I

REPORT 65 SECOND EDITION

OCTOBER 1980

Design and construction of ground

anchors

T. H. IiANNA PhD BSc CEng F l C E

Q
3. Calculation of load capacity
A ground anchor niay fail in one o r more o f the following modes:
1. within the ground mass usually along joints and fissures
2. at the ground/grout interface
3. at the grout/tendon interface
4. within the tendon or the attachment of the tendon to the structure.
Noriiislly, anchors are m d in closely-spaced clustcrs, and consequently overall stability o f the
anchor/ground ~ i i a ~ ~ / ~ t r u csystem
t u r e niust be provided not only from a failure viewpoint b u t
also with respect to movements. This is a complex and somewhat inexact problem to quantify
because o f the difficulty of modelling not only ground behaviour but also construction
operations both with respect to short- and long-term stability.

3.1 ISOLATED DEAD ANCHORS

Current design tnetliods a:e based o n a blend of semi-empirical rules for pnrticular anchor
systcms and ground conditions. thcory hascd on the theory o f elasticity, and extensions or
tlicorics worked out for other foundations (particularly piles). The fixed anchor Icngt9 IS
normally dctr.rniiltcd by empirical rules supported by simplifying theoretical assumptlons as
follows:

3.1.1 Sands and Thc ultimate load-carlying capacity, Tu,of an anchor niay he expressed by P
ravels
Tu2 Lntan 4' (1)
where L ir *he fixed anchor ictigth i n metres, 9' is the angle o f internal friction o f the soil, and
PI is a factor dependent primnrily o n the permeability of the soil.
For coarse sands and gravels PI = 400 to 600 kN/m. while In nne 1.) medium sands n =
150 kN/m. Details are given by Littlcjohn ('I.Extensive tests in West Gerniuny ( I ) show that, in
general, load-carrying capacity is dependent on relative denzity, uniformity of the soil, ftxed
anchorage length, and to B lesser extent on anchor diameter. This work deinonstrates that the
most important ractor it! ccntrollirig carryirlg capacity is the dilatancy o f the soil which results
in a very large noriiial stress being created o n the grout/soil interface. I t should be appreciated
that the method of anchor construction influences carrying capacity to an unknown extent.
Consequently, tliese general design criteria niust be used with care, and with experience o f the
different anchor constructiuii systems. \Vliere necessary, field testing niust be performed to con-
h i r ultinrate load-carrying capacity.

3.1.2 Stiff clays With tlic Type I anchor system, load is niobilised along the cylindrical shaft in adhesion and
in suction at the anchor base. In gencral, the suction force i; small, unreliable and should be

14 ClRlA Report 65

I
 neglected. The shaft adhesion value depends to a considerable extent on construction technique
and an average o f 0.3 C,,is appropriate
Tu = 0.3C,,nDL (2)
where D is the diameter of the fixed anchor, L is the fixed ancho: length (see Figure 9) and C,,
is the average undrained shear strength of the clay in the anchorage 20. .e area.
Where pea gravel is forced into the walls of the anchorage c y h d e r area (Type 2), the
shaft adhesion rises from 0.3to about 0.6 C,,, the effective diameter o f the fixed anchor in-
creases by about 50%and par: of the load capacity is given in end hearing as follows

Tu = 0.6C,, nDL + 4. (D’ - d’)C,,N, (3)

where D is diameter of the fixed anchor, d is diameter of the shaft, L is fixed anchor
length (See Figure 9),N, is a bearing capacity factor (=9),and C,, is undrained shear strength
of the clay

Type 1 Anckw

Type 2 Anchor

Figure 9

1‘s I I LU
Dimeisions for desip t--1 ?--
of mchors in stiff clays Type 3 Anchor

With nwlti undcr-rcaiiied anchor3ges (Type 31, the ultimatc carrying capacity may be
expressed by

Tu = nD,,L,,C,,f,, + (D,,’- d’)C,,N, + 0.3C,,ndPS (4)

where D,,is diameter of the under-ream, d is diameter of the shaft, L,, is length of
undcr-rcain zone. P, is length of tlie shaft i n tlie fixed anclior zone (see Figure 9),N c is a
bearing capacity I’uctcw. C,, u:idraincd slieur strength of tlie clay, and f,, is an efficiency factor
equal to about 0.8 ( U a s ~ e t t ( ~and
) ) dependent on [lie under-reaming technique used.
The results of niany tests reported by Osterniayer(’) support the above approach but
also sliow .hat carrying capacity can be significantly increased by multi-stage grouting tech-
niques such as thosc Iiientioned earlier in this Section. Other support to this observation is
given Dy Jorgd’).

3.1.3 Weak rocks There are few rcliahlo and well docuiiieritcd nietliods of anchor design in weak rocks such as
weathered chalk. Kciipcr iiiarl. o r shulc. Both straightsided and multi iindcr-reamed anchors are

ClRlA Report 65 15

. I
 In use. The following general expression@) has been used t o provide design estimates:
T,, = nDLC, (5)
where D is the diLuneter of the fixed anchor length, L is the length of the fixed anchor, and
C, is the unit value of the shaft adhesion.
The value of C,,in some cases has been related to the standard penetration test Nvalue,
with C, = ION kN/m' :'or chalks. For anchors in Keuper mad, estimates of ultimate load cana-
city may be obtained in a similar manner t o that for stiff clays. However, it must be borne In
mind that very few records are available, and consequently all such estimates must be supported
by field testing to failure.
A major state 3f the art revieuv on rock anchors is given by Littlejohn and Brute(') in
which they exaniine current practices and limitations in knowledge on the design, construction,
ctressing and testing.
In general, the quality of workmanship during construction greatly influences the perfor-
mance of thc anchor. Tlie local variations in the rock quality and its structure result, with
closely spaced anchors, in variations in anchor performance which cannot be quantified using
ground information from a routine site survey programme. It is essential, therefore, that as
much care anri detail is given t o rock anchors as anchors in sands and clays, and that each
anchor is wbjected to an initial proof load test. The safety and quality of each anchor can be
assured by doing this and by carrying out other anchor tests (see Section 6).

3.2 ANCHOR GROUPING

Low c q m i t y anchors have to be spaced at close centres, and consequently the zones of
stressed ground around them interact. Little design guidance is available on this topic as the
only quantitative work is that based on small-scalc laboratory tests which have shown that the
ultimat: capacity of the group is always less than that of an equal,number of isolated anchors(').
For this reason, designers of anchor systems have worked to certain rules of thumb such as a
minimum spacing of five anchor dianieters. In many cases, the anchorage zones of adjacent
an:hors can be locatcd at different depths or at dif'ferent inclinations in order to overcome the
efl'ects of close spacing. Under special cases, field tests may be rcquired to quantify the grouping
behaviour of closely spaced anchors (see Section 6.2). The French Code(") gives some general
guidance on grouping and recommends either that the anchors be set out so that they do not
influelice one another or that the allowable load per anchor be reduced. A reduction curve,
based on nnclior spacing and the size of the cone of influence of the stressed ground around
tlic anchor is given. the reduction factor varying between 0.5 and 1.0.

16 ClRlA Report 65