Evaluation of Pull-Out Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clay Using Finite Element Analysis

Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 317 60
Evaluation of Pull-Out Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clay Using Finite Element Analysis
Akhil Pandey1 and Vinay Bhushan Chauhan2
1
P.G. Student, Civil Engineering Dept., Madan Mohan Malaviya Univ. of Technology,
Gorakhpur, India. E-mail: akhilpandey812@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Madan Mohan Malaviya Univ. of Technology,
Gorakhpur, India. E-mail: chauhan.vinaybhushan@gmail.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
In the present study, an attempt is made to evaluate the ultimate pullout capacity of the
vertical helical plate anchor embedded in clay with a number of geometrical configurations using
the limit analysis based on the finite element method. Ultimate pullout capacity (qu) of single and
multiple helical plate anchors are determined using numerical analysis considering the two-
dimensional axisymmetric model and the stress-controlled loading in the present work.
Evaluation of the ultimate pullout capacity of the single helical plate anchor is determined with
varying embedded depth (H). Also, the ultimate pullout capacity of multi-plate anchors are
evaluated using a detailed parametric study with the consideration of parameters namely
numbers of plate (n), spacing between consecutive helical plates (S) while keeping the diameters
of the helical plate (D) and anchor shaft (d) constant. The present study underlays the optimum
H/D and S/D ratios for single and multiple helical plate anchors, respectively, and establishes a
simplified equation for the estimation of qu for a multi-plate helical anchor. Additionally, this
study also examines the development of failure surfaces with varying embedded depth for single
plate anchor and the interference of failure surfaces in the soil for the multi-helix plate anchors
with the variation of S/D ratio.
INTRODUCTION
Pile foundations are commonly designed for the compressive loads, however, they can resist
tensile forces up to some extent but not efficiently. Designing pile foundation to resist the tensile
load is an expensive affair, moreover, it is a tedious process when it comes to the construction
and installation in the field. To resist the tensile forces on the foundation, anchored piles are
commonly provided as a practical solution to support such structures.
The plate anchor is a geotechnical structural element generally designed to bear any
overturning moment or uplift forces, which consists of a central shaft to transfer axial loads from
the main structure to the plates. A helical anchor, also known as a screw pile, screw anchor, or
helical pile (Prasad and Rao 1996), is an extendable foundation system that consists of helically
shaped steel plates that are attached to a central steel shaft with a round or square-shaped cross-
section. The plates offer substantial pull-out resistance once they are advanced to a suitable
depth. These plate anchors offer adequate safety against axial compression, uplift, and/or lateral
loadings. (Zorany et al. 2015 and Hamed et al. 2018). Multi-plate anchor piles with more than
one helical plates are in practice for many applications such as high rise bill-board, high rise
buildings, transmission towers, buried pipelines, retaining wall system, construction of
suspension bridges, tunnel construction etc. Immediate load-carrying capability and easy
installation of such anchors in the ground up to any desired depth in any weather conditions
(even across the restricted access sites) have increased its popularity in more traditional civil
engineering infrastructure applications. Furthermore, the use of such plate anchors has been
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
preferred in geotechnical fraternity due to its cost-effectiveness and the least environmental
impact. Mooney et al. (1985) were among the first few who suggested design criteria for the
anchor. From the previous study, it has been noted that the pullout capacity of the plate anchors
is a multifaceted function of the number of helical plates (n), the embedment depth of anchor
from the ground surface (H), the ratio of the spacing between the successive helical plates (S) to
the diameter of the anchor plates (D) as shown theoretically as well as experimentally in the
many previous studies available in the literature (Dickin 1988; Ghaly et al. 1991; Rao and Prasad
1993; Hanna et al. 2007; Lutenegger 2011; Wang et al. 2013; Demir and Ok 2015; Ghosh and
Samal 2019). From the available literature, as regards experimental evaluation of ultimate
pullout capacity, it is noted the study of the development of the failure surface is very important
to achieve the ultimate pullout capacity of helical plate anchors. However, the physical model
test could not verify the development of failure patterns due to the inevitable constraint of
visibility (Rao and Prasad 1993). Hence, the present study is aimed at understanding the effect of
embedded depth ratio (H/D) and spacing ratio (S/D) on the ultimate pullout capacity (qu) and the
development of failure surfaces of the single and multiple helical anchor plates using limit
analysis with lower and upper bound solution based on finite element method.
In the present study, the ultimate pullout capacity of a single helical plate anchor with
varying embedded depth (H) is examined. Moreover, the ultimate pullout capacity of multi-plate
anchors having a number of plates (n) ranging from 2 to 5 is investigated integrating the effect of
the ratio of spacing between consecutive helical plates (S) to the diameter of the helical plate (D).
The behavior of the failure surface generated during the pullout of the plate anchor system is also
analyzed. This study aims to provide a better resource in understanding the behavior of helical
anchors under pull-out loading and will hopefully lead to a wider acceptance as a foundation
alternative and lead to more economic and safer designs.
NUMERICAL MODELING OF THE HELICAL PLATE ANCHOR
To carry out the numerical analysis, a series of systematic simulations are executed using a
finite element based computational software OptumG2 (OptumG2 2017). A typical mesh
considered for this analysis having complete details of the geometrical configuration of plate
anchor is shown in Figure 1.
It is worthy to mention here that a vertical line of symmetry exists through the center of the
anchor shaft of the helical plate anchor system, so, an asymmetrical analysis is adopted for the
simulation of the helical anchor system embedded in the clay bed. However, the system of
helical plate anchor embedded in the soil is often dealt as a three-dimensional problem (Jesmani
et al. 2013), but in the present study, a two-dimensional model has been adopted to simulate the
helical plate anchor system in view of the fact that state of stress around the anchor is
symmetrical about the anchor shaft of the helical plate anchor system. Hence, only half of the
model geometry has been considered for the numerical simulation. This particular exercise of
adopting the symmetrical half geometry for numerical simulation facilitates the faster execution
of the computer program. Appropriate boundary conditions are applied at the edges of the mesh
i.e. fixed boundary conditions at the bottom of the mesh and roller boundary conditions at the
vertical ends of the soil mass are chosen as shown in Fig. 1.
To investigate the ultimate pullout capacity of a single anchored plate system for a given
diameter (D) of 2m, embedded depth (H) (measured from the ground surface) is varied along the
central shaft and transition of the failure surfaces around the helical plate anchors is investigated
by lower and upper bound limit analysis.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
Figure 1. The typical mesh of (a) a single plate helical anchored system (b) multi-plate
helical anchor systems
It has also been observed from the available literature that the qu of the anchor is governed by
the number of plates in anchor system (Ghosh et al. 2018). Therefore, the above-mentioned
numerical analysis has been extended to investigate the performance of multiple helical anchor
plates. In the present study, the number of helical anchor plates (n) is varied from 2 to 5 and the
effect of spacing between the two consecutive helical plates (S) is also investigated to determine
the qu of the anchor. In the present analysis, clay is considered to follow the Tresca failure
model, which can be regarded as a particular case of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. For the
clay bed assumed to follow the Tresca failure criterion, self-weight of the soil is assumed to be
zero, which is in line with the previous study conducted by Merifield et al. (2011).
Table 1 Material properties considered in the present study
Properties Clay Helical anchor Central shaft
plate (P800) (C1000)
6
Normal stiffness (EA), kN/m - 4.0×10 4.2 ×105
2 5
Bending stiffness (EI), kNm /m - 1.0×10 -
3
Yield force (np), kN/m - 5.0×10 5.0×103
2
Yield moment (mp), kNm/m - 8.0×10 8.0×102
Undrained shear strength (su), kPa 1 - -
Stiffness for undrained soil (Eu), MPa 30 - -
When an anchor system embedded in earth bed is pulled out, the pull-out force at which it
fails includes the weight of soil mass supported by the anchor plate and ultimate pullout capacity
of the anchor can be obtained by subtracting the weight of soil mass supported by the anchor
plate from the pull-out force at failure. Therefore, by considering unit-weight of the soil is to be
zero, the ultimate pullout capacity of the anchor system can be directly achieved without
subtracting the weight of the soil mass supported by the anchor plate (Rao and Prasad 1993).
Moreover, it is a very challenging task to get the soil mass supported by the anchor plate either
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
by physical model test or numerical simulation. For calculating the ultimate pullout capacity, the
effect of initial state stress can be neglected within a tolerance of 10% (Rowe and Davis 1982).
The interface between clay and plate material has also been accounted for numerical analysis in
the present study with consideration of a smooth interface with no tension condition at the
anchor-soil interface. The central shaft of the anchor and helical anchor plate are considered as a
rigid material. The material properties consider for the clay, helical anchor plate and the central
shaft is shown in Table 1.
The development of failure surface around the anchor plate and the transition of failure
surface from a combined cylindrical failure surface to isolated bulb-shaped failure surfaces
around the anchor plates are also studied by varying the distance between the successive plates.
Furthermore, in the present analysis, the installation effect of the plate anchor system into the
ground and large strain aspects during the pullout of the anchor are neglected in line with
Spagnoli et al. (2018).
In the present study, to determine the ultimate uplift capacity of the anchored plate system, a
uniformly distributed multiplier load is applied. Numerical simulation with a distributed
multiplier load offers a facility for the determination of ultimate pullout capacity in a systematic
manner, where the distributed load is applied in an incremental order (1 kPa in each step) till the
plate anchor system reaches on the verge of the failure or collapse. In the present study, the
diameter of the central shaft and helical plate are considered as 0.4 m and 2 m, respectively. The
thickness of the helical plate is taken as 0.1 m. The central shaft of the anchor is connected to the
helical plate and a multiplier distributed load is applied above the ground surface. No prestress is
applied in the connector. Shaft friction contributes towards the ultimate pullout capacity of the
helical plate anchors (Jesmani et al. 2013), hence it is ignored in the present analysis to provide a
conservative determination of the pullout capacity of the helical plate anchors.
Figure 2. Variation of ultimate pullout capacity with embedment depth ratio (H/D) for
single helical anchor plate with error bars indicating the worst-case error between upper
and lower bound solutions
The efficiency of any numerical model depends upon the optimum number of elements
present in the mesh, hence a sensitivity analysis is performed to obtain the optimum number of
elements required for the mesh considered for the analysis. A total number of elements for a
configuration of the single plate has been investigated at fixed considerable embedded depth for
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
a given helical anchor plate. The total number of the elements are varied from 1000 to 6000 with
the increment of 1000 elements in each analysis. From the obtained variation of the ultimate
pullout capacity with the number of elements in the mesh, it is decided that the 4000 elements
are good enough for the mesh considered in the present analysis.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The pull-out capacity of anchor is greatly influenced by the H/D and S/D ratios (Ghosh and
Samal 2019), therefore, the present analysis comprises the variation of H/D and S/D ratios in
order to obtain the ultimate pull-out capacity as well as the generation of failure surfaces around
the anchored plate system. Finite element analyses were performed to investigate the pullout
capacity for a wide range of embedment depth (H) for a given fixed anchor plate diameter of 2
m. For a single plate anchor system, embedment depth ratio H/D is varied from 0.5 to 1.75 to
obtain the ultimate pullout capacity of the plate anchor (Fig. 2).
Figure 3. Failure mechanism of single helical anchor plate systems, with (a) H/D=0.75 (b)
H/D=1 (c) H/D= 1.25
To determine the minimum depth at which the anchor plate of a given diameter can achieve
the ultimate pullout capacity, the embedment depth of the plate anchor is increased from 1-3m. It
is observed that optimum pullout capacity increases with the H/D ratio and achieves an ultimate
pull capacity of 12.33±0.2 kN/m2 at H/D=1.25 and with further increase in H/D ratio, qu remains
constant. Furthermore, the failure surfaces at various H/D ratio is also examined from the
outcomes of this study, which reveals that at a lower H/D ratio (<1) non-distinctive failure
surface is generated and shaped as a bulge extended up to the ground surface as shown in Figure
3(a). The transition of the failure surface is observed at H/D=1 which results in a multifaceted
failure mechanism with a little movement toward the ground surface as shown in Fig.3(b). For
higher H/D ratio (>1), generated failure surfaces are shaped as a distinctive closed bulb without
any lateral movement towards claybed surface (Weizhi and Fragaszy (1988) and Ghaly et. al
1991) as shown in Fig. 3(c).
In the case of a double plate helical anchor, the variation of qu with S/D ratio is analyzed in
the present study and observed that the ultimate pullout capacity increases with the increase in
S/D ratio, till the S/D reaches to 2.75 as shown in Fig. 4.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
Figure 4. Variation of ultimate pullout capacity with spacing ratio (S/D) for multiple helical
anchor plate with error bars indicating the worst-case error between upper and lower
bound solutions
Figure 5. Failure surfaces of double-helical anchor plate systems with (a) S/D =1.5 (b) S/D=
2 (c) S/D=2.5
With further increase in S/D ratio, no substantial increase in the qu is observed and the
ultimate pullout capacity is found to be 25.03±0.03 kN/m2 at S/D =2.75.
A comparison of failure surfaces observed at various S/D ratio is depicted in Fig.5, it is noted
that in case of lower spacing ratio (S/D< 1), upper plate shows a linear movement toward the
ground surface while the failure surface near the bottom plate comprises of two distinct failure
surfaces i.e. a cylindrical failure surface towards ground surface and another one is a curved
failure surface with movement likely towards the ground surface. At intermediate spacing ratio
(S/D=1-2), the transition of the generated failure surfaces takes place from having an indefinite
shape towards a horizontal bulb-shaped failure surface. In this range of S/D, the failure surface is
found to be a cylindrical shape with significant movement towards the ground surface. It is also
found that a helical anchor plate with higher spacing ratio (S/D> 2) shows a definite bulb-shaped
failure pattern at each plate with no movement towards the ground surface as shown in Fig. 5.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
In the present study, the evaluation of the ultimate pullout capacity with the number of the
helical plates, ranging from 3 to 5, is also studied by keeping H/D and S/D as fixed one. The
fixation of the H/D=1.25 and S/D=2.75 are based on the optimum values of qu analyzed from the
results discussed above. From the study, it is noted that the ultimate pullout capacity of the
helical anchor plate increases with an increase in the number of the plate anchor at a given H/D
and S/D. From the analysis of the qu values for multi-plate anchors obtained in this study, it is
found that there exists a linear relationship between the qu and the number of helical anchor
plates as shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 6. Variation of maximum ultimate pullout capacity with the number of helical plates
in the anchor with error bars indicating the worst-case error between upper and lower
bound solutions
Figure 7. Failure pattern of multiple helical plate anchor system with a spacing of 5.5m,
consisting (a) three plates (b) four plates (c) five plates
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
The variation of the ultimate pullout capacity and number of plates (n), as shown in Fig. 6, is
best fitted and a linear relation between qu and number of plates in the anchor is established as
shown in Eq. (1) with a coefficient of determination, R2= 0.99.
qu  12.27 n  0.15 (1)
It is worthy to mention here that the relationship is shown in Eq. (1) holds good when the
successive anchor plates were provided at optimum spacing for a given configuration of plate
positions and the diameter of the plate.
Failure surfaces generated by multiple helical plate anchors are shown in Fig. 7. It is found
that when the multiple plates are provisioned at the sufficient spacing to obtain the ultimate
pullout capacity of anchor, a combined cylindrical-shaped failure surface originating from each
plate of a helical anchor with the substantial upward movement is observed.
CONCLUSION
The present study involves the comprehensive numerical analysis based on the finite element
method with consideration of lower and upper bound limit analysis for the evaluation of the
ultimate pullout capacity of the single and multiple helical anchor plates embedded in clay bed
by varying the embedment depth and spacing between helical. It is noticed that embedment
depth (D), the spacing between the consecutive anchor plate (S), and the number of helical plates
(n) in anchor play a vital role in the ultimate uplift capacity (qu) of the anchor. The following
conclusions are drawn from the present study.
1. It is found that by keeping the diameter fixed, H/D=1.25 provided the maximum qu of
helical anchor plate and a further increase in H/D value does not affect the qu of the single
plate anchor.
2. In the case of multiple helical anchor plates, the spacing between the successive plates
governs the ultimate pullout uplift capacity. A value of S/D=2.75 resulted in the
generation of the maximum qu and with further increase in S/D, qu of multiple plate
anchors remain invariant.
3. It is also found that the ultimate pullout capacity of multiple plate anchor systems is a
linear function of the number of plates when the S/D ratio is maintained optimum for the
multiple plates.
4. Variation of failure surfaces generated by the pullout of plate anchor is majorly
controlled by the H/D and S/D ratios. In the case of a single helical anchor plate system,
failure surface shows the non-distinctive pattern with a bulge of clay moving laterally
upward in case of shallow H/D ratio and for a higher H/D ratio, a discrete closed bulb-
shaped failure surface is generated around the plate. In the case of multiple plate anchor
systems, failure surfaces are being controlled by S/D ratio. For a shallow S/D ratio, a
cylindrical failure surface with upward movement towards the ground surface was noted.
With an increase in S/D ratio, failure surface takes transition from indistinct cylindrical
failure to clear bulb-shaped failure surfaces.
REFERENCES
Edward, A. D. (1987). “Uplift behaviour of horizontal anchor plates in sand.” J. Geotech. Eng.,
ASCE, 114(11), 1300-1317.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M. (1991). “Uplift behavior of screw anchor in sand.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(5), 773-793.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020
Ghosh, P. and Samal, S. (2019) “Ultimate pullout capacity of isolated helical anchor using finite
element analysis.” Soil Dyn. and Earthq. Geot. Eng., 10.1007/978-981-13-0562-7_26.
Hamed, M., Canakci, H., and Khaleel, O. (2019). “Performance of multi-helix pile embedded in
organic soil under pull-out load.” Trans. Infra. Geot., 10.1007/s40515-018-00069-0.
Jesmani, M., Mehrad, K., and Nazari, M. (2013). “Numerical study of behavior of anchor plates
in clayey soils.” Int. J.of Geom., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000236.
Merifield, R. S. (2011). “Ultimate uplift capacity of multiplate helical type anchors in clay.” J. of
Geot. and Geoenv. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000478.
OptumG2 (2017). “Optum computational Engineering.” Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

Prasad, Y. V. S. N. and Rao, S. N. (1996). “Lateral capacity of helical piles in clays.” J. Geotech.
Eng., ASCE, 122(11), 938-941.
Rao, S. N and Prasad, Y. V. S. N. (1993). “Estimation of uplift capacity of helical anchors in
clay.” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 119(2), 352-357.
Rowe, R. K., and Davis, E. H. (1982). “The behaviour of anchor plates in sand.” Géotechnique,
10.1680/geot.1982.32.1.25.
Spagnoli, G., Cristina, Tsuha, C. H. C., Oreste, P., and Solarte, C. M. M. (2018). “Estimation of
uplift capacity and installation power of helical piles in sand for offshore structures.”
10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000741.
Taiebat, H. A. and Carter, J. P. (2008). “Flow rule effects in the tresca model.” Comp. and Geot.,
35, 500-503.
Weizhi, S. and Fragaszy, R. J. (1988). “Uplift testing of model anchors.” J. Geotech. Eng.,
114(9), 961-983.
Zorany, Z., M., Tsuha, C. H. C., and Beck, A. T. (2015). “Serviceability performance evaluation
of helical piles under uplift loading.” J. of Perfor. Const. facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
5509.0000805.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2020

Evaluation of Pull-Out Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clay Using Finite Element Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Pull-Out Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clay Using Finite Element Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 317 60

OptumG2 (2017). “Optum computational Engineering.” Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

You might also like