Ultimate Uplift Capacity of Multiplate

Helical Type Anchors in Clay

R. S. Merifield1

Abstract: In recent years, the use of helical anchors has expanded beyond their traditional use in the electrical power industry. The
advantages of rapid installation and immediate loading capability have resulted in their being used in more traditional civil engineering
infrastructure applications. Unfortunately, our current understanding of these anchors is unsatisfactory, and the underlying theoretical frame-
work adopted by engineers has proven to be largely inappropriate and inadequate. A better understanding of helical anchor behavior will lead
to increased confidence in design, a wider acceptance as a foundation alternative, and more economic and safer designs. The primary aim of
this research is to use numerical modeling techniques to better understand multiplate circular anchor foundation behavior in clay soils. A
practical design framework for multiplate anchor foundations will be established to replace existing semiempirical design methods that are
inadequate and have been found to be excessively under- or overconservative. This framework can then be used by design engineers to
confidently estimate the pullout capacity of multiplate anchors under tension loading. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000478.
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Anchors; Numerical models; Numerical analysis; Clays; Plasticity; Uplifting.
Author keywords: Anchors; Numerical modeling and analysis; Theoretical analysis; Clays; Plasticity.

Introduction unsatisfactory and has remained essentially unchanged for 20 years.

Background and Objectives
Helical anchors are geotechnical foundations that can be used as
either tension or compression members and are composed of a
number of helical plates welded along a central steel shaft, as illus-
trated in Fig. 1(a). The plates are constructed as a helix with a care-
fully controlled pitch. The anchors can have more than one helix
located at appropriate spacing on the shaft. The central shaft is used
to transmit torque during installation and to transfer axial loads to
the helical plates.
In the past 20 years, the use of helical anchors has expanded
beyond their traditional use in the electrical power industry. The
advantages of rapid installation, immediate loading capability,
and resistance to both uplift and bearing loads have resulted in their
being used in more traditional geotechnical engineering applica-
tions. Such foundation anchors are currently used as tie-downs
for structures subject to uplift [Fig. 1(b)], foundation systems
for new construction and piers to underpin and level structures sub-
ject to settlement [Fig. 1(c)], and tiebacks for the retention of slopes
and walls [Fig. 1(d)]. They are becoming an increasingly popular
foundation system that can be installed quickly into the ground
with minimal site disturbance by truck- or trailer-mounted augering
equipment.
Unfortunately, current understanding regarding the behavior of
buried foundations, and helical anchors in particular, is somewhat
With the advent of complex numerical modeling software, there is
an opportunity to investigate the multihelix anchor problem with
the aim of improving our knowledge of such foundations and
achieving economies in their design and application.
The objectives of the present paper are (1) a more fundamental
understanding of multiplate anchor behavior and failure mecha-
nisms; and (2) a rigorous design methodology and framework in
the form of equations and design charts that can be used by
practicing engineers. In order to simplify the geometry of this
problem, this paper will employ an axi-symmetric analysis for
multiplate anchors with the aim of better understanding the funda-
mental mechanics of the problem. This effectively eliminates the
difficulties in modeling the anchor’s helical pitch and the anchors
are, therefore, idealized as embedded circular plates. The analyses
extend the work of Merifield and Smith (2010), who applied
numerical modeling to the problem of mutiplate strip anchors
in clay.
Research into the behavior of soil anchors can take one of two
forms, namely experimental or numerical/theoretical-based studies.
The brief summary of existing research herein has been separated
based on this distinction.
Previous Studies
Previous Experimental Studies

1
Senior Lecturer, Centre for Geotechnical and Materials Modeling,
School of Engineering, Univ. of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308,
Australia. E-mail: richard.merifield@newcastle.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 4, 2009; approved
on October 27, 2010; published online on November 4, 2010. Discussion
period open until December 1, 2011; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 7, July 1, 2011.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2011/7-704–716/$25.00.
Numerous investigators have performed model tests on single helix
anchors in an attempt to develop semiempirical theories that can be
used to estimate the capacity of anchors in soil. For anchors in clay,
results can be found in the works of Vesic (1971), Meyerhof and
Adams (1968), Meyerhof (1973), and Das (1978; 1980).
One thing in common in all the aforementioned studies is that
they are limited to anchors with a single helix. The proposed semi-
empirical theories cannot be easily applied to the problem of
multihelix anchors in which a complication arises owing to the

704 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011


Central Steel Shaft
Helix
Diameter
Transmission tower
Pitch
Top Helix
2 Helix configuration shown
Helix
Diameter
Lower Pitch
Helix
Helix
Thickness
(a) Helical anchor definitions (c) New construction
Fig. 1. Use of helical anchors—Some practical examples: (a) helical anchor definitions; (b) uplift; (c) new construction; (d) tiebacks
interaction between adjacent helices. This interaction can produce
overlapping stress zones that affect the failure mode and ultimate
capacity, as highlighted by Merifield and Smith (2010).
Experimental and field studies on multihelix anchors are
much more scarce and are limited to the works of Weikart and
Clemence (1987), Mitsch and Clemence (1985), Mooney et al.
(1985), Lutenegger et al. (1988), Hoyt and Clemence (1991),
and Narasimha Rao et al. (1991, 1993).
Based on field and laboratory observations, Mitsch and
Clemence (1985), and Mooney et al. (1985) proposed semianalyt-
ical expressions to estimate the uplift capacity of horizontal [see
Fig. 1(a)] multihelix anchors in sand and clay, respectively. These
two studies represent the most notable attempts at presenting a
generic set of design guidelines for horizontal multihelix anchors.
Important to note is that these theories are simple limit equilibrium
approaches based on a number of significant assumptions. This in-
cludes assuming a failure mechanism consisting of general bearing-
capacity failure above the top helix and cylindrical failure between
the lower helices.
A measure of the accuracy of the methods proposed by Mitsch
and Clemence (1985), and Mooney et al. (1985) can be found in the
paper by Lutenegger et al. (1988). Lutenegger et al. (1988) found
that when estimating the capacity of multihelix anchors in sand
based on cone penetration test (CPT) data, the proposed procedures
of Mitsch and Clemence (1985) are overly conservative, particu-
larly for deep anchors. The theory proposed by Mooney et al.
(1985) for anchors in clay was found to overpredict the ulti-
mate capacity significantly; the calculated load was up to four
times the measured field load. Given the significant level of site
investigation, Lutenegger and colleagues concluded that the dis-
crepancies could not be explained through errors in strength
determination, and existing semiempirical methods need to be
modified.
In summary, it is apparent that existing theories are unable to
produce estimates of the collapse loads in either clay or sand that
are consistent with measured field loads. Ultimately, what is needed
is a much more thorough experimental study of multihelix anchors
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 705
backfill
Submerged Pipeline
(b) Uplift
(d) Tiebacks
with a scope that is sufficient to overcome the problems of existing
semiempirical theories discussed in this section.
Previous Theoretical Analyses
There have been numerous theoretical studies that address the uplift
of single horizontal anchors as summarized by Merifield et al.
(2006, 2003). The majority of these studies, however, assume a
condition of plane strain for the case of a continuous strip anchor
or axi-symmetry for the case of circular anchors. The works of
Merifield et al. (2006, 2003), and more recently, Wang et al.
(2009), appear to be the only three-dimensional numerical analyses
to ascertain the effect of anchor shape on the uplift capacity. How-
ever, these studies do not consider multihelix anchors.
The common approach to modeling anchors is by using the limit
equilibrium method (LEM), even though most failures involve
complex deformations that bear little resemblance to the rigid block
assumptions required by most limit equilibrium methods.
An approximate semiempirical theory for the uplift capacity of
single circular anchors has been proposed by Meyerhof and Adams
(1968). The analysis of strip anchors was extended by Meyerhof
and Adams (1968) to include circular anchors by using a semiem-
pirical shape factor to modify the passive earth pressure obtained
for the plane strain case. The paper by Meyerhof and Adams (1968)
is widely referenced when considering the capacity of anchors.
Kulhawy (1985) presents what appears to be one of the only
methods of analysis for the uplift capacity of multihelix helical an-
chors. In his model, the upper helix develops a cylindrical shear
surface that controls its behavior. The soil between the helices
becomes an effective cylinder if the helices are sufficiently close
together. The shearing resistance along the interface is said to
be controlled by the friction angle and state of stress in the dis-
turbed cylinder of soil above the anchor. Key terms in the general
model are the modified bearing-capacity factors, the in situ stresses
and how they are modified by installation effects, and the soil
strength along the shear surfaces. The overall design procedure
is, again, semiempirical in nature.
 It is apparent that there are no rigorous numerical analyses in the
literature that address the problem of multihelix anchors in soil. All
of the aforementioned studies, with the exception of Kulhawy
(1985), consider only a single helix.
Current Theory for Multiplate Anchors
At this point, it is worth making note of what anchor manufacturers
themselves use to estimate the capacity of their products. Much of
the theory proposed by Mitsch and Clemence (1985) and Mooney
et al. (1985) has been recognized by anchor manufacturers. This
is apparent after reading the design guides produced by the main
manufacturers of multihelix screw anchors (Hubbell Inc. 2003;
Magnum Piering, Inc. 2004). However, anchor manufacturers in-
stead have chosen to use one of three methods for predicting
pullout-capacity, namely, “cylindrical shear,” “individual bearing,”
and an empirical method based on “installation torque.” In general,
manufacturers suggest that the cylindrical shear and individual
bearing methods be used to determine capacity and the installation
torque method be used as a field verification tool only.
In the “cylindrical shear” method, the entire volume of soil be-
tween the helical blades is assumed to be mobilized. This type of
failure mechanism is shown in Fig. 2(a). Due to the rigid nature of
this mechanism, the anchor shaft is unlikely to contribute to the
overall capacity. Ultimate pullout-capacity of a multiblade anchor
is a combination of shear along the cylinder of soil between the
blades and bearing capacity of the top blade, given by
Qu ¼ πDðn
1ÞSðc þ σv tan ϕÞ þ 0:25πD2 ð1:3cN c þ σv N q Þ
ð1Þ
where D = average blade diameter; S = spacing between each
blade; n = number of helical blades; σv = vertical soil pressure
at the helices, c = soil cohesion; ϕ = angle of internal friction
of the soil; and N c and N q = bearing capacity factors for general
shear (Terzaghi 1943).
For a circular plate anchor in clay (ϕu ¼ 0), the ultimate pullout-
capacity of a multiblade anchor using the “cylindrical shear”
analogy can be estimated in two ways. First, the capacity can be
assumed to be the result of shear along the cylinder of soil between
all the blades; therefore Eq. (1) will become
Qu ¼ nπDScu ð2Þ
Qu = π DnScu Qu = π D ( n − 1) Scu + 0.25π D 2 (1.3) cu N c
S on which they are based are usually considered proprietary by
n=2
n=2
S ( Blades ) S In light of these discussions, an obvious question asked by de-
D D
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Helical anchors: (a) cylindrical shear failure; (b) cylindrical
shear and bearing failure
706 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011
Alternatively, the capacity is assumed to be a combination of
shear along the cylinder of soil between the blades and bearing
capacity of the top blade, given by
Qu ¼ πDðn
1ÞScu þ 0:25πD2 ð1:3Þcu N c ð3Þ
where cu = undrained soil cohesion; and N c ¼ ð2 þ πÞ = bearing
capacity factor for general shear (Terzaghi 1943). This mode of fail-
ure is shown in Fig. 2(b).
Anchor manufacturers believe that, for deeply buried screw
anchors, the theoretical capacity is best calculated using an “indi-
vidual bearing” method based on Terzaghi’s (1943) general bear-
ing-capacity equation without adjustment. The assumed failure
mechanism in the “individual bearing” method consists of each
helical blade displacing the overburden soil in a logarithmic spiral
mode. Thus, the capacity of each blade can be estimated using the
well-known Terzaghi bearing-capacity equation. The total ultimate
pullout-capacity is the sum over n blades, as given by
X
1

1
Qu ¼ An 1:3cN c þ σvn N q þ γBN γ ð4Þ
n
2
where An = blade area. All other parameters have been defined pre-
viously. Contributions of soil unit weight in the third term in Eq. (4)
are generally ignored by manufacturers. Therefore, for anchors in
purely cohesive clay, the total ultimate pullout-capacity is the sum
over n blades in clay, as given by
X
1
Qu ¼ An ð1:3cu N c þ σvn Þ ð5Þ
n
where An = plate area.
Both the “cylindrical shear” and “individual bearing” methods
have similarities to the semiempirical methods presented by Mitsch
and Clemence (1985) and Mooney et al. (1985) with one significant
exception, namely, they do not use adjusted bearing-capacity fac-
tors or earth pressure coefficients to reflect the difference between
soil uplift and footing bearing capacity. The writer believes that the
concept of applying existing bearing-capacity solutions derived ini-
tially for surface footings to the problem of anchor uplift is not
appropriate and is a poor representation of the real problem. A more
compelling argument could be made to use Terzaghi’s bearing-
capacity theory if the anchor was loaded in compression as opposed
to tension.
The final theory currently used when estimating the capacity of
multihelix anchors is based on installation torque. Nowadays, this
empirical method based on installation torque is often used by an-
chor manufacturers who have access to vast quantities of anchor
field data. The details regarding these correlations and the data
the manufacturers. The required torque is monitored during instal-
lation until the anchor reaches its design depth. The torque readings
are then averaged over the distance of the final three helix diameters
of installation. This averaged torque value is then multiplied by the
torque factor to obtain the ultimate capacity.
sign engineers would be: which one of the three available methods
for estimating the capacity of multihelix anchors is the most appro-
priate to use and under what conditions? An insight into the accu-
racy of these existing methods can be found in the work of Hoyt
and Clemence (1991).
Hoyt and Clemence (1991) analyzed 91 load tests at 24 different
sites, with sand, silt, and clay soils all represented. All of the tests
used in the study were short-term; most were strain controlled and
included a final loading step of imposing continuous deflection. X
n

This final load was taken as the ultimate capacity Qact. The capacity Qu ¼ Qui ≤ Qu ð6Þ
i¼1
ratio Qact =Qcal was obtained for each test by dividing the actual
capacity (Qact ) by the calculated capacity (Qcalc ). Qcalc was calcu- where Qui = ultimate pullout-capacity of anchor i; n = total number
lated by using the three different load capacity models discussed of anchor plates; and Qu = maximum/limiting capacity of a multi-
previously, namely the cylindrical shear, individual bearing, and plate anchor. The average ultimate bearing pressure for each anchor
torque correlation methods. These data were then compared and is
plotted on separate histograms. All three capacity theories exhib- Q
ited the capability of both overpredicting and underpredicting mul- qui ¼ ui ð7Þ
A
tihelix anchor capacity. On average, the methods overpredicted the
capacity by around 50%, but this could be as much as 600%, using where A = area of an individual anchor. After Rowe and Davis
the individual bearing theory [Eq. (4)]. The cylindrical shear (1982), the analysis of anchor behavior can be divided into two
method was also found to underestimate the capacity more often distinct categories, namely, those of “immediate breakaway” and
than other methods. “no breakaway.” In the immediate breakaway case, it is assumed
The observations of Hoyt and Clemence (1991) help to confirm that the soil/anchor interface cannot sustain tension, so that, upon
the argument that neither “individual bearing” capacity theory nor loading, the vertical stress immediately below the anchor reduces to
“cylindrical shear” theory are appropriate for the problem of buried zero, and the anchor is no longer in contact with the underlying soil.
This represents the case in which there is no adhesion or suction
anchors under uplift loads. They are unable to reliably predict the
between the soil and anchor. In the no breakaway case, the opposite
likely ultimate capacity of multihelix anchors in a wide range of
is assumed, with the soil/anchor interface sustaining adequate ten-
soil types.
sion to ensure the anchor remains in contact with the soil at all
times. In reality, it is likely that the true breakaway state will fall
somewhere between the extremities of the “immediate breakaway”
Problem of Anchor Capacity
and “no breakaway” cases. The anchor analyses presented in this
paper are performed for the case in which the soil/anchor interface
Problem Definition is unable to sustain any tension. The interface between the soil and
A general layout of the problem to be analyzed is shown in Fig. 3. anchor is free to separate under tension, but contact can reestablish
The anchor has a total of n individual plates of diameter D, spaced itself if the analysis desires.
After allowing for immediate and no breakaway behavior, an-
evenly along the shaft at a distance of S. The anchor spacing ratio is
chors can be further classified as shallow or deep, depending on
defined as S=D and the anchor embedment depth is H=D. Referring
their mode of failure. This point is illustrated in Fig. 4. An anchor
to Fig. 3, the total pullout-capacity for the anchor system can be
is classified as shallow if, at ultimate collapse, the observed failure
expressed as a summation of the individual plate capacities, namely
mechanism reaches the surface [Figs. 4(a) and ]. In contrast, a deep
as anchor is one whose failure mode is characterized by localized
shear around the anchor(s) and is not affected by the location of
n
Qu = ∑ Qui
the soil surface [Figs. 4(c) and 4(d)]. For an individual anchor plate
i =1 of diameter, D, and soil type, (γ, cu ), there exists a critical embed-
ment depth, H cr (Fig. 4), at which the failure mechanism no longer
extends to the soil surface and becomes fully localized around the
anchor(s). This is true for both single and multiplate anchors. When
cu , γ this type of behavior occurs, the total ultimate capacity of the an-
Anchor shaft
Q Dshaft = shaft diameter chor will have reached a maximum limiting value Qu (the asterisk
H qu1 = u1
A
on Qu denotes deep failure).
In the context of a multiplate anchor arrangement (Fig. 3), the
type of deep failure mechanism will be a function of the anchor
spacing ratio S=D. If the anchor spacing S=D ratio is large enough,
i = 1 to n then each plate anchor will act independently of each other and
n = number of anchor plates
produce a collapse mechanism like that shown in Fig. 4(d). This
transition will occur at a critical value of S=D ≥ ðS=DÞcr . However,
'
H S Qu 2
qu 2 = π D2
A A= if the anchor spacing ratio S=D is small enough, such that each
4
plate anchor is influenced by the location of adjacent anchors, then
the collapse mechanism is likely to be global, like that shown in
Fig. 4(c). From a design perspective, the maximum capacity of
a multiplate anchor Qu will be achieved if each of the anchor plates
acts independently of each other.
S Qun
qun =
A Capacity of a Single Circular Anchor Plate in
Undrained Clay
In contrast to formulating a methodology for multiplate anchors
based on bearing-capacity theory, it is proposed to extend the plate
anchor methodology of Merifield et al. (2003). Therefore, the ul-
D timate anchor bearing capacity for each anchor plate qui will be
expressed as a function of the undrained shear strength in the
Fig. 3. Problem definition
following form:

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 707

 (a)
(b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Shallow and deep anchor behavior: (a) and (b) shallow failure mechanism; (c) global deep failure mechanism; (d) local deep failure mechanism

Qui
¼ qui ¼ cu N ci ð8Þ 14
A
12.6
where, for a homogeneous soil profile, 12


qui γH
N ci ¼ ¼ N coi þ ≤ N ci ð9Þ 10
cu γ≠0 cu

The limiting value of the break-out factor owing to deep anchor 8

behavior is defined as N ci , and the term N coi is an anchor break-out N co1
factor defined as 6


qui
N coi ¼ ð10Þ
cu γ¼0 4
Lower Bound - Merifield et al 2003
FE Merifield (2002)
Implicit in Eq. (8) is the assumption that the effects of soil 2 ABAQUS FE
unit weight and cohesion are independent of each other and Cylidrical Shear
Equation 11
may be superimposed. It was shown by Merifield et al. (2003, SMOOTH
2001) that this assumption generally provides a good approxi- 0
mation to the behavior of anchor plates in purely cohesive 0 2 4 6 8 10
undrained clay. H
A 3D numerical lower bound and axi-symmetric finite-element D
value of the break-out factor N coi for single (i ¼ 1) circular plate
anchors N co1 was presented by Merifield and colleagues (Merifield Fig. 5. Break-out factor for a single circular anchor plate
2002; Merifield et al. 2003). The results from these studies are
shown in Fig. 5 along with a lower bound curve fit given by Eqs. (8)–(10) as


N coi ¼ 13:7 1
e
0:35HD
≤ 12:6 ð11Þ Qui ¼ N ci Acu ð12Þ

Martin and Randolph (2001) provided an exact value of the

Eq. (11) is valid for perfectly smooth anchors. The limit of 12.6
shown in Eq. (11) indicates that a transition from shallow to deep
anchor behavior also occurs for a weightless soil. The limiting
value of the break-out factor is, therefore, defined as N ci ¼ 12:6
for a single circular anchor based on the analyses of Merifield
and colleagues (Merifield 2002; Merifield et al. 2003).
Existing Solutions for “Deep” Smooth Single Circular
Anchors
By reviewing existing solutions for the ultimate capacity of
anchors, a useful comparison can be made to the numerical
finite-element results. For a fully bonded or deep circular anchor
plate i, the ultimate pullout-capacity Qui can be obtained from
limiting value of the break-out factor of N ci ¼ 12:42 for smooth
anchors, that can also be expressed as
N ci ¼ ð3 þ 3πÞ ¼ 12:42 ð13Þ
where the asterisk is used to signify a deep failure mode. The as-
sociated lower bound stress field and upper bound velocity field
from Martin and Randolph (2001) are shown in Fig. 6. The limiting
capacity of Martin and Randolph (2001) is around 1.5% below the
value determined by Merifield and colleagues (Merifield 2002;
Merifield et al. 2003). Eqs. (12) and (13) can be used to calculate
the limiting capacity for a single “deep” smooth circular anchor
plate.

708 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011

 Centreline of anchor
(a)
Qui*
= ( 3 + 3π ) = 12.42
Acu
(b)
Fig. 6. Martin and Randolph (2001) solution for a deep buried anchor:
(a) lower bound stress field; (b) upper bound velocity field
Effect of Anchor Shaft
The discussions thus far have ignored the effect of the anchor shaft
on the overall capacity of single or multiplate anchors. In reality,
the shaft may provide extra load capacity as a result of shearing
along its length analogous to the shaft capacity for pile foundations.
However, any contribution made by the shaft to the overall capacity
will depend on the mode of failure. For example, if the anchor spac-
ing ratio S=D is small such that cylindrical shear failure is likely
[Fig. 2(a)], the shaft is unlikely to contribute any capacity because
there will be little or no relative movement between the shaft and
soil. On the other hand, for large values of S=D, shear stresses are
likely to develop along the shaft between the anchor plates, and this
will provide extra load capacity. It is, therefore, suggested that one
ignore the shaft capacity in routine design unless the anchor spac-
ing ratio is large (S=D > 6). Nonetheless, should there be a need to
separate the anchor and shaft capacities, the following discussions
are provided.
It is important to realize that the inclusion of the shaft will lead
to a reduction in the projected bearing area A (Fig. 3) and, thus, a
reduction in the calculated capacity for each anchor plate. If the
ratio of the anchor shaft diameter (Dshaft ) to the anchor diameter
(D) is small (Dshaft =D ≤ 0:5), then it may be justified to neglect
the extra shear capacity provided by the shaft and the reduction
in the capacity of each anchor owing to the bearing area reduction.
This assumption will lead to a conservative estimate of the capacity.
On the other hand, if the ratio of the anchor shaft diameter (Dshaft ) to
the anchor diameter (D) is large, then it may be necessary to include
the shear capacity of the shaft in calculations while reducing the
capacity of each anchor plate as a result of a reduced surface area.
If, for simplicity, we assume the average bearing pressure qui on
the anchor remains unchanged regardless of the shaft diameter, then
the reduced capacity of each anchor Qui shaft because of the shaft
can be simply written as


Qui shaft Dshaft 2
¼1
ð14Þ
Qui D
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 709
The accuracy of Eq. (14) will be evaluated in the following
sections.
It is suggested that routine pile design theory be used to estimate
the capacity provided by the anchor shaft. For the case of undrained
clay, the unit shaft adhesion can be expressed in terms of an em-
pirical adhesion factor α times the undrained shear strength. The
coefficient α depends on the strength of the clay, the anchor shaft
dimension, method of anchor installation, and time effects. It is
widely acknowledged that the value of α varies within wide limits
and decreases rapidly with increasing shear strength.
Finite-Element Analysis
The displacement finite-element software ABAQUS was used for
solving this problem. The ABAQUS model consisted of two parts:
the anchor and the soil. A typical mesh for this problem, along with
the applied displacement boundary conditions, is shown in Fig. 7.
An axi-symmetric stress state was adopted to model the circular
anchor plates with a vertical line of symmetry existing through
the center of the anchor shaft.
The actual distribution and concentration of elements varied as a
function of the anchor embedment and geometry. The unstructured
mesh primarily comprised four-noded quadrilateral elements that
were found to provide the best solution convergence. The soil
was modeled as an isotropic elasto-perfectly plastic continuum with
failure described by the Mohr—Coulomb yield criterion. The elas-
tic behavior was defined by a Poisson’s ratio ν ¼ 0:49, and a ratio
of Young’s modulus to shear strength of E=cu ¼ 500. Although it
is likely that shaft friction contributes to the capacity, the term is
generally ignored in anchor design because of the uncertainties
involved. Therefore, unless stated otherwise, the shaft was not
considered in the ABAQUS analyses.
For all analyses, a smooth interface strength has been modeled.
A no-tension condition has been imposed at the anchor-soil inter-
face. When the soil self-weight is set to zero, separation occurs
immediately when there is any normal motion of the anchor away
from the soil. Small strain analyses were performed on the preem-
bedded anchor, therefore neglecting the installation and large strain
aspects of the problem.
Anchor 1
Anchor 2
S
=1
D
H
=2
D
n=2
Fig. 7. Typical finite-element mesh
 14
To determine the collapse load of the anchor, displacement- ABAQUS FE
defined analyses were performed in which the anchor was dis- ABAQUS FE Single anchor

placed vertically. A prescribed displacement was applied to the 12

rigid anchor, resulting in uniform vertical motion of the entire
anchor. The total displacement was applied over a number of sub- 10
steps, and the total nodal contact force along the anchor/soil inter-
faces in the vertical direction was used to calculate the total ultimate
8
load Qu .
N co1
6 H
Results and Discussion Anchor 1
4
Finite element analyses were performed to obtain estimates of the S
= 1− 3 Anchor 2
anchor break-out factor N coi from Eq. (10) for a range of embed- D S
2
ment depths and anchor geometries. Analyses were conducted on n = 1, 2,3
two- and three-plate anchor geometries (n ¼ 2; 3) at anchor spacing SMOOTH D
Anchor i

ratios of S=B ¼ 1 → 3 and embedment depths of H=B ¼ 1 → 10. 0

These results, along with the effects of overburden pressure, are 0 2 4 6 8 10
discussed in the following sections. H
(a) D
Shallow and Deep Single-Plate Anchors 14
Values of the break-out factor N coi obtained from the finite-element 12.61
(FE) analyses of single circular plate anchors carried out in this 12 S
=3
study are shown in Fig. 5. The results compare well with previous D
studies and, therefore, can be approximated with sufficient accu- 10
S
=3
racy by Eq. (11). D
S
For a fully bonded or deep anchor plate, the ABAQUS finite- =2
N co 2 8 D
element solution for the ultimate pullout-capacity Qui was found to
or S
be 12.61, which compares favorably with the lower bound solu- =2
D
tion of Merifield et al. (2003) and the solutions of Martin and Ran- N co3 6
dolph (2001). S
=1
4 D
Shallow Multiplate Anchors Equation 11 H/D=S/D
Equation 11 and 15
The computed ABAQUS FE estimates of the anchor break-out fac- 2 N co2
tor N coi are shown graphically in Fig. 8 for anchors with two and SMOOTH N co 3
three plates (n ¼ 2; 3). 0
Fig. 8(a) plots the break-out factor for the anchor closest to 0 2 4 6 8 10
the ground surface (Anchor 1, i ¼ 1) as defined by Eq. (10), H
N co1 . Results for anchor spacings of S=D ¼ 1 → 3 are shown in (b) D
this figure. The results in Fig. 8(a) indicate that there is only a small
reduction in the capacity of the shallowest anchor plate (Anchor 1) Fig. 8. Break-out factors for multiplate (n ¼ 2; 3) anchors in
owing to the presence of anchor plates below. For practical design weightless soil: (a) anchor 1; (b) anchor 2 and anchor 3
purposes, however, it can be concluded that the break-out factor for
the uppermost anchor is largely unaffected by the location of the
To obtain a better estimate of the break-out factors, it is pro-
anchors below and appears almost independent of S=D. Eq. (11) posed that one introduce an “equivalent embedment ratio”
can, therefore, be used to estimate the capacity of the shallowest ðH=DÞeq for anchors below the shallowest anchor. The value of
anchor plate. ðH=DÞeq can be obtained from back calculating a value of H=D
Fig. 8(b) plots the FE break-out factor for the anchors below the in Eq. (11), using the results in Fig. 8(b), remembering qui ¼
shallowest anchor (Anchors 2 and 3 i ¼ 2; 3), as defined by cu N coi for the weightless soil case. If an average of the back
Eq. (10), N co2 and N co3 . The results show that the capacity of an- calculated values is determined for each value of S=D, then the
chors below the shallowest anchor is largely independent of the equivalent embedment ratio can be approximated as
embedment ratio H=D, provided that H=D > 2. The only exception
to this is for anchor arrangements with S=D ¼ 3 and H=D < 2,
4
S 3
although in practice such shallow embedments are uncommon. ðH=DÞeq ¼ 1:12 ð15Þ
When estimating the break-out factor for anchors below the D
shallowest anchor, a difficulty arises in selecting a value of the em-
bedment depth H=D to use in Eq. (11). An estimate of the break-out Eq. (15) has been substituted into Eq. (11) to replace the value of
factor N coi using Eq. (11) can be obtained by simply assuming the H=D, and the results for the break-out factor estimate N coi are
ground surface is located at the level of the anchor immediately shown by a solid line in Fig. 8(b). The new estimates of N coi
above the anchor in question. That is, if we assume that H=D ¼ are seen to compare more favorably. It should be pointed out that
S=D in Eq. (11), a conservative estimate of N coi can be obtained. Eq. (15) has been validated only for cases in which S=D ≤ 3. Fur-
This estimate is shown by the dashed line in Fig. 8(b) and is clearly ther FE analyses would be required to acertain if this equation holds
overly conservative. true for cases in which S=D > 3.

710 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011

 Fig. 9. FE displacement contours for anchors in clay—H=D ¼ 2: (a) n ¼ 2; (b) n ¼ 3
The displacement contours at collapse for anchors in weightless
soil are shown in Fig. 9 for anchors at H=D ¼ 2 with two and
three plates (n ¼ 2; 3). This figure illustrates that the displacement
pattern for the shallowest anchor (Anchor 1) remains largely un-
changed, regardless of the proximity of the underlying anchors.
This agrees with the results shown in Fig 8(a).
For anchor spacing ratios of S=D ≤ 2, the mode of failure is very
similar to the cylindrical shear mode of failure shown in Figs. 2(a)
and 2(b). As the anchor spacing increases, the failure mode tends
to more localized above the anchor, and the displacement pattern
begins to extend laterally outward. In addition, the displacement
pattern for the lower anchors appears to be independent of the
overall embedment ratio H 0 =D but is related to the anchor spacing
S=D. This is regardless of the number of anchor plates and agrees
with the previous discussions on an equivalent embedment ratio
ðH=DÞeq [Eq. (15)].
The numerical results already discussed have been limited to
soil with no unit weight, and, therefore, the effect of soil weight
(overburden) needs to be investigated. Implicit in Eq. (9) is the
assumption of superposition, in which the ultimate anchor capacity
increases linearly with the dimensionless overburden pressure
γH=cu . This assumption has been proven to be valid by Rowe
(1978) and Merifield et al. (2003, 2001). Not surprisingly, further
FE analyses that include cohesion and soil weight confirm that
this is also the case for multiplate circular anchors. The ultimate
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 711
capacity of each anchor along the shaft increases linearly with over-
burden pressure up to a limiting value. This limiting value reflects
the transition from shallow to deep anchor behavior, in which the
mode of failure becomes fully contained around the anchor. At a
given embedment depth, an anchor may behave as either shallow or
deep, depending on the dimensionless overburden ratio γH=cu . The
type of deep failure mechanism will also be a function of the anchor
spacing ratio S=D.
Deep Multiplate Anchors
A summary of the ABAQUS results for the limiting ultimate capac-
ity Qu [Eq. (6)] of a multiplate anchor system can be seen in Fig. 10.
Results for two, three, and four anchor plates (n ¼ 2; 3; 4) are
shown in this figure.
Fig. 10 illustrates the transition from a global deep failure
mechanism, encompassing all anchor plates, to an individual deep
failure mechanism, in which a local failure mechanism exists
around each anchor plate. The transition between the two cases
occurs when the anchor spacing ratio reaches a critical value, when
S=D ≥ ðS=DÞcr .
The FE displacement patterns for a number of problems in
which the overburden and/or anchor spacing are sufficient to lead
to a deep mode of failure are shown in Fig. 11. These figures il-
lustrate the transition between the two types of deep anchor failure
mechanism previously shown in Figs. 4(c) and 4(d). A global deep
 failure mechanism is visible in Figs. 11(a), 11(b), and 11(e),
whereas a local deep failure can be observed in Fig. 11(d). A transi-
tional mode of failure can also be observed in Figs. 11(c) and 11(e).
For a deep global failure mode that encompasses all the anchor
plates (S=D < ðS=DÞcr in Fig. 4(c)), the following expression for
anchors with a total of n individual plates is proposed:


Qu 5π S
¼ ð3 þ 3πÞ þ ðn
1Þ ð16Þ
Acu 2 D

Eq. (16) is shown in Fig. 10 and appears to provide a reasonable

estimate for the case of a global deep failure mechanism.
As mentioned previously, it is important to realize that the theo-
retical capacity of any given multiplate anchor does not continue to
increase indefinitely. There will be a limiting value placed on
Eq. (16). That is, the maximum total capacity of a multiplate anchor
system Qu cannot exceed the sum of the individual anchor plate
capacities [Eq. (6)], assuming they act independently of each other.
Therefore, we can state that

Fig. 10. Comparison of analytical and FE solutions for the limiting X

n
Qu ≤ Qui ð17Þ
ultimate capacity of a multiplate anchor system i¼1

Fig. 11. Deep anchor failure mechanisms: (a–d) n ¼ 2; (e) n ¼ 4

712 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011



S 6ð1 þ πÞ
¼ ð19Þ
D cr 5π

Fig. 12. Effect of anchor shaft on ultimate capacity
If all the anchor plates are deep and act independently of each
other then
Qu ¼ nð3 þ 3πÞAcu ð18Þ
By equating Eq. (16) to Eq. (18), we can estimate the critical
anchor spacing ratio ðS=DÞcr at which the transition occurs between
global and individual deep anchor failure. This indicates that
Eq. (19), in conjunction with Eqs. (16) and (18) are shown in
Fig. 10. These expressions can be used to estimate the limiting
ultimate capacity of a multiplate anchor system with sufficient
accuracy.
Effect of Anchor Shaft
To determine the effect of the anchor shaft, a number of single an-
chor analyses were run with the anchor shaft included. Both deep
and shallow anchor failure mechanisms were investigated, and
the results are shown in Fig. 12. This figure indicates the reduction
in capacity resulting from the shaft diameter can, with sufficient
accuracy, be estimated from Eq. (14).
Comparison with Laboratory Testing
The results from two extensive experimental programs performed
by Narasimha Rao et al. (1991, 1993) into the behavior of multi-
plate anchors in clay are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Small scale
anchors ranging in diameters from 33 mm to 150 mm were tested
under tension loading in soft to firm clays in a number of different
size clay test chambers. Full details of the experimental procedures
and apparatus can be found in Narasimha Rao et al. (1991, 1993)
and will not be repeated here. The variables in Tables 1 and 2 in-
clude the number of plates on each anchor tested n, the embedment
ratio H=D, the anchor spacing ratio S=D, and the measured exper-
imental pullout-capacity Qu exp.
Estimates of the ultimate pullout-capacity Qu calc for all the
anchor geometries and soil types tested by Narasimha Rao et al.
(1991, 1993) have been made using the equations outlined previ-
ously, based on the finite-element modeling. A comparison be-
tween the measured and predicted values of capacity is provided

Table 1. Comparison of Laboratory Test Results (Narasimha Rao et al.1991) and Numerical Results
Narasimha Rao et al. 1991 This study
Measured experimental Calculated load
Test no. Screw pile no. n S=D H=D load Qu exp (kN) Qu calc =Qu exp Qu calc (kN) Qu calc =Qu exp

1 P1 1 4.58 4.58 0.84 1.72 0.85 1.02

2 P2 2 2.29 2.29 0.97 1.49 1.30 1.34
3 P3 3 1.53 1.53 1.34 1.09 1.46 1.09
4 P1 1 4.58 4.58 0.67 1.64 0.66 0.98
5 P2 2 2.29 2.29 0.91 1.20 0.99 1.09
6 P3 3 1.53 1.53 0.97 1.12 1.11 1.15
7 P1 1 4.58 4.58 0.55 1.37 0.47 0.85
8 P2 2 2.29 2.29 0.63 1.19 0.70 1.11
9 P3 3 1.53 1.53 0.73 1.03 0.78 1.07
10 P4 1 3.05 3.05 1.48 1.10 1.23 0.83
11 P5 2 1.53 1.53 1.67 0.97 1.67 1.00
12 P6 3 1.02 1.02 1.72 0.94 1.75 1.02
13 P7 2 4.00 6.13 0.69 1.43 0.69 1.00
14 P8 3 2.00 6.13 0.83 1.19 0.84 1.01
15 P9 4 1.33 6.13 0.9 1.10 0.86 0.95
16 P10 2 1.67 6.13 0.65 1.19 0.56 0.85
17 P11 3 0.83 6.13 0.71 1.09 0.55 0.78
18 P7 2 4.00 6.13 1.52 1.43 1.50 0.99
19 P8 3 2.00 6.13 1.86 1.16 1.80 0.97
20 P9 4 1.33 6.13 2.13 1.01 1.84 0.87
21 P10 2 1.67 6.13 1.19 1.41 1.20 1.01
22 P11 3 0.83 6.13 1.48 1.12 1.19 0.81

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 713

Table 2. Comparison of laboratory test results (Narasimha Rao 1991; Narasimha Rao 1993) and numerical results
Narasimha Rao et al. 1993 This study
Measured experimental Calculated load
Test no. Screw pile no. n S=D H=D load Qu exp (kN) Qu calc (kN) Qu calc =Qu exp

1 A1 1 4.5 4.5 0.0323 0.030 0.928

2 A1 2 4.5 1.0 0.0446 0.045 1.004
3 A1 2 4.5 2.0 0.0517 0.052 1.007
4 A1 2 4.5 3.0 0.0549 0.057 1.043
5 A1 2 4.5 4.0 0.06 0.061 1.014
6 A1 2 4.5 6.0 0.0666 0.065 0.971
7 A1 2 4.5 8.0 0.073 0.065 0.886
8 A1 2 4.5 10.0 0.0798 0.065 0.810
9 A1 1 4.5 4.5 0.052 0.043 0.828
10 A1 2 4.5 1.0 0.0675 0.065 0.959
11 A1 2 4.5 2.0 0.0783 0.075 0.964
12 A1 2 4.5 3.0 0.0844 0.083 0.984
13 A1 2 4.5 4.0 0.0887 0.088 0.996
14 A1 2 4.5 6.0 0.0975 0.095 0.972
15 A1 2 4.5 8.0 0.1032 0.095 0.919
16 A1 2 4.5 10.0 0.1118 0.095 0.848
1 A2 2 2.3 2.3 0.0427 0.045 1.063
2 A2 3 2.3 1.0 0.0548 0.062 1.127
3 A2 3 2.3 2.0 0.0616 0.069 1.121
4 A2 3 2.3 3.0 0.0652 0.074 1.138
5 A2 3 2.3 4.0 0.0706 0.078 1.103
6 A2 3 2.3 6.0 0.0769 0.082 1.069
7 A2 3 2.3 8.0 0.0834 0.083 0.991
8 A2 3 2.3 10.0 0.0901 0.083 0.918
9 A2 2 2.3 2.3 0.0647 0.066 1.015
10 A2 3 2.3 1.0 0.0824 0.089 1.082
11 A2 3 2.3 2.0 0.0912 0.100 1.096
12 A2 3 2.3 3.0 0.0963 0.107 1.116
13 A2 3 2.3 4.0 0.1023 0.113 1.103
14 A2 3 2.3 6.0 0.11 0.119 1.084
15 A2 3 2.3 8.0 0.1155 0.120 1.042
16 A2 3 2.3 10.0 0.1244 0.120 0.967
1 A3 3 1.5 1.5 0.0461 0.051 1.107
2 A3 4 1.5 1.0 0.0584 0.065 1.113
3 A3 4 1.5 2.0 0.0658 0.072 1.099
4 A3 4 1.5 3.0 0.0688 0.077 1.126
5 A3 4 1.5 4.0 0.074 0.081 1.096
6 A3 4 1.5 6.0 0.0803 0.085 1.064
7 A3 4 1.5 8.0 0.0868 0.086 0.994
8 A3 4 1.5 10.0 0.094 0.086 0.917
9 A3 3 1.5 1.5 0.0675 0.074 1.095
10 A3 4 1.5 1.0 0.0832 0.094 1.131
11 A3 4 1.5 2.0 0.0936 0.105 1.120
12 A3 4 1.5 3.0 0.1 0.112 1.124
13 A3 4 1.5 4.0 0.1039 0.118 1.133
14 A3 4 1.5 6.0 0.1128 0.124 1.100
15 A3 4 1.5 8.0 0.1185 0.126 1.060
16 A3 4 1.5 10.0 0.1274 0.126 0.986
1 A4 4 1.1 1.1 0.0462 0.053 1.137
2 A4 5 1.1 1.0 0.0587 0.065 1.106
3 A4 5 1.1 2.0 0.0661 0.072 1.093
4 A4 5 1.1 3.0 0.0688 0.077 1.125
5 A4 5 1.1 4.0 0.0739 0.081 1.097
6 A4 5 1.1 6.0 0.0805 0.085 1.061

714 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011

Table 2. (Continued.)
Narasimha Rao et al. 1993 This study
Measured experimental Calculated load
Test no. Screw pile no. n S=D H=D load Qu exp (kN) Qu calc (kN) Qu calc =Qu exp

7 A4 5 1.1 8.0 0.0869 0.086 0.994

8 A4 5 1.1 10.0 0.0933 0.086 0.926
9 A4 4 1.1 1.1 0.0676 0.076 1.126
10 A4 5 1.1 1.0 0.0837 0.094 1.124
11 A4 5 1.1 2.0 0.094 0.105 1.115
12 A4 5 1.1 3.0 0.0993 0.112 1.132
13 A4 5 1.1 4.0 0.1039 0.118 1.133
14 A4 5 1.1 6.0 0.113 0.124 1.098
15 A4 5 1.1 8.0 0.1184 0.126 1.062
16 A4 5 1.1 10.0 0.1273 0.126 0.988

2.0 70%, illustrating the “cylindrical shear” method must be used with
1.8 caution and, in many cases, is inadequate.
1.6
1.4
Qu _ calc 1.2 Conclusions
1.0
Qu _ exp Current understanding of the behavior of helical anchors is some-
0.8
0.6 what unsatisfactory and has essentially remained unchanged for
0.4 20 years. With the use of complex numerical modeling software,
Current Study
0.2 Narasimha Rao et al 1991 this paper has thoroughly investigated the multihelix anchor prob-
0.0 lem with the aim of improving our knowledge of such foundations.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A better understanding of helical anchor behavior will hopefully
H lead to a wider acceptance as a foundation alternative and lead
(a) D to more economic and safer designs.
A practical design framework for multiplate helical anchor
1.2
foundations has been presented to replace existing semiempirical
1.0 design methods that are inadequate and have been found to be ex-
cessively under- or overconservative. The proposed method avoids
0.8 the need to apply bearing capacity theory, that was derived initially
Qu _ calc for surface footings, to the problem of anchor uplift. Importantly, it
0.6
Qu _ exp encompasses the complex relationship between the various modes
0.4 of failure, the anchor geometry, and the soil properties.
This new framework can be used by design engineers to con-
0.2 fidently estimate the pullout-capacity of multiplate helical anchors
Current Study
under tension loading. The method is based on rigorous FE analy-
0.0 ses on a wide range of problems.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
H
(b) D References
Fig. 13. Comparison between numerical and laboratory results for Das, B. M. (1978). “Model tests for uplift capacity of foundations in clay.”
multihelical plate anchors: (a) laboratory results of Narasimha Rao et al. Soils Found., 18(2), 17–24.
(1991); (b) laboratory results of Narasimha Rao et al. (1993) Das, B. M. (1980). “A procedure for estimation of ultimate uplift capacity
of foundations in clay.” Soils Found., 20(1), 77–82.
Hoyt, R. M., and Clemence, S. P. (1991). “Uplift capacity of helical anchors
in soil.” Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
by the ratio of Qu calc =Qu exp , also shown in Tables 1 and 2 and Engineering [Comptes Rendus du Congres International de Mecanique
shown graphically in Fig. 13. des Sols et des Travaux de Fondations], Vol. 2, A. A. Balkema
Figs. 13(a) and 13(b) indicate a good agreement between the Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1019–1022.
experimentally obtained capacities and the capacities calculated Hubbell, Inc. (2003). “Helical screw foundation system design manual for
using the proposed method. For the majority of cases, the calcu- new construction.” A. B. Chance Div., Hubbell, Inc., Centralia, MO.
lated capacities are within 10% of the measured values, which 〈http://www.vickars.com/screwpile_manual/index.html〉 (May 25, 2011).
Kulhawy, F. H. (1985). “Uplift behavior of shallow soil anchors—An over-
is adequate for design purposes. Also shown in Fig. 13(a) is a com-
view,” Proc., ASCE Convention, Uplift Behavior of Anchor Founda-
parison between the experimental capacities and the capacities cal- tions in Soil, ASCE, New York, 1–25.
culated by Narasimha Rao et al. (1991, 1993) using the “cylindrical Lutenegger, A. J., Smith, B. L., and Kabir, M. G. (1988). “Use of in situ
shear” method as given in Eq. (3). These estimates do not compare tests to predict uplift performance of multihelix anchors.” Special topics
as favorably and tend to overestimate the capacity by as much as in foundations (GSP 16), ASCE, New York, 93–110.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 715

Magnum Piering, Inc. (2004). “Magnum helix foundation technical refer-
ence manual.” West Chester, OH. 〈http://www.magnumpiering.com/
shared/content/pdfs/Helix%20Manual%20Introduction%20web.pdf〉
(May 25, 2011).
Martin, C. M., and Randolph, M. F. (2001). “Applications of the lower and
upper bound theorems of plasticity to collapse of circular foundations.”
Proc., 10th Int. Conf. of IACMAG, Vol. 2, International Association for
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG),
Tucson, 1417–1428.
Merifield, R. S. (2002). “Numerical modeling of soil anchors.” Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Merifield, R. S., and Smith, C. C. (2010). “The ultimate uplift capacity of
multiplate strip anchors in undrained clay.” Comput. Geotech., 37, 4),
504–514.
Merifield, R. S., Lyamin, A. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2006). “Three-dimen-
sional lower-bound solutions for the stability of plate anchors in sand.”
Géotechnique, 56(2), 123–132.
Merifield, R. S., Lyamin, A. V., Sloan, S. W., and Yu, H. S. (2003). “Three-
dimensional lower bound solutions for stability of plate anchors in
clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(3), 243–253.
Merifield, R. S., Sloan, S. W., and Yu, H. S. (2001). “Stability of plate
anchors in undrained clay.” Géotechnique, 51(2), 141–153.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1973). “Uplift resistance of inclined anchors and piles.”
Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
[Comptes Rendus du Congres International de Mecanique des Sols et
des Travaux de Fondations], Vol. 2:1), A. A. Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 167–172.
Meyerhof, G. G., and Adams, J. I. (1968). “Ultimate uplift capacity of
716 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011
foundations.” Can. Geotech. J., 5(4), 225–244.
Mitsch, M. P., and Clemence, S. P. (1985). “Uplift capacity of helix anchors
in sand.” Proc., ASCE Convention, Uplift Behavior of Anchor Founda-
tions in Soil, ASCE, New York, 26–47.
Mooney, J. S., Adamczak, S. J., and Clemence, S. P. (1985). “Uplift capac-
ity of helix anchors in clay and silt.” Proc.,ASCE Convention, Uplift
Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, New York, 48–72.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y. V. S. N., and Shetty, M. D. (1991). “The
behavior of model screw piles in cohesive soils.” Soils Found.,
31(2), 35–50.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y. V. S. N., and Veeresh, C. (1993). “Behavior
of embedded model screw anchors in soft clays.” Géotechnique, 43(4),
605–614.
Rowe, R. K. (1978). “Soil structure interaction analysis and its application
to the prediction of anchor behavior.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Sydney,
Sydney, Australia.
Rowe, R. K., and Davis, E. H. (1982). “The behavior of anchor plates in
clay.” Géotechnique, 32(1), 9–23.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Vesic, A. S. (1971). “Breakout resistance of objects embedded in ocean
bottom.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 97(9), 1183–1205.
Wang, D., Hu Y., and Randolph, M. F. (2009). “Three-dimensional large
deformation finite element analysis of plate anchors in uniform clay.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(2), 355–365.
Weikart, A. M., and Clemence, S. P. (1987). “Helix anchor foundations—
Two case histories.”Foundations for transmission line towers (GSP 8),
ASCE, New York, 72–80.
Copyright of Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering is the property of American Society of
Civil Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.