Experimental and Analytic Study of the Uplift capacity of a horizontal plate anchor embedded in Reinforced sand

IGGEC-21 Paper ID: GGE/GIE/003 NIT Jalandhar
November 19-20, 2021
Experimental and analytic study of the uplift capacity of a horizontal plate
anchor embedded in geo-reinforced sand
Akbar Husain K.B1
., Prof. Samirsinh P Parmar2
1
M. Tech (Geotechnical Engg. Student) Dept. of Civil Engg. Dharmasinh Desai University, Nadiad.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg. Dharmasinh Desai University, Nadiad.
spp.cl@ddu.ac.in,
Abstract
The foundation systems under uplift loads, in particular, should be designed in accordance with
the factors that influence uplift capability. Anchor systems have recently been used successfully
in structures that have been subjected to uplift force. These anchor systems are affected by soil
properties, loading conditions, embedment ratio, and anchor group configuration. Model tests in
the laboratory were used to investigate the uplift behaviour of plate anchors embedded in
cohesion-less soil media with and without geosynthetic. Many factors, including the type of
geosynthetic, the area of the anchor plate, relative density, the depth of embedment, the type of
soil, and the area of geosynthetic inclusion, have significantly influenced plate anchor uplift
behaviour. The present paper describes the methodology and experimentation on model
horizontal plate anchors embedded in geosynthetic reinforced cohesionless soil bed. Also, the
analytical investigation was carried out and the results were compared. It is observed that plate
anchor embedded in reinforced soil exhibit 1.4 times more uplift capacity than the anchors
embedded in unreinforced soil. The inclusion of a geosynthetic layer increases the effective area
of anchorage.
Key Words: Plate anchors, uplift capacity, reinforced soil, model study.
1. INTRODUCTION
Tall engineering structures such as chimneys, offshore and onshore wind turbines, transmission
towers and communication facility towers etc., are subjected to wind load and hence uplift forces
exerted on their foundations. To resist uplift forces, ground anchors are required. Depending on
the subsoil conditions and the magnitude of loading, anchor dimensions, embedment depth and
orientation of the anchor plate is selected. Horizontal plate anchors are commonly used to resist
uplift load in vertical or inclined directions.
Installations of anchors in problematic soil is difficult as well as it offers minimum uplift
resistance. (N.R. Krishnawamy,1994) hence the subsoil conditions need to be improved. On the
other hand, due to the global meteorological uncertainties, there is increase in frequency of
cyclones per year. These situations force geotechnical engineers to improve or reinforce the plate
anchors so that it can offer more uplift resistance. The use of geosynthetic inclusions is a well-
Proceedings of First Indian Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Conference IGGEC-21

established approach for enhancing soil strength, in which the soil's strength is improved by
interaction with the strong, flexible, tensile reinforcement.
2. BRIEF REVIEW
Balla was the first to report on a study of the pull-out resistance of horizontal plate anchors
(1961). Since then, there has been a significant amount of research in this field. Many analytical
and experimental studies in this area of research have been reported by several investigators,
including Meyerhof and Adams (1968), Vesic (1971), Hanna et al. (1972), Meyerhof (1973),
Neely et al. (1973), Vesic (1972), Das & Seeley (1975a, 1975b), Basset (1977), Davie &
Sutherland (1977), Das (1978, 1980), Saran et al. (1986), Dickin (1988 (1988).
Loading on various structures necessarily requires the uplift resistance of anchors, such as free-
standing towers, wind turbines, submerged pipelines, chimneys, suspension bridges, and roofs
(Ilamparuthi et al., 2002). Anchors are commonly embedded within nearby soil in these
applications to provide stability and transmit tensile forces to a competent medium
(Krishnaswamy and Parashar, 1994; Ghosh and Bera, 2010; Rangari et al., 2013). Anchors,
which are commonly found in the form of plate anchors, helical anchors, Deadman anchors, pile
anchors, and drag anchors, are the most common means of resisting these loads (Sabatini et al.,
1999). A buried anchor's uplift capacity is mainly composed of the weight of soil within the
failure zone as well as frictional and/or cohesive resistance along the realized failure surface. The
uplift capacity of anchors can be increased by increasing the size and embedment depth of the
anchor or improving backfill strength and density.
Geosynthetics have become increasingly popular in recent years due to their cost-effectiveness in
reinforcement applications. Geosynthetics are typically manufactured in planar form (geotextiles,
geogrids, geonets, geomembranes, strips), However, limited research has been made to improve
geosynthetic anchor capacities - which are almost exclusively limited to the use of planar
inclusions in dry sands, reinforced by geotextiles and geogrid types. The uplift capacity of a
small-scale anchor plate embedded into dry sand with and without geosynthetics has been
examined by Krishna and Parashar (1994) and the results indicate that the reinforcements can
significantly enhance the uplift capacity.
Main objectives of the existing investigation are to study:
i. The effects of geosynthetics inclusion on the uplift behavior of plate anchors.
ii. The effect of location of geosynthetic inclusion for enhancing the ultimate uplift capacity
of plate anchors.
iii. The effect of the soil density on the uplift capacity.
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
To analyze the effect of reinforcement in pull-out capacity of the embedded anchor, model
testing on square anchor plate was carried out which is 10 mm thick and 0.15m x 0.15m in size,
anchored from the center by rod of the same material. The size of anchor plate is selected in such
a way that the width of anchor plate (B=0.15m) is less than 1.2 m the width of test tank. (i.e 5B <
1.2m). Two relative density 70% and 85 % was selected to understand the effect of relative

density on pull-out capacity of the model reinforced anchor. Table-1 outlines the total
experiments to be carried out for mentioned objectives. Total 48 tests had been carryout out for
uplift load measurement.
Table-1 Experimental Programme
Sr.
No.
Plate
size
Relative
density
Embedment
ratio (H)
Reinforcement position
L * B
1
0.15m *
0.15m
(square
plate)
70% 2, 3 & 4
(1) Without
reinforcement
(2) At top of anchor
plate
(3) At 0.25B
(4) At 0.5B
2 85% 2, 3 & 4
(1) Without
reinforcement
(2) At top of anchor
plate
(3) At 0.25B
(4) At 0.5B
The embedment ratio is defined as the ratio of depth of footing below ground surface to the size
of plate anchor. Embedment ratio is the dimension to place the reinforcement at different depth
from the anchor plate the embedment ratio was 2, 3 and 4 (i.e., 0.15 (anchor plate size) x 2
=0.3m and respectively). As the analysis has been developed only for shallow anchors, testing of
model anchors with large embedment ratios has not been attempted. In all the tests anchor plates
were kept horizontal and shaft vertical. Figure-1(a) indicates the location of reinforcement and
(b) is the actual model anchor plate along with geogrid reinforcement.
Figure-1(a) Placement of geosynthetic inclusions and Embedment depth (b) Reinforcement at Top
of anchor plate (0*B)

3.1.1. Loading frame and Loading mechanism
Loading Frame is design for more than 50kN load capacity. Chain pulley block with 3ton
capacity is hang on frame for apply uplift load. The schematic diagram of the experimental set-
up is shown in figure-2 and the actual loading device and plaxiglass tank is shown in figure-3. It
is made of C-channel section with angle section bracing. The stiffness of the loading frame was
analysed in Staad software and find relatively rigid compared to applied loads in pull-out testing.
Figure-4 indicates modelling of the loading frame in Staad software.
Figure- 2: Schematic Diagram of Model Test Set-up Figure-3: Arrangement of
Proving ring & Dial gauge
Plaxiglass tank is arranged to generate ground condition by filling sand. Dimension of the tank is
1.2m * 1.2m * 1.2m. Base of the tank is made of iron steel plate and side of the tank is made of
plaxiglass sheet with support of angle section.

Figure-4: Loading Frame, Anchor plate and Anchor rod Model in Staad Software
Anchor plate with rod is made of Mild steel material. It is design for 30kN loading condition.
Dimension of the anchor plate is 0.15m *0.15m. Anchor Rod is 1.2m in length and 12 mm in
diameter. Proving ring with 5ton capacity (5.55kg/div) is used to measure the load. It is
connected between chain pulley block’s hook and anchor rod. Dial gauge with 0.01mm least
count is used to measure the anchor plate’s vertical displacement.
3.2. Engineering Properties of Geotextiles
This was used as reinforcement in the form of HDPE geonets in the experimental work. This was
locally available and was manufactured by Maharshi Geomembrane (India) Pvt. Ltd. The
properties of this material are shown in table. The size of geosynthetics used as 3 times the size
of anchor plate with hole at center for anchor shaft.
Table-2 Properties of Geonet used in Experiment
Sr No. Properties Value
1 Form Roll
2 Colour Black
3 Apparent opening size 20mm * 10 mm
3
Thickness of material
>= 5 mm
EN ISO- 9863
4
Wide width Tensile strength MD-EN ISO
10319
>= 13.5 kN/m
5 CBR Puncture Resistance- EN ISO 12236 >= 2.2 kN
6
Mass Per Unit Area-
>= 830 g/m2
EN ISO 9864
7
In plane permeability
EN ISO 12958
Hydraulic gradient (i=1)
@100 kPa >= 0.6 l/m.s
@200 kPa >= 0.55 l/m.s
3.3 Sand properties and bed preparation

The soil for both backfills and infill used in the experimental series was consistent throughout all
of the physical experiments – poorly graded sand (SP in the Unified Soil Classification System,
ASTM D 2487-11, Gs=2.66). There is a significant quantity of medium sand (65.17%) and very
little coarse sand (< 5%), as shown in the grain size distribution (Fig. 5).
Relative density test (confirming IS:) was conducted. The maximum dry density γmax is
1.83gm/cc and minimum dry density γmin Is 1.67gm/cc. The relative density was carried out at 70
% and 85 % which was reported as 1.78gm/cc and 1.80 gm/cc respectively. Direct shear test also
carried out at the two relative density and the angle of internal friction (ϕ) was derived, 37.15 °
for 70% Rd. and 40° for 85 % Rd. All the pullout experiment was conducted at both 70 % and 85
% relative density.
Figure-5 Grain size distribution curve of sand Table-3 Results of Sieve Analysis
4. Analytical method
The excel spreadsheet was used to analyze the analytical results for various embedment depth,
location of reinforcement and soil density. Model calculation is shown here for the reference.
The following data has been used in analysis for computing the value of pull-out capacity with
reinforcement at the top of the anchor plate. Shape of plate = Square, ∅i = 36°, Dr = 70% ,
Embedment depth = 0.3 m, ϒ = 17.799 kN/m3
∅ = 37.15°, Diameter of failure zone at the
top = 0.271 m
87,48
82,63
66,45
41,60
17,45
5,83
2,18
0,50
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0,01 0,10 1,00 10,00
%
Finer
Sieve Size (mm)
Dry Sieve Analysis

Figure-6: Total weight of soil in the failure wedge:
Weight of soil in strip 1 =
𝜋
4
* 0.2572
* 0.075 * 17.799 = 0.06924 kN
𝜋
4
* 0.222
* 0.075 * 17.799 = 0.05074 kN
𝜋
4
* 0.17952
* 0.075 * 17.799 = 0.03378 kN
𝜋
4
* 0.1562
* 0.075 * 17.799 = 0.025515 kN
Total weight of soil in the failure zone(W) = 0.17929 kN
4.1 Shearing resistance:
The variation of the shape factor coefficient m with the soil friction angle ∅ as suggested by
Meyerhof and Adams is as follows:
Table-4: Variation of the shape factor coefficient m with the soil friction angle ∅
Soil friction angle
(∅), deg
Shape factor
coefficient, (m)
30 0.15
35 0.25
40 0.35
45 0.5
∅ = 37.15°
, m = 0.293
From table 5.6, for
Sf = 1 + m(
D
B
)
Sf = 1 + 0.293*(
0.3
0.15
) = 1.586
P = 2γH2
SfBK tan∅
= 2*17.799*(0.3)2
*1.586*0.15*1*tan (37.15)
= 0.5774 kN
Frictional force due to reinforcement:
γ(H-H/
) k sin
(tg)ver = {Cg + ∅i tan∅i} sin∅i
= {0 + 17.799(0.3-0) *1*sin36*tan36} sin36
= 1.5940 kN/m2
For square plate: - Ag (Effective area) = 18B2
– 2B/2
= 18*0.152
– 2*0.152
= 0.36 m2
Tg = (tg)ver *Ag
= 1.5940 *0.36
= 0.5738 kN
Tg
Predicted pull-out capacity = W + P +

= 0.17929 + 0.5774 + 0.5738
= 1.330 kN
Similarly, predicted pull-out capacity using analytical calculation are carried out for embedment
depth 0.3, 0.45, 0.6 and relative density 70% & 85% as shown in table 5.8.
Table-5: Predicted pull-out capacity for reinforcement at the top of anchor plate case
Sr
No.
Relative
Density
Embedment
Depth(m)
Predicted Pull-
Out Capacity
(kg)
0.3 135.67
1 70% 0.45 286.49
0.6 514.44
0.3 149.83
2 85% 0.45 323.97
0.6 607.99
Analysis by analytical Method:
Figure-6: without reinforcement
Figur-7: Reinforcement at top of the anchor plate
74,97
192
405,16
98,82
262,23
548,73
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6 0,75
Load
(kg)
Embedment Depth (m)
70% relative density
135,67
286,49
514,44
149,83
323,97
607,99
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6 0,75
Load
(kg)
Embedment Depth (m)

Figure-8: Reinforcement at 0.5b from top of the anchor plate
Figure-9: Analytical Uplift Capacity Comparison for 70% Relative density
Figure-10: Analytical Uplift Capacity Comparison for 85% Relative density
100,24
231,64
434,63
116,023
275,79
547,85
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6 0,75
Load
(kg)
Embedment Depth (m)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6 0,75
Load,
kg
Embedment ratio, m
LOAD v/s EMBEDMENT RATIO
W/O REIN. REIN. AT TOP
REIN. AT 0.25B REIN. AT 0.5B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6 0,75
Load,
kg
Embedment ratio, m

4.2 Experiments on model anchor embedded in reinforced soil
Figure-11: Experimental Uplift Capacity Comparison For 70% Relative Density
Figure-12: Experimental Uplift Capacity Comparison For 85% Relative Density
4.3 Load vs Displacement for different density of soil, embedment ratio and place of
reinforcement
4.3.1 Without reinforcement
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6 0,75
Load,
Kg
Embedment ratio, m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6 0,75
Load,
Kg
Embedment ratio, m

Figure-13: Embedment depth= 0.3m, without reinforcement
4.3.2. Reinforcement at the top of reinforcement
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0,05 0,1 0,15
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
Qu v/s δ for different relative density
70% Rd
85% Rd
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd
85% Rd
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd
85% Rd

Figure-16: Embedment depth= 0.3m, Rein. At top of the anchor plate
4.3.3. Reinforcement at 0.25B of the reinforcement
0
50
100
150
200
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22 0,24 0,26 0,28
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70%Rd
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0,6 0,65 0,7 0,75 0,8
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd
85% Rd
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd 85% Rd

Figure-19: Embedment depth= 0.3m, Rein. At 0.25B from top of the anchor plate
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22 0,24
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd 85% Rd
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0,6 0,65 0,7 0,75
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd
85% Rd
0
200
400
600
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd
85% Rd

4.3.2. Reinforcement at 0.5B of reinforcement
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd
85% Rd
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0,6 0,65 0,7
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd 85% Rd
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
Load,
Kg
Displacement, cm
70% Rd
85% Rd

5. Comparison of the results obtained by analytical method and experiments.
Predicted versus observed pullout capacity:
Figure; Predicted Pull-out Capacity v/s Observed Pull-out Capacity(70%Rd)
Figure-25: Predicted Pull-out Capacity v/s Observed Pull-out Capacity for 85%Rd
Table -6: Experimental and Analytical uplift capacity for 70% Relative Density
Reinforcement
Position
Relative density = 70%
Embedment ratio (m)
2 3 4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Observed
pull-out
capacity
(Kg)
Predicted pull-out capacity (Kg)
without
reinforcement
reinforcement at
the top of anchor
plate
rein. At 0.25B from
top of the anchor
plate
rein.at 0.5B from
top of the anchor
plate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Observed
pull-out
capacity
(Kg)
Predicted pull-out capacity (Kg)
without reinforcement
reinforcement at the top
of anchor plate
rein. At 0.25B from top
of the anchor plate
rein.at 0.5B from top of
the anchor plate

Analytical
(kg)
Experimental
(kg)
Analytical
(kg)
Experimental
(kg)
Analytical
(kg)
Experimental
(kg)
Without
reinforcement
74.97 68.09 192 177.82 405.16 381.09
Rein. at the top of
the anchor plate
135.67 128.32 286.49 237.96 514.44 476.32
Rein. at 0.25 b
from the top of the
anchor plate
123.05 118.22 259.81 219.72 497.13 375.92
Rein. at 0.5 b from
the top of the
anchor plate
100.24 111.42 231.64 186.33 434.63 356.84
Table: -7 Experimental and Analytical uplift capacity for 85% Relative Density
Reinforcement
Position
Relative Density = 85%
Embedment Ratio (m)
2 3 4
Analytical
(kg)
Experimental
(kg)
Analytical
(kg)
Experimental
(kg)
Analytical
(kg)
Experimental
(kg)
Without
reinforcement
98.82 90.82 262.23 246.32 548.73 497.29
Rein. at the top of
the anchor plate
149.83 161.23 323.97 278.34 607.99 563.98
Rein. at 0.25 b from
the top of the anchor
plate
143.06 151.29 317.46 257.11 590.76 517.47
Rein. at 0.5 b from
the top of the anchor
plate
116.02 131.32 275.79 270.11 547.85 441.78
6. Observations and Discussion
A. Observations During Filling Tank
To achieve dense condition (Dr = 70%) in tank free fall & compaction (at every 15 cm) is
required. To achieve very dense condition (Dr = 85%) in tank free fall & compaction (at every 5
cm - 10 cm) is required. Proper care should be taken to achieve uniform density throughout the
tank. Top level of sand in tank should be properly levelled so that during applying uplift load
proper heave (failure formation) is clearly visible.
B. Observations During Fixing Square Anchor Plate

At the time of fixing the plate with proving ring it should be properly fixed. At the time filling
new layers of sand care must be taken that the plate is exactly at its position. The plate should be
exactly placed at the center of the tank above the first 15 cm layer of sand.
C. Observations During Fixing Proving ring and Dial Gauge
Proving ring should be properly attached to chain pulley block by mechanical arrangements. Dial
gauge should be fixed properly to the rod connecting both side of tank. It should properly touch
to the arrangement made in anchor rod connected to plate so that it can measure the displacement
accurately.
D. Observations During Applying Uplift Load
Loading must be applied at uniform rate. During failure, load in proving ring may be decreasing
or constant.
E. Observations After Failure
Heave formed on the top surface of the sand after failure is circular in shape and its diameter of
failure is depend on embedment depth and location of reinforcement. The figure shows the
different heave formation for different reinforcement location.
a) Without reinforcement b) With reinforcement
Figure-26: Heave formed on top surface of sand after failure
7. Conclusions
The ultimate uplift capacity of plate anchors can be increased significantly by the use of geonets.
Based on test results, it is observed that using Geonets reinforcement the uplift carrying capacity
of the square plate anchor can be significantly increased 1.4 times than that of unreinforced case.
Four different configurations of geosynthetic inclusion, as shown in Fig 6.2, were employed
during model test to determine the optimum location of the geosynthetic inclusion for achieving
the maximum increase in the uplift capacity. The configuration illustrated by case 2 in Fig 6.2,
where the geosynthetic inclusion was resting directly on the top of the anchor plate, proved to be
the best location for achieving the maximum increase in ultimate uplift capacity.
The increase in soil density results in a higher ultimate uplift capacity of anchors both with and
without geosynthetic inclusion. As the soil density increased, the load- displacement curves

exhibit a clear well-defined peak. According to test results, the uplift capacity of plate anchor
increases with the increase in embedment ratio. This increase can be explained that the thickness
of homogenous zone between anchor and soil surface is efficient and the uplift capacity increase
with increase of thickness of this zone.
Diameter of failure surface is increased from unreinforced plate anchor to reinforced plate
anchor. Predicted value of uplift capacity of reinforced square plate anchor show very
encouraging agreement with experimental value. Inclusion of geosynthetic layer increase the
effective area of anchorage. A clear and distinct upheaval of soil observed during peak resistance
condition. Maximum upheaval occurred near the shaft.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr. H.M. Desai, Vice Chancellor, Dharmasinh
Desai University, Nadiad, Gujarat to allow tests under geotechnical laboratory of civil
engineering department.
References
1. AASHTO. (2007). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: AASHTO.
2. Ali, M. S. (1969). Pull-out Resistance of Anchor Plates and Anchor Piles in Soft Bentonite Clay.
Durham, North Carolina: Duke University.
3. Allen, T. M., Nowak, A. S., & Bathurst, R. J. (2005). Calibration to Determine Load and
Resistance Factors for geotechnical and Structural Design. Washington, D.c.: Transportation
Research Board.
4. Bathurst, R. J., Allen, T. M., & Nowak, A. S. (2008). Calibration concepts for load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) of reinforced soil walls. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (45), 1377-1392.
5. Clemence, S. P. (1983). The Uplift and Bearing capacity of Helix Anchors in Soil. Department of
Civil Engineering. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University.
6. Clemence, S. P., & Hoyt, R. M. (1989). Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil. AB Chance
Company.
7. Das, B. M. (2007 (Reprint c1987)). Theoretical Foundation Engineering. Fort Lauderdale, Florida:
J. Ross Publishing.
8. Das, B. M. (2007 (Reprint c1990)). Earth Anchors. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: J. Ross Publishing.
9. Davis, R. K. (1982). The Behavior of Anchor Plates in Clay. Geotechnique, 32, 9-23.
10. Francis & Lewis International, L. (2012, February 27). FLI Structures Site Services. Retrieved from
FLI Structures Screw Pile Foundations: http://www.fliscrewpiles.co.uk/site-services.php
11. Handojo, H. (1997). Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State
University.
12. Hoyt, R. M., & Clemence, S. P. (1989). Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Soil. Centralia, MO.:
A.B. Chance Company.
13. Hubbel, I. (2012, February 27). Helical Pile Walkway Report. Retrieved from AB Chance Civil
Construction: http://www.abchance.com/resources/case-histories/04-0701.pdf
14. Kondner, R. (1963, February). Hyperbolic Stress Strain Response: Cohesive Soils. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 89(SMI), 115-144.
15. Lutenegger, A. J. (2003). Helical Screw Piles and Screw Anchors - An Historical Prospective and
Introduction. Proceedings of the Helical Foundations and Tie-Backs Seminar. Unpublished.
16. Lutenegger, A. J. (2009). Cylindrical Shear or Plate Bearing? - Uplift Behavior if Multi-Helix
Screw Anchors in Clay. International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo, 456-463.
17. Magnum Piering, I. (2012, February 27). Magnum Helical Pile System. Retrieved from Magnum
Piering, Rock Solid: http://www.magnumpiering.com/commercial/helical_pier_system.aspx

18. Merifield, R. S. (2011). Ultimate Uplift Capacity of Multiplate Helical Type Anchors in Clay.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 704-716.
19. Mooney, J. S. (1985). Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clay and Silt. Uplift Behavior of
Anchor Foundations in Soil (pp. 48-72). Detroit, Michigan: American Society of Civil Engineers.
20. Mooney, J. S., Adamczak, Jr., S., & Clemence, S. P. (1985). Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in
Clay and Silt. Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil (pp. 48-72). Detroit, Michigan:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
21. Pack, J. S. (2000). Design of Helical Piles for Heavily Loaded Structures. New Technological and
Design Developments in Deep Foundations (GSP 100) (pp. 353-367). Denver, Colorado:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
22. Pack, J. S. (2006). Performance of Square Shaft Helical Pier Foundations in Swelling Soils. Geo-
volution, 76-85.
23. Perko, H. A. (2000). Energy Method for Predicting Installation Torque of Helical Foundations and
Anchors. New Technological and Design Developments in Deep Foundations (GSP 100) (pp. 342-
352). Denver, Colorado: American Society of Civil Engineers.
24. Perko, H. A. (2009). Helical Piles, A practical Guide to Design and Installation. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
25. Prasad, Y., & Rao, S. (1996). Lateral Capacity of Helical Piles in Clays. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 938-941.
26. Rao, S., & Prasad, Y. (1993). Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Helical Anchors in Clays. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 352-357.
27. Rao, S., Prasad, Y., & Shetty, M. (1991). The Behaviour of Model Screw Piles in Cohesive Soils.
Soils and Foundations, 31, 35-50.
28. Rao, S., Prasad, Y., & Veeresh, C. (1993). Behaviour of Embedded Model Screw Anchors in Soft
Clays. Geotechnique, 43, 605-614.
29. Sakr, M. (2009). Performance of Helical Piles in Oil Sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46,
1046-1061.
30. Shipton, B. A. (1997). The Effect of Uplift, Compressive, and Repeated Loads on Helical Anchors.
Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.
31. Strahler, A. W. (2012). Bearing Capacity and Immediate Settlement of Shallow Foundations on
Clay. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.
32. Structures, F. (2012, February 27). Screw Pile Foundations - Site Services. Retrieved from FLI
Structures Screw Pile Foundations: http://www.fliscrewpiles.co.uk/site-services.php
33. Stuedlein, A. W. (2008). Bearing Capacity and Displacements of Spread Footings on Aggregate
Pier Reinforced Clay. University of Washington, Civil and Environmental Engineering. Seattle,
Washington: University of Washington.
NOTATIONS
Ƴ In situ dry density
Ƴmax Maximum dry density
Ƴmin Minimum dry density
ɸ Angle of internal friction
Cu Uniformity coefficient
Cg Unit cohesion between soil and geogrid.
Tg Frictional force due to soil geogrid system
∅g Angle if Interface between soil and geogrid.
σn Normal stress over geogrid surface.
Ag Effective area of geogrid.
B’ Width of equivalent anchor at geogrid level
Cc Coefficient of curvature

Gs Specific Gravity of sand
D10 Size of particle at 10 percent finer on the gradation curve
DR Relative density
Qu Ultimate uplift capacity
Nq Breakout factor
δ Displacement
H/B Embedment ratio

Experimental and Analytic Study of the Uplift capacity of a horizontal plate anchor embedded in Reinforced sand

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Experimental and Analytic Study of the Uplift capacity of a horizontal plate anchor embedded in Reinforced sand

Similar to Experimental and Analytic Study of the Uplift capacity of a horizontal plate anchor embedded in Reinforced sand (20)

More from Samirsinh Parmar

More from Samirsinh Parmar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Experimental and Analytic Study of the Uplift capacity of a horizontal plate anchor embedded in Reinforced sand