E S T I M A T I O N OF U P L I F T C A P A C I T Y OF H E L I C A L

A N C H O R S IN C L A Y S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By S. Narasimha Rao ~ and Y. V. S. N. Prasad 2

INTRODUCTION

Currently, helical anchors are being extensively used in the construction

of transmission tower foundations, pipelines, and braced excavations. Moo-
ney et al. (1985) were among the first few who suggested design criteria for
this type of anchor in clay and silt. In this paper, an attempt has been made
to arrive at the capacities of these anchors based on the measured shear
strength. It is assumed that there is a cylindrical failure surface between the
top and bottom helical plates. However, in this type of study, one should
consider the effect of spacing of helical plates on the uplift capacity and in
this present study, this aspect has been taken into account. In the estimation
of capacities of these anchors, the effect of the spacing of helical plates can
usefully be incorporated. With the help of an experimental program carried
out on model anchors, the predicted capacities are verified.

TESTING PROGRAM
Four model anchors were made of 13.8-mm-diameter mild steel shafts to
which mild steel plates of 33-mm diameter were welded at a pitch of 8.3
mm to form helical anchors. The number of helical plates and the spacing
of the plates varied. These anchors were designated as A~, A2, A3, and A 4.
Anchor At consisted of two helical plates spaced at 152 mm. The anchor
A2 consisted of three helical plates spaced at 76 ram. Similarly the anchors
A 3 and A 4 consisted of four and five helical plates spaced at 50 mm and 38
mm, respectively. However, the distance between top and bottom helical
plates was kept at 152 mm in all these anchors. The total length of all the
anchors was 513 mm. The helical plates were spaced conforming to pre-
determined spacing ratios (spacing ratio [SR] = spacing of helical plates/
diameter of helical plate). Thus the anchors At, A> A3, and A4 had helical
plates spaced at a SR of 4.6, 2.3, 1.5, and 1.1, respectively.
Pullout tests on these anchors were conducted in a cylindrical test tank
of diameter 350 mm and height 500 mm. The size of the tank was considered
sufficient to minimize the side effects according to Davie and Sutherland
(1978) and Mooney et a l . (1985), The clay used in this study was marine
clay from the coastal deposit in the east coast of India (liquid limit (LL) =
82%, plastic limit (PL) = 32%). Fully saturated soil was placed in layers
of 50-ram thickness. Each layer was made with hand packing in the first
instance and the same was pressed with a template so as to remove entrapped
air. As all the tests were conducted at soft consistency, Ic < 0.5 (Ic = LL
aprof., Ocean Engrg. Ctr. and Civ. Engrg. Dept., Indian Inst. of Tech., Madras
600 036 India.
2Res. Scholar, Ocean Engrg. Ctr., Indian Inst. of Tech., Madras 600 036 India.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 1993. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on February 4, 1991.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geoteehnicai Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2,
February, 1993. 9 ISSN 0733-9410/93/0002-0352/$1.00 + $. 15 per page. Paper
No. 1350.
352

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:352-357.

 - water content/ILL - PL]), there was no difficulty in placing the soil and
achieving homogeneous fill. After the clay bed had been prepared, the
anchor was slowly screwed into the soil bed with enough downward force
until the top plate was so positioned such that it was level with the top
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

surface of the soil (embedment ratio, H/D = 0 where H = depth of embed-

ment of top helical plate and D = diameter of helical plate).
For loading, cast iron weights were continuously placed on the weight
hanger until the anchors were pulled out. The load at which the anchor
came out with high upward movement was considered as gross ultimate
uplift capacity (Pg). The schematic diagram of experimental setup is shown
in Fig. 1. In this setup, a load cell of capacity of 250 N and an inductive
displacement transducer with a travel length of _+20 mm for measuring load
and movement of anchor, respectively, were used. An arrangement was

II o, o
IJ
I I I II-o--~-tk I. II
I I I I+l+~ ~
I I HULTICH~'N~EL'CA'RRIER
FREQUENCY A~MP.LIFIER
I l ll lJ_lll
I I"~'1 L_-II II---J I I I I ACQmmTtON
I ~)
DATA
~6

FIG. 1. Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup

80
70|I-- I I I I I I

60 Ic Cu -
( k PQ)
SO o.45 4.4 -

u
~_ 40
0.40 3.8
0.36 3.5 -
o. 30 V o.28 3.0

| [] - A I ~ 0.17 2.2
Z0 I - 9 - AZ
JZ~ -A3
10 I - o -A4
0 /--~CALC~LATE[~ CAP~CITY I j
0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
SPACING RATIO (SR)
FIG. 2. Variation of P of Anchors with SR at Different I~ Values
353

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:352-357.

 1.1
I I I I I I

oooo~
,.1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

n.

2p .0 . 8

~
z 0-7
FOR 3.5~<SR~<4.6 " N
"
ffl0 . 6

0.s I I T I I I
0 1 Z 3 t, S 6 7
SPACING RATIO (SR)
FIG. 3. Variation of Sr with SR

made to eliminate the suction below the bottom helical plate (as shown in
the Fig. 1). The tests were conducted at five different consistency indices
(Ic) of soil and the shear strength of the soil bed (C,) was measured using
the in situ vane shear test.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The net ultimate uplift capacity (P) of an anchor can be obtained by
subtracting the weight of the anchor (W) from the gross ultimate uplift
capacity (P~) and is given by
P = Pg - W ............................................... (1)
The variation of P of the anchors with SR at different Ic values are presented
in Fig. 2. From the figure, it can be observed that as the Ic increases, there
is a considerable increase in P for the same anchor and it is because of the
increase in the C, of the soil. It can be further seen that as the spacing of
the helical plates is reduced, anchor capacities are increased and the opti-
mum capacities are found to be at a SR of around 1.5. According to Mooney
et al. (1985), the capacity of a helical anchor is given by (when H/D = 0),
P = (~DL)C. .............................................. (2)
where L = distance between top and bottom helical plates and C, =
measured shear strength of clay. The calculated capacities using (2) are
shown in Fig. 2 with dotted lines. From this, it can be seen that both
experimental and computed capacities are in good agreement for the an-
chors, with SR less than or equal to 1.5, and the assumption of cylindrical
failure surface seems to be valid for such cases. With the increase in spacing
of helical plates, the cylindrical failure surface may be incomplete and the
capacities are reduced. After the testing, the pulled-out anchors surfaces

354

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:352-357.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 1. Comparison of Lab and Field Test Results with Calculated Values
Total
length of
anchor (P~)
Diameter Spacing of embedded computed
of helical in soil, (p,) (P,)
Serial Helical helical plates, plates L H Lr=.L +H C. measured computed (P~)
number Reference plates D (mm) (mm) SR (ram) (ram) (mm) H/D Ic (kPa) (kN) (kN) measured
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10 (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
1 Adams and Klym 4 2-280, 2-254 3-736.6 2.6, 2.8, 2.9 2,210 38,640 40,850 138 -- 47.9 218.700 220.200 ~ 1.00
(1972)
2 Adams and Klym 8 5-381,343, 7-736.6 4-1.9, 2, 2.4, 5,156 37,820 42,976 86 -- 24.0, 291.600 300.000 ~ 1.03
ol (1972) 286, 254 2.8 47.9
ol 3 Mooney et al. 3 72.0, 63.5, 2-228.6 3.4, 4.0 457 15 472 0.2 0.21 6.9 0.576 0.576 b 1,00
(1985) 50.8
4 Mooney et al. 3 72.0, 63.5, 2-228.6 3.4, 4.0 457 288 745 4.0 0.21 6.9 0.846 0.873 b 1.03
(1985) 50.8
5 Mooney et al. 3 72.0, 63.5, 2-228.6 3.4, 4.0 457 576 1,033 8.0 0.21 6.9 0.864 0.925 b 1.07
(1985) 50.8
6 Mooney et al. 3 290, 250, 200 2-914.4 3.4, 4.0 1,829 2,320 4,149 8.0 0.30 24.1 51.220 49,000 ~ 0.96

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:352-357.

(1985)
7 Mooney et al. 3 290, 250, 200 2-914.4 3.4, 4.0 1,829 2,900 4,728 10,0 0.30 24.1 48.830 50.200" 1.02
(1985)
8 Mooney et al. 3 290, 250, 200 2-914.4 3.4, 4.0 1,829 3,480 5,308 12.0 0.30 24.1 48,600 51,380" 1.06
(1985)
~5% of computed value is added to account for weight of anchor and suction below bottom helical plate.
b3% of computed value is added to account for weight of anchor and measured suction below bottom helical plate was used.
 are observed and these observations confirmed the aforementioned state-
ments. Similar type of behavior was reported by Bassett (1977) for under-
reamed anchors in clays. This work concentrated on the effect of underreams
spacing on pullout capacity. This work showed that up to a spacing of 2D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to 3D, cylindrical or pluglike failure takes place and beyond that it changes
to end bearing failure on the top of underreams. Because of the inability
to find out actual failure surface for anchors with helical plates spaced at
high SR, it is suggested that a nondimensional spacing ratio factor, SF, can
be introduced to estimate the capacities. The SF is given by
(P) experimental
SF = (p) computed using (2) .................................. (3)

Fig. 3 represents the variation of SF with SR. In this figure, the results of
Narasimha Rao et al. (1991) on relatively big size model anchors with D
= 75 ram, 100 mm, and 150 mm and SR of 0.8, 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 2.3, 3.1, 4.0,
and 4.6 are also used. A best curve is fitted and for the purpose of con-
venience, it is divided into three segments as shown in Fig. 3, and the
relationship between Sr and SR is given by
Sr = 1.0 for SR -- 1.5(Zone I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4a)
Sv = 0.863 + 0.069(3.5 - SR) for 1.5 - SR -< 3.5(Zone II) . . . . . (4b)
Sr = 0.700 + 0.148(4.6 - SR) for 3.5 --- SR -< 4.6(Zone III) . . . . (4c)
By knowing the Sv from the aforementioned equations, actual capacity of
an anchor can be obtained by multiplying (P) computed using (2) with Sv.
In the case of anchors with varying size of helical plates, the SR value
between any two plates can be calculated as the ratio between spacing of
helical plates to average diameter of two helical plates.
If any field test results obtained from tests carried out on large-size an-
chors are available, they can be used to verify the formulations suggested.
The reported results of Adams and Klym (1972) and Mooney et al. (1985)
are made use in this paper. These capacities are compared with the computed
values and are summarized in Table 1. The contribution from top helical
plate and shaft friction above top plate are calculated as suggested by Moo-
hey et al. (1985). As can be seen from the table, there seems to be good
agreement and the agreement ratio varies between 0.96 to 1.07.

CONCLUSIONS
The load-carrying capacities of the helical anchors in clays are controlled
by the spacing of the helical plates. For spacing ratios beyond 1.5, the failure
surfaces are not cylindrical and for such cases also, formulations to predict
the capacities as suggested in this paper can be made. These formulations
are verified with the reported laboratory and field test results.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Adams, J. I., and Klym, T. W. (1972). "A study of anchors for transmission tower
foundation." Can. Geotech. J., 9(1), 89-104.
Bassett, R. H. (1977). "Underrearned ground anchors." Proc. 9th lnt. Conf. on
SMFE, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 11-
17.
356

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:352-357.

 Davie, J. R., and Sutherland, H. B. (1978). "Modelling of clay uplift resistance."
J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 104(6), 755-760.
Mooney, J. M., Adamczak, S., and Clemence, S.P. (1985). "Uplift capacity of helical
anchor in clay and silt: uplift behaviour of anchor foundations in soil. Proc., ASCE,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

48--72.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y. V. S. N., and Shetty, M. D. (1991). "The behaviour
of model screw piles in cohesive soils." Soils Found., 31(2), 35-50.

357

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:352-357.