Experimental and Analytical Study on Uplift Capacity -Formatted Paper.pdf

HBRP Publication Page 1-14 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 1
Journal of Advances in Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7298849
Experimental and Analytical Study on Uplift Capacity of Square
Horizontal Anchor in Cohesionless Soil
Parth Patel1
, Samirsinh P. Parmar2*
1
Post Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, DDU, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.
2
Assistant Professor, Dharmasinh Desai University, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.
*Corresponding Author
E-mail Id:-spp.cl@ddu.ac.in
(Orcid Id:-https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0196-2570)
ABSTRACT
Ground anchors are applicable to Sea-walls, transmission tower, buried pipeline, etc. in
which they are subjected to uplift force or tension. The resistance of such uplift or pullout
force is obtained using theory of plasticity. The pullout capacity of soil anchor is due to shear
strength of surrounding soil, embedded depth, dead weight of plate, etc. Meyerhof and many
other has given formulation for such allowable capacity. Many testing methods have been
used to study the behavior of anchors (in both sand & clay), including field tests, laboratory
tests, numerical analyses (Finite element method), & analytical solutions. Laboratory
experiments were performed on relatively large-scale model to find out Ultimate uplift
capacity Qu and breakout factor Nq of cohesion less medium. The load-displacement
relationship, variation in peak uplift load with varying embedment ratios, and variation in
breakout factor with embedding ratio were the core issues of the experiment. Results are
compared with the analytical methods to analyze relevance of empirical formula’s results are
higher or lower than actual value so it is useful for design of soil anchor plates of Laboratory
test shows that as the Embedment ratio & Relative density increases the Uplift load increase.
Meyerhof and Adam’s theory give nearer value of ultimate uplift load for loose sand but it
gives higher value of ultimate uplift load in medium dense & dense condition of soil in
compared with model test’s results in laboratory.
Keywords:-Horizontal Plate Anchor, cohesion less soil, Uplift capacity, embedment ratio,
breakout factor.
Notations
Ƴ In suit dry density
Ƴmax Maximum dry density
Ƴmin Minimum dry density
ɸ Angle of internal friction
Cu Uniformity coefficient
Cc Coefficient of curvature
G 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

Volume 5 Issue 3
INTRODUCTION
Foundation systems in civil engineering
structures are typically subject to
horizontal, vertical, and inclined tensile
forces. As a result, horizontal plate
anchors have been used in communication
towers, wind turbines, transmission
towers, flag poles, offshore and onshore
structures, submerged pipes, and multi-
story buildings to support vertical tensile
loads (uplift loads) such as wind,
earthquake, wave, and uplifting loads of
water, among other things. These anchors
are classified based on their geometrical
shape (circular, rectangular, or strip) as
well as their embedment ratio (shallow
anchor and deep anchor).
Fig.1:-Horizontal Plate Anchor.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Research or study on the anchor’s
behavior against uplift forces were started
way back in the 1960s. During the primary
period of studies, pullout capacity of
anchors was predicted from the test results
on anchors for transmission line towers
(Giffels et al 1960; Ireland 1963; Adams
and Hayes 1967). Some studies were also
done on centrifuge model. Many
experimental and analytical studies have
been reported in this area of research by
several investigators, notably Majer
(1955), Balla (1961), Baker and Kondner
(1966), Meyerhof and Adams (1968), Das
and Seeley (1975), Ovesen (1981),
Sutherland et al. (1982), Tagaya et al.
(1983 and 1988), Murry and Geddes
(1987), Dickin and Leung (1990 and1992),
Ghalay et al. (1991), Ilamparuthi and
Muthukrishnaiah (1999), Ilamparuthi et al.
(2002) and others. All these studies were
in the context of anchors embedded in
unreinforced soil mass. However, a few
studies have been reported in the area of
anchors embedded in reinforced soil mass
by Subbarao et al. (1988), Krishnasamy
and Prashar (1991), Ilamparuthi and
Dickin (2001 a and b), Swamisaran and
Rao (2002) and others.
AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE
STUDY
The uplift capacity of soil is significantly
influenced by Soil type & it’s Relative
density, Scale of anchor plate, Shape of
anchor plate, Embedment depth of anchor
plate. For example, in well graded sand at
different relative density and of different
scale or shape of plate has large range of
variation in uplift capacity.
Aim of this experimental and analytical
study was to find out uplift load and break-
out factor by analytical calculation and by
performing model test for Horizontal plate
anchor. Analytical calculation is carried
out by using empirical formulas and model
tests are performed in laboratory by
applying effect of Relative Density, Scale
of plate & Embedment Ratio and then
Peak Uplift load and Break-out factor is
found out. Model Setup is developed from
existing frame for pullout test.

Volume 5 Issue 3
SCOPE OF WORK
Analytical calculation by using empirical
formulas is carried out to find maximum
uplift load and breakout factor. For model
test in laboratory, loading frame more than
50 kN capacity with some additional
changes in existing frame with
arrangement of chain pulley block of 3-ton
capacity for applying uplift load is
constructed. Proving ring of 50 kN
capacity is attached to measure the load.
Dimension of the frame are 1.6m in length,
1.8m in width and 3.0m in height. At Peak
load in model test corresponding
displacement is measured through Dial
gauge with 0.01mm least count.
To achieve field condition in laboratory,
plexiglass tank of 1.2m × 1.2m × 1.2m
size is arranged. Sand sample from Bodeli
(Nadiad region) is collected. To classify
these sand sample property, necessary tests
are performed like Grain size distribution
test, Specific gravity test, Relative Index
test & Direct shear test. Plate of 0.15m×
0.15m & 0.30m × 0.30m in size with
10mm thickness and rod of 12mm
diameter with 1.2m in length from Mild
Steel is fabricated. Demonstration of
pullout test is performed in Dissertation
Part-I and other total 18 No. of pullout
tests are performed in Dissertation Part-II
as mention below.
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
Cohesionless Soil
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 (Figure-1).
Table 1:-Results of Sieve Analysis
Sr. No Granulometry Parameters Value
1 D10 (mm) 0.47
2 D30 (mm) 0.68
3 D60 (mm) 1.40
4 Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu 3.04
5 Coefficient of Curvature, Cc 0.76
6 Classification of Sand SP
Relative density test (confirming IS:
2720(Part 14):1983) 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.
Fig.1:-Grain size distribution curve of sand

Volume 5 Issue 3
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. (Table-2). All the
pullout experiment was conducted at both
70 % and 85 % relative density.
Table 2:-Direct shear test results
Sr. No. % Rd Angle of Internal Friction
(ϕ)
1 35 34.22°
2 60 42.09°
3 80 45.62°
Plate Anchor
Model Plate anchor of square shape of
0.15m x 0.15m of 15mm thickness
(Figure-2) was modeled from mild steep
plate. Threaded Steel rod of 10mm
diameter was fastened to the plate by
bolting arrangement. Here the thickness of
the plate is not reduced to scale model to
consider magnitude of stiffness of anchor
as infinite. More over friction offered by
sides of anchor plate (i.e., thickness) is
fully ignored in to the contribution towards
uplift capacity.
Fig.2:-Model Square anchor plate (0.15m x 0.15m x 0.015m)
Model Test tank
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.

Volume 5 Issue 3
Fig.3:- Schematic Diagram of Model Test Set-up Fig.4:- 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. 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.
Fig.5:- Loading Frame, Anchor plate and Anchor rod Model in Staad Software
The stiffness of the loading frame was
analyzed 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. The stiffness analysis was
indicative that the pullout capacity is fully
governed by soil failure and not because of
any structural failure.

Volume 5 Issue 3
MODEL EXPERIMENTS
Table 3:-Testing program
Sr.
No.
Plate Size
(L m X B
m)
Relative
Density
(%)
Embedment
Depth (m)
1 0.15 × 0.15 35
0.3, 0.5, 0.8
60
80
2 0.30 × 0.30 35
60
80
Experimental Procedure (care to be
taken)
Preparation of Sand Bed into the test
tank
It was necessary to compact the
cohesionless soil at different relative
density from loose state to very dense
state. Hence, to achieve loose dense
condition (35%Rd) in tank free fall up to
1.0 m height is enough. To achieve
medium dense condition (60%) in tank
free fall + Compaction (at every 15cm) is
required. To achieve dense condition
(80%) in tank free fall + Compaction (at
every 5 to 10 cm) is required. Proper was
taken to achieve uniform density in tank.
Loading Mechanism
Uplift load to the model anchor plate was
applied through motorized uplift
arrangement where the uniform strain rate
maintained and corresponding uplift load
measured from the proving ring. Figure 3
and 4 shows the schematic and actual
loading mechanism in to the laboratory.
Experimental results -Load-displacement for different embedment ratio
(A) For plate size 0.3m x 0.3 m
Fig.6:- Uplift load Vs Displacement (B=0.15m x 0.15m, Rd=35%)
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
UPLIFT
LOAD(kN)
DISPLACEMENT(cm)
Uplift load Vs Displacement
(B=0.15m x 0.15m, Rd=35%)
Er=2, Rd=35%
Er=3.33,Rd=35%
Er=5.33, Rd=35%

Volume 5 Issue 3
Fig.8:-Uplift load Vs Displacement (B=0.15m x 0.15m, Rd=80%)
(B) For plate size 0.3m x 0.3 m
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
UPLIFT
LOAD(kN)
DISPLACEMENT(cm)
(B=0.15m x 0.15m, Rd=60%)
Er=2,Rd=60%
Er=3.33,Rd=60%
Er=5.33,Rd=60%
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
UPLIFT
LOAD(kN)
DISPLACEMENT(cm)
(B=0.15m x 0.15m, Rd=80%)
Er=2,Rd=80%
Er=3.33,Rd=80%
Er=5.33,Rd=80%
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
0.00 0.50 1.00
UPLIFT
LOAD(kN)
DISPLACEMENT(cm)
(B=0.30m x 0.30m, Rd=35%)
Er=1,Rd=35%
Er=1.67,Rd=35%
Er=2.67,Rd=35%

Volume 5 Issue 3
Observation After Failure
Heave may be created at top surface of
sand & it is in shape of plate’s shape at
shallow embedment depth & in circular
shape at larger embedment depth. In
0.15m * 0.15m size of plate clear heave
was created only at 0.3m embedment
depth.
(i) At Small HD Ratio (ii) At Large HD Ratio
Fig.12:- Heave at top Surface of Sand after failure
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
UPLIFT
LOAD(kN)
DISPLACEMENT(cm)
(B=0.30m x 0.30m, Rd=60%)
Er=1,Rd=60%
Er=1.67,Rd=60%
Er=2.67, Rd=60%
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
UPLIFT
LOAD(kN)
DISPLACEMENT(cm)
(B=0.30m x 0.30m, Rd=80%)
Er=1,Rd=80%
Er=1.67,Rd=80%
Er=2.67,Rd=80%

Volume 5 Issue 3
Analytical approach of determining uplift capacity
Sample Problem
Fig.13:- Sample problem variables considered for Analytical Study
Fig.14:-Variation of (H/B) cr with soil friction angle Φ for square and circular anchors.
(Reproduced after Earth Anchors- B.M Das, fig-2.17, pg-39, after Meyerhof and Adams
(1968))
Plate Size (L*B) = 0.15 * 0.15 m2
Relative Density (%Rd) = 35%
Dry Density (Ƴ) = 16.39 kN/m3
Frictional Angle (Φ) = 34.22°
Embedment Depth (H) = 0.3 m
Step: 1 Find Embedment Ratio
(H/B) = 0.30/0.15 = 2.00 & (H/B) cr = 4.84 (From Fig 2-10)
Which is less than (H/B) cr. So, it is a Shallow Anchor.
Step: 2 Find Ku & m Value
Ku = 0.927
m = 0.2344 (From Fig 2-8 & 2-9)
Step: 3 Find Breakout Factor, Nq
Nq = 1+{[1+2𝑚(𝐻𝐵)] (𝐵𝐿)+1} (𝐻𝐵)𝐾𝑢tan𝛷
= 4.70
Step: 4 Find Uplift Load, Qu
Qu = Nq * Ƴ * L * B * H
= 0.52 kN

Volume 5 Issue 3
Table 4:- Analytical Result
SR
.
N
O.
Relati
ve
Densit
y (%)
Dry
Densit
y γ
KN/m
3
Friction
al
Angle
ϕ°
Plate
Widt
h B
(m)
Plate
lengt
h L
(m)
Embedm
ent Depth
H (m)
Embed
ment
Ratio
(H/B)
Breako
ut
Factor
Nq
Uplift
Load
Qu
(kN)
1
35 16.39 34.22
0.15 0.15
0.3 2 4.7 0.52
2 0.5 3.33 8.49 1.56
3 0.8 5.33 16.13 4.76
4
0.3 0.3
0.3 1 2.56 1.13
5 0.5 1.67 3.92 2.89
6 0.8 2.67 6.46 7.63
7
60 17.2 42.09
0.15 0.15
0.3 2 7.29 0.85
8 0.5 3.33 14.65 2.83
9 0.8 5.33 30.42 9.42
10
0.3 0.3
0.3 1 3.43 1.6
11 0.5 1.67 5.85 4.53
12 0.8 2.67 10.65 13.19
13
80 18.05 45.62
0.15 0.15
0.3 2 8.94 1.09
14 0.5 3.33 18.7 3.8
15 0.8 5.33 40.04 13.01
16
0.3 0.3
0.3 1 3.97 1.93
17 0.5 1.67 7.06 5.73
18 0.8 2.67 13.38 17.38
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND
DISCUSSION
Uplift load versus embedment ratio for
different ϕ value (34.22°,42.09°,45.62°)
for different relative density 35%, 60 %
and 80% is plotted for experimental and
analytical results are plotted in figure 15.
The effect of confinement due to relative
density is clearly visible as it is indicative
that the uplift load capacity increases with
increase in relative density for both size of
square anchor plates. It is evident that the
increase in uplift load increases from 0.15
x 0.15 size of plate to 0.3m x 0.3m plate
size as it offers more resistance due to
increased area. The trend of results is
similar to analytical and experimental
results.
ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50
UPLIFT
LOAD,
kN
EMBEDMENT RATIO
Plate Size= 15cm*15cm
34.22
42.09
45.62
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
1.50 3.50 5.50
UPLIFT
LOAD,
kN
EMBEDMENT RATIO
34.22
42.09
45.62

Volume 5 Issue 3
Fig.15:-Uplift load-embedment ratio for different ϕ value
BREAKOUT FACTOR-EMBEDMENT
RATIO FOR DIFFERENT Φ° VALUE
The test results indicate higher breakout
factor for higher phi value for both
analytical and experimental analysis.
It is evident that the difference of breakout
factor is less at less embedment depth and
it increases with higher embedment depth
(i.e., the clear difference of values is
possible to identify). This is because the
development of uplift zone acquires more
volume of cohesionless soils for higher
embedment ratio.
More soil will be responsible to create
resistance against uplift forces hence its
evident that it follows similar trend for
both analytical and experimental analysis.
ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75
UPLIFT
LOAD,
kN
EMBEDMENT RATIO
34.22
42.09
45.62
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0.75 1.75 2.75
UPLIFT
LOAD,
kN
EMBEDMENT RATIO
34.22
42.09
45.62
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
1.00 3.00 5.00
BREAKOUT
FACTOR,
Nq
EMBEDMENT RATIO
34.22
42.09
45.62
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
1.20 3.20 5.20
BREAKOUT
FACTOR,
Nq
EMBEDMENT RATIO
34.22
42.09
45.62

Volume 5 Issue 3
Fig.16:-Breakout factor-embedment ratio for different ϕ° value
It is evident that the uplift load and
corresponding breakout factor increases
with increase in embedment ratio. The
improvement in uplift capacity is lower in
the lesser dense soil layer compared to
highly dense soil layer. At the same time
the difference of improvement in uplift
capacity is less at lower embedment ratio
compared to higher embedment ratio. The
model uplift anchor of two different sizes,
0.15m x 0.15 m and 0.3m x 0.m were used
to analyze the uplift capacity for different
embedment as well as different relative
density of cohesion less soil. The results
were indicative that the improvement in
uplift capacity is not dominantly
influenced by size of plate compared to
depth of embedment and relative density
of soil.
Table 5:-Calculation of proposed Failure angle from Model Test’s Result. (refer figure-13
for notations)
Φ, °
Dry
unit
weight,
γ
(kN/m3)
Embedment
Depth H
(m)
Width,
B
θ (°) B1 B2
Volume
(m3)
Dead
Weight
(kN)
θavg
34.22 16.39
0.3
0.15
27.46 0.462
0.15
0.030 0.50
26.68
0.5 27.34 0.667 0.095 1.55
0.8 25.26 0.905 0.261 4.27
42.09 17.20
0.3 30.69 0.506 0.035 0.61
31.23
0.5 30.43 0.737 0.113 1.94
0.8 32.59 1.173 0.420 7.22
45.62 18.05
0.3 31.67 0.520 0.037 0.67
34.20
0.5 33.67 0.816 0.135 2.44
0.8 37.27 1.368 0.560 10.10
34.22 16.39
0.3
0.3
38.71 0.631
0.3
0.068 1.11
34.63
0.5 34.81 0.845 0.176 2.89
0.8 30.37 1.088 0.426 6.99
42.09 17.20
0.3 42.00 0.690 0.077 1.33
37.43
0.5 36.04 0.878 0.187 3.22
0.8 34.24 1.239 0.533 9.16
45.62 18.05
0.3 42.76 0.705 0.080 1.44
40.78
0.5 40.02 0.990 0.228 4.11
0.8 39.57 1.472 0.720 12.99
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75
BREAKOUT
FACTOR,
Nq
EMBEDMENT RATIO
34.22
42.09
45.62
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75
BREAKOUT
FACTOR,
Nq
EMBEDMENT RATIO
34.22
42.09
45.62

Volume 5 Issue 3
CONCLUSION
Experimental results are nearer to
Analytical results (according to Adam’s &
Meyerhof Theory) only in loose sand
condition, while it is 10% to 35% lower in
medium dense & dense condition of sand.
Analytical calculation’s theory took higher
frictional angle (to the vertical) which give
larger passive zone compared with actually
occurred in tank during model test, so
Analytical results are higher than
Experimental results.
According to pullout test result, it clearly
indicates that failure angle to the vertical is
increase with increase of Size of Plate,
Relative density & Embedment ratio (for
particular size of plate) so more passive
pressure created which improve resisting
capacity of plate anchor. Displacement
corresponding to peak uplift load is higher
in larger embedment ratio compared with
smaller embedment ratio.
From Table 5, following are the proposed equations for failure angle, θ for any frictional
angle, Φ.
 Plate size 0.15*0.15 m2, θ = 0.65 Φ + 4.45
 Plate size 0.30*0.30 m2, θ = 0.51 Φ + 16.94
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is thankful to Prof. K. N.
Sheth, Head, Department of Civil
Engineering and Dr. H.M. Desai, Vice
chancellor, D. D. University, Nadiad for
providing laboratory facility, workforce
and financial support for the model testing
of in Geotechnical Engineering
Laboratory.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Raw data were generated at Civil
Engineering Department-Geotechnical
Laboratory, Dharmasinh Desai University,
Nadiad, Gujrat, Bharat. Derived data
supporting the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author
[Samirsinh Parmar] on request.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was
reported by the authors.
REFERENCES
1. Akbar K.B. Parmar S.P., Experimental
and Analytical study of the uplift
capacity of a horizontal plate anchor
embedded in geo-reinforced
sand.proceedings of first Indian
geotechnical Geo-environmental
Engineering conf. (2021).
2. Bhattacharya P, Kumar J.Uplift
capacity of anchors in layered sand
using finite-element limit analysis:
formulation and results. Int J.
Geomech 16(3):04015078 (2016).
3. Adams, J. I. and Hayes, D. C. (1967).
“The uplift capacity of shallow
foundations.” Ont. Hydro Res. Q, Vol.
19, No. 1, pp. 1–13.
4. Braja M. Das, “EARTH ANCHORS”,
Elsevier (1990).
5. Das, B. M., and Seeley, G. R.,
Breakout Resistance of shallow
horizontal anchors. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Division,
ASCE, 101(9), 999-1003(1975).
6. Deshmukh V.B. Dewaikar D. and
Deepankar C . Analysis of rectangular
and square anchors in cohesionless
soil. Int. Journal of Geotechnical
Engg., 04 (1): 79-87 (2010).
7. Hamed Niroumand and Khairul Anuar
Kassim, “Design and construction of
soil anchor Plates”, Elsevier (2016).
8. IS: 2720 – Part IV, (1985). “Grain
Size Analysis”.
9. IS: 2720 – Part III/See 2, (1980).
“Determination of Specific Gravity
for fine, medium & coarse grain soil”.
10. IS: 2720 – Part XIV, (1983).
“Determination of Density Index

Volume 5 Issue 3
(Relative Density) of Cohesionless
Soil”.
11. IS: 2720 – Part XIII, (1986). “Direct
Shear Test”.
12. Jinyuan Liu, “Experimental and
Numerical Investigation of the
Influence of Dilatancy on a Shallow
Anchor Plate in Sand’’, ASCE-
Sustainable transportation systems Pg
No. 644-651.
13. Jinyuan Liu, P.E., P.Eng., M. ASCE,
Mingliang Liu and Zhende Zhu,
“Sand Deformation around an Uplift
Plate Anchor”, ASCE-Journal of
geotechnical and geo environmental
engineering Vol. 138:728-737 (2012).
14. Jinyuan Liu and Mingliang Liu,
“Embedment Depth Influence on an
Uplifting Anchor”, ASCE-
Geotechnical Special Publication No.
222(2011).
15. K. Ilamparuthi, E.A. Dickin, and K.
Muthukrisnaiah, “Experimental
investigation of the uplift behaviour of
circular plate anchors embedded in
sand”, NRC Canada Research Press-
Can. Geotech J. 39: 648–664 (2002).
16. Kumar J, Kouzer KM (2008) Vertical
uplift capacity of horizontal anchors
using upper bound limit analysis and
finite elements. Canadian
Geotechnical J. 45(5):698–704.
17. Md. Rokonuzzaman and Toshinori
Sakai, “Model Tests and 3D Finite
Element Simulations of Uplift
Resistance of Shallow Rectangular
Anchor Foundations’’, ASCE-
International Journal of Geomechanics
Vol. 12, No. 2 (2012).
18. R.S. Merifield and S.W. Sloan, “The
ultimate pullout capacity of anchors in
frictional soils”, NRC Canada
Research Press- Can. Geotech J. 43:
852–868 (2006).
19. Sakai T., and Tanaka T.,
“Experimental and Numerical study of
uplift behavior of shallow circular
anchor in two layered sand.” Journal
of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering.,
ASCE, 133(4), 469-477(2007).
20. Samirsinh Parmar, & R.M. Patel.
(2021). Bearing Capacity of Isolated
Square Skirted Foundation on
Cohesionless Soil: An Experimental
and Analytical Study. Journal of
Advances in Geotechnical
Engineering, 4(2), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.52291-
64.
21. Samirsinh Parmar. (2022). The
Experimental Failure behaviour of a
Prestressed Concrete Electricity
Transmission Pole: A Case Study for
Kannauj Soil, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Journal of Engineering Analysis and
Design, 3(3), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.58375
83.
22. Tilak VB, Samadhiya NK (2017)
Uplift capacities of doubleplate square
anchors at shallow depths in sand. In:
Indian geotechnical conference
GeoNEst, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati,
Assam, India, pp 1–4.
23. V. B. Deshmukh, D. M. Dewaikar,
Deepankar Choudhary, “Uplift
Capacity of Horizontal Strip Anchors
in Cohesionless Soil”, Springer-
Geotech Geo. Engg. 29:977–988
(2011).
24. Walker, G.R. and Taylor, R.J. (1984).
“Model anchor tests in cohesionless
soil.” Journal of Waterway, Port,
Coastal, and Ocean Engrg., 110(4),
463-471.
Cite this article as: Parth Patel, &
Samirsinh P. Parmar. (2022).
Experimental and Analytical Study
on Uplift Capacity of Square
Horizontal Anchor in Cohesionless
Soil. Journal of Advances in
Geotechnical Engineering, 5(3), 1–
14.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.729
8849

Experimental and Analytical Study on Uplift Capacity -Formatted Paper.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Experimental and Analytical Study on Uplift Capacity -Formatted Paper.pdf

Similar to Experimental and Analytical Study on Uplift Capacity -Formatted Paper.pdf (20)

More from Samirsinh Parmar

More from Samirsinh Parmar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Experimental and Analytical Study on Uplift Capacity -Formatted Paper.pdf