International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISSN 1053-5381)

Copyright © by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers

Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 317–319

Uplift Behavior of Under-reamed Anchors in Sandbed

Soon Yong Jeong
Construction Division, Samsung Heavy Industries Co., LTD., Seoul, Korea
Ho Young Choi and Seung Rae Lee
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Daejeon, Korea

Under-reamed anchors are used in construction fields to provide increased pullout resistance that enhances the stability
of various structures, including offshore structures. Under-reamed anchors are composed of a reamed plate part and a
friction part. In this study, a series of laboratory model tests was carried out in sand to investigate the pullout capacity
of an under-reamed anchor. Instrumentation was employed to determine the separated resistances undertaken by the shaft
portion and the reamed plate of an under-reamed anchor. Based on the test results, it was found that the pullout resistances
of the friction part and plate part of an under-reamed anchor were smaller than those of the friction anchor and the plate
anchor, respectively.

INTRODUCTION the uplift capacity of an under-reamed anchor in sand:

Ground anchors are reinforcing systems that are designed pri-
marily to resist tensile loads, e.g., to ensure the stability of foun-
dations and retaining walls, to restrain the buoyancy of tanks, to
stabilize various types of offshore construction, and to decrease
the possibility of tall structures overturning (Das, 1995; Hanna,
1982; Ostermayer, 1974). The number of studies that focus on
under-reamed anchors is inadequate in contrast to the numerous
investigations of shaft anchors and plate anchors.
This study investigates under-reamed anchors that ream the bot-
tom of friction anchors for their potential to enhance the resis-
tance of friction anchors. The use of an under-reamed anchor with
a shafted anchor length of 3∼5 m, a shaft diameter of 170 mm,
and a reaming ratio (ratio of the diameter of the reamed section
to that of the shaft) of 3, under dense and cemented sand, results
in increased pullout resistance at a failure rate of at least 50%
(Jones, 1997). Kim et al. (2001) observed that the uplift capacity
is approximately twice the frictional resistance in the case of an
under-reamed anchor composed of a fixed anchor length of 1.5 m,
a fixed anchor diameter of 60 mm, and a reaming ratio of 2. How-
ever, as the aforementioned studies considered only total pullout
resistance, further research is necessary in order to understand
the contribution of the shaft friction and the under-reams on the
resistance of an under-reamed anchor and the behavior of the sur-
rounding soil.
Habib’s Eq. 1, the summation of the frictional resistance and
the bearing resistance of an under-ream, frequently overestimates
the resistance of under-reamed anchors (Hong, 1999; Korean
Geotechnical Society, 1992). The results of a study by the authors
also showed that the resistance of the shaft portion and plate por-
tion of an under-reamed anchor was smaller than those values
for the friction anchor and plate anchor, respectively. This paper
presents the results of model anchor tests performed to investigate
Received May 1, 2007; revised manuscript received by the editors June
19, 2007. The original version was submitted directly to the Journal.
KEY WORDS: Earth anchor, frictional resistance, model test, plate
anchor, under-reamed anchor, uplift capacity.

Z1 +L1
Z2 +L2
Tug =  · D1 z · dz +  · D2 z · dz + q · A (1)
Z1 Z2
where Tug = ultimate pullout resistance (kgf); D1 = diameter of
shaft (cm); D2 = diameter of bulb (cm); z = frictional stress at
depth z (kgf/cm2 ); q = bearing stress of bulb area (kgf/cm2 ); and
A = effective area of bulb (cm2 ).
DESCRIPTION OF TESTS
In this study, a series of laboratory model tests on under-reamed
plate, and friction anchorages was performed in order to charac-
terize the pullout resistance of each type of anchorage. Thus, the
model tests results described in this paper present an excellent
opportunity for further study of the real behavior of under-reamed
anchors.
Model Tank and Preparation Method of Sandbed
A calibration chamber test has been used in a lot of research
that investigated pile resistance and anchor behavior, and pro-
duced the results of fairly high accuracy because this test can
simulate the stress level of the field in terms of the pressure cal-
ibration chamber and is relatively easy to manufacture and use
(Ghaly and Hanna, 1994; O’Neill and Raines, 1991).
A tank 1.25 m deep, 1 m wide, and 1 m long was used for
the model anchor tests in sand. Each model anchor was buried in
the middle of the tank. As the tank diameter was over 11 times
the plate diameter, no significant boundary effects on the anchor
behavior were expected (Baligh, 1985). Plus, as the tank height
was over 12 times the plate diameter, there was sufficient depth to
form a deep failure mode that created a local closed bulb above
the top of the plate (Ilamparuthi et al., 1999, 2002; Hsu and Liao,
1998; Ghaly et al., 1991; Su and Fragaszy, 1988).
A sand raining method was used to prepare the homogeneous
sandbed. During the tests, the density of the sandbed was adjusted
by changing the nozzle diameter of the perforated plate from
which the sand particles freely fell. With repeated preliminary
tests, reproducibility and repeatability were checked using 4 dif-
ferent sandbeds, 4 different pairs of nozzles and the proper dis-
persing systems.
318 Uplift Behavior of Under-reamed Anchors in Sandbed

Instrumentation and Soil Properties

Dr (%) sandbed sand-R sand-S
Instrumentation was employed to separately determine the  
Very dense 85 48 44 39
resistance of the shaft and the reamed plate. Model plate anchors
Dense 75 45 43 38
were fabricated using a 10-mm-thick steel plate. Two circular
Medium dense 54 40 40 35
plate anchors measuring 60 mm and 90 mm in diameter, each
Loose 27 32 32 32
connected at its centroid to a smooth steel stem 10 mm in diam-
eter and 1,200 mm long were used in the model tests. The stem R = relatively rough sandpaper, S = relatively smooth sandpaper
was connected to the load cell by a hinge. The stem was coated Table 2 Angles of shearing resistance
with grease and covered with a 0.02-mm-thick poly-vinyl film to
prevent friction between stem and sand. The uplift resistances of the plate section and the shaft section
Model frictional anchors were prepared for uniform roughness. decrease due to the reduction of the section area and the limita-
Two types of sandpaper were applied to the surface of the steel tion of displacement between the shaft and the surrounding soil,
pipe, which had a 30-mm outer diameter and was 2.5 mm thick respectively. Consequently, the frictional interaction between the
and 1,200 mm long. At the bottom of the model friction anchor, shaft section and the plate section of an under-reamed anchor with
a screw was prepared to be used to attach a disk functioning as a the soil causes a resistance reduction. To consider this relation-
reamed part of the under-reamed anchors. Thus, the under-reamed ship, the reduction coefficients of an under-reamed anchor can be
anchors and the frictional model anchors had identical shaft fric- defined as follows:
tion bodies. The internal load cell, which measures only the fric-
tional resistance of the under-reamed anchor, was connected to resistance of reamed part of under-reamed anchor
=
the end of the model friction anchors. Table 1 shows the charac- resistance of plate anchor
teristics of each model anchor, and Fig. 1 shows a photograph of
resistance of friction part of under-reamed anchor
the model anchors used. in residual state
Table 2 shows the corresponding angles of the maximum shear- =
resistance of friction anchor in residual state
ing resistance ( ) of the soil masses and the angles of shearing
resistance between the sand paper and the soil masses, according 0 ≤   ≤ 1
to the values of relative densities (Dr ).
Coefficients  and  are adopted to consider the reduction
ratio of the pullout resistance affected by various parameters.
TEST RESULTS These parameters include: geometric parameters of the embed-
In this study, 32 model tests were performed in order to study ment depth, reaming ratio, and shaft length; the soil’s physical
an under-reamed anchor in relation to the shaft or plate anchor. properties such as unit weight, internal friction angle and rela-
The uplift capacity of each model anchor was observed. A model tive density; the friction angle between the soil and the sandpaper
attached to the shaft of the model anchor; and the methods used
anchor was placed at a depth of 1,100 mm during the sandbed
to prepare the sandbed.
preparation. After preparing the sandbed and installing the test-
Changes in  and  with the soil density do not appear, and
ing facilities, pullout of the model anchor continued at a rate of
they have similar values when the other conditions are identical.
0.3 mm/min until the pullout resistance of the plate anchor and
Thus the change of the material property in the sandbed does not
the shaft anchor reached the ultimate state and the residual state,
affect coefficients values of  and .
respectively.
Compared with the plate anchor, the section area of the under-
As shown in Fig. 2, the sum total of the resistance of the fric-
reamed anchor decreases as much as that of the friction portion.
tion anchor and the bearing resistance of the plate anchor overes-
The coefficient  represents the reduction of resistance due to this
timates the resistance of under-reamed anchorages.
decrease of the section area. As shown in Fig. 3,  has a tendency
to increase as the reaming ratio increases when the reduction of
the section area due to the shaft portion area diminishes as the
Symbol P2 P3 FR FS U2R U2S U3R U3S
d 0 0 30 30 30 30 30 30
D 60 90 0 0 60 60 90 90
shaft — — R S R S R S
d = diameter of shaft, D = diameter of plate; P = plate anchor;
F = frictional anchor, U = under-reamed anchor; R = relatively
rough shaft; S = relatively smooth shaft; 2 and 3 = reaming ratio
Table 1 Dimension and shaft characteristics of model anchors

Fig. 2 Pullout capacities of plate, friction and under-reamed

Fig. 1 Photograph of used model anchors anchors (Dr = 85%)
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 317–319
D
 This research was supported by the Smart Infra-Structure Tech-
yŒˆ”•ŽG™ˆ›–
(a) D values
EE
yŒˆ”•ŽG™ˆ›–
(b) E values
Fig. 3 Coefficients  and  versus reaming ratio
reaming ratio increases. As the size of the failure bulb enlarges
with an increase in the reaming ratio, the effective length of the
friction shaft shortens, hence the coefficient  diminishes.
LIMITATIONS
This study does not consider the effect of the shaft length
change on the uplift capacity of an under-reamed anchor. In addi-
tion, it must be noted that a sandbed prepared with the sand rain-
ing method has a lower initial lateral earth pressure than one pre-
pared through a conventional temping method.
CONCLUSIONS
A number of laboratory model tests was conducted in order
to investigate the relationship between the uplift capacity of an
under-reamed anchor and that of a plate anchor and a friction
anchor in a sandbed. The resistances of a shaft portion and a
reamed plate portion were measured separately using instrumenta-
tion. For the under-reamed anchor, separate measurements of the
pullout resistance of the shaft portion and plate portion made it
possible to compare the resistances of the friction anchor and the
plate anchor carried out under identical test conditions. Based on
these sets of model test results, the following general conclusions
can be drawn:
• The pullout resistance of an under-reamed anchor is less
than the sum total of pullout resistance of a plate anchor and a
shaft anchor under identical test conditions due to the interfer-
ence between the friction anchor and the plate anchor caused by
interaction with the soil during the uplift process. The sum total
of the pullout resistance of a plate anchor and a shaft anchor thus
overestimates the pullout resistance of the under-reamed anchor.
319
• The material property in the sandbed does not seem to affect
coefficients values of  and .
• With an increase in the reaming ratio, the section area of the
reamed portion is reduced, because the shaft section area dimin-
ishes, hence the coefficient  increases. Conversely, the enlarge-
ment of the failure bulb causes the effective length of the fric-
tion shaft to shorten; thus, the coefficient  diminishes with an
increase in the reaming ratio.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
nology Center under the sponsorship of KOSEF and the 2006
Construction Core-Technology Research & Development Project
(06 C12) under the sponsorship of KICTEP and the Ministry of
Construction &Transportation.
REFERENCES
Baligh, MM (1985). “Strain Path Method,” J Geotech Eng Div,
ASCE, Vol 111, No 9, pp 1108–1136.
Das, BM (1995). “Creep of Shallow Plate Anchor in Soft Clay,”
Int J Offshore and Polar Eng, ISOPE, Vol 5, No 3, pp 230–234.
Ghaly, A, Hanna, A, and Hanna, M (1991). “Uplift Behavior of
Screw Anchors in Sand—I: Dry Sand,” J Geotech Eng Div,
ASCE, Vol 117, No 5, pp 773–793.
Ghaly, A, and Hanna, A (1994). “Ultimate Pullout Resistance
of Single Vertical Anchors,” Canad Geotech J, Vol 31, No 5,
pp 661–672.
Hanna, TH (1982). Foundation in Tension-ground Anchors,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Hong, SW (1999). “The Study of the Pullout Resistance Char-
acteristics and Design of SSC Anchor,” PhD thesis, Pusan
National Univ, Korea, pp 9–15 (in Korean).
Hsu, ST, and Liao, HJ (1998). “Uplift Behavior of Cylindrical
Anchors in Sand,” Canad Geotech J, Vol 35, No 1, pp 70–80.
Ilamparuthi, K, Dickin, EA, and Muthukrisnaiah, K (2002).
“Experimental Investigation of the Uplift Behaviour of Circular
Plate Anchors Embedded in Sand,” Canad Geotech J, Vol 39,
No 3, pp 648–664.
Ilamparuthi, K, and Muthukrisnaiah, K (1999). “Anchors in
Sandbed: Delineation of Rupture Surface,” Ocean Eng, Vol 26,
No 12, pp 1249–1273.
Jones, DL (1997). “Full Scale Trials for Straight Shafted and
Under-reamed Anchorages in Cemented Sands,” Proc Int Conf
Inst Civil Eng, London, pp 140–147.
Kim, J. S., Lee, S. D., and Lee, S. R. (2001). “An Experimental
Study on Reinforcing Effects for Soil Structures Reinforced by
Nail with an Anchor Shape,” J Korean Geotech Soc, Vol 17,
No 2, pp 103–111 (in Korean).
Korean Geotech Soc (1992). Excavation and Retaining Wall,
Geotech Eng Series 3, pp 236–300 (in Korean).
O’Neill, MW, and Raines, RD (1991). “Load Transfer for Pipe
Piles in Highly Pressured Dense Sand,” J Geotech Eng Div,
ASCE, Vol 117, No 8, pp 1208–1226.
Ostermayer, H (1974). “Construction, Carrying Behavior and
Creep Characteristics of Ground Anchors,” Proc Int Conf Inst
Civil Eng, London, pp 141–151.
Su, W, and Fragaszy, RJ (1988). “Uplift Testing of Model
Anchors,” J Geotech Eng, Vol 114, No 9, pp 961–983.