As with the first edition of any 500+ page document, there are likely to be some typos, omissions, and errors. Below is a list of important corrections and additions to the text (errata). The author extends his gratitude to those readers who submitted comments. If anyone else finds any apparent mistakes, please send an e-mail to the author with the page number, description of the flaw, and suggested correction. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Corrections will be incorporated in the second printing of the book.

Errata to Helical Piles: A Practical Guide to Design and Installation
Page No. Reader's Comment Author's Correction Submitted by
83 I notice a typo in Table 3.3 because the D50 size of 0.1 mm does not correspond to 2.5 inches. The metric units on the table are correct. The conversion from mm to inches is in error. The corrected table may be found here.

George Filz, Ph.D., P.E., Professor

Virginia Tech

112 Fig 4.6 Y axis scale should be 100(tsf) =9000 kPa (not 18000) An error was made in formatting the figure. Lables along the secondary y-axis need to be divided by a factor of 2.

Chris Cantor

Queensland, Australia

155 Fig 5.4 Y axis scale should be 100(tsf) = 9000 kPa An error was made in formatting the figure. Lables along the secondary y-axis need to be divided by a factor of 2.

Chris Cantor

Queensland, Australia

189 Table 6.1 #3. Should be Allowable capacity is less than 30 tons (300 kN). A typo was made by the book typsetter. It was intended to be 267 kN and not 67 kN. This limit was imposed because most of the load tests published at the time AC358 was written were below this threshold. It is not meant as to restrict helical pile capacity. Today, even more than ever, helical piles are used to support loads upwards of 200 tons (1800 kN) or more. The ICC-ES is simply saying they are not going to issue a blanket evaluation report at these high capacities. Engineering and extra testing has to be done on a case-by-case and site-by-site basis.

Chris Cantor

Queensland, Australia

111 On page 111, first complete paragraph, second line from end, should "equation 4.13" be 4.16? The referenced equation should indeed be Eq. 4.16.

Michael Elia, P.E.

Portland, OR

135

Eq. 4.37 gives the radius of gyration for a solid steel bar as "d" divided by the square root of 3 for axis of moments on base. Shouldn't it be "d" divided by the square root of 12 for the axis of moments through the center?  Wouldn't this be the governing "r"? Also, shouldn't Eq. 4.38 have a "plus" sign in the numerator and be divided by 4?

The equations on this page are in error. First, the term "lambda c squared" should be superscript in Eq. 4.34. It should read 0.658 to the "lambda c squared" power. Next, the denominator in Eq. 4.37 should be the square root of 12 not 3. Finally, the subtraction symbol should be an addition symbol and the numerator should be 4 instead of 2 in Eq. 4.38. I checked Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 and it appears the correct equations were used in the construct of these tables.

John Pack, P.E.

Denver, CO

110, 115, & 117 I could not figure units for Eq. 4.16, 20 and 21. For clay Nc, 9, times c, 125, is 1125 PSF, Reese and O'Neill (1988) did one for sand, q = .057N in MPa which translated to 1190 PSF so I agree with trends, 11 and 12, just can't guess units.
Eqs. 4.16, 4.20, and 4.21 were crafted to work in both Imperial or Metric units. The constant "lambda SPT" accounts for the units. Back in Chapter 3, page 100, "lambda SPT" was defined as 0.065 tsf/blow/ft [6.2 kPa/blow/30 cm]. Please note, the three equations are summarized for handy reference in Table 5.1 on page 154. The value of constant lambda SPT is also listed in the nomenclature (Appendix D), and it was also supposed to appear under Table 5.1 but it was dropped by the typesetter- sorry.

Phil Slemons, P.E.

Atlanta, GA

129 You refer to solid curve in Fig. 4.21. Should be 4.22. The text on this page should refer to Figure 4.22.

Phil Slemons, P.E.

Atlanta, GA

194 You need to flip X-axis labels on Figs. 7.3 and 7.4.  The axis lables are oriented for landscape view in a format recommended by the publisher.

Phil Slemons, P.E.

Atlanta, GA

476 Lateral load test chart units should be in pounds, not kips, unless you're getting a lot better results than us. The load test units should indeed be in pounds.

Phil Slemons, P.E.

Atlanta, GA

383 Table 13.1 is a repeat of Figure 13.17 Click Here for correct version of Table 13.1

Mark Evans

Auckland, New Zealand

113 The unit "psf" should be "pcf" in the second paragraph. The assumed soil unit weight was 120 pcf [1.9 g/cm3].

Mae Benvenga, P.E.

Fort Collins, CO

307 The thickness 1 mil should be 0.1 mil in the 3rd paragraph. The correct conversion is 1 mil = 25.4 microns.

Mae Benvenga, P.E.

Fort Collins, CO

37 There is a typo in the last sentence; it should read "equal to the maximum". The word "to" should be inserted between "equal" and "the" in the last sentence on this page.

Mae Benvenga, P.E.

Fort Collins, CO

 

(RETURN TO HOMEPAGE)