Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating scale effects and bearing portions in centrifuge modeling of helical anchors: sand

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Helical anchors are bearing elements that can resist uplift loads by a combination of shaft and helical plate bearing. The application of helical piles as offshore wind turbine foundations has recently become interesting. However, large size of such structures limits the possible physical modeling in a geotechnical centrifuge. In the current study, the limits of physical modeling concerning particle size effect on the uplift capacity of helical piles were evaluated. The modeling of models technique was employed. The contribution of the shaft and helical plate to the anchor uplift capacity was also studied. The results indicate that small ratios of helical plate diameter to shaft diameter lead to higher contribution of the shaft to the total anchor capacity. It was also found that scale effects could be safely ignored if effective helical radius to the mean grain size of the sand is greater than 16. The normalized mobilization distance and dimensionless breakout factor were in good agreement with the previous researches. The limits reported here could contribute to a more reliable physical modeling of helical piles and anchors in the future researches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The data and material presented here are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Code availability

No codes or software were used in preparing the results of this research.

Abbreviations

\(A_{{\text{h}}}\) :

Net projected helical plate area

B :

Square plate anchor or footing width

C :

Cohesion

C c :

Coefficient of curvature

C u :

Coefficient of unity

COV:

Coefficient of variation

\(D_{{\text{r}}}\) :

Relative density

D :

Helical plate diameter

d :

Shaft diameter

d 50 :

Mean grain size

e min :

Minimum void ratio

e max :

Maximum void ratio

g :

Gravitational acceleration

G s :

Specific gravity of solid particles

H :

Embedment depth

\(N_{{{\text{qu}}}}\) :

Dimensionless breakout factor

P :

Pitch of the helical plate

\(Q_{h - i}\) :

Helical plate tensile load at the moment \(i\)

\(Q_{i}\) :

Helical anchor tensile load at the moment \(i\)

\(Q_{{\text{U}}}\) :

Ultimate uplift capacity of the helical anchor

\(Q_{{\text{S}}}\) :

Ultimate mobilized shaft bearing

\(Q_{{\text{H}}}\) :

Ultimate uplift bearing of the helical plate

\(Q_{{{\text{H}}\left( {0.1{\text{D}}} \right)}}\) :

Helical plate bearing corresponding to 0.1D displacement

\(Q_{{{\text{H}}\left( {0.15{\text{D}}} \right)}}\) :

Helical plate bearing corresponding to 0.15D displacement

\(Q_{{{\text{H}}\left( {1{\text{D}}} \right)}}\) :

Helical plate bearing corresponding to 1D displacement

\(U_{{{\text{peak}}}}\) :

Displacement at peak load

W :

Effective helical radius

\(\gamma^{\prime}\) :

Effective unit weight of soil

φ :

Angle of internal friction, degree

\(\delta_{{\text{f}}}\) :

Displacement at failure

References

  1. Adams JI, Klym TW (1972) A study of anchorages for transmission tower foundations. Can Geotech J 9(1):89–104. https://doi.org/10.1139/t72-007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Baghdadi TA, Brown MJ, Knappett JA,Ishikura R (2015) Modelling of laterally loaded screw piles with large helical plates in sand. In: Frontiers in offshore geotechnics III: proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics (ISFOG 2015), 2015, vol 1. pp 503–508

  3. Baker WH, Kondner RL (1966) Pullout capacity of a circular earth anchor buried in sand. Highw Res Rec 108:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bałachowski L (2006) Scale effect in shaft friction from the direct shear interface tests. Arch Civ Mech Eng 6(3):13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60238-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baziar MH, Shahnazari H, Kazemi M (2018) Mitigation of surface impact loading effects on the underground structures with geofoam barrier: Centrifuge modeling. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 80:128–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown MJ,Davidson C, Cerfontaine B, Ciantia M, Knappett J (2019) First Indian symposium on offshore geotechnics ( ISOG 2019 ) developing screw piles for offshore renewable energy application. In: First Indian symposium on offshore geotechnics (ISOG 2019). pp 1–9

  7. Cerfontaine B, Knappett J, Brown MJ, Davidson C, Sharif Y (2020) Optimised design of screw anchors in tension in sand for renewable energy applications. Ocean Eng 217(c):108010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davidson C, Brown MJ, Brennan AJ, Knappett JA, Cerfontaine B, Sharif YU (2019) Physical modelling of screw piles for offshore wind energy foundations. In: Proceedings of the 1st international screw pile symposium on screw piles for energy applications, Dundee, pp 31–37

  9. Dickin EA (1988) Uplift behavior of horizontal anchor plates in sand. J Geotech Eng 114(11):1300–1317. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:11(1300)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dickin EA, Leung CF (1983) Centrifugal model tests on vertical anchor plates. J Geotech Eng 109(12):1503–1525. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:12(1503)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fateh AMA, Eslami A, Fahimifar A (2017) Study of soil disturbance effect on bearing capacity of helical pile by experimental modelling in FCV. Int J Geotech Eng 11(3):289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1222692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Filho JMSMdS, Tsuha CdHC (2019) Uplift performance of large - capacity helical piles in a tropical residual soil. In: Proceedings from the XVI Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering (XVI PCSMGE 2019), vol. 0. pp 913–920. doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/STAL190129

  13. Fioravante V (2002) On the shaft friction modelling of non-displacement piles in sand. Soils Found 42(2):23–33. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.42.2_23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Garnier J, Konig D (1998) Scale effects in piles and nails loading tests in sand. In: Centrifuge 98. pp 205–210

  15. Gavin K, Doherty P, Tolooiyan A (2014) Field investigation of the axial resistance of helical piles in dense sand. Can Geotech J 51(11):1343–1354. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hambleton JP, Stanier SA, Gaudin C, Todeshkejoei K (2014) Analysis of installation forces for helical piles in clay. Australian Geomech 49(4):73–80

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hao D, Wang D, O’Loughlin CD, Gaudin C (2019) Tensile monotonic capacity of helical anchors in sand: interaction between helices. Can Geotech J 56(10):1534–1543. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoyt RM, Clemence SP (1989) Uplift capacity of helical anchors in soil. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil., vol 2

  19. Kutter BL (1992) Dynamic centrifuge modeling of geotechnical structures. Transp Res Rec no. 1336

  20. Kwon O, Lee J, Kim G, Kim I, Lee J (2019) Investigation of pullout load capacity for helical anchors subjected to inclined loading conditions using coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian analyses. Comput Geotech 111(March):66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lanyi SA (2017) Behaviour of helical pile groups and individual piles under compressive loading in a cohesive soil, M.Sc Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta

  22. Lanyi-Bennett SA, Deng L (2019) Axial load testing of helical pile groups in glaciolacustrine clay. Can Geotech J 56(2):187–197. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lau C (1988) Scale effects in tests on footings. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

  24. Li W, Deng L (2018) Axial load tests and numerical modeling of single-helix piles in cohesive and cohesionless soils. Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0669-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lutenegger AJ (2019) Screw piles and helical anchors–what we know and what we don’t know: an academic perspective–2019. In: ISSPEA 2019. p 15

  26. Madabhushi G (2015) Centrifuge modelling for civil engineers. CRC Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  27. McNamara A (2018) Physical modelling in geotechnics. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Merifield RS (2011) Ultimate uplift capacity of multiplate helical type anchors in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(7):704–716. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mirzaeifar H, Abouzar A, Abdi MR (2013) Effects of direct shear box dimensions on shear strength parameters of geogrid-reinforced sand. In: 66th Canadian geotechnical conference and the 11th joint CGS/IAH-CNC groundwater conference. pp 1–6

  30. Nagata M, Hirata H (2005) Study on uplift resistance of screwed steel pile. In: Nippon steel technical report no. 92. Tokyo, Japan: Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation., no. 92, pp 73–78

  31. Newgard J, Schneider J, Thompson D (2015) Cyclic response of shallow helical anchors in a medium dense sand. In: Frontiers in offshore geotechnics III. CRC Press, pp 913–918

  32. Nuri H (2015) Studying the effect of geometric nail layout on the soil-nailed wall behavior, using the Ng modelling. M.Sc. Thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology

  33. Ovesen KN (1981) Centrifuge tests of uplift capacity of anchors. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on SMEE. pp 717–722

  34. Perko HA (2009) Helical piles: a practical guide to design and installation. Wiley, Hoboken . https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470549063

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Prasad YVSN, Rao SN (1996) Lateral capacity of helical piles in clays. J Geotech Eng 122(November):938–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sabermahani M, Ahimoghadam F, Ghalehnovi V (2018) Effect of surcharge magnitude on soil-nailed wall behaviour in a geotechnical centrifuge. Int J Phys Model Geotech 18(5):225–239. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.16.00022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saeedi Azizkandi A, Baziar MH, Rasouli H, Modarresi M, Shahnazari H (2015) Centrifuge modeling of non-connected piled raft system. Int J Civ Eng 13(2):114–123. https://doi.org/10.22068/IJCE.13.2.114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sakai T, Tanaka T (2007) Experimental and numerical study of uplift behavior of shallow circular anchor in two-layered sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(4):469–477. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(469)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sakr M (2015) Retracted: relationship between installation torque and axial capacities of helical piles in cohesionless soils. J Perform Constr Facil 29(6):04014173. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schiavon JA (2016) Experimental investigation on the helical pile behaviour under cyclic tensile loading. University of São Paulo, São Carlos

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schiavon JA, Filho JMSMdS, Tsuha CdHC, Thorel L (2015) The occurrence of residual stresses in helical piles. In: Proceedings of the 15th Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. pp 1851–1858. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-603-3-1851

  42. Schiavon JA, Tsuha CHC, Thorel L (2016) Scale effect in centrifuge tests of helical anchors in sand. Int J Phys Model Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.15.00047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Spagnoli G (2013) Some considerations regarding the use of helical piles as foundation for offshore structures. Soil Mech Found Eng 50(3):102–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11204-013-9219-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Spagnoli G (2017) A CPT-based model to predict the installation torque of helical piles in sand. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 35(4):578–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2016.1213337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Spagnoli G, Gavin K, Brangan C, Bauer S (2015) In situ and laboratory tests in dense sand investigating the helix-to-shaft ratio of helical piles as a novel offshore foundation system. In: Frontiers in offshore geotechnics III, no. MAY, CRC Press, pp 643–648

  46. Spagnoli G, Jalilvand S, Kenneth G (2016) Installation torque measurements of helical piles in dry sand for offshore foundation systems. In: Geo-Chicago 2016 August 14–18, 2016, Chicago, Illinois, pp 439–448.

  47. Spagnoli G, Tsuha CdHC (2020) A review on the behavior of helical piles as a potential offshore foundation system. Mar Georesour Geotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2020.1729905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tagaya K, Scott FR, Aboshi H (1988) Scale effect in anchor pullout test by centrifugal technique. Soils Found 28(3):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tagaya K, Scott RF, Aboshi H (1988) Pullout resistance of buried anchor in sand. Soils Found 28(3):114–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Tappenden K, Sego D (2007) Predicting the axial capacity of screw piles installed in Canadian soils. Can Geotech Soc (CGS) 1:1608–1615

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tatsuoka F, Goto S, Tanaka T, Tani K, Kimura Y (1997) Particle size effects on bearing capacity of footing on granular material. In: Deformation and progressive failure in geomechanics, IS-Nagoya. pp 133–138

  52. Todeshkejoei C, Hambleton JP, Stanier SA, Gaudin C (2014) Modelling installation of helical anchors in clay. In: Proceedings of 14th international conference of the international association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics. pp 917–922. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/b17435-159.

  53. Toyosawa Y, Itoh K, Kikkawa N, Yang J-J, Liu F (2013) Influence of model footing diameter and embedded depth on particle size effect in centrifugal bearing capacity tests. Soils Found 53(2):349–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tsuha CdHC, Aoki N (2010) Relationship between installation torque and uplift capacity of deep helical piles in sand. Can Geotech J 47(6):635–647. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tsuha CHC, Aoki N, Rault G, Thorel L, Garnier J (2007) Physical modelling of helical pile anchors. Int J Phys Model Geotech 7(4):01–12. https://doi.org/10.1680/ijpmg.2007.070401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tsuha CHC, Santos TC, Rault G, Thorel L, Garnier J (2013) Influence of multiple helix configuration on the uplift capacity of helical anchors. In: 18th International conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering: challenges and innovations in geotechnics, ICSMGE 2013, vol. 4. pp 2893–2896

  57. Tsuha CdHC, Schiavon JA, Thorel L (2019) Evaluation of the breakout factor for helical anchors in sand by centrifuge testing. In: López-Acosta NP et al. (eds.) Geotechnical engineering in the XXI century: lessons learned and future challenges. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/STAL190128

  58. Ullah SN, Hu Y, Loughlin CO (2019) A green foundation for offshore wind energy—helical piles. In: World Engineering Convention, WEC2019, Melbourne, Australia

  59. Ullah SN, Hu Y, Stanier S, White D (2017) Lateral boundary effects in centrifuge foundation tests. Int J Phys Model Geotech 17(3):144–160. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.15.00034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Victor RT, Cerato AB (2008) Helical anchors as wind tower guyed cable foundations. In: Proceedings of the second BGA international conference on foundations

  61. Wang J, Haigh SK, Forrest G, Thusyanthan NI (2012) Mobilization distance for upheaval buckling of shallowly buried pipelines. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 3(4):106–114. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000099

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The third author would like to thank Dr. A. Askarinejad from Delft University of technology and Dr. C.H.C. Tsuha from University of Sao Paulo for their support and contributions to the physical modeling in this research.

Funding

The authors declare that no funding was received to perform this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Narmak, Tehran, Iran

    Ali Akbar Heshmati Rafsanjani, Hossein Salehzadeh & Hamed Nuri

Authors
  1. Ali Akbar Heshmati Rafsanjani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Salehzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamed Nuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Akbar Heshmati Rafsanjani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heshmati Rafsanjani, A.A., Salehzadeh, H. & Nuri, H. Evaluating scale effects and bearing portions in centrifuge modeling of helical anchors: sand. Acta Geotech. 16, 2917–2932 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01156-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01156-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation