Uplift capacity of the helical anchor installed in cohesionless soil using energy balance approach

Figures & data

Figure 1. Multi pitch helical anchor.

Figure 2. Typical soil stress–displacement curve.

Figure 3. Helical pile installation.

Figure 4. Displacement distance for one revolution.

Figure 5. Soil side friction due to penetration.

Table 1. Comparison of the present study to C. H. C. Tsuha et al. (2007) experimental results and C. D. H. C. Tsuha and Aoki (2010) analytical solution

Relative density Dr (%)	Number of helical plates	Geometry of the prototype helical pile C. D. H. C. Tsuha and Aoki (2010)				Torque T (kN.m)	Predicted uplift capacity (kN) present study	Measured uplift capacity (kN) Tusha et al., 2007	Predicted uplift capacity (kN) Tusha & Aoki, 2010
		Shaft diameter (m)	Helical diameter (m)	Pitch of helical p (m)	Shaft length λ
56	1	0.0642	0.214	0.0643	3.1	0.9	13.86	14	30.6
56	2	0.0977	0.326	0.0695	4.6	3.9	80.4	83	110
56	2	0.132	0.44	0.077	6.2	7.2	134.6	113	150.9
85	2	0.0977	0.326	0.0695	4.6	14.4	252.5	270	326.2
85	3	0.0642	0.214	0.0643	3.1	4.9	145.3	122	153.2
85	3	0.0977	0.326	0.0695	4.6	12.6	304.6	302	284.8

Figure 6. Penetration displacement during loading.

Figure 7. Comparison of the uplift capacity to C. D. H. C. Tsuha and Aoki (2010) analytical solution for different torque and D_r values.

Tsuha, C. H. C., Aoki, N., Rault, G., Thorel, L., & Garnier, J. (2007). Physical modeling of helical pile anchors. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 7(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1680/ijpmg.2007.070401

 Google Scholar

Tsuha, C. D. H. C., & Aoki, N. (2010). Relationship between installation torque and uplift capacity of deep helical piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47(6), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-128

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar