A design equation for inclined

ground anchor fixed length in

a cohesionless soil
by MALCOLM A. SOMERVILLE*, BSc, MSc, CEng, MICE, MIStructE

Introduction continuum is extensive in the lateral dir- M.f'2h + L sin P) sin P;,D
DESIGN EQUATIONS for the determina- ection, the approximate soil stresses Tf =
tion of ground anchor fixed lengths are shown in Fig. 1 will apply during anchor 2 2
available for vertical and inclined anchors pull-out.
in a cohesive soil and vertical anchors The average soil stress parallel to the My'2h + L sin P) rD
in a cohesionless soil. However, very (2h + L sin P) sin P L tang'—
little information exists regarding the de- anchor shaft is 2 2
sign of the fixed length of inclined an- 2 L tan q>'.. (1)
chors in a cohesionless soil. The reason which is assumed to act over the top
for this is that the soil stresses acting on and bottom quarter perimeters of the My'2h + L sin sin
anchor. P) P
the side of an inclined anchor are not
The average soil stresses, perpendicular to
(ii ) when—
easy to determine. In addition to this, 2
laboratory investigations using model 1'2h + L sin P) cos P
anchors have been restricted by the dif- the anchor shaft are f'2h + L sin P) cos P
ficulty of reproducing field conditions in 2
the laboratory and there also exists the which acts over the top and bottom quar- 2
y'2h +
scale problem of soil grain size to model
anchor dimensions. ter perimeters and
L sin P) i.e. M sin p ( cos p the term
The mechanism of failure of fixed an-
which acts over the side
2 M f'2h + L sin P) sin P
chor length in a cohesionless soil is peri-quarter
complex and very little work has been meters. 2
carried out to establish this mode upon Two conditions of mobilised stress must
which a theoretic-I analysis might be be considered. may be neglected whence,
based. Notwithsta. the above diffi-
culties it is possib.'
I
> make an estimate
M f'2h + L sin P) sin P l'2h + L sin P) cos P -„D
of the fixed length c=pacity of such an- (i) when Tf =
chors by analysis of an intuitive failure 2 2 2
mode, the results of such an analysis l'2h + L sin P) cos P M f'2h + L sin P) -„D
being verified and modified by back- L tan y'
analysis of in situ tests data. 2 2
An equation for the prediction of in-
clined fixed length capacity may be ob-
tained if it is assumed that the soil above
i.e. when M sin p )
cos p the term L tan y>'.. (2)
the anchor behaves in a manner appro-
f'2h + L sin P) cos P Eqns. 1 and 2 may be combined as:
priate to a solid material (as opposed to may be
2
the particulate character of a cohesion-
= —(2h + L sin P)
8/

less soil). If this condition is imposed Tf

neglected whence, 4
and it is further assumed that the soil
[M (sin p + 1) + cos p] -„DL tan
y'3)
with the proviso that
if M sin p) cos p, put (cos p) =0
in eqn, 3.
If M sin p ( cos p, put (M sin p) = 0
in eqn. 3.
The end-bearing capacity of the anchor
has been neglected in the above equation
because of its unreliability. The coefficient
M is a soil dilatancy factor, the value
of which is related to the soil relative
density (RD) at the point of anchor fail-
ure.
Soil dilatancy is caused by the reloca-
tion of soil particles within a soil continu-
um under stress, the relocation causing
expansion of the soil. If the expansion
of the soil mass can be restricted later-
ally it is possible to increase the in situ
active stress beyond that predicted by
general soil mechanics principles.
Present design equations relating to
anchors in cohesionless soils do not allow
for this effect and thus calculated anchor
loads are less than measured in situ.
It is shown below that in situ soil stres-
ses are sufficient to produce the necessary
lateral forces required and that M values of
Fig. 1. Approximate soil stresses acting on between 3.9 and 4.6 are theoretically pos-
anchor during pull-out sible with soil of high RD when the
26 Ground Engineering
anchor is placed at a critical angle,
M 0 Fig. 3, Values of P, „, and M,,„„ for maximum
The critical value of M (M„t, ) may RD of soil
7
be obtained by comparing the dilative
force produced during anchor failure with
the resisting wedge of soil perpendicular
to this force. The mathematical value of
M is expressed by eqn. 6 which has been
aO
//
o I to
>I oo
/
.'o
I //

derived using the geometry and approxi- e/ 'G

/
mate soil stresses shown in Fig. 2 as Ay / / /
described below: /
/ / /
Rowe's max. value
7' h' r / /
=
4

W'=— iT
—
!

/ . =43.7
7 trh i
=
30'0'0'
i
W sin P sin (4)

force which
4

ultimately
P

prevents
10'0
3 I

60' 70' 80'he

soil dilation along the anchor shaft may

be seen from Fig. 2 to be: be found by dividing eqn. 5 by eqn. 4 TABLE I. VALUES OF Pv„u and Mv„,
whence, FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF
F = W'os p + W'in p tan tl' 1 tan /I' fl'ull

W cos P + end-bearing at proxi- = + dilatancy condition

mal end of anchor. cosa p
sin p cos p 25'0'5'os

+
P
( ) Pv„,i 457'37o 42 405.
sin P 3.9
Mv„, 4.2 4.4 4.6

+ 7'he —cosP
4
(5) and —
dM

dp
= 2 tan y'—
sin f3

cosa p
4
tan 2p, sin 2p
responding Mv„t, value obtained by sub-
stitution of P„„„in eqn. 6.
Values of P,,„„and the corresponding
As in the case of eqn, 3 the reliability —cote p —1 (7) values of Me„,, for various values of
of anchor end-bearing is questionable and soil y're
shown in Table I, and Fig. 3
has been neglected in eqn. 5. The critical value of P (Pv„u ) is found shows the theoretical variations of M
The global dilatancy coefficient M may by equating eqn. 7 to zero and the cor- with P.
Rowe'as carried out a number of
dilatancy tests on various soils with vary-
ing values of RD, this value increasing
with increasing applied stress. Table II
jg„w has been produced from Rowe's results
cp to indicate the relative state of soil dila-
tancy and RD. It is of interest to com-
IV
pare Table II with the results of Table I,
when it may be seen that there is reason-
able agreement between the two sets
of data. It may be imputed from this that
the foregoing assessment of M,,„ is
reasonably accurate.

In situ results
The author has compiled Table III which
indicates calculated M values, for various
Elevation on anchor Section 1 1 soil in-situ relative densities, anchor in-
clinations and pull-out loads, which have
been computed by the use of eqn. 3.
The diameter of the grouted body
placed is difficult to establish. However,
Bassette suggests that when pressure
grouting is used the diameter of the
grouted body placed will be approximate-
4
ly — D'here D' casing diameter (it
3

TABLE II. RELATIVE STATE OF SOIL

DILATANCY AND RD

M values
Soil Initial dilatancy Full dilatancy
type Low RD, High RD.

Fine
sand
2.0 5.0
Sect/on 2 —2 Coarse
sand
1.8 4.5
Fig, 2, Anchor geometry and approximate soil forces above anchor
March, 1981 27
 TABLE III. IN SITU RESULTS
COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL Vertical anchor tests
(continued from page 25)
M ical values. It is suggested that this is due
Anchor
No.
Inclination
(P')
Fixed
length
(m)
Tf
(kN) ('/ ) =— 4D'D

3
M
(D=D'
114)
to the fact that the embedded volume of
the anchor decreases as a test proceeds
= 152) and tensile cracks develop near the under-
ream. Thus a true bearing situation does
35 7.0 765 88 2.37 3.16 not exist and the theory of Meyerhof" is
not directly applicable.
7. In both quick and slow tests, the
35 88 2.26 3.01 addition of an under-ream is effective in
38'8'8'8c

preventing sudden failure rather than in

3 35 510 88 1.59 2.12 limiting movements.

612 88 1.90 2.53 Acknowledgements

The field tests were carried out adjac-
35 635 38o 88 1.97 2.63 ent to the site offices of the Expanded

30 384
30 720
32 720
should be noted that this does not apply
to gravels). The author has used two
grouted body diameters in the back-
analysis for the compilation of Table III,
4 soil type be subdivided into correspond-
D = — D'nd D = D'as noted). It
3 It may be useful, as a first estimate of
may be seen that the in situ M values
4 appropriate to low RD as shown in Table
obtained for D = —D're close to Rowe's
3 the design engineer has a reliable set of
initial dilatancy M values shown in Table
II. This result is as expected since anchor
installation will reduce the in-situ rela-
tive density of the soil.
The reader may suggest that pressure
grouting will re-stress the soil medium
and thus restore it to its initial in-situ RD.
Although there is some truth in this argu-
ment it appears from the back-analysis
results that this is not entirely the case.
This is not too surprising since it cannot
be expected that a disturbed soil continu-
um will be replaced to its in-situ state
of particle interlocking by pressure grout-
ing once this interlocking has been dis-
turbed by installation.
This article is intended to provide the
design engineer with a relatively simple
equation for the design of inclined ground
anchors in a cohesionless soil without
recourse to in-situ testing. The equation
is based on a simplistic intuitive analysis
and this appears to be acceptable from
the results obtained. It should also be
borne in mind that the in-situ variation
of a cohesionless soil does not lend itself
to a rigorous mathematical analysis and
additionally there is the complication of
the effect of soil disturbance due to anchor
installation on such an analysis.
The author is in the process of obtaining
data for back-analysis purposes in order
to establish values of M appropriate to
various soil types and in-situ conditions.
However, Table III has been presented as
an example to the practising engineer of
the data required to compute M values
appropriate to a particular site for on-
going and future design purposes.
The author has found difficulty in ob-
taining field data from specialists who are
naturally reticent about anchor failures,
and it therefore seems likely that the
collection of such data will require some
time.
The equation is applicable to all types
of cohesionless soils but the values of
28 Ground Engineering
36'6'7'D85 1.52
85 2.83
2.56
85
M will obviously vary with
types and relative density. It is therefore
suggested that M values computed from
back-analysis using eqn. 3 for a particular
ing RD categories for future design use.
M, to use Rowe's initial dilatancy values
II. However, it must be stressed that until
data relating to M values eqn. 3 should
not be applied indiscriminately.
It should be noted that the effect of
soil overconsolidation has not been con-
sidered in the development of the equa-
tion. However, the author suggests that
the closer packing of soil grains associ-
ated with this state will be adversely
affected by anchor installation and will
therefore not be a critical design para-
meter.
The effects of soil creep and cyclic
loading have not been considered in the
foregoing; however, such effects should be
considered in the overall serviceability and
design of a ground anchor scheme.
It is suggested that a factor of safety
of at least 2 be used in the design cal-
culations.
The design equation described here
may also prove useful in preliminary de-
sign and proposed scheme cost analysis
but such a proposal, of course, requires
verification and adjustment in the light
of site testing (as is the case generally).
However, the author suggests that by
back-analysing in-situ results over a per-
iod of time the specialist will be able to
compile a set of data related to general
site investigation data from which accur-
ate anchor design may be carried out
without the monetary investment required
for a series of in-situ tests at an initial
stage in a proposed project.
References
1. Rowe, P. W, (1962): "The stress-dilatancy re-
lation for static equilibrium of an assembly
of particles in contact". Proc. Royal Soc A.
Vol. 259, 500-527
2. Bassett, R, H. (1970): Proc. of Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, In-
stitution of Civil Engineers, London, June,
89-94
3. Somerville, M. A. (1980): "Ground anchors'',
Civil Engineering, March 47-49, 67
4. Somerville, M, A. Dissertation presented in
part fulfilment for the Degree of M Sc in
Engineering Heriot-Watt University,
2.03
Piling Co. Ltd., and thanks are due to
them for the drilling of the anchor holes
and assistance with all mechanical handl-
3.80 ing on site. The work was supported by
a grant from the Science Research Council
3.41 Ref. No. 8/SR/8133 for the period Janu-
ary 1971 to December 1973. The assistance
of Mr. B. A. Caddick, Contract Technician,
is greatly acknowledged.
varying soil
References
1. Burland, J, B.,
Butler, F. G. & Dunican, P.
(1966): "The behaviour and design of large
diameter bored piles in stiff clay". Sympos-
ium on Large Bored Piles, ICE, London, 51-71.
2. Adams, J.
L & K/ym, T. W. (1972): "A study
of anchorages for transmission tower founda-
tions", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
9 No 1, 89-104.
3. O'eill, M. W. & Reese, L. C. (1972): "Be-
haviour of bored piles in Beaumont Clay",
ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM2.
4, Meyerhof G. G. & Murdock L J. (1953): "An
investigation of the bearing capacity of some
bored and driven piles in London Clay", Geo-
technique Vol. 3, No. 7, 267-282.
5. Chandler, R. J. (1968): "The shaft friction
of piles in cohesive soils in terms of effec-
tive stress", Civil Engineering and Public
Works Review No. 63.
6. Burland, J. B. (1973/r "Shaft friction of piles
in clay — a simple fundamental approach",
BRE Current Paper 33/73.
7. Whitaker, T. Ik Cooke, R. W. (1966): "An
investigation of the shaft and base resistance
of large bored piles in London Clay", Sympos-
ium on Large Bored Piles, ICE London, 7-49.
8. Taylor, P. T. (1966): "Age effect on shaft
resistance and effect of loading rate on load
distribution of bored piles". Thesis, Univer-
sity of Sheffield.
9. Tomlinson, M. J. (1957): "The adhesion of
piles driven in clay soils", 4th Int. Conf. on
Soil Mech. and Fdn. Eng. Vol. 2.
10. Skempton, A, W. (1959): "Cast in situ
bored piles in London Clay", Geotechnique
Vol. 9, No. 4, 153-173.
11. Sowa, V. A. (1970): "Pulling capacity of
concrete cast in situ bored piles", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, 482-492.
12. Radhakrishna, H. S. & Adams, J. I. (1973):
"Long term uplift capacity of augered foot-
ings is fissured clay", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, 647-651.
13. Cooke, R, W. & Whitaker, T. (1961): Experi-
ments on model piles with enlarged bases",
Geotechnique, Vol. 11.
14. Meyerhof, G. G. (1951): "The ultimate hear-
ing capacity of foundations", Geotechnique,
Vol. 2, No. 4, 301-322.
15. Bassett, R. H. S. (1970): Discussion, Con-
ference on Ground Engineering, Institution of
Civil Engineers, London, 89-94.
16. Ashbee, R. A. (1965); Discussion, 6th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, 427-428, Mont-
rea I.
17. Batmanabane (1973): "Resistance maximale a
I'arrachement des ancrages en milieu coher-
ent", Thesis, University of Grenoble.
18. Woodward, R, J., Lundgren, R, & Boitano,
J. D. (1961): "Pile loading tests in stiff clay",
5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech, and Fdn. Eng., Vol.
2, 177-184, Paris.
19. Peck, R. B. (1958): "A study of the compara-
tive behaviour of friction piles", Highway
Research Board Special Report 36.
20, Alh M. (1968): "Pull out resistance of an-
chor plates and anchor piles in soft benton
ite clay", Duke University, Soil Mechanics
Edinburgh Series, No. 17.