Failure Mechanism of Helical Anchors in Sand by Centrifuge

Modeling and PIV

Hossein Salehzadeh1; Hamed Nuri, S.M.ASCE2; and Ali Akbar Heshmati Rafsanjani3

Abstract: Helical anchors are receiving more attention these days due to their economic and environmental advantages. However, the
behavior of these structures requires further investigation. One of the critical areas requiring further attention is their failure mechanism
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

under monotonic loading conditions. This study presents the results of centrifuge testing of half-models of helical anchors behind a
Perspex window, performed to visualize the failure mechanism of screw anchors using particle image velocimetry analysis. The density
change that is a result of installation disturbance was simulated by a novel technique. The results showed that embedment depth
had a great influence on the failure mechanism of the anchors. The critical embedment depth ratio determined was H/D = 4–5 that sep-
arated the shallow and deep behavior of the anchors. Soil was mobilized as a reverse truncated cone in the shallow mode, while a flow-
around mechanism was formed in the deep mode. The inclination of the mobilized zone on both sides of the helix was close to the critical
state friction angle (29°) in shallow mode. The inclination of the failure surface was related to the dilation angle of the sand in the deep
mode. A minimum distance of 3D was recommended to minimize the interaction of adjacent helical plates in a multihelix anchor. In ad-
dition, a distance of 4D was suggested to minimize the interaction of adjacent helical anchors in a group. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0002422. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Helical anchor; Screw anchor; Centrifuge modeling; Failure mechanism; Installation disturbance.

Introduction
Various types of anchors have been introduced and used over time
as onshore and offshore solutions. Helical anchors are a relatively
new type of anchor that have gained interest in recent years. These
types of anchors are screwed into the ground using the torque and
crowd force of the installation rigs and include a central shaft with
one to six helices attached to it. These anchors can be used to resist
compression, tension, or lateral loads.
Helical anchors are currently considered as a potential offshore
foundation for mooring systems and offshore wind turbines
(Spagnoli et al. 2015; Spagnoli and Tsuha 2020), and the tensile ca-
pacity is an important factor in the design of these systems for such
applications (Ullah et al. 2019). Previous studies have focused on
determining the behavior of these structures installed in clay soil
while fewer studies have evaluated their behavior in sands. Since
offshore renewable energy structures are installed in the nearshore
and soil strata in areas that usually comprise sandy soils, studying
the behavior of these anchors installed in sandy soils is essential.
Several researchers have tried to present a simple and reliable
method to calculate the uplift capacity of these anchors using
1
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Iran Univ. of
Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran 1684613114, Iran (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0289-6640. Email:
salehzadeh@iust.ac.ir
2
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Iran Univ. of Science
and Technology, Narmak, Tehran 1684613114, Iran. ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-4332-7575. Email: nuri_hamed@civileng.iust.ac.ir
3
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Iran Univ. of Science
and Technology, Narmak, Tehran 1684613114, Iran. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-2681-2280. Email: heshmati@iust.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 18, 2021; approved
on February 8, 2022; published online on May 26, 2022. Discussion period
open until October 26, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geome-
chanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
finite-element (FE) methods such as Pérez et al. (2018) and Cerfon-
taine et al. (2021). Despite various pieces of research being con-
ducted, the current understanding of the failure mechanism of
helical anchors is not satisfactory and there is debate on the critical
embedment depth ratio where the failure mechanism transitions
from shallow to deep mode (Cerfontaine et al. 2019b). On the
other hand, almost all previous studies investigating the failure mech-
anism of helical anchors are either conducted in 1g conditions or have
shown the failure surface after the loading stage. The problem with 1g
models is their inability to correctly model the role of soil weight in
the pullout process and the problem with the latter is that only the
final failure surface is observed, and the sequence of progressive fail-
ure and effective mechanisms cannot be observed.
Consequently, establishing a deep understanding of the failure
mechanism of helical anchors under different geometries and soil
conditions seems necessary. This study reports the results of centri-
fuge tests performed to study the failure mechanism of helical an-
chors under monotonic uplift loading. The soil disturbance is
simulated in the current study to increase the accuracy of the re-
sults. The geometry of the failure surface is studied for different
embedment cases to include both modes of shallow and deep be-
havior for a comprehensive conclusion.
The failure mechanism of helical piles under tensile loads has
not been studied extensively. However, existing failure mecha-
nisms for plate anchors have been proposed and evaluated for
these anchors and effort has been made by several scholars to de-
termine the exact failure mechanism of helical anchors under dif-
ferent conditions. Depending on the spacing of the helical plates
and the soil conditions, the failure mechanism of multihelix
screw piles under compressive loads can be categorized as either
individual bearing or cylindrical shear (Nasr 2009; Mortazavi
Bak et al. 2021). Single-helix screw piles also exhibit an individual
bearing failure mechanism under compressive loads. The individ-
ual bearing mechanism was first introduced by Trofimenkov and
Mariupolskii (1965) and consists of a truncated cone with side in-
clinations that differ based on the sand properties. The cylindrical

© ASCE 04022111-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

 shear failure also introduces a cylindrical failure surface that is
formed between the helical plates. The failure mechanism of multi-
helix screw piles under tensile loading can be categorized as cylin-
drical shear or individual bearing, provided that the anchor is
deeply embedded (Livneh and El Naggar 2008). Further, single-
helix screw piles under tensile loads experience either shallow or
deep failure with conical, cylindrical, log spiral, or arc walls for
the failure surface. Despite various studies, the failure mechanism
of single-helix anchors under tensile loads is not well understood
due to the effect of installation disturbance. As Mohajerani et al.
(2016) explained, the bearing capacity and failure of helical piles
under compressive loads are determined by the soil conditions be-
neath the helix, while for helical piles under tension, the ground con-
ditions above the helix (which is highly disturbed) determine the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
uplift capacity and failure behavior. In fact, the installation disturb-
ance is the very reason why the failure mechanism of plate anchors
cannot be directly applied to helical anchors (Schiavon et al. 2016).
In an attempt to improve the body of knowledge around the failure
mechanism of helical piles, a shallow wedge failure mode with an
inclined wall at the dilation angle has been proposed by Giampa
et al. (2017). The flow-around failure mechanism was also recently
proposed for deeply embedded helical anchors by Sharif et al.
(2021) after conducting discrete-element model (DEM) simulations
on single-helix anchors. These authors mentioned such failure
mechanism for single-helix anchors under tensile loads and perfect
installation conditions but did not elaborate on the observations.
This failure mechanism was probably first discussed in detail by
Hossain et al. (2005) to describe the failure mechanism of spudcan
penetration into the clay soil.
The effect of the installation of helical anchors in the surround-
ing sand can be classified into two categories: (1) stress variation,
and (2) soil density change. The stress variation causes the anchor
pullout capacity to increase (Bradshaw et al. 2019; Thorel et al.
2019; Nagai et al. 2018) mainly by increasing the lateral earth pres-
sure around the helix and the sand density change lowers the pull-
out capacity of the anchor by weakening the mechanical properties
of the sand (although in loose sand, an increase in sand mechanical
properties could be expected). Observations of the stresses around
the helix during the installation have reported an increase in lateral
and vertical earth pressures during the anchor installation. How-
ever, these observations are limited to their corresponding testing
and geometry conditions. The stress variation was not modeled
in this study due to several unknown parameters and physical mod-
eling limitations. Unknown parameters include the exact percent-
age of the stress variation, stress variation distribution, and the
extent of the influenced zone around the helix and the shaft as a re-
sult of anchor installation. It is noted that different geometry and
penetration rates of the anchors affect the in situ soil stress differ-
ently during the installation and further research is needed to clarify
this effect. Ghaly and Hanna (1992) showed that soil stress varia-
tion during installation depends on the geometry (i.e., pitch and
D/d ratio) of the model anchors. Another limitation that prevented
the reproduction of stress variation as a result of anchor installation
was the physical modeling limitations, that is, inability to manipu-
late the horizontal stresses around the helix inside the strongbox
within the centrifuge basket. Since the geotechnical centrifuge pro-
duces the prototype stresses, it is uncommon to add a stress
reproduction facility similar to those used in calibration chambers.
Therefore, only the density change was modeled in this study to
observe the effect of installation disturbance on the failure mecha-
nism. The effect of disturbance on the failure mechanism is not
very well known, although recent studies using the DEM method
such as Sharif et al. (2021) have provided insight into the effects
of installation disturbance on the tensile and compressive capacity
© ASCE 04022111-2
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111
of helical anchors. These authors reported a change in tensile fail-
ure mechanism of helical anchors as a result of the alteration in the
advancement ratio (AR) of the anchor during the installation. This
change in failure mechanism was attributed to the sand density var-
iation due to different anchor ARs in the sand. It is noted that the
relative importance of the two effects of installation (stress varia-
tion and density change) in the adjacent soil has not been evaluated
up to this date; however, it is noted that numerical studies con-
ducted by Pérez et al. (2018), Garakani and Maleki (2020), and oth-
ers have only modeled the change in soil physical properties as a
result of installation disturbance. Therefore, it is deduced that soil
density change is of higher importance.
The current study investigates the failure mechanism of helical
anchors under tensile monotonic loading to improve the current
state of knowledge around the behavior of helical piles. Observa-
tions of the progressive failure mechanism and the movement of
sand particles around the helix and the shaft are presented for fur-
ther application by future research. The embedment depth effect on
the failure mechanism, which is the primary parameter in the deter-
mination of the failure mechanism and uplift capacity of the an-
chors, was also studied. The outcomes of the current study
coupled with the results of studies on stress variation as a result
of anchor installation (e.g., da Silva and Tsuha 2021) can contribute
to better prediction of the uplift capacity of helical anchors in sandy
soils. The paper is divided into four main sections: (1) previous re-
search, (2) materials and methods that describe the installation
method and tested soil and model anchors, (3) the verification sec-
tion in which the validity and repeatability of the investigation
method is presented, and finally (4) the results and discussion sec-
tion, which elaborates on the findings of this study and presents rec-
ommendations and suggestions to improve the understanding of the
behavior of helical piles under tensile monotonic loading.
Previous Research
Critical Embedment Depth Ratio
Critical embedment depth ratio is the depth after which the failure
mechanism varies, and the bearing capacity factor (Nq) is relatively
fixed. The transition depth is determined by many factors including
sand density, friction angle, helix diameter, shaft diameter, helix
pitch, surcharge amount, and effective stress level. Much research
has been conducted to determine the exact critical embedment ratio
for different conditions. A summary of the findings of previous
studies is listed in Table 1 together with the main testing conditions
including D/d and pitch. According to Table 1, the transition from
shallow to deep failure mode occurs at H/D ranging from 3 to 14
depending on the testing conditions and geometry of the anchors.
For instance, 1g or Ng modeling and taking installation disturbance
into account significantly influence the critical embedment depth
ratio. Table 1 also indicates the discrepancy in the results of transi-
tion depth that necessitates further investigation to increase the ac-
curacy of the transition depth determination.
Failure Surface Shape and Inclination
The failure mechanism of helical anchors is determined by the em-
bedment depth of the uppermost helical plate (Rao et al. 1993).
The anchor is considered shallow if the failure zone extends to the
soil surface; otherwise, the anchor is considered deep. Despite in-
creased interest in helical piles, not many studies have been con-
ducted to determine the failure mechanism of single-helix piles
under tensile loads. A summary of the previous findings along with
Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 1. Comparison of the transition depth in sand and testing conditions for available studies in the literature
Study Anchor type D/d p/D Sand density Transition depth (H/D)
Clemence and Veesaert (1977) Plate — — Medium-dense 5
Ghaly and Hanna (1992) Helix 3.1 0.2–0.4 Loose, medium, dense 9–14
Zhang (1999) Helix 1.6 0.2 Loose, medium dense 5
Ilamparuthi et al. (2002) Plate — — Loose, medium, dense 4.8–6.8
Liu et al. (2012) Plate — — Dense 4
Rasulo et al. (2017) Plate — — Loose, medium dense 6–13
Hao et al. (2019) Helix/plate 2 0.25 Very dense 9
Al Hakeem and Aubeny (2019) Plate — — Loose, medium, very dense 3–7

Table 2. Comparison of the failure mechanism and testing conditions of available studies in the literature
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Study Anchor type Surface type Surface angle Testing conditions

Meyerhof and Adams (1968) Plate Conical/conical φ/3 Small scale-1g
Murray and Geddes (1987) Plate Conical/log spiral φ/2 Small scale-1g
Bobbitt and Clemence (1987) Helix Truncated cone φ/2 Medium scale-1g
Ghaly et al. (1991) Helix Truncated cone 2φ/3 Medium scale-1g
Ilamparuthi et al. (2002) Plate Conical φ/2–0.8φ Large scale
Liu et al. (2012) Plate Conical φ/4 Small scale-1g
Giampa et al. (2017) Helix Truncated cone ψ Medium scale-1g /FE
Pérez et al. (2018) Helix Cylindrical — Small scale-Ng/FE
Nagai et al. (2018) Helix Bowl-shaped N/A Medium scale-1g
Motamedinia et al. (2019) Helix Conical φ/3 Medium scale-1g
Cerfontaine et al. (2021) Helix Truncated cone ψ FE
Sharif et al. (2021) Helix Wedge/flow-around ψ DEM

Table 3. Mechanical and physical properties of #161 Firoozkooh sand

USCS grade Mean unit weight (kN/m3) Mean density Dr Cc Cu d50 (mm) emin emax Gs C (kPa) φp φcs ψ
SP 15.70 60% 0.88 1.87 0.25 0.55 0.87 2.658 0 35 29 7

their testing conditions is presented in Table 2. According to Table 2,

the most commonly observed failure mechanism is a conical/trun-
cated cone failure surface for the shallow mode of failure. The incli-
nation of the failure surface is different and includes a wide range
according to Table 2. For the deep embedment failure, fewer studies
have been performed and the proposed failure mechanism is the cy-
lindrical shear failure by Pérez et al. (2018), bowl-shaped failure sur-
face proposed by Nagai et al. (2018), and flow-around mechanism
proposed by Sharif et al. (2021). Therefore, further studies are re-
quired to increase the reliability of the proposed failure mechanisms.

Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of the #161 Firoozkooh sand.

Materials and Methods

The tests were performed using a beam centrifuge of 14 t · g capac-
ity. The centrifuge is capable of reaching 200g level. Previous stud-
ies have been conducted using this facility such as Sabermahani
et al. (2018) and Baziar et al. (2018). The half-models of helical an-
chors were fabricated out of aluminum to match the test models
used to verify the results. The technique of modeling half-model
of geotechnical structures such as spudcan foundation and plate an-
chors has been used by many researchers such as Hossain et al.
(2005) and Kong et al. (2015). This technique has also been used
to study screw anchors by Chen et al. (2018). These authors tested
half-model of screw–shaft pile under compressive force behind a
Perspex window (1g gravity) to evaluate the soil deformation
around the screws and verify the DEM. It is noteworthy that testing
half-models behind a Perspex window (and the model-Perspex in-
terface friction) does not influence the failure mechanism as Liu
et al. (2012) showed.
Model Soil
The tested soil was #161 Firoozkooh sand, which is silica sand.
The sand has a critical state friction angle of φcs = 29° and peak
internal friction angle φp = 35° at a relative density of Dr = 60%
(Ashegh et al. 2014; Hasanlourad et al. 2018). The physical prop-
erties and grain size distribution of the sand are presented in
Table 3 and Fig. 1, respectively. The sand samples were prepared
using dry pluviation technique by a manual pluviator in a strong
box with dimensions of 500 × 280 × 240 mm (L × W × H). Sand
density was measured using two small calibration boxes placed
at the bottom of the strongbox.
The dimensions of the strongbox were selected according to the
design charts presented in Ullah et al. (2017) to minimize the boun-
dary effects on the load-bearing of the anchors. The closest lateral
boundary was spaced at 7D, which is farther than the recommended

© ASCE 04022111-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

 distance of 5D. The distance from the helix midpoint to the bottom
of the box was 1D. This distance was deemed enough to avoid
boundary effects since the anchors did not penetrate the soil during
the installation. A similar distance (1.5D) was used to avoid boun-
dary effects in the centrifuge tests of Hao et al. (2019) where
wished-in-place plate and screw anchors were tested for uplift.
To further investigate the effect of the bottom boundary on the
soil–displacement field, separate centrifuge tests with a different
distance of the helix to the bottom of the box were performed.
The helices were spaced at 2D and 3D from the bottom of the
box. The results (not shown here) indicated that soil movement
beneath the helix during the uplift was negligible. Therefore,
the distance used in the current study was deemed enough to
avoid boundary effects.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Loading System
The anchors were loaded in tension using a 1D actuator. The details
of the actuator are elaborated in Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021).
A SEWHA-CNM SM603 Loadcell with 200N capacity was con-
nected to the screw jack tip and anchor head to measure the applied
forces. The displacements of the models were measured indirectly
by converting the revolutions of the screw jack. The test setup is
shown in Fig. 2.
Image Processing
The images of the models were recorded using a SONY DSC-TX30
camera. The illumination was provided by a row of (low energy
devices (LEDs). The fisheye effect was not present in the cap-
tured images. The images were analyzed using GeoPIV-RG
code (Stanier and White 2013; White et al. 2003). Twelve control
markers were printed on the Perspex to calibrate any camera move-
ments. The selected patch size was 20 × 20 pixels (3 × 3 mm) to
provide a compromise between accuracy and the number of mea-
surement patches (White et al. 2003).
Helical Anchor Model
The half-cut shaft and plate were affixed using a strong epoxy, sim-
ilar to the method used in Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021) to fab-
ricate full models of helical anchors. The pitch of the helix was
simulated in the half-model to consider the effect of the pitch on
the developed failure mechanism. The model anchors were made
of aluminum to ensure that the roughness properties of the models
matched those used in Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021). All mod-
els had a helix diameter and shaft diameter of D = 20 mm and d =
10 mm, respectively (wing ratio D/d = 2). The relative embedment
depth of the anchors varied between H/D = 3 and H/D = 7 to eval-
uate the effect of embedment depth on the failure mechanism. The
specifications of the models are listed in Table 4. A half-model of
the helical anchor is shown in Fig. 3.
The model dimensions were selected such that grain size effects
were negligible on the helix uplift bearing. Here, D/d50 was 80 for
the helix, which was greater than 48 reported in Garnier et al.
(2007) to avoid particle size effects on the helical plate. The ratio
of W/d50 (effective helical radius W = (D − d )/2) was 20, which
was greater than W/d50 ≥ 16 recommended by Heshmati Rafsanjani
et al. (2021) to avoid particle size effects on the net helix bearing
(considering that helical anchor uplift capacity is the sum of the
shaft friction and helix bearing). It should be noted that shaft fric-
tion probably experienced minor levels of scale effects since the
shaft d/d50 ratio was 40, which was not completely beyond the
limit of d/d50 > 30–50 recommended by Fioravante (2002) to
© ASCE 04022111-4
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111
reliably avoid scale effect on the shaft friction. Other studies such
as those conducted by Nunez et al. (1988), Garnier and Konig
(1998), and Foray et al. (1998) have reported d/d50 > 45 and 100
and 200, respectively, to avoid scale effects on the shaft friction.
However, this effect was shown to be limited in the centrifuge tests
performed by Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021). Furthermore,
since the model dimensions and the sand properties used in the cur-
rent study are the same as those used in Heshmati Rafsanjani et al.
(2021), then probable scale effects on the shaft friction are not ex-
pected to influence the conclusions. It is noteworthy that general scal-
ing laws were respected throughout this study according to Garnier
et al. (2007) and are presented in Table 5. Therefore, scale effects
were deemed ineffective on the results of the current study.
Installation and Pullout
Considering the important effect of the disturbance on the load–
displacement behavior of helical anchors, the half-models of helical
anchors were prepared by taking the installation disturbance into
account. This was achieved by separately pluviating the sand adja-
cent to the model using a half-cut tube. The technique of using ma-
terials with weaker mechanical properties has been used in
numerical modeling by previous researchers such as Cerfontaine
et al. (2019a) and Pérez et al. (2018); however, this technique
has not been employed in the physical modeling of helical anchors
to this date. The half-cut tube had a diameter of 24 mm (1.2 times
the helix diameter), a height of 70 mm, and a thickness of 0.3 mm.
Pérez et al. (2018) suggested that the diameter of the disturbed area
was 1.54D during the penetration of the helical anchor in very
dense sand. Nagai et al. (2018), on the other hand, reported that
the disturbance radius did not extend to the surroundings of the he-
lical plate whatsoever in loose and dense sand (disturbed zone di-
ameter = 1D). Therefore, considering the medium dense
conditions of the tested sand in this study, an overall disturbance
radius of 1.2D was chosen to represent the disturbed zone experi-
mentally. It is noteworthy that this method of disturbance simula-
tion was chosen to have a reproducible and repeatable testing
procedure and results throughout the experiments.
Furthermore, since the installation disturbance below the helix
is limited to the soil stress variation and the stress variation was
not modeled in the current study, the installation effect on the
soil below the tip of the anchor was not considered. It is noted
that since the anchors were loaded in tension in the current study,
the soil conditions below the pile tip would be of small concern, al-
though this would be of paramount importance when modeling
helical piles under compressive loads (Mohajerani et al. 2016).
Furthermore, for engineering purposes, the soil beneath the helix
is considered undisturbed (Lutenegger and Tsuha 2015). Saleem
et al. (2021) studied the effect of the installation of a single-helix
anchor on the soil stress regime in dense sand by small-scale phys-
ical modeling. They installed the model anchors by torque and
wished-in-place methods to compare the soil stress around the an-
chor due to torque installation. The results indicated that soil stress
changed negligibly below the pile tip. Da Silva and Tsuha (2021)
investigated the soil stress state during helical anchor penetration
by calibration chamber. The results indicated that radial stresses
that were increased during the helix penetration, returned to
roughly the same values as the anchor passed the stress gauge
level. Sharif et al. (2021) also reported increased vertical stresses
beneath the helix during anchor installation, but they asserted
that this would influence the compressive stiffness and bearing ca-
pacity. Therefore, the installation effects on the soil beneath the an-
chor was not expected to influence the results of the current study.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
04022111-5

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

Fig. 2. Schematic test setup.

Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 4. Specifications of tests
Shaft Prototype Helix Prototype Wing Helix Helix Helix Prototype helix Embedment
Test diameter (d ) shaft diameter diameter helix diameter ratio pitch thickness embedment embedment depth depth ratio g-level
case (mm) (mm) (D) (mm) (mm) (D/d ) (mm) (mm) depth (H ) (mm) (mm) (H/D) (g)
HA3 10 150 20 300 2 4 1.2 60 900 3 15
HA4 10 150 20 300 2 4 1.2 80 1,200 4 15
HA5 10 150 20 300 2 4 1.2 100 1,500 5 15
HA6 10 150 20 300 2 4 1.2 120 1,800 6 15
HA7 10 150 20 300 2 4 1.2 140 2,100 7 15

Chen et al. 2018; Sabermahani and Nuri 2021) to minimize the fric-
tion at the anchor-Perspex interface.
After placing the half-model, the soil was pluviated from a cer-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tain height (i.e., 25 cm, which resulted in an average relative den-

sity of Dr = 60%) until it reached the helix level. The half-cut
tube was then placed on the soil surface around the model, as
shown in Fig. 4(b). The half-cut tube had a lid to prevent soil plu-
viation inside the disturbed zone. After 2 cm of additional pluvia-
tion outside the disturbed zone, the lid was carefully opened and
the sand was pluviated using a funnel (with a similar spout diameter
to that of the pluviator) from a shorter height (fall height for the dis-
turbed zone was 15 cm, which produced an average relative density
of Dr = 45%). This process was repeated three times and then the
Fig. 3. Half-model of helical anchor. half-cut tube was vertically pulled out very slowly. Colored sand
was pluviated in 2-cm intervals to facilitate visualizing the failure
surface and increase the accuracy. After the pluviation was com-
pleted, the anchor head was installed to the anchor rod to avoid
Table 5. General scaling laws in Ng modeling the umbrella effect influencing the sand density during the pluvia-
Parameter Unit Ng model Prototype tion. Next, the actuator and the loadcell were connected to the an-
chor head using a hook. The lower part of the hook was 5 mm
Cohesion (C ) kN/m2 1 1 below the anchor head before the test started to allow the anchor
Internal friction angle (φ) degrees 1 1
to settle freely to avoid negative skin friction. The connection
Length m 1 N
Area m2 1 N2
setup is shown in Fig. 4.
Displacement m 1 N The anchors were pulled at a constant rate of 0.25 mm/s, similar
Strain % 1 1 to Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021). Simulation of the anchor in-
Unit weight kN/m3 1 1/N stallation disturbance was performed several times with different
Stress kN/m2 1 1 fall heights (10 and 15 cm) for the disturbed zone (i.e., inside the
Force kN 1 N2 half-cut tube). Every model was then pulled and the best fall height
Breakout factor Nq — 1 1 was selected by comparing the load–displacement graphs of the
half-models to that of the full model, obtained in Heshmati Rafsan-
jani et al. (2021).
It should be noted that soil density and mechanical property var-
iation due to installation have been reported by many researchers
such as Pérez et al. (2018) and Schiavon (2016). A recent study
Verification of Testing Method and Results
by Sharif et al. (2021) simulated helical anchor installation with
different ARs using the DEM technique (AR = Δz/P where Δz =
The method used to simulate the pullout of helical anchors is ver-
vertical penetration per rotation of the helix and P is the helix ified by comparing the prototype load–displacement graphs of the
pitch). These authors showed that AR = 1 (which is equivalent to half-models with that of the full-models reported in Heshmati
pitch-matched installation) reduced sand density (Dr) in medium Rafsanjani et al. (2021). These authors installed full-model helical
dense conditions by 18%. Since the helical anchors were installed anchors in 1g gravity in pitch-matched conditions (AR = 1) and
in pitch-matched conditions (AR = 1) by Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. then tested the anchors under increased gravity ranging from
(2021), it was assumed in the current study that sand density de- 12.5 to 25g. One model anchor was selected for verification. De-
creased during the installation of full-model helical anchors in tails of the verification tests are presented in Table 6.
Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021) and, therefore, sand density The dimensions and embedment depth of F-HA-10s20h (F
was reduced inside the disturbed zone in the conducted experi- stands for full-model) were similar to the HA6 test. The difference
ments of the current study. was merely in the installation method. The VFM models had differ-
The installation of the anchors was as follows: the anchor- ent fall heights for the disturbed zone (10 to 15 cm) from that of the
Perspex interface was coated with a film of silicon oil to reduce fric- rest of the model (i.e., 25 cm). This resulted in different densities
tion along the interface. The silicon oil was utilized to: (1) minimize and therefore different load–displacement graphs. The verification
the friction between the model and the Perspex sheet, and (2) fur- tests results are plotted in Fig. 5 along with the graph for the full-
ther prevent the ingress of soil particles between the model and the model test from Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021). Fig. 5 shows
viewing window. Silicon oil has been used effectively in several that VFM-02-15 replicates the full-model graph with reasonable
studies (Raisinghani and Viswanadham 2011; Stanier et al. 2014; precision. This is particularly obvious for the linear part of the

© ASCE 04022111-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

 (a) (b) (c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. (a) Connection setup; (b) pluviated model and half-cut tube; and (c) pluviated disturbed zone.

Table 6. Specifications of verification tests

Shaft Helix Wing Helix Helix Helix Prototype Helix Embedment Disturbed Average
diameter diameter ratio pitch (p) thickness embedment embedment depth ratio zone fall sand relative g-level
Model case (d ) (mm) (D) (mm) (D/d ) (mm) (mm) (H ) (mm) (mm) (H/D) height density (Dr) (g)
VFM-01-10 10 20 2 4 1.2 120 1,800 6 10 cm 38% 15
VFM-02-15 10 20 2 4 1.2 120 1,800 6 15 cm 45% 15
VFM-05-15-R 10 20 2 4 1.2 120 1,800 6 15 cm 45% 15
(HA6)
F-HA-10s-20h 10 20 2 4 1.2 120 1,800 6 — — 15

that the obtained fall height to simulate the lower sand density as a
result of installation disturbance is consistent with the results of
Sharif et al. (2021) in which 18% reduction in sand relative density
within the disturbed zone was reported for the pitch-matched instal-
lation in medium dense sand.

Results and Discussion

Shallow Failure Mechanism

Fig. 5. Verification of the testing procedure and repeatability results.
graph up to the peak point, which is probably the most important
part of the graph. Consequently, it can be concluded that instal-
lation of the full models by Heshmati Rafsanjani et al. (2021)
caused a decrease in sand density and so the assumption made
earlier is valid.
The repeatability of the testing procedure was also tested by re-
peating the VFM-02-15 test, codenamed VFM-05-15-R. This test
was performed to reproduce the load–displacement graph of the
VFM-02-15 model. The results of VFM-02-15-R are plotted in
Fig. 5 as well, and the repeatability of the testing procedure is con-
firmed. Therefore, the fall height of the VFM-02-15 model (15 cm)
was selected to simulate the installation disturbance for all half-
models and the results and images of the VFM-02-15-R test are
presented as HA6 test results in the current paper. It is noteworthy
Sequential images of the HA3 test (H/D = 3) are shown in Fig. 6 until
the peak pullout load was reached. The load–displacement graph of
this test is also plotted in Fig. 7. The measured loads are multiplied
by a factor of 2 for all models to compensate for the cut half of the
anchor. Every image is associated with a point on the load–displace-
ment graph. All of the loads and displacements reported here are in
prototype dimensions. The displacement vectors obtained by particle
image velocity (PIV) analysis (GeoPIV-RG) are plotted on the im-
ages of the deformed model for better appreciation. The following
conclusions can be drawn according to Figs. 6 and 7:
• The initial failure surface corresponding to Point A (U/D = 0.04)
in Fig. 6(b) was local and did not extend to the surface.
• The shape of the failure surface was a bulb.
• The angle of the inclination of the bulb sides with vertical was
roughly βR =10° and βL = 20° on the right and left sides of the
helix.
After further uplift (Point B, U/D = 0.1), the failure surface
reached the soil top. The failure surface can be delineated by two
lines on each side of the helix, as shown in Fig. 6(c). The inclination
of the failure surface was increased compared with the previous
stage, implying that a bigger mass of soil was mobilized. At Point
C (U/D = 0.16), where the maximum capacity was mobilized, the
failure surface (dashed line) was transformed into an unsymmetrical

© ASCE 04022111-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 6. Sand deformations above HA3 model test: (a) at Point 0 (U/D = 0); (b) at Point A (U/D = 0.04); (c) at Point B (U/D = 0.10); (d) at Point C
(U/D = 0.16); (e) comparison of assumed failure mechanisms at Point C (U/D = 0.16); and (f) shear strain plots at Point C (U/D = 0.16).

reversed truncated cone [Fig. 6(d)]. The inclinations of the failure
planes with vertical were βR = 26° and βL = 28°. Interestingly, the
obtained values of inclination are close to the critical state friction
angle φcs of the tested sand (Table 3). This confirms the assumption
made by Cerfontaine et al. (2021) where it was assumed that soil
reaches the critical state over a specific length (2D) of the failure sur-
face. Pérez et al. (2018) also assumed a constant volume friction
angle on the failure surface. The failure surface shape was fixed
after Point C, and no sensible change was observed until the anchor
reached 0.5D displacement.

© ASCE 04022111-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d)

(e)

(f )

Fig. 6. (Continued.)

The zone of intense shearing is shown by solid lines in Fig. 6(e).
This zone was obtained according to the displacement fields and
colored sand layers. Fig. 6(f) also shows the maximum shear strain
plots. The failure mechanisms proposed by Cerfontaine et al.
(2021) and Giampa et al. (2017) are also demonstrated as a dashed
line. Clearly, the intense shearing zone is wider than the disturbed
zone. Fig. 6(f) depicts that obtained results are in good agreement
with the findings of Cerfontaine et al. (2021), although a deviation
from the dashed line is observed as the mechanism nears the soil
surface. Roy et al. (2021) also reported a similar inclination for

© ASCE 04022111-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

 the plastic shear strain band after performing FE analysis on circu-
lar plate anchors in shallow embedment.
Therefore, the formed failure surface was not identical on two sides
of the helix during the uplifting. It is believed that the observed soil
flow around the anchor (not shown here) was the reason for different
failure surface inclinations. On the lower edge of the helix, the soil
flowed in the opposite direction of the pullout and the soil particles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Load–displacement graph of the HA3 test.
Fig. 8. Soil flow around the anchor.
Fig. 9. Horizontal displacement plots for the HA3 test.
© ASCE 04022111-10
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111
slipped over the helix with minimal resistance (due to gravitational
pull). On the upper edge, however, the soil particles had to move up-
wards to slip over the helix, because of the pitch. This resulted in an
increased horizontal pressure near the upper edge of the helix, leading
to increased inclination of the failure surface (Fig. 8).
Three separate gaps were formed (beneath the anchor shaft and
helix wings) and the gaps infilling started at a normalized displace-
ment of U/D = 0.09, which equals U/d50 = 7.2 (uplift displacement
to average grain size). The U/d50 is an important factor in modeling
of helical anchors under cyclic loading, which affects the accumulated
displacements under cyclic loading conditions (Schiavon et al. 2019).
These authors reported that U/d50 > 14 resulted in a similar volume of
soil that moved inside the gap below the helix under cyclic loading.
Horizontal displacements of the surrounding soil due to anchor
pullout spanned 1.5D on each side of the helix, as shown in Fig. 9,
thereby affecting the in situ soil stress. A similar observation was
reported by Cerfontaine et al. (2019b) where they reported in-
creased horizontal stresses at 2D distance from the helix edges
due to anchor pullout. Therefore, a minimum distance of 3D is rec-
ommended between adjacent helical anchors. However, separate
studies on the load-bearing capacity of a group of helical anchors
are required to prove this statement.
The obtained results are in good agreement with the findings of
previous researchers. Cerfontaine et al. (2019b) reported a similar
failure mechanism to the observed mechanism in the current research
for H/D = 9 after conducting FE analyses on sand with Dr = 50%.
Cerfontaine et al. (2021) also performed axisymmetric FE analysis
to predict the load–displacement relationship of the helical anchor
while considering the installation effect. They reported the formation
of a shallow wedge from the helix level with inclination close to the
dilation angle of the sand as the anchor was pulled. In this cited
work, the displacement fields were local at first and then propagated
to the soil surface with decreasing inclination. Liu et al. (2012) also
reported the sand deformation above the uplifting plate anchor in
dense sand (1g) for shallow conditions (H/D = 3) as a reversed trun-
cated cone. Interestingly, in this cited work, a bilinear reversed trun-
cated cone failure surface with smaller inclination near the soil
surface was recognized for H/D = 5 embedment ratio in dense sand.
Deep Failure Mechanism
To study the failure mechanism of deep helical anchors, results of the
HA7 test (H/D = 7) are presented in Fig. 10. The disturbed zone is
Int. J. Geomech.
 shown by the vertical dashed line on the images. The load–displace-
ment graph of the HA7 test is presented in Fig. 11. Careful examina-
tion of the pullout sequence gives the following results.
The initial failure surface was a reversed truncated cone with
small inclination of the sides with vertical, almost equal to the di-
lation angle of the soil (Point A in Fig. 11). As the pullout pro-
gressed (Point B), the inclination of the sides increased to about
10°, and two blocks of soil were formed on each side of the
helix (Blocks A, B, C, D). The blocks are shown in Fig. 10(b).
The majority of soil particles in Blocks A and C moved upwards
while the soil particles in Blocks B and D moved outwards horizon-
tally. The uplift force increased until the maximum uplift capacity
of the anchor was reached (Point C). The inclination of the failure
surface increased to βR = 17° and βL = 19° on the right and left
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

edges of the helix, respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that

the failure plane changed until the weakest plane was located. It
is interesting to note that inclination of the failure planes with ver-
tical (βR and βL) were close to θ + ψ = 11.5 + 7 = 18.5°, where θ
was the inclination of the helix with respect to the horizontal (a)
plane. It should be noted that failure surface was located according
to the colored sands deformation and PIV analysis. It is interesting
to note that previous findings on inclined screw and slab anchors,
reported in Ghaly and Clemence (1998) and Frydman and Shaham
(1989) suggested a similar relationship between failure surface incli-
nation and plate inclination. Although it is not true to compare an in-
clined anchor to a vertical one, the similarity is intriguing. This
implies that the inclination of the plate anchor could be considered
as an extreme amount of pitch for the helix of a helical anchor.
Therefore, one would expect that if the pitch of the helix was re-
moved (i.e., horizontal circular disc), the failure surface would
then be inclined close to the dilation angle (ψ) of the sand. This state-
ment was studied by Giampa et al. (2017) where numerical and ex-
perimental studies were carried out on medium-scale circular helical
anchors with H/D = 1.8–7.1 installed in different sand properties.
They concluded that failure surface was inclined close to the dilation
angle of the tested sand. A similar observation was reported by Liu
et al. (2012) for small-scale tests on half-models of circular discs em-
bedded in dense sand. These authors observed a combined curved
(b)
cone and truncated cone as the failure surface of deep plate anchors.
After reaching the peak pullout load (Point C), a flow-around
mechanism was observed. A closeup view of the soil flow around
the helix is presented in Fig. 12. The displacement of the soil par-
ticles in the vicinity of the helix and shaft were nearly vertical,
while a majority of the displacement vectors were horizontal at a
1D distance from the helix edge. At further vertical and horizontal
distance from the helix, the displacement vectors diminish in size,
which indicates a reduced effect of the helix pullout on the surround-
ing soil. It is also clear that soil particles moved downwards and were
inclined toward the anchor center line, causing the formed gaps to fill
instantly. Similar behavior was noticed for HA5 (H/D = 5) and HA6
(H/D = 6) test results, shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. This
observation is in agreement with the findings of Sharif et al.
(2021). In this cited work, the authors reported a localized flow-
around mechanism for the pitch-matched installation (AR = 1) of he-
lical anchors in sand through DEM analysis.
It is interesting to note that failure surface transformed into a
roughly symmetrical bulb as the pullout progressed. This is mostly
because the embedment ratio increased, and, thus, the difference in (c)
embedment (caused by the pitch) for the lower and upper edges of
the helix became negligible. Minor differences in failure surface
Fig. 10. Sand deformations above the HA7 model test: (a) at U/D =
shape are attributed to the horizontal soil pressure buildup during
0.08; (b) at U/D = 0.11; (c) at U/D = 0.13; (d) shear strain plots at
the pullout which was described earlier.
U/D = 0.13; (e) displacement contours and failure mechanism at U/D
Fig. 10(e) shows that sand deformation extended 2.5D above the
= 0.2; and (f) displacement contours at U/D = 0.25.
helix and sand particles had very small movements above this zone.

© ASCE 04022111-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. 10. (Continued.)
A similar deformed zone was observed in the results of HA5 and
HA6 tests. Therefore, as the mobilized zone did not extend to the
soil surface, the deep behavior of this anchor with the embedment
of H/D = 7 was confirmed. This also implies that a minimum
© ASCE 04022111-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111
Fig. 11. Load–displacement graph of the HA7 test.
Fig. 12. Closeup view of the flow-around mechanism for the HA7 test.
distance of 3D is required between adjacent helices in a multihelix
anchor to minimize the interaction of helices. The flow-around
mechanism also influenced the sand to a horizontal distance of
2D from the helix edges, therefore suggesting a minimum lateral
distance of 4D between adjacent helical anchors. This is in agree-
ment with the recommendations of “A. B. Chance technical manual
of helical foundation systems” (2014) to keep a minimum distance
of 3D to 5D between adjacent helical anchors. Livneh and El
Naggar (2008) reported 2D distance from the helix edge as the in-
fluence zone around the helix for tension anchors. Da Silva and
Tsuha (2021) also reported increased lateral pressure at a distance
of 1.3D to 1.9D from the helix edge as a result of anchor pullout,
which agrees well with the current results.
Three gaps were formed beneath the helical anchor and the
angle of repose of the sand was close to the φcs of the sand. The
gaps infilling started at U/D = 0.04, which equals U/d50 = 3.2,
which is smaller compared with shallow embedment conditions.
This is due to higher confining stress near the helix compared
with the shallow embedment case. This indicates the necessity of
investigating scale and grain size effects when modeling shallow
and deep helical anchors under cyclic loading.
Embedment Depth Effect
Fig. 15 compares the images of all tests after reaching peak pullout
load. Table 7 also provides the peak pullout load and its corre-
sponding displacements as well as mean sand density. The failure
surface is also plotted on each image in Fig. 15 as a dashed line. It
can be seen that the failure surface for H/D = 3 reached the ground
surface, while for H/D ≥ 4, the failure was local and did not extend
to the surface. Fig. 15 also indicates that as the embedment
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 13. HA5 test results (H/D = 5): (a) at (U/D = 0); and (b) at U/D = 0.14.

increased from H/D = 4 to H/D = 7, the inclination of the failure
surface with vertical slightly decreased. This was due to the de-
creased dilation angle as a result of increased overburden pres-
sure (Bolton 1986). The dilation angle was previously shown
to be related to the inclination of the failure surface in the deep
failure mode.
Categorizing the failure modes based on the failure surface ex-
tension leads to a distinction of the deep failure from shallow fail-
ure (critical embedment ratio) at H/D = 4 in the current research.
Previous studies on helical anchors in sand suggest a critical em-
bedment ratio of 4 to 10 for the friction angle range of 40° to 50°
(Cerfontaine et al. 2019b). Clemence and Veesaert (1977) sug-
gested the critical embedment of H/D = 5 in sand. Zhang (1999)
suggested H/D = 5 as the transition depth for the helical piles
under compressive or tensile loads. Ilamparuthi et al. (2002) re-
ported H/D = 5.8 for medium dense sand as the critical embedment
ratio. Liu et al. (2012) reported a change in failure mechanism at H/
D = 4 for dense sand. Giampa et al. (2017) concluded that the crit-
ical embedment depth for mechanism transition was H/D = 4 to H/
D = 10 for loose and dense sand, respectively. Al Hakeem and Au-
beny (2019) performed FE analysis and stated that failure mecha-
nism transition occurs for a circular plate anchor at H/D = 3–7
for loose and dense sand, respectively. Sabermahani and Nasira-
badi (2020) also observed a transition from shallow to deep behav-
ior at H/D = 4 for an opening plate anchor under 1g conditions.
Therefore, the results of the current study are comparable with

© ASCE 04022111-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 14. HA6 test results (H/D = 6): (a) at (U/D = 0); and (b) at U/D = 0.14.

the previous studies and these results contribute to a more exact de-
termination of the critical embedment ratio of helical anchors in
medium dense sand. The flow-around mechanism was observed
in all tests with deep failure behavior (H/D ≥ 4). In shallow condi-
tions (H/D < 4) however, a general shear failure above the helix was
formed.
The load–displacement graphs of the tests are presented in
Fig. 16. In general, two phases were recognized for all test graphs:
pre-peak and post-peak. In the pre-peak phase, a rapid gain in load
was observed with small displacements. In the post-peak phase, os-
cillations in loads were produced with increasing displacements.
Such load-bearing behavior was reported in Liu et al. (2012) for
dense sand conditions.
The transition of the failure mechanism from shallow to deep
mode in the range of H/D = 3–4 is obvious according to Fig. 16.
The uplift capacity of the HA4 anchor was nearly 32% greater
than that of the HA3. However, the percentage of increase in the up-
lift capacity was around 12% on average for H/D ≥ 5, therefore

© ASCE 04022111-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 15. Different embedment ratios and resulting failure surfaces: (a) H/D = 3; (b) H/D = 4; (c) H/D = 5; (d) H/D = 6; and (e) H/D = 7.

indicating a failure mechanism change. The reason for the mecha- required to uplift the heaving soil (which increases with depth) ex-
nism change might be investigated by evaluating the active forces. ceeds the force required for the soil to flow around the spudcan
As Hossain et al. (2005) showed, the flow-around mechanism in (which is nearly constant with depth). This change in failure mech-
spudcan penetration into the clay soil is formed when the force anism occurs at a depth called the transition depth. The same theory

© ASCE 04022111-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d)

(e)

Fig. 15. (Continued.)

can be applied to the current problem: the force required to uplift the
soil above the helix exceeded the force required for the flow-around
mechanism to develop near the helix with increased embedment.
Therefore, the transition from shallow to deep failure occurred and
the failure mechanism with lower resistance was activated.
It was also observed that the initial tangent stiffness (up to
U/D = 0.05) of all anchors were similar, but secant stiffness
started to diverge with increased displacements. The stiffness
is an important parameter in the design of foundations for offshore
wind turbines, therefore the results of the current study indicate that
shallow screw anchors can provide the required stiffness for such
applications.
Table 7 indicates that the normalized displacement required for
gaps infilling (U/d50) showed a consistent decrease with increased
embedment. This illustrates the importance of studying the scale ef-
fects on the cavity development in the centrifuge modeling of helical
anchors under cyclic loading. It is interesting to note that in all cases,
the displacement required to mobilize the maximum uplift capacity

© ASCE 04022111-16 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

 Table 7. Peak pullout load of tested anchors and sand density
measurements (prototype scale)
Mean Ultimate
sample unit Mean uplift
Model weight relative capacity (U/d50)gaps
case (kN/m3) density % (QU) (kN) (U/D)peak infilling

HA3 15.76 64 12.8 0.15 7.2

HA4 15.70 62 16.9 0.15 6
HA5 15.65 61 19 0.14 4.6
HA6 15.53 57 21 0.14 3.6
HA7 15.74 64 24.7 0.14 3.2
Average 15.68 61.7 — 0.14 —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. Comparison of the predicted and measured prototype uplift

capacity.

Fig. 16. Effect of embedment ratio on the load–displacement graph.

of the anchors was higher than U/D = 0.1. This is consistent with the
results reported for full-model helical anchors in Hao et al. (2019)
and Cerfontaine et al. (2020), indicating that the assumption of
U/D = 0.1 to mobilize maximum anchor capacity might lead to un-
derestimation of the anchor capacity.
Comparison with the Analytical Methods
Further analyses on the obtained results were performed by com-
paring the obtained results with the analytical approaches in the lit-
erature for plate anchors and screw anchors. The results were
compared with the analytical methods in terms of ultimate uplift re-
sistance and dimensionless breakout factor Nq and are presented in
Figs. 17 and 18, respectively. The analytical methods used to pre-
dict the uplift capacity include the methods presented by Meyerhof
and Adams (1968), Saeedy (1987), Vesic (1965), and Giampa et al.
(2017). Meyerhof and Adams (1968) assumed conical failure sur-
face starting from the outer edge of the plate anchor and inclined
at φ/3. Saeedy (1987) presented a semianalytical approach for
plate anchors and considered a log-spiral failure surface. Vesic
(1965) solved the problem of plate anchor uplift resistance by cavity
expansion modeling theory and presented bearing factors against
relative embedment charts to predict the uplift capacity of anchors
in cohesionless soils. Giampa et al. (2017) investigated the uplift ca-
pacity of screw anchors in sand analytically and assumed a trun-
cated cone failure surface inclined at a dilation angle ψ of the
sand. Fig. 17 shows the measured uplift capacity and those predicted
by the mentioned analytical methods. It can be seen that the results
lie within the upper and lower bound of the predicted uplift capacity
Fig. 18. Comparison of the predicted and measured prototype dimen-
sionless breakout factor Nq.
by analytical methods for small embedment depths (H/D ≤ 5). A
close agreement between the predicted and measured results
was also noted for H/D = 5 embedment. However, a deviation
from the analytical predictions was observed for deeper embed-
ment. This is probably due to different assumed and observed fail-
ure mechanism for deeper embedment depths: the deep failure
surface was observed at H/D ≥ 4 for the current study, while
deep failure for the analytical methods investigated was observed
at a greater embedment. Another reason for this deviation could
be the installation disturbance that loosened the soil and resulted
in smaller uplift capacity measurements that were more pro-
nounced in a deeper embedment.
Fig. 18 depicts a comparison of the measured and predicted break-
out factor Nq. It can be seen that measured Nq values initially reduced
and were almost fixed after H/D ≥ 5. On the other hand, all analytical
methods except for the Meyerhof and Adams (1968) method had in-
creased Nq for the H/D range tested. The Meyerhof and Adams
(1968) method, on the other hand, showed a decreased Nq with in-
creased embedment up to H/D = 5 and Nq was nearly fixed after
that. The fixation of the Nq factor indicates the change in failure
mechanism and was noted in previous studies at different embedment
depths (presented in Table 1) as Al Hakeem and Aubeny (2019)
showed. Therefore, considering that Nq factor fixation indicates the
critical embedment depth, a range of H/D = 4–5 is determined as
the critical embedment for the current study. This is consistent with

© ASCE 04022111-17 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111

 the displacement field and failure mechanism observations of the cur-
rent study, which indicated a change in failure mechanism at
H/D ≥ 4. Therefore, the critical embedment depth obtained by
observations on soil displacement fields was approved. Finally, the
test results are comparable with the analytical methods, hence the
quality of the testing procedure and conditions are acceptable.
Concluding Remarks
A total of seven centrifuge tests were performed to visualize the
failure mechanism of half-models of helical anchors in medium
dense sand with fixed helix-to shaft diameter ratio (D/d = 2) and
pitch (p/D = 0.2). The anchor models had embedment ratios of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(H/D) = 3–7. The installation disturbance was simulated using a
novel technique. The following conclusions were drawn:
1. Helix embedment depth had a great influence on the failure
mechanism and load-bearing of the helical anchors as well as
gaps development and infilling in the surrounding sand.
2. In the shallow embedment condition, the initial failure sur-
face was a local bulb. As pullout progressed, the failure sur-
face transformed into a reversed unsymmetrical truncated
cone with side inclinations close to the critical state friction
angle (φcs = 29°) of the soil. The intense shearing zone was
inclined at nearly the dilation angle (ψ = 7°) of the sand.
The reason for asymmetry of the failure surface was the
pitch of the helix.
3. For the deep embedment mode, the initial failure surface was a
reverse truncated cone with side inclinations close to the dilation
angle of the sand. With continued pullout, the failure surface
transformed into a roughly symmetrical bulb and the flow-
around mechanism was formed as the anchor reached its ulti-
mate pullout capacity. The intense shearing zone was inclined
at (θ + ψ). This indicates the important influence of the helix
pitch angle on the failure mechanism of deeply embedded heli-
cal anchors. Further research is required to determine the true
extent of the helix pitch effect on the failure mechanism.
4. A minimum lateral distance of 3D and 4D is recommended for
adjacent helical anchors in shallow and deep embedment
modes, based on the observed displacement fields. A minimum
distance of 3D for adjacent helices in a multihelix anchor is rec-
ommended as well. These recommendations need separate stud-
ies on the load-displacement behavior of helical anchor groups
to be approved.
5. The ratio of U/d50 (uplift displacement to average grain size) re-
quired for the gaps infilling commencement was different (3.2 ≤
U/d50 ≤ 7.2) for shallow and deep modes, and it decreased with
increased embedment.
6. The inclination of the failure surface with vertical decreased
as the helix embedment increased, although the change was
not considerable in the tested (H/D) range. This was due to de-
creased dilation angle as a result of increased overburden
pressure.
7. Failure mechanism change was determined at (H/D) = 4–5 ac-
cording to the obtained displacement fields, load–displacement
graphs and dimensionless breakout factor Nq.
8. Shallow anchor had a similar tangent stiffness to the deep an-
chors, suggesting that both shallow and deep helical anchors
could be suitable for application as offshore foundations.
It is noted that the distance from the helix midpoint to the bot-
tom of the box was 1D in the current study. Although possible ef-
fects of soil–strongbox boundary interactions were evaluated by
performing additional tests (not shown in the current study), further
© ASCE 04022111-18
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111
tests with stress measurements at the bottom of the box are required
to verify that such interaction is limited or does not exist.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request (PIV analysis results and load and displacement measure-
ment data). GeoPIV-RG code, which is a free MATLAB code,
was used in preparing the PIV analyses results of this research.
Acknowledgments
The second author would like to thank Dr. C.H.C. Tsuha from Uni-
versity of Sao Paulo and Dr. A. Askarinejad from TU Delft for their
support and contributions to this research.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
C = cohesion;
Cc = coefficient of curvature;
Cu = coefficient of uniformity;
D = helix diameter;
Dave = average helix diameter;
Dr = relative density of sand;
d = shaft diameter;
d50 = average grain size;
emax = maximum void ratio;
emin = minimum void ratio;
Gs = specific gravity of solid particles;
H = helix embedment depth;
h = vertical distance from the soil surface;
Nq = dimensionless breakout factor;
P = geometrical helix pitch;
Qu = ultimate uplift capacity of the anchor;
U = vertical displacement of the anchor head;
W = effective helical radius;
x = horizontal distance from the anchor vertical axis;
βL = inclination angle of the failure surface with vertical on the
left side of the helix;
βR = inclination angle of the failure surface with vertical on the
right side of the helix;
θ = inclination of the helix with respect to the horizontal plane;
φp = peak friction angle;
φcs = critical state friction angle; and
ψ = peak dilation angle.
References
A. B. Chance. 2014. Technical manual helical foundation systems.
Centralia, MO: A. B. Chance.
Al Hakeem, N., and C. Aubeny. 2019. “Numerical investigation of uplift
behavior of circular plate anchors in uniform sand.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (9): 04019039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0002083.
Ashegh, M., M. Emam, F. Kaviani, and K. Fakharian. 2014. “Modeling un-
drained compressive and tensile behavior of Firoozkooh sand using a crit-
ical state model.” [In Persian.] In Proc., 8th National Congress on Civil
Engineering. Babol, Iran: Babol Noshiravani Univ. of Technology.
Baziar, M. H., H. Shahnazari, and M. Kazemi. 2018. “Mitigation of surface
impact loading effects on the underground structures with geofoam
Int. J. Geomech.
 barrier: Centrifuge modeling.” Tunnelling Underground Space
Technol. 80 (1): 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.010.
Bobbitt, D. E., and S. P. Clemence. 1987. “Helical anchors: Application
and design criteria.” Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf. 9: 105–120.
Bolton, M. D. 1986. “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Géotechnique
36 (1): 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.1.65.
Bradshaw, A. S., R. Zuelke, L. Hildebrandt, T. Robertson, and R.
Mandujano. 2019. “Physical modelling of a helical pile installed in
sand under constant crowd.” In Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Screw Piles
for Energy Applications, 109–114. Dundee, Scotland: University of
Dundee.
Cerfontaine, B., M. Brown, J. Knappett, and C. Davidson. 2019a. “Finite
element modelling of the uplift behaviour of screw piles in sand.” In
Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Screw Piles for Energy Applications, 69–75.
Dundee, Scotland: University of Dundee.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cerfontaine, B., C. Davidson, M. J. Brown, J. A. Knappett, and Y. U.
Sharif. 2020. “Centrifuge testing of large screw pile geometries for off-
shore applications.” In Proc., Piling 2020 Conf., 139–144. London: ICE
Publishing.
Cerfontaine, B., J. A. Knappett, M. J. Brown, and A. S. Bradshaw. 2019b.
“Effect of soil deformability on the failure mechanism of shallow plate
or screw anchors in sand.” Comput. Geotech. 109 (1): 34–45. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.01.007.
Cerfontaine, B., et al. 2021. “A finite element approach for determining the
full load–displacement relationship of axially loaded shallow screw an-
chors, incorporating installation effects.” Can. Geotech. J. 58 (4): 565–
582. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2019-0548.
Chen, Y., A. Deng, A. Wang, and H. Sun. 2018. “Performance of screw–
shaft pile in sand: Model test and DEM simulation.” Comput. Geotech.
104 (8): 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.08.013.
Clemence, S. P., and C. Veesaert. 1977. “Dynamic pullout resistance of an-
chors in sand.” In Proc., Int. Conf. Soil–Structure Interaction, 389–397.
Meerut, India: Sarita Prakashan.
da Silva, D. M., and C. H. C. Tsuha. 2021. “Experimental investigation on
the installation and loading performance of model-scale deep helical
piles in very dense sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 58 (9): 1379–1395. https://
doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2020-0317.
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.
Foray, P., L. Balachowski, and G. Rault. 1998. “Scale effect in shaft
friction due to the localisation of deformations.” In Centrifuge 98,
211–216. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema.
Frydman, S., and I. Shaham. 1989. “Pullout capacity of slab anchors in sand.”
Can. Geotech. J. 26 (3): 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1139/t89-053.
Garakani, A. A., and J. Maleki. 2020. “Load capacity of helical piles with
different geometrical aspects in sandy and clayey soils: A numerical
study.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Int. Congress and Exhibition: Sustainable
Civil Infrastructures, 73–84.
Garnier, J., C. Gaudin, S. M. Springman, P. J. Culligan, D. Goodings, D.
Konig, B. Kutter, R. Phillips, M. F. Randolph, and L. Thorel. 2007.
“Catalogue of scaling laws and similitude questions in geotechnical cen-
trifuge modelling.” Int. J. Phys.Modell. Geotech. 7 (3): 01–23. https://doi
.org/10.1680/ijpmg.2007.070301.
Garnier, J., and D. Konig. 1998. “Scale effects in piles and nails loading
tests in sand.” In Centrifuge 98, 205–210. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Balkema.
Ghaly, A., and S. P. Clemence. 1998. “Pullout performance of inclined he-
lical screw anchors in sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (7):
617–627. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:7(617).
Ghaly, A., and A. Hanna. 1992. “Stresses and strains around helical screw
anchors in sand.” Soils Found. 32 (4): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.3208
/sandf1972.32.4_27.
Ghaly, A., A. Hanna, and M. Hanna. 1991. “Uplift behavior of screw an-
chors in sand. I: Dry sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (5): 773–793. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:5(773).
Giampa, J. R., A. S. Bradshaw, and J. A. Schneider. 2017. “Influence of
dilation angle on drained shallow circular anchor uplift capacity.”
Int. J. Geomech. 17 (2): 04016056. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0000725.
© ASCE 04022111-19
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111
Hao, D., D. Wang, C. D. O’Loughlin, and C. Gaudin. 2019. “Tensile
monotonic capacity of helical anchors in sand: Interaction between he-
lices.” Can. Geotech. J. 56 (10): 1534–1543. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj
-2018-0202.
Hasanlourad, M., S. M. H. Khatami, and M. M. Ahmadi. 2018. “Effect of
bentonite fine content on the triaxial shear behavior of sandy soils.”
AUT J. Civ. Eng. 2 (2): 177–182. https://doi.org/10.22060/ajce.2018
.14451.5476.
Heshmati Rafsanjani, A. A., H. Salehzadeh, and H. Nuri. 2021. “Evaluating
scale effects and bearing portions in centrifuge modeling of helical an-
chors: Sand.” Acta Geotech. 16 (9): 2917–2932. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11440-021-01156-2.
Hossain, M. S., Y. Hu, M. F. Randolph, and D. J. White. 2005. “Limiting
cavity depth for spudcan foundations penetrating clay.” Géotechnique
55 (9): 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.9.679.
Ilamparuthi, K., E. A. Dickin, and K. Muthukrisnaiah. 2002.
“Experimental investigation of the uplift behaviour of circular plate
anchors embedded in sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 39 (3): 648–664. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t02-005.
Kong, V., M. J. Cassidy, and C. Gaudin. 2015. “Failure mechanisms of a
spudcan penetrating next to an existing footprint.” Theor. Appl.
Mech. Lett. 5 (2): 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taml.2014.12.001.
Liu, J., M. Liu, and Z. Zhu. 2012. “Sand deformation around an uplift plate
anchor.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (6): 728–737. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000633.
Livneh, B., and M. H. El Naggar. 2008. “Axial testing and numerical model-
ing of square shaft helical piles under compressive and tensile loading.”
Can. Geotech. J. 45 (8): 1142–1155. https://doi.org/10.1139/T08-044.
Lutenegger, A. J., and C. d. H. C. Tsuha. 2015. “Evaluating installation dis-
turbance from helical piles and anchors using compression and tension
tests.” In Proc., 15th Pan-American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 373–381. Buenos Aires, Argentina: The
Argentinian Geotechnical Engineering Society.
Meyerhof, G. G., and J. I. Adams. 1968. “The ultimate uplift capacity of
foundations.” Can. Geotech. J. 5 (4): 225–244. https://doi.org/10
.1139/t68-024.
Mohajerani, A., D. Bosnjak, and D. Bromwich. 2016. “Analysis and design
methods of screw piles: A review.” Soils Found. 56 (1): 115–128. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.01.009.
Mortazavi Bak, H., M. Noorbakhsh, A. M. Halabian, M. Rowshanzamir,
and H. Hashemolhosseini. 2021. “Application of the taguchi method
to enhance bearing capacity in geotechnical engineering: Case studies.”
Int. J. Geomech. 21 (9): 04021167. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0002133.
Motamedinia, H., N. Hataf, and G. Habibagahi. 2019. “A study on failure
surface of helical anchors in sand by PIV/DIC technique.” Int. J. Civ.
Eng. 17 (12): 1813–1827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0380-2.
Murray, E., and J. Geddes. 1987. “Uplift of anchor plates in sand.”
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 24 (5): 200. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:3(202).
Nagai, H., T. Tsuchiya, and M. Shimada. 2018. “Influence of installation
method on performance of screwed pile and evaluation of pulling resis-
tance.” Soils Found. 58 (2): 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf
.2018.02.006.
Nasr, M. 2009. “Performance-based design for helical piles.” In
Contemporary Topics in Deep Foundations, Geotechnical Special
Publication 185, edited by M. Iskander, D. F. Laefer, and M. H.
Hussein, 496–503. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Nunez, I. L., P. J. Hoadley, M. F. Randolph, and J. M. Hulett. 1988.
“Driving and tension loading of piles in sand on a centrifuge.” Proc.
Int. Conf. Centrifuge 88 (1): 353–362.
Pérez, Z. A., J. A. Schiavon, C. d. H. C. Tsuha, D. Dias, and L. Thorel.
2018. “Numerical and experimental study on influence of installation
effects on behaviour of helical anchors in very dense sand.” Can.
Geotech. J. 55 (8): 1067–1080. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017
-0137.
Raisinghani, D. V., and B. V. S. Viswanadham. 2011. “Centrifuge model
study on low permeable slope reinforced by hybrid geosynthetics.”
Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (6): 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.geotexmem.2011.07.003.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Rao, S. N., Y. V. S. N. Prasad, and C. Veeresh. 1993. “Behaviour of embed-
ded model screw anchors in soft clays.” Géotechnique 43 (4): 605–614.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.4.605.
Rasulo, M., J. Schneider, J. Newgard, and C. Aubeny. 2017. “Transition
Depths for Deep Circular Anchors in Saturated Sand.” In Vol. 7 of
Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation Geotechnics, 987–
994. London: Society of Underwater Technology.
Roy, A., S. H. Chow, C. D. O’Loughlin, and M. F. Randolph. 2021.
“Towards a simple and reliable method for calculating uplift capacity
of plate anchors in sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 58 (9): 1314–1333. https://
doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2020-0280.
Sabermahani, M., F. Ahimoghadam, and V. Ghalehnovi. 2018. “Effect of
surcharge magnitude on soil-nailed wall behaviour in a geotechnical
centrifuge.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech. 18 (5): 225–239. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.16.00022.
Sabermahani, M., and M. Nasirabadi. 2020. “Displacement field around an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hossein Salehzadeh on 05/30/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
uplifting innovated plate anchor.” Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 17 (1): 119–
132. https://doi.org/10.13168/AGG.2020.0009.
Sabermahani, M., and H. Nuri. 2021. “Studying the effect of geometrical
nail layout on the performance of soil-nailed walls: Physical and numer-
ical modeling.” Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 18 (1): 45–59. https://doi.org
/10.13168/AGG.2021.0003.
Saeedy, H. S. 1987. “Stability of circular vertical earth anchors.” Can.
Geotech. J. 24 (3): 452–456. https://doi.org/10.1139/t87-056.
Saleem, M. A., A. A. Malik, and J. Kuwano. 2021. “Model study of screw
pile installation impact on ground disturbance and vertical bearing be-
haviour in dense sand.” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 710 (1):
012056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/710/1/012056.
Schiavon, J. A. 2016. “Comportamento de ancoragens helicoidais subme-
tidas a carregamentos cíclicos.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Engineering,
Univ. of São Paulo.
Schiavon, J. A., C. d. H. C. Tsuha, A. Neel, and L. Thorel. 2019.
“Centrifuge modelling of a helical anchor under different cyclic loading
conditions in sand.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech. 19 (2): 72–88. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.17.00054.
Schiavon, J. A., C. H. C. Tsuha, and L. Thorel. 2016. “Scale effect in cen-
trifuge tests of helical anchors in sand.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech.
16 (4): 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.15.00047.
Sharif, Y. U., et al. 2021. “Effects of screw pile installation on installation
requirements and in-service performance using the discrete element
© ASCE 04022111-20
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(8): 04022111
method.” Can. Geotech. J. 58 (9): 1334–1350. https://doi.org/10.1139
/cgj-2020-0241.
Spagnoli, G., K. Gavin, C. Brangan, and S. Bauer. 2015. “In situ and lab-
oratory tests in dense sand investigating the helix-to-shaft ratio of heli-
cal piles as a novel offshore foundation system.” In Vol. 3 of Frontiers
in offshore geotechnics, edited by V. Meyer, 643–648. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Spagnoli, G., and C. d. H. C. Tsuha. 2020. “A review on the behavior of
helical piles as a potential offshore foundation system.” Mar.
Georesour. Geotechnol. 38 (9): 1013–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080
/1064119X.2020.1729905.
Stanier, S., R. Ragni, B. Bienen, and M. J. Cassidy. 2014. “Observing the
effects of sustained loading on spudcan footings in clay.” Géotechnique
64 (11): 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.14.P.003.
Stanier, S. A., and D. J. White. 2013. “Improved image-based deformation
measurement in the centrifuge environment.” Geotech. Test. J. 36 (6):
20130044. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20130044.
Thorel, L., I. El Haffar, M. N. Gamarra, J. A. Schiavon, and C. Tsuha.
2019. “Stress variation during installation of mono-helix helical pile.”
In Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Screw Piles for Energy Applications,
77–78. Dundee, Scotland: University of Dundee.
Trofimenkov, J. G., and L. G. Mariupolskii. 1965. “Screw piles used for mast
and tower foundations.” In Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. Montreal, QC: University of Toronto Press.
Ullah, S. N., Y. Hu, and C. O. Loughlin. 2019. “A green foundation for off-
shore wind energy - helical piles.” In World Engineers Convention.
Melbourne, Australia: Engineers Australia.
Ullah, S. N., Y. Hu, S. Stanier, and D. White. 2017. “Lateral boundary ef-
fects in centrifuge foundation tests.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech.
17 (3): 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.15.00034.
Vesic, A. S. 1965. Engineering properties of nuclear craters: Theoretical
studies of cratering mechanisms affecting the stability of cratered
slopes, phase II. Report 2. Atlanta: Army Eng. Waterways
Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology.
White, D. J., W. A. Take, and M. D. Bolton. 2003. “Soil deformation
measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogram-
metry.” Géotechnique 53 (7): 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot
.2003.53.7.619.
Zhang, D. 1999. Predicting capacity of helical screw piles in Alberta soils.
Edmonton, AB, Canada: Univ. of Alberta.
Int. J. Geomech.