Skip to Main Content
Article navigation

Chow, S. H., Diambra, A., O'Loughlin, C. D., Gaudin, C. & Randolph, M. F. (2020). Consolidation effects on monotonic and cyclic capacity of plate anchors in sand. Géotechnique70, No. 8, 720–731, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.19.TI.017. The following typographical mistakes have been identified. First, in Table 2, the first four entries in the column headed V are incorrect, as is the final footnote; the correct table is follows.

Table 2.

Centrifuge anchor test programme and results

Test series*T: °Cμ: mPasv: mm/sVqu: kPaNγδu/Bαu: deguu: kPaΔzf/B
Dry§ (γ′ = 16·43 kN/m3) (Chow et al. 2015)M0·1D01728·48·92·9666·8
IC1D03825·2102·6563·8
IC1·25D03820·3102·9466·3
IC1·5D03712·08·72·7562·1
S1 (water), γ′ = 10·32 kN/m3, cv = 4·93 × 10−4 m2/s at z = 2·8 mM0·3W(1)10·30·02445·78·64·41
M0·3W(2)10·30·02439·88·54·1155·365·12·67
IC1W1301·95583·711·33·7047·375·31·65
IC1·25W1301·95509·99·93·8852·864·91·56
S2 (methocel), γ′ = 10·23 kN/m3, cv = 7·3 × 10−7 m2/s at z = 2·8 mM30M19·27433013491201·723·55·0254·712·82·90
IC1M20·37073012761529·229·94·9453·40·52·66
S3 (methocel) γ′ = 10·53 kN/m3, cv = 5·99 × 10−7 m2/s at z = 2·8 mM0·3M21·16750·316687·113·14·0352·351·62·47
M1M20·4703155802·915·34·3452·341·62·88
M3M21·167831581067·020·35·1153·718·12·60
M10M(1)20·9684105331552·729·56·2760·1−12·32·74
M10M(2)20·6693105401522·828·96·0559·7−19·12·56
M30M20·96823015951497·628·55·9959·7−9·72·48
*

For ease of reference, tests are identified as LvP(n), where

  • (a)

    L’ denotes the loading type (M for monotonic loading, IC for irregular cyclic loading)

  • (b)

    v’ denotes the monotonic loading rate (v = 0·3 to 30 mm/s) or the peak cyclic load ratio (CLRpeak = q/qu = 1 or 1·25)

  • (c)

    P’ denotes the pore fluid (D for dry, W for water, M for methocel)

  • (d)

    n’ denotes the test recurrence (‘1’ for the first test, ‘2’ for the second test etc.).

PPT and/or accelerometer data lost due to damaged cable.

Test stopped due to actuator hitting displacement limit.

§

Drained monotonic and cyclic test results for a plate anchor with similar geometry (except ta = 2·75 mm) in dry dense sand.

Finally, in the section headed ‘CONCLUSIONS' (on p. 729), the sixth sentence is incorrect; the correct sentence is as follows.

Indeed, cavitation was not observed (at least adjacent to the anchor) since the maximum negative excess pore pressure was only about 20% of the theoretical cavitation.

The authors apologise to the readers of Géotechnique for these mistakes in the original paper.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal