
Sand, Gravel (Dry, Packed) 100 - 120 6” Heavy Wt 43
Sand, Gravel (Wet) 118 - 120 Carpet & Pad 2 8” Light Wt 38
Earth (Dry, Loose) 76 8” Heavy Wt 55
Earth (Dry / Wet, Packed) 95 - 96 3/4” Ceramic Tile 10 12” Light Wt 55
Earth (Mud, Packed) 115 1” Terrazzo 13 4” Stone 55
Reference: Excerpts from American Institute of Steel Construction, “Manual of Steel Construction” - 1989

Determining Pier Spacing

When locating piers on a structure, two factors Equation 1: Pier Spacing
must be considered that can limit the center-to- “X” = PDSL / PL or PDSL = “X” x PL
center distance between piers. The spacing
between piers cannot be so large such that: Where:
“X” = Pier Spacing (ft)
 The spacing between piers exceeds the pier
PDSL = Recommended Design / Service Load (Table 1)
capacity. (Pier Strength Spacing) PL = Estimated Lifting Load
 The spacing between piers overloads the

ECP Steel Pier™

footing. (Footing Strength Spacing) Pier Spacing Based Upon
Pier Spacing Based Upon Footing Strength

Design
Pier Strength The strength of the footing is of great importance
The strength of the pier system is usually of in lighter structures. These structures generally
concern when supporting and restoring a heavy have small footings with little or no rigid stem wall
structure such as a commercial building or a for strength. If Equation 1 were used to estimate
heavy, two-story residence with a full basement. the spacing for a single story with slab on grade,
“Safe Design” dictates that the designer the result would suggest pier spacing at a distance
applies a suitable factor of safety. Table 1 that the footing cannot span. In Design Examples
provides a quick reference to selecting a 3 in Chapter 6, a typical light structure is shown.
Recommended Design / Service Load. In other Using Equation 1 to estimate the pier spacing for
cases the Factor of Safety may be dictated by the the structure in Design Example 3 would suggest
project. Equation 1 is used to determine the pier 27 foot pier spacing, but the concrete slab
spacing relative to pier capacity. foundation simply cannot support such a long span

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 99 All rights reserved
between piers. Therefore, in this case, the Graph 3 is provided to help estimate pier spacing
foundation strength determines the maximum when estimating footings with steel reinforced
pier spacing. footings with integral short concrete stem walls.
Graph 2 is provided to assist with estimating pier These graphs assume generally accepted
spacing when dealing with: construction techniques, adequate steel
reinforcement that is properly embedded into the
1. Monolithic (“turned down”) footings and/or,
concrete, and concrete with a compressive
2. Steel reinforced spread footings with no stem strength of 3,000 psi or more after 28 days.
wall or,
3. When hollow masonry stem walls are present.

Graph 2. Graphs for Estimating Pier Spacing Based Upon Foundation Strength of
Spread Footing or Monolithic Slab Only (No Stem Wall or Hollow Masonry
Stem Walls)
18"
(No Stemwall or Masonry Stem Wall)
Height of Reinforced Footing Only

16"
/ft
lb
14" 0
50 b/
ft
2, l
12" 00
2,0 t
b/f
10" 0 0l
1,5
t
8" 0 lb/f
0
1,0 FOOTING
HEIGHT
6"
Structural Weight Per Lineal Foot 2 - #4 REBARS
Along The Footing Perimeter (lb/ft) (GR-60)

3 4 5 6 7 8
PIER SPACING - feet

24"
/ft
/ft

/ft

/ft
lb
lb

22"
lb

lb /ft
0
0

BEAM
0

00

lb
00

4 - #5 REBARS 0
50

50
HEIGHT
0
3,
4,

(GR-60)
2, 00
3,

20"
Height of Steel Reinforced

2,
Structural weight per lineal foot
Monolithic Footing

18" along the footing perimeter (lb/ft)

3 4 5 6 7 8
18"
/ft /ft /ft
lb lb lb ft ft
0 0 0 lb/ lb/ ft
16"
00 50 00 00 lb/
2, 2, 0
BEAM
, 0 ,2 00
3 1,5 1
HEIGHT

14" 1,0

4 - #4 REBARS
12" (GR-60)

3 4 5 6 7 8
PIER SPACING - feet
Important: Building techniques and Building Codes vary across the country; the graphs presented here are to be
used only as a general guide for spacing requirements, for preliminary designs, and for estimation purposes. It is
recommended that a registered professional engineer conduct the final design and supervise the installation.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 100 All rights reserved
 Graph 3. Graph for Estimating Pier Spacing Based Upon Foundation Strength of
Spread Footing with Short Integrally Cast Concrete Stem Walls

60"
STEM
WALL
HEIGHT
PLUS
54" FOOTING
HEIGHT

2 (MINIMUM)
48" #4 REBARS (MIN.)

ft
GR-60

lb/
00
Height of Steel Reinforced Footing

6,0
42" Structural weight per lineal foot
With Solid Cast Stemwall

along the footing perimeter (lb/ft)

ft
ft

lb/
lb/
00

00
36"
5,0

3,5
/ft
/ft 0
lb
lb
0 ,00
30" 00 3
4,
/ft
lb
0
50
2,
24"
ft
0 lb/
0
2,0
18"

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ECP Steel Pier™

PIER SPACING - feet
Important: Building techniques and Building Codes vary across the country; the graphs presented here are to be

Design
used only as a general guide for spacing requirements, for preliminary designs, and for estimation purposes. It is
recommended that a registered professional engineer conduct the final design and supervise the installation.

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how
to design using ECP Steel Piers™, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each pier
placement. If you have questions about structural weights, product selection or require engineering assistance
in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call 913 393-0007, Fax at 913 393-
0008.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 101 All rights reserved
 Pier Installation, Load Testing & Project Documentation
Pier Installation The pier is subjected to a proof load test that is
Pier installation consists of forcing the pier pipe greater than the pier design (working) load.
into the soil until end bearing resistance is Graph 4 below provides a quick reference to
encountered. Once this occurs, the strength of determine the actual downward force generated
the bearing stratum is verified by load testing. on the pier pipe at a various pressures on the
drive cylinder.

GRAPH 4. CYLINDER FORCE VS. HYDRAULIC PRESSURE

HYD-350-DC Drive Cyl (8.29 sq.in.) PPB-350 & PPB-400 Pier Systems
HYD-300-DC Drive Cyl (5.94 sq.in) PPB-300 Pier Systems
HYD-254 (5.16 sq.in.) Lifting Ram
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
Cylinder Force

55
lb x 1,000

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

10 0
0
0
00
50
10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Hydraulic Pressure - psi

When using other manufacturers drive cylinders, Do Not Exceed 7,000 psi. The shaded areas are restricted only
for cylinders verified with the manufacturer to be rated above 7,000 psi. All drive cylinders that ECP sells are
rated to 10,000 psi.

Where, FCyl = Cylinder force on pier – lb

Caution! Pcyl = Hydraulic Pressure -- psi
Verify the manufacturer’s recommended working Acyl = Effective Cylinder Area – in2
pressure for the specific hydraulic drive cylinder to  HYD-350-DC (3-1/2” & 4” dia)= 8.29 in2
be used on a project prior to installing piers. When  HYD-300-DC (3” dia) = 5.94 in2
operating near the maximum cylinder pressure, the
 Lifting Ram = 5.16 in2
amount of actuator rod extension should be
restricted to less than full length to prevent damage Notice!
to the drive cylinder or actuator rod. Earth Contact Products, LLC does not condone or
recommend exceeding maximum working pressure
ratings of hydraulic cylinders. Graph 4 shows
Equation 2: Hydraulic Cylinder Force maximum pressure allowed on ECP cylinders.
FCyl = Acyl x Pcyl Contact the cylinder manufacturer when in doubt
about a pressure rating of other cylinders.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 102 All rights reserved
Proof Testing and Project Documentation the application of the maximum allowable
The big advantage when using hydraulically test load shown in Table 1, whichever is
installed ECP Steel Piers™ is that each pier is less.
field Proof Tested to a load that is greater than 3. The length of time the pier was subjected to
force that is required to restore and support the the Proof Test loading.
structure. This Proof Testing of each and every 4. The depth to load bearing
pier placement verifies that firm bearing stratum 5. After all pier placements have been
or rock upon which the pier pipe is founded is installed and Proof Tested, the force
sufficient to support the working load required at each placement to recover lost
requirement plus a factor of safety. elevation to restore the structure shall be
It is recommended that the installer document the recorded.
following data for each pier placement: 6. The amount of lift at each placement.
1. The installation force used to drive each 3- At the end of the project, this data shall be
1/2 foot long section of pier pipe into the compiled into a project report and retained by the
soil. installer for future reference. The installer
2. The Proof Test force that was applied should provide a copy of the project report to the
against the bearing stratum. This force shall engineer of record or owner’s representative
be either the force required to slightly lift upon request.
the structure using just the drive cylinder or

Buckling Loads on the Pier Shaft in Weak Soil

Whenever a slender column (Pier Pipe) does not assumed negligible and the pile is assumed
have adequate lateral support from the straight. Equation 3 is Davisson’s formula.
surrounding soil, the load carrying capacity of
Equation 3: Critical Buckling
the column is reduced as buckling of the pipe
column becomes a risk. In the case of ECP Steel Pcr = Ucr Ep Ip / R2
Piers™, the full ultimate-limit capacity shown in Where:
Table 1 is available provided the soil through Pcr = Critical Buckling Load – lb
which the pier penetrates maintains a Standard Ucr = Dimensionless ratio (Assume = 1)
Penetration Test value “N” > 5 blows per foot
Ep = Shaft Mod. of Elasticity = 30 x 106 psi
through the entire depth of the pier installation.
The pier must also be firmly secured to a Ip = Shaft Moment of Inertia = in4
foundation bracket at the footing. R = 4√ Ep Ip / kH d
d = Shaft Diameter – in
The most accurate way to determine the buckling
load of a pier shaft in weak soil is by performing Computer analysis of shaft buckling is the
recommended method to achieve the most

ECP Steel Pier™

a buckling analysis by finite differences. There
are several specialized computer programs that accurate results. Many times, however, one must
have general information to prepare a
Design
can perform this analysis and allow the
introduction of shaft properties and soil preliminary design or budget proposal. Table
conditions that can vary with depth. Another, 13, Page 106 below provides conservative
less accurate method of estimating critical critical buckling load estimates for various shaft
buckling is by Davisson Method, “Estimating sizes penetrating through different types of
Buckling Loads for Piles” (1963). In this homogeneous soils.
method, Davisson assumes various combinations Graph 5 on the following page presents visual
of pile head and tip boundary conditions with a representation of Buckling Strength of various
constant modulus of sub-grade reaction, “kH”. pier configurations when fully exposed in air, or
Load transfer to the soil due to skin friction is water, when no lateral shaft support is present.

It is recommended that a Registered Professional Engineer conduct the design of ECP Steel Piers™
where the pipe column is likely to be in weak soil and shaft buckling may occur.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 103 All rights reserved
Allowable Compressive Loads - Maximum Allowable Compressive Load on
“P” in Air: Graph 5 shows the Steel Piers Without Soil Support
reduction in allowable axial (Piers Must Be Grout Filled)
compressive loading where the pier
shaft has no lateral support. 100
3-1/2"+ 4" SB + I.S.
Table 12 illustrates demonstrates 3-1/2" + 4" SB
how the ECP PPB-400-EPS (4 inch 4"- 0.237"
90 3-1/2" + IS
diameter) pier pipe provides an 3-1/2"- 0.165"
axial stiffness of more than 3-1/2 2-7/8"+ IS
2-7/8"- 0.165"
times that of a PPB-300-EPS (2-7/8 80
inch diameter) pier pipe. In

Maximum Allowable Load - lb x 1,000

addition, Graph 5 demonstrates that
the PPB-400-EPS pier pipe has a 70
maximum compressive load
capacity of more than three times
60
that of the PPB-300-EPS pier pipe
when each has ten feet of exposed
column height without any lateral 50
support.
Whenever weak soil is encountered
40
such as peat or other organic soils,
improperly consolidated soil, or a
situation where a portion of the pier 30
shaft may become fully exposed;
consideration MUST be given to the
reduction in capacity brought on by 20
the lack of lateral support to the pier
pipe.
10
In situations where insufficient 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
lateral pier pipe support is provided Unsupported Column Height - ft
by the soil, the pier is not able to
support the full rated capacity. The Graph 5. Maximum Load* on piers with NO soil support
length of pier pipe that is passing
through the weak soil and the amount of stiffness provided by the pier pipe will affect the load capacity
reduction that must be considered. Pier pipe stiffness (Moment of Inertia) increases with increasing
diameter. Graph 5 shows reductions in allowable axial compressive loading relative to the exposed
length of the pier pipe in air or water for various pier diameters and sleeved pier configurations. When
ECP Steel Pier™ pipe is fully
Table 12 STEEL PIER SHAFT STIFFNESS COMPARISON exposed or passes through very weak
soils, we recommend installing
Cross Moment of Pier Stiffness
Steel Pier Pipe Configuration Section Inertia - in 4 Relative to sleeving over and/or inside the pier
Area - in2 (Stiffness) PPB-350-EPS pipe to increase the bending strength
PPB-300-EPS (2-7/8” dia.) 1.41 1.29 0.55% of the pier; in addition, it is good
PPB-300-EPS + PPB-300-IP 2.65 1.81 0.77% practice for the designer to consider
PPB-350-EPS (3-1/2” dia.) 1.68 2.35 100%
using a larger diameter pipe in weak
soil applications.
PPB-400-EPS (4” dia.) 2.60 4.66 198%
PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-IP 3.46 4.22 180% * Caution: When selecting a pier
PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-SB 4.27 7.01 298%
configuration for a specific
application, one must apply a factor
PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-SB +
PPB-350-IP
5.12 8.88 379% of safety to the capacities shown on
Graph 5 to insure “Safe Use” design.
EPS = Pier Pipe Section IP = Internal “Inertia” Sleeve SB = 4” External Sleeve

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 104 All rights reserved
 Pier Sleeves
PIER SECTION
In areas of poor soil, the stiffness (axial moment of inertia) of
the pier pipe and the strength of the coupled joints are of
concern. Installing a pier sleeve or changing to a larger INERTIA SLEEVE

diameter pier pipe is required to prevent buckling. Poor soil

conditions are generally recognized as:
 Soil having Standard Penetration Blow Counts less than or
equal to five blows per foot (“N” < 5) or,
 On projects where the pier pipe is exposed, or may become
exposed
There are several ways to reinforce pier pipe in such situations.
One of the simplest to slightly improve pier stiffness and to
strengthen the coupled joints is to grout the pier pipe after
installation. Many designers also require that the contractor PIER
install a reinforcing bar in the center of the pier pipe along with SECTION
COUPLING
the grouting to improve joint strength.
“Inertia Sleeve” – Earth Contact Products offers a patented
product called the Inertia Sleeve to improve shaft stiffness.
This unique product is shown in Figure 5, and is the most
economical way to quickly enhance the axial moment of inertia
(stiffness) of the pier system. The Inertia Sleeve is easy to INERTIA
SLEEVE
install, but must be installed concurrent with driving the pier COUPLING
pipe. One simply allows an Inertia Sleeve section to drop by
gravity into the most recently installed section of pier pipe.
This must be done prior to coupling together and driving the PIER TYPICAL
SECTION ASSEMBLY
next section of pier pipe. DETAIL
The low cost Inertia Sleeve takes nearly no labor to install and
Figure 5. Details of ECP’s patented
instantly increases the rigidity and strength of the pier shaft PPB-300-IP and PPB-350-IP Internal
through weak soil. The unique design of the patented “Inertia “Inertia Sleeve” Assembly
Sleeve” also strengthens the coupled joints.
The coupling connection of the Inertia Sleeve drive the external pier sleeving is generally
fully passes through the pier pipe coupling and equivalent to the time required to initially install
engages with the previously installed section of the pier pipe. Keep in mind, however, that
Inertia Sleeve. The couplings are therefore external sleeving is only required at locations
doubled and staggered, providing a strengthened where the pier pipe is exposed with no lateral
coupled joint. support or where the pier pipe passes through

ECP Steel Pier™

weak soil with insufficient lateral support on the
External Sleeve – Another means of increasing
pipe shaft.

Design
the axial moment of inertia of the pier shaft is to
install external pier sleeving. Many designers Table 12 on the previous page presents shaft
like this method because it provides a stiffness relative to different pier pipe
significantly larger increase in pier rigidity than configurations. It is interesting to note that the
other methods. This is because the external combination of the PPB-350-EPS, 3-1/2”
sleeve increases the diameter of the pier shaft. diameter pier pipe, plus the PPB-350-IP Inertia
Sleeve provides axial stiffness equal to 91% of the
When installed, each external sleeve must be
of the PPB-400 system (4” diameter) system. If
positioned such that the joints on the external
the designer chooses PPB-350-SP (4” diameter
sleeving are staggered and are not near the pier
exterior sleeve) over the PPB-350-EPS (3-1/2
pipe couplings. The external sleeving must be
inch diameter) pier pipe and grout fills pier pipe,
hydraulically driven over the installed pier pipe
the allowable load on the system will be 151%
prior to field load testing. The time required to
that of a simple PPB-400 (4” diameter) pier

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 105 All rights reserved
system. The cost savings should be very evident For example, if a site has 6 feet of peat with
especially on projects that require extra rigidity Standard Penetration Test (SPT), “N”, from 0 bpf
only in the upper several feet of soil. (“Weight of Hammer”) to 2 bpf that is overlaying
sand with a SPT, “N” > 5 blows per foot; the
When specifying either type of pipe sleeve, the
designer should specify sleeving to a depth of at
designer must extend the sleeving a minimum
least 9 feet in order to provide adequate sleeve
depth of three feet beyond the zone of weak soil
embedment beyond the 6 foot zone of weak soil
and into the competent material.
that contains peat.
“Quick and Rough” Buckling Load Estimates for Weak Soil Conditions
A method for instantly estimating Maximum job site. At the intersection of the product line
Conservative Working Loads in Weak Soil and soil column is the maximum Design Load
can be found in Table 13 below. General soil (Working Load) for that pier or pier
types and SPT, “N”, values are provided in four combination. If the capacity is unsufficient, drop
columns. On the left side of Table 13 are down to a stiffer pier for the job.
available pier pipe and sleeving configurations.
Please note that the values given in Table 13
Read horizontally until the column with soil that
are working loads. A Factor of Safety of 2.0
most closely matches the soil conditions at the
has been applied to the loads in Table 13.

Table 13 Working Loads Under Buckling Conditions For Budgetary Estimating (Factor of Safety = 2)

Uniform Soil Condition

Shaft Size Organics Very Soft Clay Soft Clay Loose Sand
N<1 N=1-2 N=2-4 N=2-4
PPB-300-EPS (2-7/8” dia.) 19,000 lb 22,000 lb 31,000 lb 26,000 lb
PPB-300-EPS + PPB-300-IP 23,000 lb 27,000 lb 39,000 lb 32,000 lb
PPB-350-EPS (3-1/2” dia.) 26,000 lb 30,000 lb 43,000 lb 35,000 lb
PPB-400-EPS (4” dia.) 34,000 lb 40,000 lb 57,000 lb 46,000 lb
PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-IP 36,000 lb 42,000 lb 59,000 lb 48,000 lb
PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-SB 50,000 lb 58,000 lb 82,000 lb 67,000 lb
PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-SB + PPB-350-IP 56,000 lb 66,000 lb 93,000 lb 76,000 lb
EPS = Pier Pipe Section IP = Internal “Inertia” Sleeve SB = 4” Ext Sleeve

ECP Steel Pier™ PPB-350 Utility Bracket System,

TAF-150 Torque Anchor™ Tieback and PPB-350-TA Tieback Adapter Assembly
The PPB-350 Steel Pier System may be connected to a Helical Torque Anchor™ to provide lateral
stabilization to the pier system. The connection is made with a PPB-350-TA Adapter Assembly. Please
contact ECP for full specifications for the installation. Configuration details are shown below.
PIER CAP
PPB-350 STANDARD
UTILITY BRACKET

PPB-350 STANDARD
UTILITY BRACKET

PPB-350-TA
TRANSITION - BEARING PLATE
(SQUARE BAR TO
ALL-THREAD)
ONE OR MORE
TIEBACK EXTENSION
PPB-350-TA
SECTIONS
TIEBACK LEAD BEVEL WASHER
TA-150 TORQUE PPB-350-TA
ANCHOR PIER EXTENSION
ONE OR MORE
HELICAL PLATES ASSEMBLY
1-1/8" DIAMETER
(1" NOMINAL) ALL- FACE PLATE
THREAD BAR

3-1/2" DIAMETER
PIER PIPE

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 106 All rights reserved
 Chapter 6

ECP Steel Piers™

Resistance Pier Design Examples

 Calculate Foundation Load – Two Story Residence
 Calculate Maximum Pier Spacing for Design Example 1
 Adjusting for Pier Buckling in Weak Soil
 Determine Foundation Load – Single Story Slab on Grade
 Determining Maximum Pier Spacing
 Calculate the Foundation Load and Determine Pier Spacing –
Three Story Office Building
 Estimating Drive Cylinder and Lifting Ram Pressures
 Determining Force Applied to Pier

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”
Installation and
Testing

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

ECP Steel Piers™ Steel Piers Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 107 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1 – Calculate Foundation Load
Two Story Brick with Full Basement
 The foundation consists of a 12” tall x 24” wide reinforced footing with a 10” thick x 8’-0” tall cast concrete
basement wall. (footing toe = 7”)
 The house is located in Indiana with 30+ inches of snow.
 The basement floor is 4” thick concrete.
 The soil depth to the basement floor elevation is 7 feet.
 The upper floors consist of 2 x 8 joists spaced 12” on center that span 12 feet to a steel beam supported by
columns. The floors are carpeted.
 The house is 40’ long x 24’ wide with 2 x 4 studs on 16” centers,
sheathing, insulation and drywall and brick veneer. TABLE 6
 The hip roof is framed with 2 x 8 rafters and 2 x 6 ceiling joists
with a 3” in 12” pitch. There is no attic storage. There is 10” of
blown insulation. The ceiling span is 12 feet plus a one foot roof
overhang.
Calculate the Foundation Loads - Referring to the Load Tables in
Chapter 6 estimate the foundation service (working) load, the live
load and the temporary soil load.
1. Dead Load (DL): TABLE 4 &7
Footing = 288 lb/ lin. ft (Table 2)
Stem Wall = 960 lb/ lin. ft (Table 3) TABLE 5
Slab = 191 lb/ lin. ft (Table 4)
1st Floor = 84 lb/ lin. ft (Table 4)
1st Exterior Wall = 390 lb/ lin. ft (Table 5)
2nd Floor = 84 lb/ lin. ft (Table 4) TABLE 8
2nd Exterior Wall = 390 lb/ lin. ft (Table 5) TABLE 8
TABLE 4 & 7
Roof & Ceiling = 145 lb/ lin. ft (Table 6)
Perm. Soil Load = 384 lb/ lin. ft [64# x 7” Toe] (Table 8)
Dead Load (DL) = 2,916 lb. per lineal foot
TABLE 3
2. Live Loads (LL):
Live Load = 540 lb/ lin. ft (240+180+120) = 540 (Table 7) TABLE 2
Snow Load = 150 lb/ lin. ft [(40x24)/2(40+24)] x (20#/sf)
(Table 9) TABLE 4 & 7
Live Load (LL) = 690 lb. per lineal foot

3. Working Load (Pw) = Dead Load + Live Load

Working Load (Pw) = 2,916 lb/lin. ft + 690 lb/lin. ft Figure 6. Load Estimate Sketch
Working Load (Pw) = 3,606 lb. per lineal foot Example 1 & 1A.

4. Lifting Load (PL) = Working Load + Temporary Soil Load

Temp. Soil Load = 3,606 lb/lin. ft + 2,950 lb/lin. ft (Table 8-Graph 1 & reproduced below)
Lifting Load (PL) = 6,556 lb. per lineal foot (See Note Pg 97)

5. Factored Lifting Load (PLF) – The factored lifting load adds a percentage to the calculation to help
compensate for possible omissions in the weight calculations, unexpected structural elements and the initial
force to break the footing away from the surrounding soil. Depending upon confidence 10% to 20% is usually
added.
Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = Lifting Load (PL) + F.S. = 6,556 lb/lin. ft + 656 lb/lin.ft (10% F.S. Uncertainty)
Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = 7,212 lb. per lineal foot (Use 7,200 pounds per lineal foot)

END DESIGN EXAMPLE 1

ECP Steel Piers™ Steel Piers Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 108 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1A – Calculate Foundation Load – “Quick and Rough” Method
Two Story Brick with Full Basement
 The house is 40’ long x 24’ wide with an 8’-
0” tall cast concrete basement wall. Ranges for Typical Average Residential
TABLE 10.
Building Loads*
 The house is located in Indiana with 30+
inches of snow. Building Construction Estimated Foundation
(Basement or Crawlspace & Load Range
 The basement floor is concrete. Footing) (DL = Dead – LL = Live)
 The soil depth at the basement is 7 feet.
One Story
DL 1,250 – 1,500 lb/ft
1. Estimate the Dead Load and Live Load on Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood Framing
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
on Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
the footing:
One Story
A. Using Table 10 from Chapter 5, select the DL 1,500 – 2,000 lb/ft
Masonry Walls with Wood Framing on
LL 300 – 475 lb/ft
column that most closely identifies the Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
foundation construction. In this case the Two Story
DL 1,400 – 1,900 lb/ft
third column is selected because the house Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood Framing
LL 600 – 950 lb/ft
on Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
has a basement with a concrete slab floor.
Two Story
B. Second, determine which of the five rows 1st Masonry, 2nd Wood/Metal/Vinyl – Wood
DL 1,650 – 2,200 lb/ft
LL 600 – 950 lb/ft
most closely describes the structure. In Framing, Basement or Crawlspace & Footing
this case the closest match is the lowest Two Story
DL 1,900 – 2,500 lb/ft
row. (shaded) The construction of the Masonry Walls with Wood Framing on
LL 600 – 950 lb/ft
house consists of two story framed Basement or Crawlspace and Footing
construction with brick veneer siding.
C. The Dead Load for a typical two story house of this description ranges from 1,900 to 2,500 lb/lin.ft and the
Live Load averages between 600 and 950 lb/lin.ft. Based upon viewing the house and how robust is the
construction and amount of contents, load selections are chosen within the ranges given.
D. The Snow Load is estimated at 150 lb/ lin. ft [(40’x24’)/2(40+24’)] x (20#/sf) (Chapter 5, Table 9)
Dead Load (DL) = 2,200 lb/lin.ft (selected) Live Load (LL) = 750 lb/lin.ft (selected) Snow Load 150 lb/lin.ft
2. Estimate the Temporary Soil Load on the footing:
The Temporary Soil Load may
be estimated using Graph 1 Stem Wall Only/Turn Down Slab Footing & Stem Wall
presented in Chapter 5, shown
Perimeter Weight (lb/ft)

here. The graph line that 4000

represents “Footing & Stem 3000

Wall” construction is selected
because the footing construction 2000
is unknown. The Temporary 1000
Soil Load can be estimated by
reading upward from a soil 0
height of 8 feet (7’ of soil on the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
basement wall + 1’ for soil Graph 1 Soil Height on Wall (ft)
height against the side of the
footing.) Temporary Soil Load = 2,950 lb, lin.ft
3. Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = Dead Load + Live Load + Soil Load + Soil Load + Uncertainty Factor
Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = 2,200 + 750 +150 + 2,950 lb/ft = 6.050 lb/ft + 908 lb/lf (F.S. uncertainty: 15%)
Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = 6,958 per lineal foot (Use 7,000 pounds per lineal foot)
END DESIGN EXAMPLE 1A

Review of Results of Design Examples 1 & 1A

Installation and

One can see that the result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis underestimated the foundation
load by 3% compared to the more thorough weight analysis. Caution must be taken when using the
Testing

“Quick and Rough” method because the load estimates are based upon where the designer believes the
structural weight falls within the ranges provided. Choices made in this example were in the “middle
range”. It is quite evident that this structure is more robust than average construction, and loads should
have been chosen nearer the higher end of the ranges and/or the Factor of Uncertainty increased.

ECP Steel Piers™ Steel Piers Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 109 All rights reserved
 Design Example 2 -- Calculate the Maximum Pier Spacing for Design Example 1
 An inspection of the property suggests that the Where:
structure is well built and the foundation appears “X” = Pier Spacing (ft)
sound. PSU Des = “Recommended Design Service Load”
 A “Safe Use” Design Load of 43,000 pounds is (Table 1 – Chapter 5) = 43,000 lbs
selected with the use of the PPB-350 Steel Pier™. PL = Estimated Lifting Load = 7,300 lb/lin.ft
This represents a strong and economical pier for
this project. (Table 1 – Chapter 5) “X” = 43,000 lb / 7,300 lb/ft (6,600 lb + 10%)
“X” = 5.9 feet
 A Factor of Safety of 2:1 is used.
Use “X” = 6 feet, (maximum)
 According to the analysis in Example 1 the
structure requires a factored lifting force of 7,300 The pier placement design may now be prepared and
pounds per lineal foot of perimeter beam. a pricing estimate for this project is possible with
piers spaced not to exceed 6 feet on center.
Equation 1 from Chapter 5 is used to determine the
pier spacing relative to pier capacity. END DESIGN EXAMPLE 2
Pier Spacing - “X” = PSU Des/PL (Equation 1)

Design Example 2A – Adjusting for Pier Buckling in Weak Soil

 When discussing this project with the engineer, he
1. Find a Pier Configuration with a Working Load
mentions that consolidation of a layer of weak soil
Under Buckling Conditions over 43,000 lb:
caused the settlement. Upon further investigations
Table 13 from Chapter 5 reveals that the Critical
of the soil data, it is learned that there is
Buckling Loads for all pier configurations. Notice that
approximately six feet of uncompacted loose fill
using a PPB-350-SB External Sleeve will provide
with Standard Penetration Test values, “N” = 1 to 3
working load capacity that is in excess of 43,000 lb.
blows per foot.
 Below six feet, the soil is firm clay with SPT Working Loads Under Buckling Conditions
values exceeding “N” = 5 blows per foot. Table 13
For Budgetary Estimating (Factor of Safety = 2)
 According to the analysis in Example 1 the Uniform Soil Condition
structure requires a factored lifting force of 7,300 Shaft Size Organics Very Soft Clay Soft Clay Loose San
pounds per lineal foot of perimeter beam.
N<1 N=1-2 N=2-4 N=2-4
First Method: There are two ways to approach this PPB-300-EPS (2-7/8” dia.) 19,000 lb 22,000 lb 57,000 lb 47,000 l
new information. The first is to account for the
reduction in pier pipe capacity and adjust the spacing PPB-300-EPS + PPB-300-IP 23,000 lb 27,000 lb 55,000 lb 47,000 l
accordingly. PPB-350-EPS (3-1/2” dia.) 26,000 lb 30,000 lb 86,000 lb 71,000 l
In Example 2 it was determined that the Model 350 PPB-400-EPS (4” dia.) 34,000 lb 40,000 lb 97,000 l
ECP Steel Pier™ installed at 6 feet on center would
PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-IP 36,000 lb 42,000 lb 97,000 l
provide full foundation support with a factor of safety 99,000 lb
of 2:1. PPB-350-EPS + PPB-350-SB 50,000 lb 58,000 lb
99,000 l
1. Determine the Working Load Under Buckling 3-1/2” + Inert. Slv. + 4” Slv 99,000 lb 66,000 lb
Conditions for PPB-350 Steel Pier™:
Table 13, Chapter 5 shows that the Critical Buckling
of the pier pipe for a PPB-350 in clay with SPT > 1 is 2. Specify the new pier pipe configuration:
Using the original placement spacing of 6 feet on
30,000 pounds, not the Recomended Design/Service
center, the PPB-350-EPS Steel Pier™ shall be installed
Load shown in Table 1 in Chapter 5 = 43,000 pounds.
along with three sections of PPB-350-SB by 42 inches
2. Calculate New Pier Spacing, “X”: long external sleeve over the upper 10-1/2 feet of pier
“X” = PSU Des/PL (Equation 1) pipe. The three pieces PPB-350-SB sleeve shall be
installed after the pier pipe has been installed to
X” = 30,000 lb / 7,300 lb/ft = 4.11 ft
bearing, but prior to proof testing. Three sections of
Use “X” = 4 feet, (maximum) sleeve will reinforce the pier pipe through a distance
of 10-1/2 feet (Minimum length needed is 6 ft + 3 ft
Second Method: Choose a new product into competent soil = 9 ft). The depth from the surface
configuration that offers a more rigid pier section and extends more than three feet beyond the depth of the
maintain the original pier placement spacing. weak fill soil.
END DESIGN EXAMPLE 2A

ECP Steel Piers™ Steel Piers Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 110 All rights reserved
 Design Example 3 – Calculate Foundation Load
Single Story Slab on Grade
 The single story house is located in southern New
Mexico
 The foundation consists of an 18” tall x 15” wide TABLE 6
turned down footing reinforced with #4 rebars.
 The concrete slab floor is 4” thick and is carpeted.
 The exterior walls are 2 x 4 studs on 16” centers
with sheathing, insulation and drywall. The
exterior is typical brick veneer,
 The roof has a 3” in 12” pitch and is framed with 2
x 8 rafters and 2 x 6 ceiling joists. There is no attic
storage, but there is 10” of blown in insulation.
The span is 12 feet with a 2 foot overhang. TABLE 5
Calculate the Foundation Loads - Referring to the
Load Tables in Chapter 5, estimate the foundation TABLE 2
service (working) load, the live load and the
temporary soil load. TABLE 4 & 7
TABLE 8
1. Dead Load (DL):
Footing = 270 lb./lineal foot (Table 2)
Slab = 195 lb/ lin. ft (Table 4)
Exterior Wall = 390 lb/ lin. ft (Table 5)
Roof & Ceiling = 166 lb/ft (12’ + 2’ = 14’) TABLE 8
(Table 6)
Perm. Soil Load = 0 lb/ lin. ft Figure 7. Sketch for Load Estimate Example 3 & 3A.
Dead Load (DL) = 1,021 lb. per lineal foot
Temp. Soil Load = 80 lb/lin. ft x 2 (inside and
2. Live Loads (LL): outside turn down) (Table 8 – Graph 1 – estimate
Live Load = 120 lb/ lin. ft (Table 7) because graph does not go as low as 18 inches.)
Snow Load = 0 lb/ lin. ft Temp. Soil Load = 160 lb/lin.ft
Live Load (LL) = 120 lb. per lineal foot Lifting Load (PL) = 1,141 + 160 lb. per lineal foot
Lifting Load (PL) = 1,301 lb/lin.ft (See Note Pg 129)
3. Working Load (Pw) = Dead Load + Live Load
Working Load (Pw) = 1,021 lb/lin ft + 120 lb/lin ft 5. Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = (PL) + F.S.
Working Load (Pw) = 1,141 lb. per lineal foot (PLF) = 1,301 lb/lin,ft + 130 lb/lin.ft = 1,431 lb/ lin.ft
F.S. uncertainty: 10% “Safe Use” Design
4. Lifting Load (PL) = Working Load + Temporary Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = 1,431 lb/lin.ft.
Soil Load (Use 1,450 lb/lin. ft)

END DESIGN EXAMPLE 3

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how
to design using ECP Steel Piers™, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each pier
Installation and

placement. If you have questions about structural weights, product selection or require engineering assistance
in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913
Testing

393-0008.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 111 All rights reserved
 Design Example 3A – Calculate Foundation Load – “Quick and Rough” Method
Single Story Slab on Grade

1. Estimate footing Dead Load and Live Load:

A. Using Table 10 from Chapter 5 select the Ranges for Typical Average
Table 10.
column that most closely identifies the Residential Building Loads*
foundation construction. (A portion of Table 10 Estimated Foundation
is reproduced to the right.) In this case the first Building Construction
Load Range
column is selected because the house has a slab (Slab On Grade) (DL = Dead – LL = Live)
on grade.
One Story
B. Second, determine which of the five rows most DL 750 – 850 lb/ft
Wood/Metal/Vinyl Walls with Wood
closely describes the structure. In this case the LL 100 – 200 lb/ft
Framing -- Footing with Slab
closest match is the second row. The
construction of the house consists of single One Story
DL 1,000 – 1,200 lb/ft
story framed construction with brick veneer Masonry Walls with Wood Framing
LL 100 – 200 lb/ft
siding. – Footing with Slab
C. The Dead Load for a typical single story house
of this description ranges from 1,000 to 1,200
Temporary Soil Load = 160 lb/lin.ft (estimated)
lb/lin.ft and the Live Load averages between 100
and 200 lb/lin.ft. Based upon viewing the quality
2. Estimated Lifting Load (PL)
of the construction and amount of contents, load
PL = Dead Load + Live Load + Soil Load
values are chosen within these load ranges.
PL = 1,100 + 150 + 160 = 1,410 lb/lin.ft
Dead Load (DL) = 1,100 lb/lin.ft (selected)
Live Load (LL) = 150 lb/lin.ft (selected) 3. Factored Lifting Load (PLF) = (PL) + F.S.
Factor of Safety = 10% “Safe Use” design
Temporary Soil Load is estimated at 80 lb/lin.ft inside
(Structural loads were guessed from Table 10)
and 80 lb/lin.ft outside of the turn down. Graph 1 in
Table 8 was presented in Chapter 5. (A small version (PLF) = 1,410 + 141 lb/lin.ft (15%) = 1,551 lb/lin.ft
of Graph 1 was reproduced in Design Example 1A. END DESIGN EXAMPLE 3A
One must estimate the temporary soil load value
because the graph does not go as low as 18 inches.

Review of Results of Design Examples 3 & 3A

The result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis on Design Example 3A overestimated the
foundation load by 7% when compared to the more thorough weight analysis. Once again the caution
must taken when using the “Quick and Rough” method to select a load estimates. The values selected
are based upon the designer’s best estimate of where the actual structural weight falls within the ranges
provided by the “Quick and Rough” Table 10. It must be kept in mind that the use of the “Quick and
Rough” method returns estimates that can vary depending upon where the loads are selected within the
ranges. With the “Quick and Rough” method providing a conservative estimate and the difference
between the two methods of 100 lb/ft, one can see that the different results do not significantly affect
foundation load estimate and ultimately the pier spacing. The “Quick and Rough” method has quickly
returned a conservative and useful result.

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how
to design using ECP Steel Piers™, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each pier
placement. If you have questions about structural weights, product selection or require engineering assistance
in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913
393-0008.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 112 All rights reserved
 Design Example 4 – Calculate the Maximum Pier Spacing for Design Example 3
Because the structure in Example 3 has only a small Prepare the preliminary design with a “safe” distance
footing with very light loads, the foundation between placements.
strength will limit the pier spacing. The result of Specify “X” = 7 feet (MAXIMUM)
Example 3 suggested a line load of 1,450 lb/ft and
Example 3A returned a load estimate of 1,551 lb/ft. The estimated pier load can now be calculated, and an
For this example 1,500 lb/ft will be used. ECP Steel Pier™ is selected for the project.
PSU Des = (“X”) x PL (Chapter 5 - Equation 1),
To estimate the maximum spacing for pier placement,
the lower portion of Graph 2 in Chapter 5 is used. A Where;
PL = Lifting Load = 1,500 lb/lf
portion of Graph 2 is shown below. Referring to
X = Pier spacing, feet
Graph 2 from Chapter 5, locate the line for an 18” tall
PSU Des = 7 ft x 1,500 lb/ft = 10,500 lb
monolithic footing in lowest graph and find the load
line representing 1,500 lb/ft. Read downward to see The ECP Steel Pier™ PPB-300 is selected and when
the recommended maximum center-to-center pier installed at a pier spacing of 7 feet, the piers enjoy a
spacing. It is slightly over seven feet, which will load Factor of Safety rating of 6.5:1.
the reinforcing steel in the concrete to yield strength.
END DESIGN EXAMPLE 4

Structural weight per lineal foot

along the footing perimeter (lb/ft)
Height of Steel Reinforced

18"
/ft /ft /ft
Monolithic Footing

lb lb lb t
0 0 b/f
t
lb/f t
16"
00
0 50 ,00 l 00 lb/f
00
BEAM
, , 2 2 0
HEIGHT
3 2
1,5 1, 1,0
0
14"

12" 4 - #4 REBARS EXAMPLE 3B

(GR-60)

3 4 5 6 7 8
PIER SPACING - feet

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how
to design using ECP Steel Piers™, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each pier
Installation and

placement. If you have questions about structural weights, product selection or require engineering assistance
in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913
Testing

393-0008.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 113 All rights reserved
 Design Example 5 – Calculate the Foundation Load and Determine Pier Spacing
Three Story Office Building
 The three story structure
has settled toward the
corner. The largest
elevation loss was Dead Load =
4,700 lb/ft
measured at 1-1/2 inches. Live Load =
The engineer requested a 1,800 lb/ft
pier design and placement Perm. Soil Load =
360 lb/ft
proposal based on a steel Temp. Soil Load =
pier system to support and PLAN VIEW 980 lb/ft
restore the structure. LIFT LOAD =
 The engineer specified a 7,840 lb / ft
tu re 30 ft
factor of safety of at least ac
2.0. Fr
 The foundation consists of
an 18” tall x 28” wide
reinforced footing with a
10” thick x 3’-0” tall cast
concrete stem wall. 52 ft
(Footing toe = 8”) The first Dead Load = 7,000 lb/ft
Live Load = 2,600 lb/ft
floor slab is 6” thick Perm. Soil Load = 360 lb/ft
concrete. Temp. Soil Load = 980 lb/ft
 The upper floors are LIFT LOAD = 10,940 lb / ft
constructed of light weight Figure 8. Sketch for Example 5.
concrete and the roof
consists of multi-layer tar
and gravel over an insulated metal roof deck. Permanent Soil Load on Footing Toe: Table 8 can
be used to estimate the permanent soil load on the
 The exterior walls are 30 feet tall and consist of
footing toes. There are 8 inches of footing toe inside
heavy weight concrete blocks that are filled and
and outside of the stem wall that will carry a
reinforced. The outer surface has a 1-1/2 inch
permanent soil load. The soil height is assumed to be
thick simulated stucco covering. Inside the walls
2-1/2 feet above the top of the footing. Referring to
consist of steel studs, insulation, and pre-finished
Table 8, notice that there is no weight provided for a
drywall.
soil height of 2-1/2 feet. One solution is to use the
 The engineer has calculated the dead load at 7,000 permanent soil load for 2 feet and then add an
lb/lf on the heavy, load bearing side and 4,700 lb/lf additional load for 1/2 foot. Looking at the portion
on the adjacent wall. The live loads are estimated of Table 8 below, the weight for two feet of soil per
at 2,600 lb/lf and 1,800 lb/lf respectfully. inch of footing toe is 18 lb/in. To estimate the
1. Determine the Engineer’s Working Loads: additional weight of 1/2 foot of soil, it is necessary to
Working Load (PW) = Dead Load + Live Load divide the weight of 2 feet of soil by 4 to arrive at the
weight of 1/2 foot of permanent soil load. An
Side 1 - PW 1 = 7,000 + 2,600 = 9,600 lb/lf additional weight of 4-1/2 lb/in of toe is the result of
Side 2 - PW 2 = 4,700 + 1,800 = 6,500 lb/lf this calculation. Therefore, the estimated permanent
soil load per inch of footing toe is 22-1/2 lb/in.
2. Adjust the Working Loads due to Soil Loads:
Reading through the information provided it was Permanent soil load on footing toes:
noticed that the engineer did not mention a temporary 22.5 lb/ft x 8 inches x 2 toes = 360 lb/ft
soil load in his working load calculations. A review
of Table 8 presented in
Chapter 5 provides soil
Table 8. Estimated Soil Loads on Footings
load estimates that were
omitted from the data. Permanent Soil Load on a Footing Toe – W d
Soil Height Against Wall 2’ 4’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’
It is necessary to consider
Soil Load per inch of Footing Width 18 lb 37 lb 55 lb 64 lb 73 lb 83 lb 92 lb
the permanent and
temporary soil loads To determine the permanent soil load on a footing toe, multiply the actual width of the footing toe (in inches) by
when a structure must be the unit weight shown above for the soil height against the wall.
lifted.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 114 All rights reserved
 Adjusted Working Load (PW-Adj)
PW-Adj = DL + LL + Wd
Side 1 – PW-Adj 1 = 9,600 + 360 lb/lin.ft
PW-Adj 1 = 9,960 lb/ lin. ft
PLAN VIEW
Side 2 – PW-Adj 2 = 6,500 + 360 lb/lin. ft
PW-Adj 2 = 6,860 lb/lin.ft 6.0 ft
re
Temporary (Lifting) Soil Load: a ctu
In addition to the permanent soil load, Fr 30 ft
lifting will include raising a temporary
soil load that is resting against the stem
wall (inside and outside). Table 8, Graph
1, Chapter 5 (shown below), suggests that
the 2-1/2 foot temporary soil load is PPB-400 4 ft
52 ft
approximately 490 lb/ft or 980 lb/ft total. Steel Pier
Estimated Actual Lifting Loads (PL) = Figure 9. Pier Layout for Example 5.
Adj. Working Load + Temp. Soil Load
PL = PW-Adj 1 + Wt
PL-Pier Side 1 = 9,960 + 980 = 10,940 lb/ft Pier Spacing - “X” = PDSL / PL, Where,
PL-Pier Side 2 = 6,860 + 980 = 7,840 lb/ft “X” = Pier Spacing
PDSL = 49,500 lb (Model 400 at 2.0 FS)
PL 1 = 10,940 lb/ lf (Side 1)
PL 2 = 7,840 lb/ lf (Side 2)
Table 8. Estimated Soil Loads on Footings
The pier spacing for each side of the structure is now
Graph 1. Temporary Soil Load (One Side) – W t calculated using Equation 1 from Chapter 6:
Stem Wall Only/Turn Down Slab Pier
Footing & Stem Spacing = “X” = PSU Des / PL
Wall
Perimeter Weight (lb/ft)

Side 1:
4000
“X1” = 49,500 lb/10,940 lb/lf = 4.52 ft
3000 “X1” = Specify 4 feet on center (Side 1)
Lifting Load on the Piers Side 1:
2000
10,940 lb/ft x 4 ft = 43,760 lb
1000 Side 2:
“X2” = 49,500 lb/7,840 lb/lf = 6.31ft
0 “X2” = Specify 6.0 feet on center (Side 2)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lifting Load on the Piers Side 2:
Soil Height on Wall (ft)
7,840 lb/ft x 6 ft = 47,040 lb
3. Select the Steel Pier System for the project: 5. Prepare a pier layout plan – See sketch above:
The engineer specified a minimum factor of safety of Piers along the lower side (heaviest load) are spaced 4
2.0 is required. Referring to the pier Recommended feet on center for a total of 14 placements along 52
Design / Service Load Ratings on Table 1 in Chapter lineal feet of foundation. This design places piers
5, the PPB-400 Steel Pier™ system was selected supports from the point of fracture up to, and
because it has a maximum “Safe Use” service load including, the corner.
rating of 49,500 lb. Although this system is slightly Piers on the right side (lighter load) are spaced at 6
more expensive than the PPB-350, this system will feet on center for a total of 5 placements, which puts
use fewer placements and incur lower labor costs. the first pier 6 feet up from the corner and the last pier
4. Determine the pier spacing requirements. at the foundation fracture.
By using Equation 1 from Chapter 5, the maximum Calculate the pier working loads:
Installation and

pier spacing, “X”, can be determined: PW-Pier Side 1 = PW-Adj-1 x 4 ft = 9,960 x 4 = 38,840 lb
The pier spacing for each side of the structure is now
Testing

PW-Pier Side 2 = PW-Adj-2 x 6 ft = 6,860 x 6 = 41,160 lb

calculated using Equation 1 from Chapter 6:
A total of 19 PPB-400 ECP Steel Piers™ are proposed
Equation 1: Pier Spacing to support the structure and restore lost elevation.
“X” = PDSL / PL or PDSL = “X” x PL This design provides a continuous service load of
approximately 38,840 pounds per pier on the heavy
ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 115 All rights reserved
side at the bottom of the sketch, and provides Estimating Driving Cylinder Pressure:
continuous service load support of approximately It is a good idea to calculate the estimated hydraulic
41,160 pounds per pier placement on the lighter side pressure that will provide the required test load on the
at the right side of the sketch. pier, and an estimate of the hydraulic pressure
The calculated working load values include the design requirement to recover the lost elevation while all of
live and dead loads provided by the engineer along the project requirements and design data are at hand.
with the permanent soil loads on the footing toes This is valuable information for the field technicians.
added. The ECP HYD-350-DC Drive Cylinder has a piston
6. Determine the Service Load and Lifting Force area of 8.29 in2 as stated in Pier Installation, Load
Factor of Safeties for the Steel Pier Design: Testing & Project Documentation in Chapter 5. To
The ECP Pier System Load Ratings” on Table 1 in determine the pressure on the drive cylinder to
Chapter 5 for the PPB-400 Steel Pier™ system states produce the Proof Load of 62,000 pounds, Equation 2
that the “Safe Use” Recommended Design / Service is used:
Load rating is 49,500 pounds and the Ultimate-Limit
Mechanical System Capacity is 99,000 pounds. This Equation 2: Hydraulic Cylinder Force
capacity is divided by the Service Loads determined FCyl = Acyl x Pcyl
in Step 6.
Where: FCyl = Cylinder force on pier = 62,000 lb
Factor of Safety = Ult. Capacity/Service Load Pcyl = Hydraulic Pressure, psi
F.S.1 = 99,000/38,840 = 2.5 (Side 1 - Working) Acyl = Effective Cylinder Area = 8.29 in2
F.S.2 = 99,000/41,160 = 2.4 (Side 2 - Working) (HYD-350-DC Cylinder = 8.29 in2)
The factor of safety for lifting the structure can also Change Equation 2 to solve for the cylinder pressure:
be calculated: Pcyl = FCyl / Acyl = 62,000 lb / 8.29 in2
This design satisfies the engineer’s minimum factor Pcyl = 7,479 psi – Use 7,500 psi
of safety = 2.0, and also insures that there will be Estimating Lifting Cylinder Pressures:
sufficient pier capacity to break the footing loose The necessary hydraulic pressure on the HYD-254
from the soil and lift the temporary soil load without Lifting Ram that is sufficient to raise the structure is
exceeding “Safe Use” design. Divide the Ultimate- determined in a similar manner.
Limit Mechanical System Capacity by the Lifting Pcyl = FCyl / Acyl
Load determined in Step 4.
Where: FCyl = Max. lift force on pier:
Factor of Safety = Ult. Capacity/Lifting Load Side 1: 43,760 lb
F.S.L1 = 99,000/43,760 = 2.26 (Side 1- Lift) Side 2: 47,040 lb
F.S.L2 = 99,000/47,040 = 2.10 (Side 2 – Lift) Pcyl = Hydraulic Pressure -- psi
7. Determine Field Proof Test Force Requirement Acyl = Effective Cylinder Area – 5.16 in2
for the Piers: (HYD-254 Ram Area = 5.16 in2)
The design calls for the piers to support a maximum Side 1: Pcyl = 43,760 lb / 5.16 in2 = 8,480
continuous working load of up to 41,160 pounds Pcyl = 8,500 psi
(From Step 6 – Side 2 Load). According to ECP Side 2: Pcyl = 47,040 lb / 5.16 in2 = 9,125
guidelines, it is recommended to perform a proof test Pcyl = 9,100 psi
of each pile once the pile reaches firm bearing. The
ECP field proof test loading recommendation is to The Proof Test pressure and the estimates for Lifting
load the pier to 1-1/2 times the anticipated working Cylinder Pressures shall be supplied to the field
load or until slight lifting of the foundation is personnel to assist with the installation.
observed. END DESIGN EXAMPLE 5
Proof Load = Working Load x 1.5
PT = 41,160 lb x 1.5 = 61,740 lb
(Use Max. 62,000 lbs. for Proof Test)

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how
to design using ECP Steel Piers™, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each pier
placement. If you have questions about structural weights, product selection or require engineering assistance
in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913
393-0008.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 116 All rights reserved
 Design Example 5A – Estimate the Drive Cylinder and Lifting Ram Pressures
“Quick and Rough” Method for Design Example 5
“Quick and Rough” estimating can also determine Similarly, the anticipated maximum pressure on the
the cylinder pressures required to “Proof Test” the HYD-254 Lifting Ram is determined:
piers and to determine the anticipated lifting pressure
1. Begin by locating the proof test load requirement
for restoration of the structure. Use Graph 4 from
of 47,088 pounds at the left edge of the graph.
Chapter 5. (Reproduced below)
1. Begin by locating the Proof Test load requirement 2. Read horizontally to the right until encountering
of 62,000 pounds at the left edge of the graph. the short dashed line (HYD-254 Lifting Ram). Read
to the down to determine the estimated maximum
2. Read horizontally to the right until encountering pressure requirement.
the solid line (HYD-350-DC Cylinder). Read to the
PCyl = 9,100 psi.
down to determine the Drive Cylinder pressure
requirement. This information shall be supplied to the field
PCyl = 7,500 psi. personnel to assist with the installation.
END DESIGN EXAMPLE 5A

GRAPH 4. CYLINDER FORCE VS. HYDRAULIC PRESSURE

HYD-350-DC Drive Cyl (8.29 sq.in.) PPB-350 & PPB-400 Pier Systems
HYD-300-DC Drive Cyl (5.94 sq.in) PPB-300 Pier Systems
HYD-254 (5.16 sq.in.) Lifting Ram
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
Cylinder Force

55
lb x 1,000

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
500

1000
1500

2000
2500

3000
3500
4000
4500

5000
5500

6000
6500

7000
7500

8000
8500

9000
9500

10000

Hydraulic Pressure - psi

Installation and

Technical Design Assistance

Earth Contact Products, LLC. has a knowledgeable staff that stands ready to help you with understanding how
Testing

to design using ECP Steel Piers™, installation procedures, load testing, and documentation of each pier
placement. If you have questions about structural weights, product selection or require engineering assistance
in evaluating, designing, and/or specifying Earth Contact Products, please call us at 913 393-0007, Fax at 913
393-0008.

ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 117 All rights reserved
 Design Example 6 – Determining Force Applied to Pier from Field Data
For this example it is assumed that the technician in Where:
his field report states a driving pressure on a PPB- FCyl = Cylinder force on pier –lb
300-EPS pier pipe of 5,500 psi. The actual Pcyl = Hydraulic Pressure – 5,500 psi
installation force on the pier pipe can be determined Acyl = Effective Cylinder Area – 5.94 in2
and submitted to the engineer. (HYD-300-DC Cylinder = 5.94 in2)
Use Equation 2 from Chapter 5 to determine the FCyl = 5.94 in2 x 5,500 lb/in2
downward force on the pier pipe: FCyl = 32,670 lb.
Equation 2: Hydraulic Cylinder Force
FCyl = Acyl x Pcyl

Design Example 6A – Determining Force Applied to Pier - “Quick and Rough” Method
“Quick and Rough” estimating can also determine encountering the line with long dashes (HYD-300-
the force on the pier when the cylinder pressure is DC Drive Cylinder). Read to the left to determine
known. Use Graph 4 from Chapter 5. (Reproduced the force on the pier.
below) FCyl = 33,000 lb.
1. Begin by locating “5,500 psi” the pressure on the
END DESIGN EXAMPLE 6
cylinder on the lower edge of the graph.
2. Read upward from the bottom of the graph until

GRAPH 4. CYLINDER FORCE VS. HYDRAULIC PRESSURE

HYD-350-DC Drive Cyl (8.29 sq.in.) PPB-350 & PPB-400 Pier Systems
HYD-300-DC Drive Cyl (5.94 sq.in) PPB-300 Pier Systems
HYD-254 (5.16 sq.in.) Lifting Ram
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
Cylinder Force

55
lb x 1,000

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
500

1000
1500

2000
2500

3000
3500

4000
4500

5000
5500

6000
6500

7000
7500

8000
8500

9000
9500
10000

Hydraulic Pressure - psi

Review of Results of Example 5A, 6 & 6A

The result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis on these examples show that it is possible to
obtain results very quickly that are relatively accurate. It is important to accurately lay out the lines on
the graph to obtain best results. The “Quick and Rough” method returned useful results without
requiring mathematical calculations.
ECP Steel Piers™ Technical Service Manual © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 118 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Life
Chapter 7

of Steel
Corrosion Life of Steel Foundation Products
Torque Anchors™
ECP Steel Piers™

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our efforts
toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are using the
most recent product information and specifications.

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 119 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Consideration
Corrosion is defined as the deterioration of a dissolved chemical elements (ions) and serve as
metallic structure due to its interaction with the the electrical connection between different parts
surrounding environment. of the structural element. The water containing
the dissolved chemical elements is called an
Steel Underground - How Long Does It Last?
electrolyte. The presence (or absence) of these
Steel foundation supports are subjected to a
ions, as well as their nature and concentration,
range of corrosive forces that are quite different
determines the electrical conductivity, or
from steel exposed to atmospheric conditions.
resistivity, of the electrolyte.
The performance of steel and galvanized
structural steel elements underground are not as Aeration: The availability of oxygen (aeration)
well understood as is the life expectancy of steel in the soil surrounding the metal is also essential
products in above ground applications. to the corrosion process. The process of wetting
For corrosion to initiate, steel requires not only and drying of the soil causes oxygen to be
oxygen but also the presence of dissolved salts in present in the soil. It is also the reason that most
water. If either of these items is absent, corrosion occurs usually near the surface where
corrosion will not occur. the wet-dry cycle is more severe.
The causes of corrosion on buried metallic Under these conditions, metal ions will migrate
structures are generally understood, but this from the anodic (+) locations on a metallic object
knowledge base does not always permit an and transfer to the cathodic (-) locations. It is
accurate prediction of a design life when placed this loss in metal at the anodic locations that
in a corrosive environment. This chapter is not results in the degradation of the underground
intended as a rigorous technical text; rather it metallic structure.
provides knowledge to help the reader to
establishing whether corrosion could be a critical Controlling Factors for Corrosion
factor in a specific foundation support Soil Type: Some soil types are more corrosive
application. than others. The physical and mineralogical
composition of soils, which is a result of:
A qualified engineer, knowledgeable in design
for corrosion environments should be consulted  Their origin, decomposition and deposition
when foundation support products are to be  The plant life and its decomposition
used in a known corrosive environment.  Topography of the land
Corrosion occurs by an electrochemical process. All of these influence the soil’s corrosivity
In order for corrosion of an underground metallic potential. The soils having greatest concern are
structure to occur, there must be an electrical those which produce water soluble acid forming
potential, an electrolyte (dissolved salts in water) chemical elements such as carbonate,
and aeration present. bicarbonate, chloride, nitrate and sulfate, or base
(alkaline) forming chemical elements such as
Difference in Electrical Potential: Corrosion is
sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium.
initiated by a difference in electric potential
The soils that have the highest corrosive
(electric charge) between two points on a
potential, are soils described or classified by
metallic structure. This electrical potential can
geotechnical engineers as silty, loamy, clay,
be caused by strains in the metal or between
organic (peats, cinders and ashes), and soils
component parts, or contact with different soil
which are poorly aerated. Granular soils (sands
types along the shaft, or non-homogeneities in
and gravels) which are highly aerated can drain
metal, etc. A difference in electrical potential
water away rapidly. In well drained soil the
causes the development of “anodes” and
electrolyte is not constantly in contact with the
“cathodes” along the surface of the metal. There
steel and the corrosion process is reduced.
must be an electrical connection between the
anodes and cathodes for corrosion to occur. Soil Resistivity: The resistivity of the soil is one
of the simplest checks for soil corrosivity. To
Electrolyte: Water or moisture in the soil that
obtain the soil resistivity, one passes a current
surrounds the pile or pier shaft may contain

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 120 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Life
through the soil and measures the resistivity of Soil resistivity can be measured in the field using

of Steel
the soil. Generally, when the soil resistivity, a soil resistivity meter or by obtaining a soil
measured in ohm-cm, is high; the rate of sample from the site and testing it in a laboratory
corrosion and loss of steel is low. Low soil using a resistivity meter and a soil box. This
resistivity occurs due to a number of factors, but equipment is generally available to the
fine-grained soils (silts, loams, clays, and peats) geotechnical engineer.
have low resistivity and the greatest corrosion
Soil pH: The measure of acidity or alkalinity in
susceptibility. Table 1 illustrates the average
a solution is given as pH. Values of pH < 7 are
corrosivity for common soil types, and Table 2
considered acidic and values of pH > 7 to 14 are
provides a measure of the soil corrosivity based
alkaline. Pure distilled water is neutral and has a
upon soil resistivity.
pH = 7. pH is a measure of the degree of
In general it can be said that sandy soils have the hydrogen ion concentration in the water. When a
higher resistivity values and are generally sample of soil is mixed with distilled water, the
considered the least corrosive. Clay soils solution can then be tested with a pH meter to
generally have higher corrosivity and when clay arrive at the soil pH number.
soil is situated in an area of saline water, it can
While soil corrosivity can exist within a broad
be highly corrosive to steel.

Table 1. Soil Resistivity Ranges For General Soil Types

Resistivity Range (ohm- Resistivity Range (ohm-
Soil Type Soil Type
cm) cm)
Gravel 40,000 to 200,000 Fine Silts & Organics 2,000 to 10,000
Sand 10,000 to 100,000 Loams 3,000 to 10,000
Silt 1,000 to 2,000 Humus 1,000 to 4,000
Clay with Silt 3,000 to 5,000 Ashes – Cinders 500 to 5,000
Clay 500 to 2,000 Peat 100 to 2,000
Heavy Plastic Clay 5,000 to 20,000 Marshy Deposit 50 to 300
Notes:
1. High soil moisture content decreases the resistivity making the soil more corrosive.
2. Freezing the soil dramatically raises the resistivity, thus reducing the corrosivity

Table 2. Soil Resistivity and Relative range of soil conditions, the amount of acidity
Corrosivity Rating (organic reducing soils – pH < 7) or alkalinity of
a soil (pH > 7), does influence corrosion
Resistivity Corrosivity
(ohm-cm) Rating susceptibility and rates. Most soils have a pH
> 10,000 Non-Corrosive
that falls within the range of pH 3-1/2 to pH 10.
5,000 to 9,999 Mildly Corrosive Soils that are highly acidic (pH < 4-1/2) or
3,000 to 4,999 Moderately Corrosive alkaline (8 < pH < 10-1/2) have significantly
1,000 to 2,999 Corrosive higher corrosion rates than soils within the mid-
range 4-1/2 < pH < 8.
500 to 999 Highly Corrosive
< 500 Extremely Corrosive

Range for
Soils
pH 0 pH 7 (Neutral) pH 14

pH 4 Acidic Soils Alkaline Soils pH 8 pH 10

Range for Range for
High Corrosion High Corrosion
Figure 1. Corrosion of metals within soils can occur over a broad range of pH.

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 121 All rights reserved
Alkaline soils that have a pH > 10-1/2 will have In acidic conditions (pH < 4) the corrosion rate
a significantly decreased corrosion rate due to dramatically increases. The scientists concluded
passivation. that the acidic conditions dissolve the iron oxide
as it forms leaving the iron in direct contact with
Corrosion Test Results: Doctors Laboratories,
the water.
a division of the Royal Military College of
Canada exposed iron to aerated water at room Zinc Galvanizing for Corrosion Protection:
temperature and determined the corrosion rate as In Frank Porter’s “Corrosion Resistance of Zinc
a function of the pH of the water. and Zinc Alloys”, he determined that dissolved
chloride content in water is highly corrosive to
As the water became highly acidic (pH < 4), the
zinc. When zinc is subjected to hard (alkaline)
steel corroded more quickly than the steel did in
water, the insoluble salts in the water form a
a highly alkaline environment (pH > 10). It is
scale of calcium carbonate and zinc carbonate on
also interesting to note that zinc used for
the surface of the zinc coating that provides a
galvanization provides the best protection to
protective barrier against attack from free
steel subjected to similar environments. Zinc
chloride anions.
provides the most effective protection through a
range of 5.5 < pH < 12.5. In the absence of air, a Frank Porter attributes this insoluble scale for the
zinc oxide film does not form on the zinc significantly increased corrosion free life of
galvanized surface and corrosion can be more galvanized piles in soils where pH ranges
rapid when moisture is present. between 5.5 and 12.5. Roathali, Cox and
Littreal, the authors of “Metals and Alloys”,
The corrosion rate of steel in soil can range from 1963; presented data showing the corrosion rate
less than 0.79 mils per year (0.0008 in/yr) under of zinc is a function of pH. Excerpts from their
favorable conditions to more than 7.87 mils per data are presented in Graph 2.
year (0.0079 in/yr) in very aggressive soils.
There are similarities in the corrosion rates of
The Effect of pH on
galvanized coatings. Under favorable
Corrosion of Zinc
conditions, the zinc may corrode at less than 0.20
mils per year under mild conditions to more than 1.2
0.98 mils in unfavorable soil conditions.
Loss Rate (Mils per year)

1.0
The results of the testing are illustrated in Graph
0.8
1. The data suggests that in the range of 4 < pH
< 10 the corrosion rate of iron is independent of 0.6
the acidity or alkalinity (pH) of the environment.
0.4

The Effect of pH on 0.2

Corrosion of Iron 0
80
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
70
pH
Loss Rate (Mils per year)

60 Graph 2.
50
Oxygen Availability: In addition to soil
40
moisture, free oxygen must be available to
30 complete the corrosion process. Oxygen
20
combines with the metal ions to form oxides,
hydroxides and metal salts.
10
Corrosion rates will drop significantly when the
0 steel structure is below a ground water table
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 (GWT), and the water is relatively stagnant (low
pH to no flow velocity) since available free oxygen
Graph 1. is much reduced under these conditions.

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 122 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Life
Estimating Corrosion Potential

of Steel
There are a number of variables that influence the 1989; along with data published in the proceedings
corrosion potential for underground metallic of the “Eighth International Ash Utilization
structures. Melvin Romanoff has conducted Symposium, Vol. 2”, American Coal Ash
extensive field testing of buried metal structures to Association, Washington, DC, October, 1987.
evaluate the corrosion levels related to the more These data were used to develop Graph 3, which
significant variables. These results, published by allows during the design process for an empirical
Romanoff in “Underground Corrosion”, National calculation to estimate losses due to corrosion.
Bureau of Standards circular 579, Houston TX,

CORROSION POTENTIAL ESTIMATING GRAPH

UNDERGROUND BARE STEEL STRUCTURES
C O R R O S IO N
P O T E N T IA L
100,000
70,000 UNLIKELY
50,000 ALL pH's

3 < pH < 6 SLIGHT

20,000

10,000
7000 MILD

5000
RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm)

MODERATE

2000

1000
700
500
SEVERE

pH <4.5
200 pH > 10.5
pH > 12
100
70
50 pH = 5 pH = 6 pH = 7 pH = 8 pH = 9 pH = 10

0
0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5
LOSS IN WEIGHT BY CORROSION PER YEAR (oz./sq. ft.)
Graph 3. Prediction of steel loss due to corrosion relative to soil resistivity and pH.

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 123 All rights reserved
If specific information on a soil is available to the provides guidance for steel foundation products in
designer (soil type, pH & resistivity), a soil. The numerical corrosivity score is designed
preliminary estimate for metal corrosion loss of only as a guide to warn of a possible corrosive
bare steel can be determined. The NBS environment in which the life of galvanized steel
publication can also be used to find a comparable product deterioration may be accelerated due to
soil and condition for estimating the rate of aggressive corrosion conditions.
corrosion. It should be noted that when hot- Using the information gathered from a specific job
dipped galvanizing is used as a form of corrosion site, an indication of the likelihood of corrosion is
protection, the resulting corrosion rate for steel suggested based upon point values assigned to the
(once the galvanized coating is lost due to three soil parameters linked to increased corrosion
corrosion) will be lower than the rates shown in rates. Notice in Table 3 that the three elements
Graph 3 on the previous page. (The estimated that influence the rate of corrosion must be known
reduction rate of corrosion is in the 20% to 100% before an assessment of soil corrosivity can be
range). predicted from Table 4.
Special Corrosion Conditions: Soil resistivity The sum of these point values gives the numerical
and pH are strong influencing factors on corrosion corrosivity score for the site. The score suggests
rates; however, there are other special soil the likelihood of slight, moderate or high corrosion
conditions such as excessive salt content of water potential of the soil. As the score approaches 10,
(seawater), velocity of water flow and atmospheric the soil becomes more aggressive. When the
conditions, which may increase the corrosion rate. numerical corrosivity score equals 10 or higher, it
Uhilig’s Corrosion Handbook, Edited by R. is strongly recommended to seek the advice of an
Winston Revie, 2nd Edition, provided the engineer familiar with corrosion to evaluate the
following reference material: project to determine what additional corrosion
protective measures in addition to galvanization
1. Corrosion Rates in Seawater
(Pipe Piles, H-Piles, Etc.)
are required for extended service life.
a. Splash Zone (Average) = 6.9 oz/ft2 / yr
b. Tidal Zone (Average) = 2.0 oz/ft2 / yr Table 3. Numerical Corrosivity Score
c. Immersed (Average) = 2.3 oz/ft2 / yr Soil Parameter
d. Immersed Zone (Range) = 0.5 oz/ft2 / yr to 9.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) Points
oz/ft2 / yr
< 500 10
2. Influence Of Velocity In Fresh Water 500 – 999 8
Velocity (m/s) Corrosion Rate Multiplier 1,000 – 1,999 5
1/2 to 3 4 2,000 – 4,999 2
3 to 15 1.2 to 0.8 5,000 – 10,000 1
3. Atmospheric Corrosion Rates
>10,000 0
(Pipe Piles, H-Piles, Etc.)
pH Points
Atmospheric = 3.2 oz/ft2 / yr (Average)
(< 500 Meters to Seashore) 2 – 4.5 6
5–6 0
Soil Corrosion Ratings: In over 90% of
7–9 2
foundation underpinning projects corrosion is not
10.5 -- 12 6
a problem, but one needs to recognize the warning
signs of problem soils. The American Water Moisture Points
Works Association developed a numerical rating Tidal or Salt Water Exposure 5
to determine the severity of corrosion for cast iron Poor Drainage – Always Wet 2
pipes. While ECP products are not constructed Fair Drainage - Moist 1
from cast iron, a numerical rating system similar Good Drainage – Usually Dry 0
to the AWWA system was developed by ECP that

Table 4. Soil Corrosion Potential

Unlikely Slight Mild Moderate Aggressive Severe
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 124 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Life
Methods of Corrosion Control

of Steel
Depending upon the corrosion potential for a pipe that is smooth and shiny. The interior of the
given soil environment, several alternatives are pipe is also coated with zinc-iron alloy,
available to reduce the corrosion cycle and galvanizing and zinc chromate compounds.
extend the performance life of the underground Independent laboratory salt spray testing of this
steel element. These control measures can be tubing from various manufacturers compared
divided into general categories: with standard galvanized schedule 40 pipe
 Passive Control – for use in soils classified showed the in-line corrosion protection process
as having mild to moderate corrosion lasted up to 33% longer.
potential The laboratory tests were conducted in
 Active Control – for use in soils classified accordance with ASTM B-117. Standard
as having moderate to severe corrosion schedule 40 pipe is normally supplied with hot
potential dip galvanize to ASTM-A123 Grade 75.
Passive Control Because no controlled in-soil corrosion testing is
available for the in-line corrosion protected ECP
Hot Dip Galvanizing: The products
products, a zinc equivalence of 3.0 mils or 1.7
manufactured by Earth Contact Products that are
oz/ft2 (ASTM-A123 Grade 75) appears to be
offered with hot dip galvanizing are coated with
reasonable value to be used for conservatively
molten zinc that contains not less than 98% pure
estimating corrosion life of in-line corrosion
zinc metal. The hot dip galvanization process
protected pier pipe.
meets or exceeds ASTM A123 Grade 100 which
is 2.3 oz/ft2 of zinc (3.9 mils minimum Thicker coatings (5 mils) have shown extended
thickness) for steel plate, structural tubing or bar life, depending on the corrosion potential of the
products.. soil environment. The galvanized coating serves
as an anode to provide cathodic protection to the
Quadruple Layer Corrosion Protection: The
steel. The results of the studies conducted by
pier pipe for ECP Steel Piers™ PPB-350 and
Romanoff and by Porter indicate that a
PPB-300 foundation support systems are
galvanized (zinc) coating was effective in
supplied with a triple step in-line process of
delaying the onset of corrosion in the buried steel
corrosion protection as standard. This corrosion
structures. Typical conclusions drawn from this
protection process consists of heating the clean
study for the 5 mil (3 oz/ft2) galvanized coating
steel tubing to 8500 F and placing it in a bath of
includes:
molten zinc. This process creates an extremely
hard zinc-iron alloy upon which a uniform layer  Adequate for more than 10 years corrosion
of pure zinc is deposited. Then the zinc is protection for inorganic oxidizing soils.
rendered inert against oxidation by a passivation  Adequate for more than 10 years corrosion
process using a precisely controlled chromate protection for inorganic reducing soils.
bath. This passivation forms a complex layer of  Insufficient for corrosion protection in
zinc chromate compounds that halts interaction highly reducing organic soils (pH < 4) and
of oxygen and water with the zinc to prevent inorganic reducing alkaline soils or cinders
premature corrosion. (8 < pH < 10.5) lasted typically only 3 to 5
After the chromate bath, in a continuous process, years.
a clear polymer film is applied and cured to  It was also noted, however, that the use of
complete the corrosion protection system. This a galvanized coating significantly reduced
three step process provides four layers of the rate of corrosion of the underlying
corrosion protection: steel structure once the zinc coating was
1. a zinc-iron alloy layer, destroyed. This was observed in
2. a pure zinc galvanizing, Romanoff’s study where the rates of
3. a layer of zinc chromate compounds, corrosion for the previously galvanized
4. a clear organic polymer film. coated steel were less than the corrosion
The quadruple layer corrosion protection process rates for never galvanized bare steel.
produces a strong and durable coating on the pier

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 125 All rights reserved
 Active Control STEM WALL

Cathodic Protection:
SPREAD
As indicated FOOTING
UTILITY BRACKET
previously, corrosion is an electrochemical FLOOR SLAB

process that involves a flow of direct

electrical current from the anodic (corroding)
areas of the underground metallic structure
into the electrolyte and back onto the metallic
structure at the cathodic (non-corroding)
3' APPROX

areas. In situations where helical piles or

steel piers are to be placed in a soil
environment classified as severely corrosive,
Active Control technique of corrosion control
should be used. This Active Control
technique is termed Active Cathodic 3' TO 6'

Protection. PILE SHAFT

The basic principle of Active Cathodic MAGNESIUM

ANODE

Protection is to apply an electrical current

equal to and opposite to the electrical current
generated by the corroding metallic structure,
thus effectively eliminating the corrosion
process on the foundation element.
Sacrificial Anodes: The sacrificial
(galvanic) anode is attached to each
underground metallic structure by an
electrical conductor (cable) and the anode is Figure 2. Active corrosion protection with a magnesium anode
placed within the common electrolyte (soil
medium) adjacent to the foundation element. underground steel will begin to corrode.
The sacrificial anode works best when only a
Impressed Current: In areas that have the most
small amount of electrical current is needed for
severe corrosion potential and a large current is
corrosion control and/or when the soil resistivity
required, and in places with high resistance
is low. Anodes are usually installed about three
electrolytes; an impressed current system is
feet below the surface and 3 to 6 feet from the
generally recommended. This system requires a
steel subject to corrosion. Magnesium, zinc and
power source, rectifier and a ground bed of
aluminum are the most commonly used galvanic
impressed current anodes. These systems require
sacrificial anodes.
a continuous external power source to provide
The use of cathodic protection using sacrificial corrosion protection.
anodes connected to underground metallic The majority of applications where foundation
structures offers the following advantages: underpinning is installed will not require an
 no external power supply is required active corrosion protection system. In most
 low system cost for anode bags and cases where there is corrosive soil and/or adverse
installation electrolyte conditions, the sacrificial anode
 minimum maintenance costs protection system will likely be the most
The major variables are soil moisture content, economical approach. All corrosion protection
resistivity of soil and pH. Each of these items systems require technical expertise and training
influence the final selection of the cathodic to design and install the products for the specific
protection system. Typical design life for the job site conditions.
cathodic protection is 10 to 20 years, depending As long as the system is properly designed and
upon the size, length and type of the anode installed; and the system remains in operation,
canister. After the anode is exhausted, a new the underground steel will have unlimited
anode needs to be installed. Otherwise the corrosion life.

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 126 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Life
Corrosion Life Analysis

of Steel
The estimated corrosion life is based on the because greater strength is needed for product
following factors: installation than for support. The formula for
1. The life of the galvanized coating, (CLG) estimating average time for ten percent corrosion
loss in steel wall thickness (WS x 0.10) is given
2. The life of a limited amount of steel loss in
in Equation 2, which estimates corrosion loss per
the pier wall without losing structural
year.
integrity of the pile, (CLP) (The
recommended allowance is 10 %.) Equation 2 - Corrosion Loss Steel Shaft:
3. The life when cathodic protection is present, CLP = WS-10% / KC
(Follow the life analysis provided by the Where:
sacrificial anode manufacturer.) CL P = Life expectancy of steel tube (years)
WS-10% = 10% shaft weight loss – (oz/ft2)
There is a high degree of variability in the
KC-1 yr = Corrosion loss per year - oz/ft2
performance life of steel piers and helical piles in
the soil. Including, but not limited to:  WS-10% is the amount of steel loss equal to 10
 multiple strata soils through the depth of % of the wall thickness of a pile shaft can be
installation, determined by Equation 3.
 soil variations within a given stratum Equation 3:
 variability of the water content of soil both WS-10% = 10% x t in x 489.6 lb/ft3 x 16 oz/lb
vertically and seasonally
Where: t = Wall thickness of the tubular shaft or
 presence or absence of salt ions in the soil due one-half the thickness of the solid bar - in.
to leaching, etc.
 KC-1 yr can be estimated from the data in
 non-uniformity of the galvanized coating
Graph 3, which estimates of corrosion loss
thickness and areas of stress concentration per year based upon the resistivity and pH.
 imperfections in the steel
It is important to remember that the corrosion
 damage to the steel or galvanized coating
life predicted by these equations provide an
 presence or absence of stray currents
average life expectancy for the foundation
Corrosion Life of Galvanized Coating: The support product when installed under the given
observed rates of corrosion for the galvanized conditions. Furthermore, at the end of the
coating were different (less) than that for bare calculated corrosion life, there will be no loss of
steel in Romanoff’s NBS study. Equation 1 can structural integrity or original design factor of
be used to estimate the corrosion (weight loss) safety.
rate for galvanized coatings. From the end of the corrosion life predicted here,
Equation 1 - Corrosion Life Zinc: corrosion to the structural element will begin to
CLG = G / [0.25 - 0.12 log10 (R/150)] reduce the factor of safety built into the design of
the product. If left unprotected, corrosion will
Where: eventually cause failure sometime in the future.
CLG = Weight loss (oz/ft2)/year
G = Amount of galvanize coating (oz/ft2) Caution is required for predictions of
R = Soil resistivity (ohm-cm) performance life beyond 50 years. The
Corrosion Life of Steel Pier or Pile: Once the equations above provide results that are average
protection offered by the galvanized coating has corrosion life predictions. The corrosion process
been exhausted, the steel will begin to corrode is affected by variations in ground water adjacent
and lose thickness. “Safe Use Design” states to the pile or pier shaft. It is also affected by soil
that a factor of safety of 2.0 or greater shall be strata typically not homogenous, along with
used when designing foundation supports. With other factors such as dissolved minerals,
regard to corrosion loss, experience has shown imperfections in the galvanization, imperfections
that the structural integrity of the pier system is in the steel and/or damage to the products during
not be compromised should there be a corrosion shipping and installation, etc.
loss of steel not exceeding ten per cent. This is

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 127 All rights reserved
 “Quick and Rough” Corrosion Life Estimating
Corrosion Life Tables: The tables that follow is the “Quick and Rough” estimate of corrosion
were developed from Equations 1 and 2 presented life of the steel prior to any loss in capacity.
earlier. The values for the pH used in the tables
Life of Torque Anchor™ Galvanizing
were based upon the values at which corrosion
The vast majority of steel foundation support
potential generally changes.
products are specified with corrosion protection
Corrosion of the Torque Anchor™ Shafts applied. At the far right column of Table 5
The first two columns of Table 5 estimate the estimates the corrosion life of galvanized coating.
corrosion life of an ungalvanized Torque Anchor™ Simply read horizontally across from the pH that
shaft before the pile deterioration affects capacity. most closely matches the pH at the job site until
This table estimates the time for corrosion to the estimated life of the galvanization is found at
destroy ten percent of the of the pile shaft the far right column.
thickness. Determine the shaft configuration
The Torque Anchor™ products are supplied with
under the heading of the graph. Next, locate the
hot dip galvanizing that meets or exceeds ASTM
row that most closely matches the soil pH on the
A123, Grade 100. This puts a minimum of 2.3
job site. Read downward from the shaft
oz/ft2 of zinc, which is 3.9 mils (minimum)
configuration and horizontally from the selected
thickness.
pH value until the column and row intersect. This

TABLE 5. Sample ECP Torque Anchor® & Soil Nail Life Expectancy Estimates at Full Load
Plain Steel Life Expectancy at Full Load Hot Dip Galvanize
Soil pH 2.3 oz/ft2 - 3.9 Mils
1-1/2” 1-3/4” 2-1/4” 2-7/8” Dia x 3-1/2” Dia x 4-1/2” Dia x
Square Bar Square Bar Square Bar 0.262” Tube 0.300” Tube 0.337” Tube (ASTM A123 gr. 100)

Soil Resistivity – 500 ohm-cm

4.5 25 yrs 30 yrs 39 yrs 9 yrs 11 yrs 12 yrs
5 100+ yrs 100+ yrs 125+ yrs 48 yrs 57 yrs 63 yrs Add 12 years to life
8 45 yrs 52 yrs 67 yrs 15 yrs 17 yrs 19 yrs shown at left
10.5 25 yrs 30 yrs 39 yrs 9 yrs 11 yrs 12 yrs
Soil Resistivity – 1,000 ohm-cm
4.5 29 yrs 34 yrs 43 yrs 10 yrs 12 yrs 13 yrs
5 100+ yrs 100+ yrs 125+ yrs 57 yrs 67 yrs 73 yrs Add 15 years to life
8 49 yrs 57 yrs 73 yrs 17 yrs 20 yrs 22 yrs shown at left
10.5 29 yrs 34 yrs 43 yrs 11 yrs 12 yrs 13 yrs
Soil Resistivity – 2,000 ohm-cm
4.5 34 yrs 39 yrs 51 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 15 yrs
5 125+ yrs 125+ yrs 150+ yrs 85 yrs 100 yrs 100+ yrs Add 20 years to life
8 47 yrs 67 yrs 86 yrs 19 yrs 22 yrs 24 yrs shown at left
10.5 34 yrs 39 yrs 51 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 15 yrs
Soil Resistivity – 5,000 ohm-cm
4.5 45 yrs 52 yrs 67 yrs 16 yrs 18 yrs 20 yrs
5 150+ yrs 150+ yrs 175+ yrs 100+ yrs 100+ yrs 100+ yrs Add 34 years to life
8 82 yrs 95 yrs 100+ yrs 29 yrs 33 yrs 37 yrs shown at left
10.5 45 yrs 52 yrs 67 yrs 16 yrs 18 yrs 20 yrs

IMPORTANT NOTES:
1. The tables above are designed to suggest to the reader basic life expectancies assuming homogeneous soil and
constant soil moisture. These tables are not intended to be used in place of a corrosion analysis and design. This
table is not to be considered a substitute for field measurements of pH and resistivity; and a site specific corrosion
analysis.
IMPORTANT NOTES CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 128 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Life
2. The life expectancies predicted in Tables 5 & 6 were calculated using recognized engineering principles and are for

of Steel
general information only. While believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon for any
specific application without competent professional examination by a registered professional engineer and verified for
accuracy or suitability to the application and site.
3. Reaching the end of the stated life does not indicate that the pile will fail; rather a slow reduction of the factor of
safety will occur as the ultimate pile capacity decreases. Failure could occur in months or many years depending upon
the soil conditions and the installed product.
4. The tables allow for ten percent of the cross section of the product to corrode away from the solid steel bars and
ten per cent of wall thickness from the tubular sections. This extra material was required for torsional strength when
installing the helical pile, or for field load testing the steel pier pipe. The helical pile or steel pier should retain the
original design capacity with the full factor of safety intact even with this small amount of metal loss.
5. Variations in soil moisture content from season to season and year to year can adversely affect service life. Low
field moisture content produces low corrosion rates even if corrosion elements are present. Stray currents from pipe
lines, power lines, etc may also affect the life of the pile or pier. Corrosivity, resistivity and pH testing is always
recommended in problem soils.
6. Hot Dip Galvanize process is assumed to meet or exceed ASTM A123 – Grade 100. The quadruple layer corrosion
protection process found on the ECP Steel Pier pipe is assumed offer protection that is equivalent to ASTM A123 –
Grade 75. The 4 inch diameter pier pipe is offered with optional galvanizing to ASTM A123 – GR 100.
7. Once the resistivity becomes higher than 1,000 ohm-cm, the galvanized solid square shaft helical pile product
provides an excellent service life exceeding 44 years, when not subjected to soil pH values outside the range of Table
5 or to stray underground currents. Life expectancies exceeding 50 years can be expected for galvanized helical
tubular products when the resistivity is above 5,000 ohm-cm.
8. As the predicted life expectancy increases beyond 40 years, the margin for error increases dramatically because
the life expectancy estimates are calculated from empirical equations derived from field testing and projected beyond
the length of time for the actual corrosion testing.

pier pipe that will be used and horizontally from

Corrosion Life of ECP Steel Piers™
the selected pH value until the column and row
Some ECP Steel Pier™ pipe is supplied with intersect. This is the “Quick and Rough” estimate
quadruple corrosion protection that is similar to of the corrosion life expectancy of the ECP Steel
ASTM A123, Grade 75. This is equivalent to 1.7 Pier™ pipe for the particular job site.
oz/ft2 of zinc, or 3.0 mils thickness. The PPB-400-
The PPB-400-EPSB (4 inch diameter with 0.220
EPS pier pipe is supplied with Hot Dip
inch wall thickness mill finished pier pipe) and the
Galvanizing to ASTM A123 – Grade 100. This
PPB-400-EPS is the same pier pipe with Hot Dip
pipe is also used for PPB-400-EPSB with a mill
Galvanization of 2.3 oz/ft2 of zinc or 3.9 mils
finish.
thickness to ASTM-A123, Grade 100. The
Table 6 (next page) is used to estimate corrosion corrosion life for these pier pipes is determined in
life for the most commonly used ECP Steel the same manner as the other steel pier pipes.
Piers™. Because the PPB-300-EPS (2-7/8 inch Locate the 4 inch diameter pier pipe at the top
diameter with 0.165 inch wall pier pipe) and the heading of the graph depending upon whether it
PPB-350-EPS (3-1/2 inch diameter with 0.165 pier has HDG or mill finish and read downward until
pipe) are supplied with the factory applied the intersection with the row that represents the
quadruple corrosion protection, the values in Table closest value of pH found on the job site.
6 use the flow coat corrosion protection in the
It is important to remember that the corrosion life
corrosion life estimates.
predicted by these tables provide an average life
To obtain an estimate of the time that it will take expectancy for the foundation support product
for corrosion to destroy the corrosion protection when installed under the given conditions.
coating on the pier pipe and ten percent of the wall Furthermore, at the end of the calculated corrosion
thickness of the steel tube, locate the pier pipe life, there will be no loss of structural integrity or
configuration at the top of Table 6. Next, original design factor of safety for service load.
determine the soil pH that most closely matches
the pH at the job site. Read downward from the

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 129 All rights reserved
 ®
TABLE 6. Sample ECP Steel Pier Pipe Life Expectancy Estimates At Full Load
PPB-300-EPS PPB-350-EPS PPB-400-EPSB PPB-400-EPS
2-7/8” Dia. Tube 3-1/2” Dia. Tube 4” Dia. Tube 4” Dia. Tube
Soil pH Quad-layer-coating Quad-layer-coating (Mill Finish) HDG – (2.3 oz/ft2 - 3.9 Mils
(1.7 oz.ft2 – 3.0 Mils) (1.7 oz.ft2 – 3.0 Mils) ASTM A123 gr. 100)

Soil Resistivity – 500 ohm-cm

4.5 15 yrs 15 yrs 7-1/2 yrs 19-1/2 yrs
5 40 yrs 40 yrs 40 yrs 53 yrs
8 19 yrs 19 yrs 13 yrs 25 yrs
10.5 15 yrs 15 yrs 7-1/2 yrs 19-1/2 yrs

Soil Resistivity – 1,000 ohm-cm

4.5 15-1/2 yrs 15-1/2 yrs 8.5 yrs 24 yrs
5 47 yrs 47 yrs 48 yrs 63 yrs
8 22 yrs 22 yrs 13 yrs 28 yrs
10.5 15-1/2 yrs 15-1/2 yrs 8.5 yrs 24 yrs

Soil Resistivity – 2,000 ohm-cm

4.5 22 yrs 22 yrs 10 yrs 39 yrs
5 69 yrs 69 yrs 72 yrs 92 yrs
8 27 yrs 27 yrs 17 yrs 37 yrs
10.5 22 yrs 22 yrs 10 yrs 39 yrs

Soil Resistivity – 5,000 ohm-cm

4.5 35 yrs 35 yrs 13 yrs 47 yrs
5 97 yrs 97 yrs 95 yrs 100 yrs
8 43 yrs 43 yrs 25 yrs 59 yrs
10.5 35 yrs 35 yrs 13 yrs 47 yrs

Please see “Important Notes” on the two previous pages

Results of Field Tested

Galvanized Coating Life Table 7. Corrosion of Galvanized* Steel Pipe*
in Contact with Various Soils
The National Bureau of Standard conducted Zinc Loss /yr Life of Zinc**
testing of corrosion of metals in soils. As early as Inorganic Soils (mil per year) (years)
1924, research on corrosion of galvanized pipe Acid Soils – Oxidizing
was in progress. In 1937 a zinc corrosion study Cecil Clay Loam 0.08 66
began using 1-1/2 inch diameter galvanized steel Hagerstown Loam 0.08 66
pipe with a 5.3 mil (0.0053”) zinc coating. The Susquehanna Clay 0.11 48
results from the testing are shown in Table 7. The Acid Soils – Reducing
test also found that the galvanization prevented Sharkey Clay 0.15 35
pitting of the steel even after the zinc coating was Acadia Clay 0.91 6
Alkaline Soils – Oxidizing
completely consumed. The bare steel that was
Chino Silt Loam 0.15 35
formally under the galvanization corroded at a
Mohave Fine Gravelly Loam 0.15 35
much slower rate than comparable bare steel under
Alkaline Soils – Reducing
identical conditions.
Docas Clay 0.22 24
Merced Silt Loam 0.10 53
* Test of buried 1-1/2” diameter steel pipe with 5.3 mils Organic Acid Soil - Reducing
of zinc galvanizing -- National Bureau of Standards –
Carlisle Muck 0.44 12
1937.
Tidal Mush 0.38 14
** Life expectancy is only for galvanize coating and not Muck 1.42 4
any loss of steel.
Rifle Peat 2.64 2
Cinders 1.64 3

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 130 All rights reserved
 Corrosion Life
Manufacturer’s Warranty

of Steel
Earth Contact Products strives to provide quality foundation support products at competitive prices. We
are proud that our products are providing long term foundation support to structures across the nation. We
are so confident in our products that we offer a manufacturer’s limited 25 year warranty against defects in
materials and workmanship. The text of our warranty is shown below:

“Earth Contact Products, L.L.C. offers a 25 year warranty from the date of
installation against any defects in manufacturing and workmanship on ECP Steel
Piers™ and ECP Torque Anchors™ when installed by an authorized ECP installer
in normal soil conditions*. Earth Contact Products, L.L.C. will furnish new
product replacement, if any ECP Steel Pier™ or ECP Torque Anchor™ should fail
to function due to defects in its quality of manufacturing material or workmanship.
All replacement materials will be furnished F.O.B. from the point of manufacture.
This is a product warranty provided by the manufacturer and does not include
installation or service of the product. Installation and service shall be furnished
by the selling contractor as a service warranty on his installation workmanship.
This warranty covers only the quality of the manufactured product.”

Research shows that our products will meet or exceed this life expectancy in the vast majority of
applications and soil environments. Because our products are sometimes exposed to extremely
corrosive environments, we defined what we consider “normal” soil conditions below:

*Normal Soil Condition is defined as soil having a resistivity greater than 2,000
ohm-cm and between pH 5 and pH 8. Excessive corrosion due to aggressive soil
or corrosive environment is NOT considered a manufacturing defect. In corrosive
environments, additional corrosion protection may be required for extended
service life.

If you suspect that the environment on a site would be corrosive to steel underpinning products,
or if you require a service life exceeding 25 years, we strongly recommend that you request a site
specific soil resistivity test at intervals to 20 feet below grade and soil pH values from a
geotechnical engineer or soil testing laboratory.
Upon request, ECP offers complementary corrosion life analysis to determine the estimated
service life for ECP products specified for a specific site when the request includes the required
soil corrosivity data indicated above.

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”
www.earthcontactproducts.com

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 131 All rights reserved
NOTES:

Corrosion Life of Steel Products © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 132 All rights reserved
 Chapter 8

ECP Torque Anchors™

& ECP Steel Piers™

Design Examples
Corrosion Life
Corrosion Life Design Examples
 Corrosion Life of Tubular Torque Anchor™
 Corrosion Life of ECP PPB Steel Piers™

EARTH CONTACT PRODUCTS

“Designed and Engineered to Perform”

Earth Contact Products, LLC reserves the right to change design features, specifications and products without notice, consistent with our
efforts toward continuous product improvement. Please check with Engineering Department, Earth Contact Products to verify that you are
using the most recent information and specifications.

Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 133 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1 – Corrosion Life of Tubular Torque Anchor™
Structural and Soil Details:
ULTIMATE CAP = 60,000 lb
 Details are from Design Example 1, Chapter 3 WORKING LOAD = 30,000 lb

 New Building – 2 story house with basement

 Estimated weight 3,700 lb/ft TAB-350-NC
PILE CAP
12"
 Working load on foundation piles – 30,000 lb
 Top of pile to be 12” above the soil surface.
 The soil data revealed a least five feet of very TAE-350-84
EXTENSION
loose sand fill and very soft clay organic soil near LOOSE SAND FILL
WITH VERY SOFT
the surface. ORGANIC SOIL
DEPTH > 5 FEET'
 Standard Penetration Test values for this weak SPT "N" = 1 TO 3 bpf
pH = 8.0
layer were: “N” = 1 to 3 blows per foot - Soil RESISTIVITY = 750
TO 1,000 ohm-cm
Class = 8
 Below approximately five feet, a layer of very
stiff inorganic clay (CL), with SPT, “N” = 20
blows per foot (average) exists as stated in
Design Example 1 – Chapter 3 and the water TAE-350-84
EXTENSION
table remains at 14 feet - Soil Class = 5
 Soil pH in the sand fill and soft organic soil was WATER
reported to be: pH = 8.0 and the resistivity 12"
TABLE = 14'

measured from 750 to 1,000 ohm-cm to ten feet.

 The helical Torque Anchor™ required to support
TAF-350-84 08-10-12
the load without bucking in the loose fill was LEAD SECTION MINIMUM
determined to be TAF-350-84 08-10-12 PRODUCT
LENGTH
L = 24'

ECP Corrosion Life Analysis: The equations HOMOGENOUS

SAND
provided in the previous chapter will be applied 10"
DEPTH = 30'
DENSITY = 120 pcf
to estimate the average life expectancy of the hot  DEG.

dip galvanization and a time for a corrosion loss

of 10% of wall thickness of the 3-1/2 inch
diameter pile shaft.
The results from this analysis provide an estimate 8"

of average life expectancy. When dealing with

soil conditions on a job site, there is always a
degree of variability in the performance life of Sketch for Design Example 1
steel piles. In general, the following can affect to corrode 10% of wall thickness of the pile shaft
the life of the pile in the soil: after the galvanized coating is exhausted.
 Multiple strata nature of foundation soils 1. Corrosion Evaluation of the Galvanized
 Variability within the soil stratum Coating: A soil study of the jobsite revealed that
 Variability of the water content of soil both the upper stratum of soil has a reported Standard
vertically and seasonally Penetration Test (SPT) - “N” = 1 to 3 blows per
 Presence or absence of salt ions in the soil foot, the pH = 8.0 and the soil resistivity to a
due to leaching, etc. depth of ten feet ranges from 750 to 1,000 ohm-
 Non-uniformity of the galvanized coating cm.
thickness and areas of stress concentration A Corrosivity Score for the soil on this site was
 Imperfections in the steel determined to be 10. (See Tables 3 & 4 in
 Presence or absence of stray currents Chapter 7) This suggests that the soil be
considered to be Aggressively Corrosive. This
This analysis considers the performance life of corrosion potential raises a concern about
the galvanized coat along with the time required corrosion effects on the useful life of the helical
pile at this site.
Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 134 All rights reserved
2. Estimated Life of Galvanized Coat. Reading directly downward, the corrosion loss in
Estimate the average life of galvanized coating weight of steel per year is estimated to be 1.04
at the location that has the lowest soil resistivity. oz/ft2.
Use Equation 1 introduced in Chapter 7 to Using Equation 2, the corrosion life for the steel
estimate the average life of the galvanized tube is determined.
coating.
CLP = WS-10% / KC
Equation 1 - Corrosion Life Zinc: Where:
CLG = G / [0.25 - 0.12 log10 (R/150)] CL P = Life expectancy of steel tube (years)
WS-10% = 19.6 oz/ft2 (Weight loss of steel pier)

Design Examples
Corrosion Life
Where: KC = 1.04 oz/ft2 (Corrosion loss per year.)
CLG = Weight loss (oz/ft2)/year
G = 2.3 oz/ft2 (HDG – ASTM A123 gr.100) CLP = 19.6 / 1.04 = 18.8 years
R = 750 ohm-cm (Lowest soil resistivity)
Determine CLG using Equation 1: CORROSION POTENTIAL ESTIMATING GRAPH
CLG = 2.3 / [0.25 - 0.12 log10 (750/150)] UNDERGROUND BARE STEEL STRUCTURES
= 2.3 / [0.25 – 0.12 log10 5.0] CORROSION
POTENTIAL
= 2.3 / [0.25 – 0.12 (0.699) 100,000
= 2.3 / 0.166 70,000 UNLIKELY

CLG = 13.8 years 50,000 ALL pH's

3. Corrosion Life Estimated – Steel Loss: 3 < pH < 6 SLIGHT

The formula for estimating average time for 20,000

10% loss of wall thickness of steel tube is given

10,000
in Equation 2 from Chapter 7: 7000 MILD

5000
Equation 2 - Corrosion Life Steel Shaft:
RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm)

CLP = WS-10%/ KC MODERATE

Where: 2000
CL P = Life expectancy of steel tube (years)
WS-10% = 10% pile weight loss – (oz/ft2) 1000
KC = Corrosion loss per year - oz/ft2 700
500
 WS-10% is the amount of steel loss equal to SEVERE

10% of the wall thickness of a 3-1/2 inch 200

pH <4.5
pH > 10.5
diameter with 0.300 inch wall thickness must pH > 12
100
first be determined.
70
pH = 5 pH = 6 pH = 7 pH = 8 pH = 9 pH = 10
50
Equation 3: 0
0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5
WS-10% = 10% [t”/12] x 489.6 lb/ft3 x 16 oz/lb LOSS IN WEIGHT BY CORROSION PER YEAR (oz./sq. ft.)

Where: t = Wall thickness of shaft - inches Graph 3.

The pile shaft used for this example is a TAF- 4. Determine the corrosion life of the pile.
350 tubular shaft, which is 3-1/2 inches diameter The time for the galvanization to corrode and for
with 0.300 inch wall thickness. Using Equation ten percent corrosion loss of the steel is the
3, the value of WS-10% is calculated: average corrosion life expectancy of the steel pile
WS-10% = 0.10 x [0.300”/12] x 489.6 x 16 shaft when installed at the job site.
WS-10% = 19.6 oz/ft2 Life = CLG + CLP = 13.8 + 18.8 = 32.6 years
Next, the corrosion loss rate (KC) must be Based upon the data and the assumptions, the
determined using Graph 3 presented in Chapter analysis suggests that the Torque Anchor™
7. It is reproduced at right for reference. helical pile shafts specified for this project will
Knowing that the lowest resistivity relates to support the design load, plus a full 2.0 factor of
highest rate of corrosion, locate 750 ohm-cm on safety with no loss in capacity for an estimated
the left axis. Reading horizontally to the right average corrosion life exceeding 30 years.
find the curved line that represents pH = 8.0. Corrosion Life = 30+ years*

Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 135 All rights reserved
 Design Example 1A – Corrosion Life of Tubular Torque Anchor™
“Quick and Rough Method”
All of the structural and soil data is the same as years at 500 ohm-cm and pH = 8. The corrosion
stated in Design Example 1 above. life at 1,000 ohm-cm and pH = 8 is 20 years.
1. Estimated Life of Steel. The estimated An average value can estimate corrosion life at
average amount of time for ten percent of the 750 ohm-cm between 17 and 20 years. The
wall thickness of a TAF-350 tube to corrode can average value for steel corrosion life is:
be estimated from Table 5 presented in Chapter CLP = [17 + 20] years / 2 = 18.5 years
7, and reproduced below.
2. Estimated Life of the galvanization. The
Many times the exact field resistivity and pH
average corrosion life of hot dip galvanize to
will not be found on Table 5. The average life
ASTM A123 Grade 100 can be found at the right
will have to be estimated based from between the
column. It is necessary determine the corrosion
pH values in the table.
life at 750 ohm-cm resistivity, or midway
The resistivity was reported between 750 and between 12 and 15 years:
1,000 ohm-cm and the pH is 8. To estimate the
corrosion life of the pile, it is necessary to find CLG = [12 yr (500 Ω-cm)
the pile configuration at the top of the table. + 15 yr (1,000 Ω-cm] / 2 = 13.5 yrs
In determining corrosion life, conservative 3. Determine the corrosion life of the pile.
decisions should always be used. The estimated average corrosion life expectancy
The specified TAE-350 Torque Anchor™ shaft of the steel pier when installed at the job site
can be found at the sixth column from the left. after all of the galvanizing is depleted and ten
There are two sub-tables; resistivity of 500 ohm- percent of the steel has been lost is the sum of
cm and 1,000 ohm-cm. A value half way the corrosion values from Steps 1 and 2.
between 500 and 1,000 ohm-cm (750 ohm-cm) Life = CLP + CLG = 18.5 + 13.5 = 32 years
will be used here. The soil pH = 8 is located at
Corrosion Life = 30+ years*
the left column. The corrosion life estimate is 17
®
TABLE 5. Sample ECP Torque Anchor & Soil Nail Life Expectancy Estimates at Full Load
Plain Steel Life Expectancy at Full Load Hot Dip Galvanize
Soil
pH 1-1/2” 1-3/4” 2-1/4” 2-7/8” Dia. x 3-1/2” Dia. x 4-1/2” Dia. x 2.3 oz/ft2 - 3.9 Mils
Square Bar Square Bar Square Bar 0.262” Tube 0.300” Tube 0.337” Tube (Minimum)
Soil Resistivity – 500 ohm-cm
4.5 25 yrs 30 yrs 39 yrs 9 yrs 11 yrs 12 yrs
5 100+ yrs 100+ yrs 125+ yrs 48 yrs 57 yrs 63 yrs Add 12 years to
8 45 yrs 52 yrs 67 yrs 15 yrs 17 yrs 19 yrs life shown at left
10.5 25 yrs 30 yrs 39 yrs 9 yrs 11 yrs 12 yrs
Soil Resistivity – 1,000 ohm-cm 2
1
4.5 29 yrs 34 yrs 43 yrs 10 yrs 12 yrs
. 13 yrs .
5 100+ yrs 100+ yrs 125+ yrs 57 yrs 67 yrs 73 yrs Add 15 years to
8 49 yrs 57 yrs 73 yrs 17 yrs 20 yrs 22 yrs life shown at left
10.5 29 yrs 34 yrs 43 yrs 11 yrs 12 yrs 13 yrs

Review of Results of Example 1 & 1A

4.5 34 yrs 39 yrs 51 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 15 yrs
The result obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis and the result that was calculated are very
5 125+ yrs 125+ yrs 150+ yrs 85 yrs 100 yrs 100+ yrs Add 20 years to
close. Larger differences can be expected when making estimates for values that fall between the data
8 47 yrs 67 yrs 86 yrs 19 yrs 22 yrs 24 yrs life shown at left
boxes in the table.
10.5 34 yrs 39 yrs 51 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 15 yrs
*One must be cautioned not to consider the result of either analysis as an exact answer because the
formulas were derived from empiricalSoil data. Both corrosion
Resistivity lives determined in Example 1 & 1A are
– 5,000 ohm-cm
accurate
4.5 within the range52of
45 yrs yrserror and were rounded
67 yrs 16 yrsdown to18 beyrsconservative.
20 yrs Please review the
“Important
5 Notes”
150+ yrs in Chapter
150+ yrs7. 175+ yrs 100+ yrs 100+ yrs 100+ yrs Add 34 years to
8 82 yrs life shown at left
Corrosion Life Design Examples 95 yrs 100+ yrs 29 yrs 33 yrs © 201337 yrs Contact Products, L.L.C.
Earth
10.5
2013-09 45 yrs 52 yrs 67 yrs Page 136
16 yrs 18 yrs 20 yrs All rights reserved
 Design Example 2 – Corrosion Life of ECP Steel Pier™ Pipe
Structural and Soil Details: 2. Estimated Life of Galvanized Coat: The
 This settled structure was presented as Design first calculation estimates the average life for the
Examples 1 and 2 in Chapter 6, but now there is a flow coat protection in soil with a resistivity of
concern about corrosion. 700 ohm-cm. Use Equation 1 introduced in
 When discussing this project with the engineer, Chapter 7 to estimate the average life of the
he mentions that consolidation of a layer of weak quadruple coat corrosion protection coating.
soil caused the settlement. Upon further
Equation 1 - Corrosion Life Zinc:

Design Examples
Corrosion Life
investigations of the soil data, it is learned that
there is approximately six feet of uncompacted CLG = G / [0.25 - 0.12 log10 (R/150)]
loose fill with Standard Penetration Test values, Where:
“N” = 1 to 3 blows per foot. CLG = Weight loss (oz/ft2)/year
 Below six feet of fill soil there is firm clay with G = 1.7 oz/ft2 (Flo Coat Zinc)
SPT values exceeding “N” = 5 blows per foot. R = 700 ohm-cm (Soil resistivity)
 Further soil testing suggested that corrosion Determine CLG using Equation 1:
might be an issue on this job. The soil resistivity
at five feet below grade was 700 ohm-cm and at a CLG = 1.7 / [0.25 - 0.12 log10 (700/150)]
depth of ten feet below grade the resistivity = 1.7 / [0.25 – 0.12 log10 4.67]
climbed to 1,500 ohm-cm. Soil testing reported = 1.7 / [0.25 – 0.12 (0.669)
averaged value for pH = 5.5 down to ten feet. = 1.7 / 0.170
 The underpinning specified in Design Example 2
was ECP PPB-350-EPS Steel Pier Pipe at the
CLG = 10.0 years
settled area. 3. Estimated Life of Steel
ECP Corrosion Life Analysis: The equations The formula for estimating average time for 10%
provided in the previous chapter will be applied loss in steel wall thickness is given in Equation 2
to estimate the average life expectancy of the hot from Chapter 7:
dip galvanization and loss of 10% of wall Equation 2 - Corrosion Life Steel Shaft:
thickness of the 3-1/2 inch diameter by 0.165 CLP = WS-10% / KC
inch wall corrosion protected tube. Where:
The result from this analysis provides an estimate CL P = Life expectancy of steel tube (years)
of average life expectancy. When dealing with WS-10% = 10% steel pier weight loss (oz/ft2)
soil conditions on a job site, there is always a KC = Corrosion loss per year- oz/ft2
degree of variability in the performance life of  WS-10% is the amount of steel loss equal to 10%
steel piles. Please refer to the list in the shaded of the wall thickness of a 3-1/2 inch diameter
box presented in Design Example 1 above. The by 0.165 inch wall thickness is determined
corrosion life analysis will consist of two parts; using Equation 3 for the value of WS:
first is the corrosion live analysis of the zinc WS-10% = 10% [t”/12] x 489.6 lb/ft3 x 16 oz/lb
coating on the pier pipe, and second is the
WS = 0.10 x [0.165/12] x 489.6 x 16
corrosion loss of 10% of the wall thickness of the
pier pipe. WS = 10.8 oz/ft2
1. Corrosion Evaluation of the Galvanized  KC is the corrosion loss rate and is determined
Coating. A soil study of the five feet of fill using Graph 3 from Chapter 7.
material suggested that the fill may be corrosive. The lowest resistivity is 700 ohm-cm and would
Reviewing Tables 3 and 4 in Chapter 7 a create the highest rate of corrosion within the fill
Corrosivity Score of 8 / 9 was suggested. This soil. Read from the left side of Graph 3 (shown
fill soil condition can be considered “Moderately below) horizontally to a point that represents a
Corrosive” to “Aggressively Corrosive”. The pH = 5.5. Then read directly down to determine
Standard Penetration Test (SPT), “N”, results in the loss in weight of steel over a ten year period.
the stratum of fill was reported as “N” = 1 to 3 A corrosion loss of 0.45 oz/ft2 per year is
blows per foot, the pH = 5.5 and the soil determined.
resistivity was 700 ohm-cm. These values from Using Equation 2, the corrosion life for the steel
the soil study confirm the engineer’s concern tube is determined.
about corrosion effects on the ECP Steel Pier™.
Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
2013-09 Page 137 All rights reserved
 CLP = WS-10% / KC
CORROSION POTENTIAL ESTIMATING GRAPH
Where: UNDERGROUND BARE STEEL STRUCTURES
CL P = Life expectancy of steel tube (years) CORROSION
WS = 10.8 oz/ft2 (Weight loss of steel pier) POTENTIAL
KC = 0.45 oz/ft2 (Corrosion loss per year.) 100,000
70,000 UNLIKELY
CLP = 10.8 / 0.45 = 24 years 50,000 ALL pH's

4. Determine the corrosion life of the pier.

The corrosion live for the galvanization and for 20,000
3 < pH < 6 SLIGHT

ten percent of the steel to be lost is the average

corrosion life expectancy of the steel pier pipe 10,000
when installed at this job site. 7000 MILD

5000
Life = CLG + CLP = 10 + 24 = 34 years

RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm)
MODERATE
Based upon the data and the assumptions, the
results of this analysis suggests that the ECP 2000
Steel Pier™ specified for this project will support
1000
the design load plus a factor of safety of 2.0 with 700
no loss in capacity for an estimated average 500
corrosion life of 34 years. SEVERE

pH <4.5
Corrosion Life = 34 years 200 pH > 10.5
pH > 12
100
BONUS: Suggest an Alternate Product for 70
pH = 7 pH = 8 pH = 9 pH = 10
Longer Life 50 pH = 5 pH = 6

0
It is always to the advantage of the installer to 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5
LOSS IN WEIGHT BY CORROSION PER YEAR (oz./sq. ft.)
offer a different product if he thinks it will Graph 3.
benefit the client or engineer. The alternate
product may or may not be satisfactory, but it
does give the engineer another option to change Estimated Corrosion Life of Steel in PPB-400-
to a product with a longer corrosion life. EPS pipe:
The amount of steel loss equal to 10% of the
The PPB-400-EPS Pier is a hot dip galvanized
0.220 inch wall thickness of the 4 inch diameter
pier pipe that can be used with the same
pier pipe shall be determined.
foundation bracket. The thicker zinc coating
along with the larger diameter and thicker wall WS-10% = 0.10 x [0.220/12] x 489.6 x 16
pier pipe can offer a significant increase in WS-10% = 14.4 oz/ft2
corrosion life with only a small added cost.
Equation 2 - Corrosion Life of Steel Shaft:
Estimated Life of Galvanized Coat on the CLP = WS-10% / KC
PPB-400-EPS pipe: Where: WS-10% = 14.4 oz/ft2 (PPB-400-EPS 10% loss)
Equation 1 - Corrosion Life Zinc: KC = 0.45 oz/ft2 (Corrosion loss per year.)
CLG = G / [0.25 - 0.12 log10 (R/150)] CLP = 14.4 / 0.45 = 32 years
Where: Determine the corrosion life of the PPB-400-
G = 2.3 oz/ft2 (HDG – ASTM A123 gr. 100) EPS pier pipe. The time for the galvanization to
Determine CLG using Equation 1: be exhausted and for ten percent loss of the steel
CLG = 2.3 / [0.25 - 0.12 log10 (700/150)] from the pipe is the average corrosion life
= 2.3 / [0.25 – 0.12 (0.669)] = 2.3 / 0.170 expectancy of the alternate steel pier system
when installed at this job site.
CLG = 13.5 years
Life = CLG + CLP = 13.5 + 32 = 45.5 yrs
Corrosion Life = 45 years (See note pg 140)

Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 138 All rights reserved
 Design Example 2A – Corrosion Life of ECP Steel Pier™ Pipe
“Quick and Rough Method”
All of the structural and soil data are the same as CLP = CLpH=5 - CLpH=5.0 to 5.5
stated in Design Example 2 above. CLP = 42.8 years – 3.5 years = 39.3 years
Estimated Life of the PPB-350-EPS Pipe: Life PPB-350-EPS = 35 years (See note pg 140)
The estimated average corrosion life for the pier
pipe installed in fill soil with resistivity of 700 BONUS
ohm-cm and pH = 5.5 can be estimated from Estimated Life of the PPB-400-EPS Pier:

Design Examples
Corrosion Life
Table 6 in two steps. 1A. Estimated Life - PPB-400-EPS Pier Pipe
1. Estimated Life - PPB-350-EPS Pier Pipe at at pH = 5 and 700 Ω-cm: Using the PPB-400-
pH = 5 and 700 Ω-cm: Notice in Table 6 the EPS pier system, the difference in corrosion life
corrosion life at 500 ohm-cm is 40 years and the between resistivity 500 and 1,000 ohm-cm is
life increases to 47 years when the resistivity found to be 10 years. Considering that 700 ohm-
rises to 1,000 ohm-cm. The 700 ohm-cm cm is 2/5 of the distance between 500 and 1,000
resistivity at this site is approximately 2/5 of the ohm-cm, the “Quick and Rough” estimated
difference between the two values given in Table corrosion life for the Model 400-EPS pier pipe at
6, 1,000 Ω-cm = 47 years and 500 Ω-cm = 40 pH 5.5 and 700 ohm-cm is 57 years.
years. Estimate the corrosion at 700 Ω-cm as 2/5 CLpH=5.0 = 53 yrs + (2/5 x 10) yrs = 57 years
times the difference of 7 years. 2A. Estimated Life - PPB-400-EPS Pier Pipe
CLpH=5.0 = 40 years + (2/5 x 7 years) at pH = 5.5 and 700 Ω-cm: An adjustment
CLpH=5.0 = 40 years + 2.8 years = 42.8 years must also be made to account for the actual pH =
2. Estimated Life - PPB-350 Pier at pH = 5.5 5.5 instead of pH = 5 shown in the tables. The
and 700 Ω-cm: An adjustment must also be number of increments of 0.5 pH between pH = 5
made to adjust to the actual pH = 5.5. (Not pH = and pH = 8 is six. The reduction in corrosion life
5 shown in the tables) There are six increments due to a higher pH = 5.5 is as follows:
of 0.5 pH between pH = 5 and pH = 8. The “ball CLpH=5.0 to 5.5 = [53 yr (pH=5)–25 yr (pH=8)] / 6
park” estimate for reduction in corrosion life due CLpH=5.0 to 5.5 = 4.7 years (Life reduction)
to the higher pH = 5.5 on the site is determined: By combining Steps 1A and 2A, the rough
CLpH=5.0 to 5.5 = [40 yr (pH=5) -19 yr (pH=8)] / 6 estimated corrosion life is determined:
CLpH=5.0 to 5.5 = 3.5 years (Life reduction) CLP = CLpH=5.0 - CLpH=5.0 to 5.5
By combining Step 1 and 2, the “Quick and CLP = 57 years – 4.75 years = 52.3 years
Rough” corrosion life is determined: Life PPB-400 = 50+ years (See note pg 140)

®
TABLE 6. Sample ECP Steel Pier Pipe Life Expectancy Estimates At Full Load
PPB-300-EPS PPB-350-EPS PPB-400EPSB PPB- 400-EPS
Soil pH 2-7/8” Dia. Tube 3-1/2” Dia. Tube 4” Dia. Tube 4” Dia. Tube
(Flow Coat – 1.7 oz.ft2) (Flow Coat – 1.7 oz.ft2) (Plain Steel) (HDG – 2.3 oz/ft2)

Soil Resistivity – 500 ohm-cm

4.5 15 yrs 15 yrs 7-1/2 yrs 19-1/2 yrs
5 40 yrs 40 yrs 40 yrs 53 yrs
8 19 yrs 19 yrs 2 13 yrs 25 yrs 2A
10.5 15 yrs 15 yrs . 7-1/2 yrs 19-1/2 yrs .
1 1A
Soil Resistivity – 1,000 ohm-cm
.
4.5 15-1/2 yrs 15-1/2 yrs 8.5 yrs 24 yrs
5 47 yrs 47 yrs 48 yrs 63 yrs
8 22 yrs 22 yrs 13 yrs 28 yrs
10.5 15-1/2 yrs 15-1/2 yrs 8.5 yrs 24 yrs

4.5 22 yrs 22 yrs 10 yrs 39 yrs

Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.
5 69 yrs 69 yrs 72 yrs 100 yrs
2013-09 Page 139 All rights reserved
8 27 yrs 27 yrs 17 yrs 45 yrs
10.5 22 yrs 22 yrs 10 yrs 39 yrs
 Review of Results of Example 2 & 2A
Bonus Solution:
The bonus solution was provided to illustrate that substituting a larger diameter pier pipe with a thicker
wall and with a thicker galvanized coating; a substantial increase in corrosion life of the pier pipe can
be achieved at very little increase in cost. In the calculated results for Design Example 2, the corrosion
life increased by 33% simply by changing from the PPB-350-EPS (3-1/2” diameter) to the PPB-400-
EPS (4” diameter) pier system. This recommendation to extend corrosion life by substituting a larger
pipe that can be used in the same foundation bracket is less expensive than specifying and installing
cathodic protection at each pier placement to increase the corrosion life. This substitution can save the
customer money.
Discussion of the Results of Design Examples 2 & 2A:
The results obtained by the “Quick and Rough” analysis on this example over estimates the corrosion
life expectancy compared to the calculated results for corrosion life. The inaccuracy is due to
attempting to “read between the boxes” in the tables to determine a corrosion life when the soil at the
project has a soil resistivity “between the lines”. These two values, 700 ohm-cm and pH = 5.5, do not
appear in the tables. The inaccuracy occurs because the change in life expectancy is not linear.
The error in the corrosion life prediction in Design Example 2A for the PPB-400 was more than 11%
longer life when the Quick and Rough” method was used compared to the estimated corrosion life
determined by calculations. This clearly demonstrates a flaw in the “Quick and Rough” method of
corrosion life estimating when it is necessary to extract data from “between the boxes”. To
illustrate the point, one can see that the “Quick and Rough” Design Example 2A prediction estimated
the corrosion life of the PPB-400 system to be 6.8 years greater than what was calculated from the
empirical equations in Design Example 2. The interpolation “between the boxes” created this large
variance that overestimated the product life.
Design Example 2A was designed as a complicated problem. The goal was to be able to demonstrate a
simple method of linear interpolation to extract data from “between the boxes” on the tables. The
linear interpolation method demonstrated in Design Example 2A caused the discrepancies between the
two methods of corrosion life expectancies. The calculated method is the more accurate solution to
Design Example 2A. The reason the calculated method is more accurate is because it uses the
complicated relationship between “Soil Resistivity”, “Soil pH”, and “Steel Loss by Corrosion” in the
corrosion life equations. One can be see how complicated these relationships are between the three
parameters by looking at Graph 3, which is used in this manual to determine the “Weight of Steel Loss
by Corrosion” for the steel support products installed in corrosive soils. Looking at Graph 3, notice
that the resistivity data are logarithmically plotted on the left axis and the curved pH boundary lines in
the body of the graph are not linear. The interpolations used in Design Example 2A assumed that the
changes in life expectancy “between boxes” in Tables 5 and 6 are linear. The values are not linear and
making the assumption of linear relationships created the variance in the life expectancies estimated by
the “Quick and Rough” method.
The reader is cautioned to be very careful and conservative when reporting corrosion life
expectancies that have been interpolated “between the boxes” when using the “Quick and
Rough” method demonstrated here.

* It was explained in “Important Notes” in Chapter 7 that once the estimated corrosion life exceeds 40
years; the results must be treated with caution.
It must also be kept in mind that when attempting to extract data from “between the boxes” in
Tables 5 and 6 even greater variances may occur, so one must be very conservative with
reporting the result when interpolation is involved.
Keep in mind that the results are only average corrosion life estimates and ECP recommends rounding
down the results especially when predicted corrosion life estimates reach 40 years or results are
obtained from interpolation during a “Quick and Rough” analysis.

Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 140 All rights reserved
NOTES:

Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 141 All rights reserved
NOTES:

Corrosion Life Design Examples © 2013 Earth Contact Products, L.L.C.

2013-09 Page 142 All rights reserved