870

Increasing pull-out capacity of granular pile

anchors in expansive soils using base
geosynthetics
B.R. Phani Kumar and N. Ramachandra Rao

Abstract: Granular pile anchors are innovative and effective in resisting the uplift pressure exerted on the foundation
by a swelling expansive soil. In a granular pile anchor, the foundation is anchored at the bottom of the granular pile to
an anchor plate with the help of a mild steel rod. This renders the granular pile tension-resistant and enables it to offer
resistance to the uplift force exerted on the foundation by the swelling soil. This resistance to uplift or pull-out load
depends mainly upon the shear parameters of the pile–soil interface and the lateral swelling pressure of the soil, which
confines the pile radially and prevents it from being uplifted. The resistance to uplift can be increased by placing a
base geosynthetic above the anchor plate so that it forms an integral part of the granular pile anchor. The increase in
resistance is due to the friction mobilized between the geosynthetic and the confining media when the uplift load acts
on the pile and the geosynthetic moves along with the pile. Hence it depends on the friction between the geosynthetic
and the confining media and the area and stiffness of the geosynthetic. This paper discusses the effects of these param-
eters on pull-out load, rate of heave, and relative ground movement near the pile surface.

Key words: expansive soil, granular pile anchor, base geosynthetic, ground movement, rate of heave, pull-out load.

Résumé : Les pieux d’ancrage granulaires sont innovateurs et efficaces pour résister à la pression de soulèvement
exercée sur la fondation par un sol gonflant. Dans un pieu d’ancrage granulaire, la fondation est ancrée au fond du
pieu granulaire à une plaque d’ancrage au moyen d’une tige d’acier doux. Ceci rend le pieu granulaire résistant en
traction et permet ds fournir une résistance à la force de soulèvement exercée sur la fondation par le sol gonflant. La
résistance à la force de soulèvement ou d’arrachement dépend principalement des paramètres de résistance de
l’interface pieu–sol, et de la pression de gonflement latéral du sol qui confine le pieu en direction radiale et empêche
le pieu d’être soulevé. La résistance au soulèvement peut être accrue en plaçant une base de membrane géosynthétique
au-dessus de la plaque d’ancrage de telle sorte qu’elle devient partie intégrante de l’ancrage du pieu granulaire.
L’augmentation de la résistance est due au frottement mobilisé entre le géosynthétique et les milieux qui confinent le
pieu lorsque la charge de soulèvement agit sur le pieu et que le géosynthétique se meut avec le pieu. Ainsi, cet
accroissement dépend du frottement entre le géosynthétique et les milieux ambiants, la surface et la rigidité du
géosynthétique. Cet article discute des effets de ces paramètres sur la charge d’arrachement, la vitesse de soulèvement
et le mouvement relatif du sol près de la surface du pieu.

Mots clés : sol gonflant, ancrage de pieu granulaire, base géosynthétique, mouvement de sol, vitesse de soulèvement,
charge d’arrachement.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Phani Kumar and Ramachandra Rao 881

Introduction The amount of heave and shrinkage depends to a large ex-

Expansive soils are highly problematic and cause damage
to structures founded in them because of their potential to
react to changes in moisture regime. They swell when they
imbibe water and shrink on its evaporation. Because of their
alternate swelling and shrinkage, they result in the cracking
of civil engineering structures such as foundations, retaining
walls, pavements, canal beds, and linings.
tent on the thickness of the active zone and the degree of sat-
uration. The depth of active zone can be determined by field
measurements of moisture content (Ramaswamy and Nasar
1984) or heave of soil (Helland and Walsh 1979) with depth
over a number of seasons. The thickness of the active zone
depends on the type of soil, the soil profile, changes in at-
mospheric conditions such as temperature, precipitation,
evaporation, and evapotranspiration, vegetation, and depth to
the water table.

Received August 25, 1998. Accepted December 17, 1999.

Published on the NRC Research Press website on August 25,
2000.
B.R. Phani Kumar and N. Ramachandra Rao. Department
of Civil Engineering, J.N.T.U. College of Engineering,
Kakinada 533 003, India.
Existing foundation practices in expansive
soils
The various options in foundation practices adopted to
minimize heave in expansive soils are (i) avoiding expansive

Can. Geotech. J. 37: 870–881 (2000) © 2000 NRC Canada

Phani Kumar and Ramachandra Rao
material, (ii) alteration, and (iii) adopting special foundation
techniques.
Avoiding expansive material
Avoiding the expansive soil in favour of safer foundation
soils is not an economically viable proposition in most situa-
tions. With the development of several modern techniques
for effectively combating problems posed by expansive soils,
this option is seldom adopted.
Mechanical, physical, and chemical
alterations
Mechanical alterations
Mechanical alterations include excavation of expansive
soil and replacement with nonexpansive material, where the
depth of the active zone is small and where suitable replace-
ment material is available. The sand cushion method
(Satyanarayana 1966) and the cohesive nonswelling (CNS)
layer method (Katti 1978) are very popular.
Sand cushion method
Provision of a sand cushion of some arbitrary thickness
has been found to yield satisfactory results. The basic phi-
losophy of this method is that, in monsoon, the saturated
sand occupies less volume, accommodating some of the
heave of underlying soil, and in summer, partially saturated
sand bulks and occupies the extra space left by the shrinkage
of the soil.
CNS layer method
In this method proposed by Katti (1978), about 1.2 m of
the upper expansive soil is removed and replaced by a cohe-
sive nonswelling soil layer. According to Katti, in a satu-
rated expansive soil, cohesive forces are developed to a
depth of about 1.0–1.2 m and counteract heave. The electri-
cal charge of clay particles produces absorbed water bonds
and develops this cohesion. A CNS layer creates an environ-
ment similar to that at around 1 m depth in an expansive soil
with equivalent cohesion to counteract heave. Gravel with
clay binder, locally called Moorum, is an example of CNS
material. This technique has been successfully adopted in
many swell-prone areas.
Physical alteration
Physical alteration involves mixing granular material with
expansive clay to minimize heave (Satyanarayana 1966).
The faster ingress of water due to increased permeability is a
disadvantage of this method.
Chemical alteration
Chemical alteration involves the addition of chemicals to
expansive clay to reduce heave by altering the nature of the
clay minerals. Of all the chemicals tried, lime is the most ef-
fective and economical additive. Lime or lime–soil columns
were also used to stabilize expansive clays in situ (Srirama
Rao 1984). Diffusion of lime is effective up to a radial dis-
tance of about three times the diameter of the lime–soil col-
umn.
871
Fig. 1. Granular pile anchor.
Adopting special foundation techniques
Some of the special foundation techniques employed to
counteract heave in expansive soils are explained in the fol-
lowing sections.
Pad foundations
Pad foundations are a series of individual footing pads
placed on the upper soil layer and spanned by grade beams
(Chen 1975). Pad foundations are advantageous where
(i) the bedrock is deep, (ii) the use of friction piers is not
feasible, and (iii) the upper soil possesses moderate swell
potential but high bearing capacity.
Underreamed piles
These, developed by the Central Building Research Insti-
tute, Roorkee, India, are efficacious in bypassing the prob-
lematic foundation soil and resting the foundations in the
zone that is not affected by moisture fluctuations. In the case
of multiple underreamed piles, frictional resistance is mobi-
lized over a larger perimeter and reduces heave. The disad-
vantage of underreamed piles is that, according to Indian
Standard 2911 (Indian Standards Institution 1980), the safe
load is determined based on N value (SPT blow count),
which is unreliable in clays. Moreover, they are costly and
formation of bulbs (the portions with enlarged pile diameter)
has been found to be defective in certain cases.
Granular pile anchors
Granular piles are a widely used technique for improving
the settlement and strength characteristics of soft clays and
loose sands. So far they have not been used in expansive
soils which pose the problem of swelling and shrinkage. A
granular pile cannot resist the tensile force on the foundation
by a swelling soil. Hence, it is modified into a granular pile
anchor (Phani Kumar 1995; Phani Kumar and Srirama Rao
1996). A granular pile anchor is one in which the foundation
is anchored at the bottom of the granular pile to a mild steel
plate through a central mild steel rod (Fig. 1). This serves to
hold the particulate granular medium and prevents the gran-
ular pile from being sheared away by the swelling soil and is
thus instrumental in mobilizing the frictional resistance to
the uplift force on the foundation. The uplift force caused on
the foundation by the swelling soil is therefore resisted by
© 2000 NRC Canada
872
(i) the weight of the granular pile, and (ii) the frictional re-
sistance along the pile–soil interface.
In small model tests, the contribution of the weight of the
pile is negligible, whereas that of the friction along the cy-
lindrical surface of the pile is significant. This frictional re-
sistance depends on the overburden pressure, the lateral
swelling pressure, and the effective shear parameters of the
pile–soil interface. The interesting feature of the granular
pile anchor is that swelling pressure, which is one of the
problematic swelling characteristics of expansive soils, is it-
self instrumental in confining the pile laterally and prevent-
ing it from being uplifted.
The following observations have been made with regard to
the efficacy of granular pile anchors (Phani Kumar 1995)
based on a number of laboratory tests:
(1) Granular pile anchors are highly efficacious in arrest-
ing heave of expansive clays.
(2) The reduction in the swell potential of an expansive
clay is proportional to the surface area of the granular pile
anchor. This is due to the frictional resistance offered along
the pile–soil interface to the upward movement of the pile.
For a given surface area of the granular pile, the effect of di-
ameter on reduction of heave is more than that of length.
(3) The increase in the relative density of the granular
pile, which also causes an increase in the frictional resis-
tance, reduces heave further.
(4) Improvement of the expansive soil will be greater
when two or more granular pile anchors are installed. The
ground heave decreases with a decrease in the spacing be-
tween the granular piles. A spacing of twice the pile diame-
ter results in negligible heave.
(5) The load-carrying capacity of an expansive clay bed is
increased by the installation of granular pile anchors.
Improving granular columns with geosynthetics
Installation of granular columns in soft soils, especially
those with an undrained cohesion of less than 10 kPa, is very
difficult because the granular material is lost into the sur-
rounding soil by a phenomenon called bulging. Reinforce-
ment of the granular column, particularly in its top layers,
would minimize this loss, as the reinforcement prevents lat-
eral flow of the granular material. Alamgir (1989) suggests
jacketing of granular columns by wrapping a geosynthetic
liner around the whole surface of the column. Adayat and
Hanna (1991) suggest enveloping the granular material in a
membrane to strengthen the granular column. These alterna-
tives lead to a significant improvement of column capacity
over that of its conventional counterpart and ensure better
performance even in extreme ground conditions. The ulti-
mate capacity and stiffness of the reinforced column in-
crease with the number of reinforcement layers, the angle of
shearing resistance of the column material, and the coeffi-
cient of frictional resistance of the reinforcement.
The pull-out capacity of tensile granular pile anchors can
also be improved if a bottom geotextile or geogrid is incor-
porated in the granular pile anchor above the anchor plate.
With the introduction of a bottom geosynthetic, additional
frictional resistance is mobilized between the geosynthetic
and the media, confining it when the geosynthetic moves
with the upward movement of the pile and thus augmenting
the pull-out resistance. The increase in pull-out resistance
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
Table 1. Index properties of the expansive soil.
Specific gravity 2.63
Grain-size distribution
Gravel % (>4.75 mm) 0
Sand % (0.075–4.75 mm) 6
Silt % (0.002–0.075 mm) 42
Clay % (<0.002 mm) 52
Consistency limits
Liquid limit (%) 80
Plasticity limit (%) 27
Shrinkage limit (%) 11
Free swell index (FSI) 120
depends on the stiffness of the geosynthetic, the confining
media, the friction between the geosynthetic and the confin-
ing media, and the area of the geosynthetic.
The uplift force resisted by a granular pile anchor can be
measured by conducting pull-out tests on granular pile an-
chors embedded in expansive soils. Prediction or measure-
ment of the pull-out resistance of granular pile anchors is
very important for the proper design of granular pile anchors
in expansive soils.
This paper presents and compares the results of pull-out
tests conducted on granular pile anchors with and without a
base geosynthetic. The type of geosynthetic is varied as
geotextile and geogrid, thus varying its stiffness. The confin-
ing media in which the geosynthetic is embedded is also var-
ied. The rate of heave, uplift load – deformation
characteristics, friction between the geosynthetic and the
confining media, and relative ground movement at the top
near the pile are discussed in detail.
Experimental investigation
An experimental investigation has been conducted to
study the increase in pull-out capacity of a granular pile an-
chor with the introduction of a base geosynthetic. Tests have
been conducted on (i) granular pile anchors alone, and
(ii) granular pile anchors reinforced with base geosynthetic
with different stiffnesses and sandwiched between different
confining media.
Test materials
Expansive soil
The expansive soil used in this study has been collected
from Amalapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh,
India. The soil has been collected at a depth of 0.9–1.5 m
below ground level. The index properties of the soil are
shown in Table 1. Based on its plasticity, the soil falls in the
CH group. Its free swell index (FSI) indicates that it has a
“high” degree of expansion.
Granular pile material
The granular material used for the installation of the pile
is a mixture of 20% metal chips, whose particle size ranges
between 6 and 10 mm, and 80% coarse sand with size vary-
ing between 2.4 and 4.8 mm. At this proportion of 20:80, the
granular material could be compacted over a wide range of
relative density values. However, in this work the granular
© 2000 NRC Canada
Phani Kumar and Ramachandra Rao
Fig. 2. Experimental setup.
columns have been compacted at a constant relative density
of 0.60.
The properties of the geosynthetics used are provided by
the manufacturers and are given as follows: (i) geotextile:
thickness 0.5 mm, unit mass 340 g/m2, and type woven; and
(ii) geogrid: width 2 m, mesh aperture size (normal) 6 mm ×
6 mm, mesh thickness 3.3 mm, unit mass 730 g/m2, colour
black, polymer high-density (HD) polyethylene, tensile
strength 7.68 kN/m, and elongation at maximum load 20.2%.
Compaction of soil and installation of granular column
Pull-out tests have been conducted in 300 mm × 300 mm
× 900 mm metal tanks. The dry unit weight and initial water
content of the soil have been kept constant at 13 kN/m3 and
14%, respectively, throughout the test programme. The
length and diameter of the granular piles have also been
fixed as 150 and 30 mm, respectively. All the granular piles
have been compacted at a relative density of 0.60. The diam-
eter of the base geosynthetic has been 150 mm for all the
tests.
The confining media sandwiching the geosynthetic are
varied as follows: (i) black cotton clay – geotextile – bottom
sand layer; (ii) fine sand (<2.36 mm) – geotextile – fine
sand; (iii) coarse sand (2.36–4.8 mm) – geotextile – coarse
sand; (iv) metal chips (6–10 mm) – geotextile – metal chips;
(v) fine sand (<2.36 mm) – geogrid – fine sand; (vi) coarse
sand (2.36–4.8 mm) – geogrid – coarse sand; and (vii) metal
chips (6–10 mm) – geogrid – metal chips.
Figure 2 shows the experimental setup. The expansive soil
bed is reinforced with a granular pile anchor. After laying
the bottom sand layer, the unit of anchor rod with the bottom
anchor plate with the geosynthetic above it is placed above
the sand layer vertically. Using a casing pipe, a granular pile
is formed and the expansive soil is compacted surrounding
the granular pile. The casing pipe is withdrawn later. In the
field, a borehole of diameter equal to that of the geosynthetic
would be made. After inserting the anchor rod, anchor plate,
and geosynthetic, a granular pile would be formed with the
873
Table 2. Degree of saturation at different depths.
Sample Depth Water Degree of
No. (cm) content (%) saturation (%)
1 0 56.78 100
2 5 53.95 100
3 10 52.92 100
4 15 50.15 100
help of another casing pipe of diameter equal to that of the
granular pile. The annular portion between the inner casing
pipe and the wall of the borehole may be filled with sand for
greater friction. This offers increased uplift resistance and
behaves better than the laboratory model. A geosynthetic of
large diameter has been used in these small model tests so
that frictional resistance will be mobilized over a sufficient
area of the interface. However, the same proportion cannot
be obtained in the field, as the diameter of the outer casing
would have to be impracticably large. In the field, the
geosynthetic may be scaled down as per the requirement. A
vertical sand packing is provided all around the soil to satu-
rate it quickly (Fig. 2). The entire system is throughly satu-
rated and heave is continuously monitored with time. After
complete saturation, pull-out loads are applied in increments
of 20 N and corresponding deformations observed using dial
gauges. The test is continued up to the point of failure in all
cases. At the end of the test, water content of the soil at vari-
ous depths was determined.
Measurement of shear parameters of the interface
For a better understanding and estimate of the increase in
pull-out capacity of this system, the frictional resistance be-
tween the confining media and the geosynthetic needs to be
known. For this purpose, geotextile or geogrid is sandwiched
between the respective confining media in a shear box to
simulate the conditions of the pull-out test and sheared under
different normal loads. The value of angle of internal friction
at the interface is determined as in the shear-box test.
Results and analysis
Figures 3 and 4 show heave in millimetres observed
against the logarithm of time in minutes. Equilibrium heave
was reached in only 4 days. This is because saturation of the
clay bed has been ensured by the sand packing and the gran-
ular pile anchor which has good permeability characterstics.
Heave is reduced by virtue of the frictional resistance mobi-
lized along the pile–soil interface. The reduced amount of
heave has been reached in a very short time compared to that
of the unreinforced soil.
Water contents of the samples collected at different depths
have been determined after the equilibrium heave has been
reached. They also show 100% degree of saturation (Table 2).
Pull-out behaviour of granular pile anchors with and
without base geosynthetic
The two broken lines in Fig. 5 show the pull-out load–de-
formation curves of a granular pile anchor alone and of a
granular pile anchor with a base geotextile sandwiched
between clay and sand. The ultimate pull-out load at failure
of a single granular pile anchor is about 45 N. But it has
been found to increase to about 109 N when a base
© 2000 NRC Canada
874 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000

Fig. 3. Rate of heave (geotextile).

Fig. 4. Rate of heave (geogrid).

geotextile (diameter = 150 mm) is sandwiched between the geosynthetic in being pulled out from between the sand and
bottom sand layer and the expansive clay. saturated expansive clay which confine it. This frictional
This increase in the ultimate pull-out capacity is attributed resistance depends on the friction between the confining me-
to the frictional resistance to be overcome by the dia and geotextile which can be determined from the shear-

© 2000 NRC Canada

Phani Kumar and Ramachandra Rao 875

Fig. 5. Pull-out load–deformation curves (geotextile).

Table 3. Test results.

Increase in uplift
Uplift capacity of Granular pile anchor with base geosynthetic capacity
granular pile Interface friction Uplift
anchor alone (N) Interface angle (°) capacity (N) N %
45.45 Sand – geotextile – clay 18 109.09 63.64 140
45.45 Fine sand – geotextile – fine sand 22 144.54 99.09 218
45.45 Coarse sand – geotextile – coarse sand 35 166.44 120.99 266
45.45 Metal chips – geotextile – metal chips 40 162.06 116.61 257
45.45 Fine sand – geogrid – fine sand 26 212.00 166.55 366
45.45 Coarse sand – geogrid – coarse sand 44 245.30 199.84 438
45.45 Metal chips – geogrid – metal chips 46 267.20 221.75 488

box tests, in which geotextile is sandwiched between the
confining media, simulating the pull out in the model test.
The solid lines in Fig. 5 show the load–deformation
curves of the granular pile anchors with base geotextile em-
bedded in fine sand, coarse sand, and metal chips. Pull-out
capacity increases further with the increase in friction angle,
φ′, of the interface between the confining media and
geotextile. The values of pull-out capacity are given in Ta-
ble 3. The friction between the confining media and the
geosynthetic increases when the particle size of the confin-
ing media increases, as shown in Fig. 6 and Table 3. When
the geotextile is embedded between fine sand layers, the ulti-
mate pull-out capacity is 144.5 N, i.e., it has increased by a
large amount compared with that obtained when it is embed-
ded between sand and clay, because of the increase in the
friction angle. Similarly, when the geotextile is embedded in
coarse sand, which imparts a greater angle of friction, the ul-
timate pull-out capacity is 166.4 N, i.e., it has increased fur-
ther when compared with that obtained when it is embedded
in fine sand. The percent increase in pull-out capacity in
each case with reference to that of a granular pile anchor
alone is also shown in the table.
It is interesting to note that, when the geotextile is embed-
ded in metal chips which have the highest angle of friction,
the ultimate pull-out capacity is slightly reduced compared
with that for coarse sand, although it is much greater than
that for fine sand. This is attributed to the fact that the satu-
rated expansive clay occupies the large voids of the bottom
layer of metal chips and comes in contact with the
geotextile. Hence, when the pile moves upwards, the resis-
tance offered to the movement of the geotextile embedded
between the metal chips and the clay layer will be reduced
slightly, resulting in a lower ultimate pull-out capacity. It
was also observed after the test that the geotextile showed
soft saturated expansive clay above its top surface. This phe-
nomenon was not observed in other pull-out tests with geotextile.
Figure 7 shows the load–deformation curves obtained
from the results of the pull-out tests done on the granular

© 2000 NRC Canada

876
Fig. 6. Interface friction angle from direct shear test (geotextile).
Fig. 7. Pull-out load–deformation curves (geogrid).
pile anchors reinforced with base or bottom geogrid. As
mentioned earlier, tests were conducted on granular pile an-
chors with base geogrid embedded in fine sand, coarse sand,
and metal chips to study the effect of friction angle between
the geogrid and the confining media. As the particle size of
the granular material increases, the friction angle increases,
as shown in Fig. 8, and the pull-out resistance increases.
This is clearly indicated in Fig. 7. For example, the ultimate
pull-out capacity is highest at 267.2 N when the geogrid is
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
embedded in metal chips, slightly lower at 245.3 N when the
geogrid is embedded in coarse sand, and lowest at 212 N
when the geogrid is embedded in fine sand (Table 3). With
the introduction of base geogrid, there is a large increase in
pull-out capacity compared with that for the granular pile
anchor alone (broken line in Fig. 7).
It is interesting to note that, up to a pile movement of
about 17 mm or a strain of about 11%, under the given
placement conditions, the pull-out load for a given deformation
© 2000 NRC Canada
Phani Kumar and Ramachandra Rao 877

Fig. 8. Interface friction angle from direct shear test (geogrid).

Fig. 9. Variation of normalized pull-out capacity with friction angle φ ′ .

is greater in the case of coarse sand than in the case of metal
chips, but the ultimate capacity at failure is greater in the
case of metal chips.
Figure 9 shows the variation of normalized pull-out ulti-
mate capacity of a granular pile anchor with geosynthetic
(Pug) with the pull-out ultimate capacity of a granular pile
anchor alone (Pu) with the variation of φ⬘.
Figures 10–12 show by comparison the load–deformation
curves of pull-out tests performed on granular pile anchors
with base geotextile and those of the tests done on granular
© 2000 NRC Canada
878 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000

Fig. 10. Pull-out load–deformation curves (with fine sand).

Fig. 11. Pull-out load–deformation curves (with coarse sand).

pile anchors with base geogrid under the same confining me- particles of the granular medium will have greater interlocking
dium. With the same confining medium, the pull-out load in through the apertures of the geogrid. This increases the fric-
the case of geogrid for any percent strain is much greater tional resistance offered by the interface and consequently
than the load in the case of geotextile. This is because the the ultimate pull-out capacity. When a geotextile is embedded,

© 2000 NRC Canada

Phani Kumar and Ramachandra Rao
Fig. 12. Pull-out load–deformation curves (with metal chips).
this interlocking is absent. Hence, friction will be lower and,
as a result, the ultimate pull-out capacity will also be lower.
As the particle size of the granular medium increases the
interlocking friction in the case of geogrid also increases,
further increasing the pull-out capacity. The higher angle of
internal friction obtained in the case of geogrid supports the
results obtained.
When failure occurred in the case of granular pile anchor
reinforced with geogrid, the top layer of soil showed clear
radial cracks from the column up to a radial distance of
about 8–10 cm, which is slightly more than the radius of the
geogrid. It was also observed that the width of cracks was
15–20 mm. The width was also observed to be greater near
the surface of the granular pile anchor, where the failure is
incipient. But this phenomenon was not observed in the case
of granular pile anchor reinforced with geotextile.
Surface heave measurements
Keeping in mind the difference in behaviour of the base
geogrid and base geotextile in pull-out, ground heave mea-
surements were also made at different radial distances from
the granular pile anchors in both cases. The ground heave
measurements were made in two stages. First, the heave of
the ground or the increase in thickness of the expansive soil
bed was measured immediately after saturation and before
the application of the pull-out load. In the second stage,
ground heave was measured just before failure of the granu-
lar pile anchor on application of the pull-out load. In both
stages, ground heave was measured with reference to the soil
level at the edge of the tank.
Figures 13 and 14 show the variation with radial distance of
ground heave immediately after saturation and before failure on
application of the pull-out load for geogrid embedded in coarse
879
sand and for geogrid embedded in metal chips. The broken line
in Fig. 13 shows the variation of ground heave with radial dis-
tance just before failure in the case of geotextile.
Figures 13 and 14 show that in all cases the ground move-
ment is greater near the granular column and reduces away
from the granular column, indicating that the soil surround-
ing the granular column is involved in failure. The relative
ground movement immediately after saturation and just be-
fore failure on application of the pull-out load is also in-
versely proportional to the radial distance from the centre of
the column.
There is no change in the ground movement or the relative
movement is zero in the case of geotextile before loading
and before failure. Hence, the curve in the case of a granular
pile anchor with base geotextile lies below the curve in the
case of a granular pile anchor with base geogrid before loading.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from this study:
(1) Pull-out resistance of granular pile anchors will be in-
creased by reinforcing them with base geosynthetics. The in-
crease is due to the resistance offered by the friction
between the geosynthetic and the confining medium.
(2) The increase in pull-out resistance will be greater as
the interface friction angle is increased.
(3) With an increase in the particle size of the confining
medium, the interface friction angle increases in the case of
both the geotextile and the geogrid, as determined from
shear-box tests. For the same confining medium, however,
the geogrid has a greater friction angle.
(4) The ultimate capacity of a granular pile anchor with
base goesynthetic normalized with that of a granular pile
© 2000 NRC Canada
880 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000

Fig. 13. Relative ground movement with radial distance (with metal chips).

Fig. 14. Relative ground movement with radial distance (with coarse sand).

anchor alone increases with an increase in the interface fric- ever, in the case of geotextile it increases only up to a partic-
tion angle in the case of both geogrid and geotextile. How- ular angle and thereafter is more or less constant.

© 2000 NRC Canada

Phani Kumar and Ramachandra Rao
(5) The granular pile anchor reinforced with base geogrid
offers more resistance to pull-out than that reinforced with
base geotextile.
References
Adayat, T., and Hanna, T.H. 1991. Performance of vibro columns
in collapsible soils. In Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical
Conference on Geotechnical Analysis, Practice and Perfor-
mance, Surat, India, pp. 383–386.
Alamgir, M. 1989. Analysis and design of plain and jacketed stone
columns in clays. M.Sc.Eng. thesis, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, BLET, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Chen, F.H. 1975. Foundations on expansive soils. Elsevier Scien-
tific Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Helland, J.E., and Walsh, P.F. 1979. Behaviour and design of resi-
dential slab on expansive clays of Melbourne. In Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Concrete Slabs, Dundee,
Ireland.
Indian Standards Institution. 1980. Code of practice for design and
construction of pile foundations, Indian Standard (IS) 2911, part
III, 1st revision. Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi.
881
Katti, R.K. 1978. Search for solutions to problems in black cotton
soils. 1st Annual Lecture. In Proceedings of the Indian Geo-
technical Conference, Indian Geotechnical Society, New Delhi,
pp. 1–80.
Phani Kumar, B.R. 1995. A study of swelling characteristics of a
granular pile – anchor – foundation system in expansive soils.
Ph.D. thesis, J.N.T.U. College of Engineering, Kakinada, India.
Phani Kumar, B.R., and Srirama Rao, A. 1996. Granular pile-
anchors in expansive soils. In Proceedings of a National Semi-
nar on Partially Saturated Soils and Expansive Soils, Kakinada,
India, pp. 15–22.
Ramaswamy, S.V., and Naser, N.A. 1984. Heave predictions based
on water content profiles. In Proceedings of the 1st National
Conference on Science and Technology of Buildings, Khartoum,
Sudan.
Satyanarayana, B. 1966. Swelling pressure and related mechanical
properties of black cotton soils. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India.
Srirama Rao, A. 1984. A study of swelling characteristics and be-
haviour of expansive soils. Ph.D. thesis, Kakatiya University,
Warangal, India.
© 2000 NRC Canada